Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (196834)	3/2/2023 1:25:43 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217942

In Canada in my voting life we have killed MANY political parties :) You guys remains fixated on two.. with independents as the bad guy vote splitters :) Some of that is obvious... in differences in the systems. But, it's not really the case that the lack of proliferation in parties narrows the political space in the way you suggest... Rather, it channels the same divisions into a more binary set of conflicts... So, its function is not as yours, where there is usually some compromise required and enabled between disparate interests (with each represented by its own party) in order to attain a ruling majority... Rather, that same function exists here... only it pre-selects and narrows those competing interests and the compromises required between disparate interests into TWO competing majorities... from which we select one. That fosters greater stability in the sense of... limiting the upheavals of parliamentary systems in votes of no confidence, etc., and, again in requiring the voters weigh in on schedule... whether the pols want them to or not... ensuring (in theory) that power and control remain more tightly held in the hands of the people... and better reflect their interest... rather than "compromised" party interests. It's easy enough, today, to see how... that intended function may have become subverted... by purposeful effort intending to subvert it... Hard to avoid seeing that if you're paying attention... or on the receiving end of the animus of the usurpers... but... is that what "the people" want, expect... support... as become aware ? The design is... by design... ponderous in the pace at which it actually enables exercise in interest. Useful to note, also, that the structure fails to prevent "shifts" in party interests over time... as what used to be core Democrat issues... seemingly randomly, will become core Republican issues instead. Democrats supported slavery... fought a war over it, losing to Republicans... slowly came around to champion "civil rights" and racial equality... and now have reverted to fully supporting and requiring institutional racism, while implementing purposefully divisive racial policies, again... I know people who were fully engaged in those battles in the 1960's, who identify as "all about that"... see themselves as "enlightened" because of it... who today retain their political brand affiliation, in spite of the party now being entirely subversive of that set of policies with which they identify ? Those who (like Goldwater ?) protested the Vietnam war under Johnson... switched when they could to blame Nixon... still prefer that re-branding of who it is (Trump ?) that's a war monger... while happily ignoring Biden's idiocy in bringing us to the brink of nuclear war, again... for no obvious reason... as functional leadership and functional diplomacy should easily have contained that risk... The insanity that requires recognizing... is why America's founders wanted to avoid party faction... and designed a system intending that ? Show me where in the Constitution it says we have "a two party system" ? So, perhaps a flaw in the design relative to purpose... as the "ponderous" imposed... does enable some greater stability... but also amplifies problems they'd hoped to avoid in factionalism... So, also worth noting what is required, in America, for a political party to cease to exist... and require that we generate new ones to replace those that fail ? Obviously... a war over slavery wasn't important enough to require that... as only accurately reflecting the actual division in the country ? So, worth studying where the Democrat and Republican parties came from... in consequence of the division of the Democratic-Republicans... after the act of political suicide undertaken by the Federalists... whose positions the Democrats these days are seeking to channel, rehabilitate (Hamilton), and revive... not only by fostering, sustaining and inflaming historical racial divisions as a policy... but in that also. No difference between communists (Obama), capitalists (Clintons) and kings (Biden)... other than who gets to be king... ? Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson) disagree... thinking empowering kings to rule over us... whatever costumes they adopt (LOL ! UnTruedeux), or whatever they may pose themselves to be... is STILL just a bad idea ? Given the "ponderous" in design re pace of change in what matters... also useful to avoid myopia in excessively short-term thinking (Democrats, Putin, Xi, WEF)... if you hope to succeed. Imposing some temporary excess in acceleration (rush to war) into violation of long held and proven principle (truth, justice, patience)... comes with costs... is less about "winning"... than it is about (being enabled in) exposing yourself as... unreliable... and prone to failure ?