I'd think that the parties don't adopt that because that sentiment doesn't really exist. If enough voters wanted racial segregation (like the democrats of the 50's), then one of the major parties would adopt that stance.
The 2 parties do control the debate, but they are also adaptable. 140 years ago, the Republican party was started as the anti-slavery party. After the civil war, that issue had pretty much run its course (one can argue that - but after the civil war, slavery was unconstitutional) so the party adapted and survived.
As far as debating capitalism goes, look to the left side of the democratic party for the home of the anti-capitalists (maybe just the "I've got mine and you can't have yours" anticapitalists).
Exceptions yes, but third parties can and do win - at least on the state level. To say that isn't so is just plain not true.
One could say that the dual party system has made the issue of Capitalism transparent to people: people don't even realize that the concept of Capitalism is something that can be debated! And it's because both of the major parties agree with it. It's become a forced non-issue, and that's sad. Everything, EVERYTHING should be open to debate.
That's because the vast majority of Americans agree with the concepts of capitalism - if they didn't, either one of the major parties would co-opt the issue, or a third party would rise because of it.
I'm pretty sure they started out as an anti-slavery party. I don't think Lincoln was running around killing/etc slaves, though with some of the revisionist history floating around these days about that period in history, I'm surprised nobody's alleged it.
Unless you're saying that a third party with a good sized contingent in the house of representatives proves that the party is viable and popular, I'd disagree with that.
Because the electoral votes (mostly) go 100% to the winner of a state, it can happen that a candidate only receives about 40% of the vote (a truly impressive 3rd party run) and end up with a landslide. I think Clinton won in 1992 with that kind of a situation.
You are, however, right that if no one received enough electoral votes to win, it does get kicked to the house of representatives. That could happen this year if all the cards fall wrong!
Another issue entirely is whether or not a 3rd party candidate can be an effective leader without any real backing in the legislative branch. Jessie "the Governor" Ventura had all sorts of problems in Minnesota because he ran the executive branch, but had no real friends in the legislature.
And the 2 main parties will adapt and adopt the most popular parts of the minor parties. If a third party ran on "repealing all sin taxes" and managed to gain 10% of the vote - one or both of the major parties would adopt that stance.
I'll agree that at a local level, most county offices are run by someone from a major party - but there is a big difference between the county guy and the people at the xNC. I'd sooner trust a democrat or republican that I know at the county level than someone at the national offices of either party.
But it doesn't give authority to levy income taxes. If it did, the 16th amendment wouldn't have been necessary.
I think that his beef is that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified and therefore isn't valid. That's a nice idea, but I'm sure that those nice people at the IRS think somewhat differently about that.
It's a conspiracy by the democrats and the republicans! If the libertanians fielded a candidate that wasn't a kook it would threaten all of the little fiefdoms in the federal government desatablizing the whole works. The world as we know it would end and Bill Gates would become "PresideNT" (NT standing for new technology).
A 3rd party can win in the US. Look at Jessie "The Governor" Ventura of Minnesota - he won as a third party candidate.
Even in Presidential elections, third parties have won. The Republicans started out as the anti-slave party in the mid-1800's and won the Presidency.
The problem with third parties is that they're X-Lite - where X = Republican or Democrats. And that they are typically one issue horses - so they have trouble getting people to buy-in.
In Minnesota, Ventura ran as a different candidate. He already had name recognition (which is important), and was running against the liberal republican candidate and the even more liberal DFL candidate. He differentiated himself from the other candidates and was able to win.
There's no reason why the libertanian candidate can't win - but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better.
I think that you're mistaken in thinking that all criminals are rational.
I our area, we have essentially 0 home burglaries in a given year. I live in a small town in rural Iowa. We do, however, have a meth problem in the area. It is not out of the realm of possibility that instead of a rational thief just looking to grab some look, you'll have a drug crazed individual in your house.
In our area, given the population, the chances for one of them choosing your home are close to 1/500 instead of 1/750 million.
Clearly this law is just "feel good legislation" that did nothing of substance (except cause the Democrats to lose congress in 94).
Which is what I was (inelegantly, apparently) trying to say.
That's like banning "assault knives" as evidenced by having a camoflague grip (or something). The blade could be identical to a kitchen knife, but the "assault knife" would be banned because of its looks.
I've carried a pocket knife since I was in school (couldn't get away with that anymore!) and keep a big mean looking knife that I made at home.
I've had no training on using them, but I also live in a low crime area - I've never heard of a home invasion in the county where I live.
That being said, we're starting to have more and more of a meth problem in the state, and I'm not sure that anything short of a shotgun would stop someone on that stuff. That's the kind of thing that really worries me.
And that is just plain wrong. It's one thing if you've got some poor schmuck who noticed that your door was unlocked and wanted to just run in an grab something quick. They'll likely try to run if confronted. If, on the other hand, you've got the genuine predator out to enter your house when they suspect you might be home (to either rob you or rape your wife or daughter), then just standing up and saying "Boo" won't scare them off.
I'm contending that entering a house with ill intent is fundamentally different at night (when one expects the owner to be home) versus during the day time (when the owner is likely gainfully employed), and the type of predator is different as well.
I don't own a gun and am not sure what I would do if confronted by some scum like that in my house. If it comes down to him or me (or my family) - I will do what I can to make it him.
Agreed on that. Ideally, when the bad guy sees that you're at home (because of the dog, lights turning on, the sound of a shell being chambered...) they'll take off.
I imagine if you live near the bar district in a college town, you learn to put up with more than I would. I live in a quiet small town and if someone did wander in at 5:30am it would likely not be a mistake.
Breakins that happen over night would scare me more than ones that would happen during the day while you're away. If someone's breaking in during they day, they're doing so gambling that no one is home - they neither want nor expect a confrontation. If someone's breaking in during the night - they expect someone to be home and are willing to do them harm if they get in the way.
When I was a kid, we had a mutt (looked to be a poodle mix?) show up at our house during a blizzard. No one claimed her and she stuck around better than 10 years - best dog I've ever had.
Slashdot Mirror
The 2 parties do control the debate, but they are also adaptable. 140 years ago, the Republican party was started as the anti-slavery party. After the civil war, that issue had pretty much run its course (one can argue that - but after the civil war, slavery was unconstitutional) so the party adapted and survived.
As far as debating capitalism goes, look to the left side of the democratic party for the home of the anti-capitalists (maybe just the "I've got mine and you can't have yours" anticapitalists).
BSD?
One could say that the dual party system has made the issue of Capitalism transparent to people: people don't even realize that the concept of Capitalism is something that can be debated! And it's because both of the major parties agree with it. It's become a forced non-issue, and that's sad. Everything, EVERYTHING should be open to debate.
That's because the vast majority of Americans agree with the concepts of capitalism - if they didn't, either one of the major parties would co-opt the issue, or a third party would rise because of it.
Good catch - that's correct and what I meant.
Gotcha - but I still don't think that it is a physical impossibility for a third party to win outright - just a highly improbable event.
Because the electoral votes (mostly) go 100% to the winner of a state, it can happen that a candidate only receives about 40% of the vote (a truly impressive 3rd party run) and end up with a landslide. I think Clinton won in 1992 with that kind of a situation.
You are, however, right that if no one received enough electoral votes to win, it does get kicked to the house of representatives. That could happen this year if all the cards fall wrong!
Another issue entirely is whether or not a 3rd party candidate can be an effective leader without any real backing in the legislative branch. Jessie "the Governor" Ventura had all sorts of problems in Minnesota because he ran the executive branch, but had no real friends in the legislature.
I'll agree that at a local level, most county offices are run by someone from a major party - but there is a big difference between the county guy and the people at the xNC. I'd sooner trust a democrat or republican that I know at the county level than someone at the national offices of either party.
I think that his beef is that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified and therefore isn't valid. That's a nice idea, but I'm sure that those nice people at the IRS think somewhat differently about that.
Aren't you glad they only field kooks now?
Even in Presidential elections, third parties have won. The Republicans started out as the anti-slave party in the mid-1800's and won the Presidency.
The problem with third parties is that they're X-Lite - where X = Republican or Democrats. And that they are typically one issue horses - so they have trouble getting people to buy-in.
In Minnesota, Ventura ran as a different candidate. He already had name recognition (which is important), and was running against the liberal republican candidate and the even more liberal DFL candidate. He differentiated himself from the other candidates and was able to win.
There's no reason why the libertanian candidate can't win - but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better.
I our area, we have essentially 0 home burglaries in a given year. I live in a small town in rural Iowa. We do, however, have a meth problem in the area. It is not out of the realm of possibility that instead of a rational thief just looking to grab some look, you'll have a drug crazed individual in your house.
In our area, given the population, the chances for one of them choosing your home are close to 1/500 instead of 1/750 million.
Which is what I was (inelegantly, apparently) trying to say.
That's like banning "assault knives" as evidenced by having a camoflague grip (or something). The blade could be identical to a kitchen knife, but the "assault knife" would be banned because of its looks.
I've had no training on using them, but I also live in a low crime area - I've never heard of a home invasion in the county where I live.
That being said, we're starting to have more and more of a meth problem in the state, and I'm not sure that anything short of a shotgun would stop someone on that stuff. That's the kind of thing that really worries me.
But would it be more fun than releasing the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths, that shoot bees at you when they bark?
I'm contending that entering a house with ill intent is fundamentally different at night (when one expects the owner to be home) versus during the day time (when the owner is likely gainfully employed), and the type of predator is different as well.
I don't own a gun and am not sure what I would do if confronted by some scum like that in my house. If it comes down to him or me (or my family) - I will do what I can to make it him.
I'm on your side here!
If someone is either brave or crazy enough to invade an occupied home, then you're likely going to need to do something in self defense anyway.
I imagine if you live near the bar district in a college town, you learn to put up with more than I would. I live in a quiet small town and if someone did wander in at 5:30am it would likely not be a mistake.
Breakins that happen over night would scare me more than ones that would happen during the day while you're away. If someone's breaking in during they day, they're doing so gambling that no one is home - they neither want nor expect a confrontation. If someone's breaking in during the night - they expect someone to be home and are willing to do them harm if they get in the way.
But not something that looks like an AK47 - the ban was based more on the appearance of the firearm than the workings of it, right?
Shooting an intruder would be more humane.
Then buy 2 guns.
When I was a kid, we had a mutt (looked to be a poodle mix?) show up at our house during a blizzard. No one claimed her and she stuck around better than 10 years - best dog I've ever had.
Nope - but you'll be able to buy something that looks like an AK47.
If someone is in your house that you've not invited, they're up to no good and likely mean you harm. You do have the right to defend yourself.
Or disintegrate - they can't prove anything with all the evidence disintegrated.