What a disaster that would be. While I think the repubs in their current incarnation are an abomination, I shudder at the thought of the democrats running effectively without opposition for however many years it would last. Politicians who never worry about reelection are bound to get up to no good... their accountability goes out the window, as does the power of We the People. Not to mention an escalation of the filibuster as the 2 mini-parties realize that's the only weapon they have left.
You mean the parties would have to work within some sort of parliamentaty consensus. What a horrible prospect that could never ever work anywhere on earth. Well, except for in most every other democracy on earth. I welcome this GOP explosion with open arms. I hope the Dems follw suit and a real labor party develps in this country as well.
That article is really poorly worded but it's an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a bit. The 2016 presidential election will be the crucial one. If the GOP can't unify behind one candidate, and that broken nominee turns out badly, the party is done.
They would need to work within a parliamentary consensus, but they wouldn't do it. At least not at first. The interim while we're waiting for them to adapt to the new model (or for the third party to collapse like it normally does in America) will be at best more of the same ineffectiveness we've been living with.
The GOP seems to despise Civilization in general and espouse jungle law, at least within the parameters which protect their hoards. They never think about Tarzans retirement, or the fact that, in their philosophy, were he ever to break an ankle he would be dead within a week. While shrieking about Constutional details they ignore a basic tenant of the Country's mission statement. 'To promote the general welfare' should be the motto of the Democratic Party.
I wouldn't worry about it TOO much. An alternative conservative party would reemerge about as quickly as the Whigs were replaced by the Republican party. That new conservative party would just have somewhat different slices of the electorate in its coalition. I suspect one of the key differences would be that culturally conservative, working class whites wouldn't have any affinity for the party, and many of them would revert back to the Dems. In turn, many of the upper middle class Dems would revert back to the GOP, because culture war issues would be off the table without the GOPs to push them onto the agenda. I haven't spent a hell of alot of time thinking about it, but that strikes me as a more stable pair of coalitions. And it would have the added advantage of taking culture war issues out of partisan politics* which ought to ratchet down the demonization of the opposition. If the difference between the two parties is whether the top tax rate is 36% or 39.6%, that's hardly apocalyptic. If the difference in the two parties comes down to abortion and gay rights, those are moral issues. *My understanding is that in Britain, the parties let their MPs vote their consciences on culture war issues like fox hunting or abortion or the death penalty. We'd probably see the same thing here.
I think he means free food. Same here it should be a right for us to look for them, but should it be a right for us to get them for free (others pay for us to get them) that has been the question. If it is a basic human right does that mean a global human right? Would that mean the rich countries and its people must provide them to people in poor countries, should we all have a rich country tax were we all pay a % to build houses, hospitals and send foot to all poor countries? Tax the 1%
The Latino vote is almost now in the back pocket of the Democrats like the black vote has been. The Republicans sense this and are probably grooming the next up-from-the-bootstraps young Mexican Republican who isn't worth $200M to run next. Rubio might be that guy but South FL Cubans and the many millions of other recently immigrated Latinos really aren't comparable. The funniest thing about all of the overt wingnuttery is that the Republicans will have to run further LEFT in national elections and give up more ground on gays, guns & God. We've always been hearing how the Democrats have to run to the right and now with younger generations' "live & let live" attitude, the cultural issues are becoming less and less important, especially with youth unemployment, huge student loan balances and not getting laid because they still have Harry Potter posters on their BR walls that they had to move back into. And another side benefit - those scummy Blue Dog democrats will (hopefully) become extinct.
Not on guns. The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how more colleges are permitting students to carry guns. They profiled some guy who is attending Colorado State in part because it lets him have a weapon. Who's going to say that's stupid? Aside from Internet boards I mean. Nobody. The NRA has almighty power. Gays for sure and God maybe. But oh the Republicans will have their guns.
That would be a much better Republican Party if this happens. It is social and Religious things that has always kept me from taking the republican seriously. Hopefully they also stop being anti-science but since supporting big business means having to deny global warming that may not change. But I do love Guns. (well love is a strong word, I am ok with having personal guns).
Yeah. Basically the Dems have won the war on gay rights, and the GOPs on guns. The death penalty seems up for grabs.
Yes, the Republicans have absolutely no experience being in the wilderness while nominating terrible candidates for a period of twelve years. I'm as much for the GOP imploding as the next guy. My hope has been that the Libertarians grow some balls and start forming a coherent political party so that the "GOP" becomes the social conservatives and social conservatives alone. But it ain't gonna happen as long as Gary Johnson gets the backing of 0% of the Koch brothers' money and the GOP continues to nominate from the H.W. Bush wing of the party.
I think the OWS have a point and I think that you are overstating the 99%.. but probably the percentage of people living on 1 or 2 bucks per day is 50 or 60% of the worlds population, with certain countries having way less and others having way more poor people percentage wise. While most of the answers have to come from within countries (in the USA OWS is correct), part of the solutions include a fairer trade and more taxes to international transactions IMHO.
Because that will totally help lift the people of the world from abject poverty. Besides, the term "fair trade" is the most laughable one out there. All trade is inherently fair. A person excahnges goods, services or capital for another person's goods, services or capital. Both benefit from the transaction. That is as fair as it gets.
Right, because nobody ever killed, threatened, misrepresented, switched, scammed or plainly robbed anyone to take over the things they owned. Blood diamonds, anyone?
Let's all not blow things out of proportion. Blood diamonds are not trade, but not all trade is fair. There are plenty of instances where Western companies suppress wages, union-construction, encourage child labor, etc. Everybody knows that. Fair trade is meant to curb the excesses of the free market - although anybody who has looked at fair trade knows it's mostly set up these days as a scam.
I would say that child labor is theft as children are not able to enter into contract. The other two points about wage and union suppression I can't go along with. An agreement is still made between service provider and capital provider that benefits both. The service provider is more than welcome to offer their services elsewhere if they don't think that the wage provider's terms are sufficient. A little more about union construction suppression. Until the construction trades can offer superior service to non union workers, justifying their higher wages and benefits it's usually in the owner's 100% best interest to go non union. Right now, especially with the Laborers, IBEW, IPBAT, IUOE, IUBAC, the Plasterers and Cement Masons and the UA their work is on average, equal at best to non organized work.
Two things: 1) Per unions: That stereotype applies only in America. German management sees the union role completely differently, and union members appear to value their work pretty damn highly(?). 2) You can't just call things you don't like about capitalism "theft" and things you do "trade" and expect us to take you seriously. I can have that conversation with some crazy Pauliacs on my facebook page. I don't want to have that conversation with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. You're better than that.
Thanks for the textbook definition, now back to the real world we never see here in the US: HONG KONG (Reuters) - Working conditions at Foxconn's gargantuan Chinese factories that assemble Apple Inc's slick gadgets have barely improved despite pledges this year to halt labor violations, workers' rights activists and employees said on Thursday. Foxconn Technology Group, Apple's main global contract manufacturer run by Taiwanese tycoon Terry Gou and employing 1.2 million workers in China, has come under fire in recent years for running massive "sweatshops" to mass produce high-end iPads and iPhones http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/foxconn-working-conditions_n_1558415.html
So then they don't really apply to the conversation that we were having then, right? Look, I'm all for unions so long as they make their service worthwhile. They will never win on a wage race to the bottom so quality must be top notch, especially compared to non union work in the same market. As I have said before there are unions that do that in the USA (The Teamsters and the IATSE are two I have referenced in the past) I don't understand why it is crazy to think that child labor is not equitable trade. I thought that was pretty universal. I think we actually agree on this. Free trade require two able minded parties. And stop with the "us" shit. You do that all the time. You speak for no one but yourself.
Interesting. One of my manufacturers has a very labor friendly plant in the same province. Maybe these people could work in the LED division.
Child labor is inequitable trade, yes we agree. Where we disagree is that you call it theft as a mechanism for...what, I don't know, but I interpret it as a way for you to distinguish it from what you think is "real" capitalism.