Progressives (Liberals)

By definition, 'big tent' parties like those in the US must accommodate different POVs and discuss and arbitrate their differences without drawing too much bad blood. If the Dems fail to do so in 2020, they will shoot themselves in the proverbial foot.

There is indeed a detectable cyclic feature in the histories of both parties here, in which periods of dominance and minority status (of varied durations) have attended changes in their focus and makeup. Some of these were the result of external changes and others the result of the emergence of new sub movements within the parties themselves.

Some of this is evident in both Republican and Democrat parties now.

The dynamic in France is different in that small frindge parties can survive almost indefinitely. At some point there were not one but two Troskist (= anti-Stalinian revolutionary) parties: the Ligue Communiste Révolutionaire and Lutte Ouvrière, one having split from the other, competing for 1 or 2 percent of the electorate. The joke was that they could both do a general assembly in a telephone booth.

Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330)
@JoeBiden
· 1h
Welcome to the debates, Mike. We have a lot to catch up on about Barack Obama’s record.

I suspect there is merit and some equivalencies in both systems. Small, or second tier, parties can be out of favor and then resurgent in different periods. Others appear to coalesce to form new, larger ones. To a large degree this goes with the parliamentary system, or is at least more compatible with it.

We have mostly had only two parties, though there have been a number of smaller and relatively ephemeral parties... socialist, libertarian, etc.

Our system is often called presidential though. What makes the difference in terms of the space allowed for small parties is the voting system (first-past-the-post vs two rounds).

In both systems, a lot of people run as independent, especially for local elections. People often vote for people, rather than for a party.

Thanks. I knew better, but forgot. In many ways the French President appears (to me at least) to exercise more power than do ours.

The US president is both head of state and head of government - in France, these powers divided between the president and prime minister.
Thus, the French system is often called "semi-presidential". (The prime minister is the head of government, leading the government’s activities, deciding and guiding the country’s policies, the government is in charge of the executive branch, and the government is responsible to the parliament.)

Thanks. Interesting. How is the Executive power divided among them? My understanding is that the French President does have veto power over legislation.

Of course not. Other significant factors must also be in play. Here in Canada, one of the two parties which had held power over more than a century (Progressive Conservatives) dissolved in 2003 following a serious electoral loss. Four years prior, no one saw this coming.

If Sanders is the nominee and looses the election, his loss will not be as large as what happened in Canada but the surrounding circumstances are now very much different. Four more years of Trumpian/modern GOP policies will further every factor pushing towards one-party-rule designed to last into the foreseeable future:
- the courts
- redistricting
- voter suppression
- financial corruption in aid of greed and GOP domination
- partisan-directed removal of perceived enemies from across government,
- the diminishment or dismantling of key institutions
- further corruption of the justice department
- the further empowerment of a state-allied propaganda system
- further and more serious attacks on any media entity which shows independence
- the rejection of and suppression of scientific research and publication of such results where politically inconvenient through gaslighting levels we're only now glimpsing
- the continued fostering of hatreds and fears meant to destabilize the public
- even greater support of radical right wing militarized groups through acts and/or omissions in action
- the minimalization or eradication of social welfare programs
- the expanded use of increasingly sophisticated citizen monitoring technologies and other police-state mechanisms to further solidify power
- further curbs on a woman's right to have an abortion with Roe overturned
- the public education system being dismantled at some unknown rate of speed.
- the further empowerment of religious radicals and their influence on and determination of the lives of everyone.
- the cessation or diminishment of policies designed to curb carbon in the atmosphere
- the continued abandonment of international accords and faith in concerted international actions in aid of the betterment of humans everywhere
- increasing levels of racist sentiment and all that will be consequent to that

I could go on. These people aren't ******* around. Power is their first and key concern. They are on the cusp of gaining a probably unsurmountable level of authoritarian control over US politics and culture.
As my points above show, the problem is far, far greater than merely acknowledging or making more evident the role of greed in US culture and politics. The very real potential here is a burgeoning fascism which, as evidenced by the world leaders Trump has clear affinity for, is dangerously close.

And all of this arriving just as the world enters a period of certain destabilization from the inevitable horrors that will attend GW-caused migrations, starvation, and inevitable pandemics. World-wide, the temptations towards highly authoritarian "solutions" will become irresistible.

Because so much is hinging on this election - and because we know how citizens not previously propagandized by modern right wing media have reacted to Trump's win three years ago, we can very easily project the vast demoralization that will attend a second Trump victory. It will be a level of hopelessness that will effectively end the Democratic Party as a viable force in America's politics. People, enough for it to really matter, will just give up. That would be so even if it weren't a certainty that - given a Sanders loss - that contingent of his supporters allied with bad-faith players out of Russia or domestically located - set to lay blame for all this on the party itself. Which they will do for the various motives that drive them all.

I apologize of that last post is depressing to anyone. But it is long past time to be honest.

It appears Blatham is getting depressed about the likely outcome of the coming election. However I believe his fears are exaggerated.

There is no shortage of counterforces out there to limit the actions of a Trump or merely Republican administration. I'll agree that for the most part recent Democrat resistance has been mostly stupid and ineffective in achieving their professed aims. They have united a formerly disputatious Republican Party, and abrogated their existing legislative responsibilities in failing to work with the Republicans with whom they share political power - both to their serious disadvantage.

For the most part blatham's list of "crimes" consists of a combination of (1) actions Democrats have taken themselves; (2) efforts to protect the constitutional rights of citizens or (3) efforts to correct failing existing government systems (our public schools are a vivid example). A few others are merely the imagined fantasies of a perhaps fevered mind.

It certainly is, and you are nowhere near honest now.

I agree a lot is at stake. In fact I agree 100% with your list.

But the question you need to ask yourself is this: will any of it pan out differently if someone else than Sanders is the nominee and looses the election?

I think it would make it worse for the Dems. Bernie is an independent. They can easily distanciante themselves from him if he looses. Arguably, the same apply to Bloomberg.

The President of the French Republicnhas a suspensive veto: when presented with a law, they can request another reading of it by Parliament, but only once per law.

The German Federal President can refuse to sign legislation merely because he disagrees with its content, thus vetoing it, or refuse to approve a government appointment.

You tell them, Nina...

You'd best be careful! oralloy is on a tear about posting things from the past!

My personal Nina Simone favorite is Ain't Got No (I Got Life)

I'm what???

Great piece. Such a mesmerizing genius!

Be darned if I know. After all these years, still haven't been able to figure what you are.