in italy they elect girlysluts

@chris:
One solution would be to have a "right wing" party separate from the republican party. Because of the competition, both will get out of it better. If the green party became stronger, the democrats moderates wouldn't be as moderate as they are now. It probably won't take long then until a moderate party exists which benefits from the gap.

Because be honest, Mc Cain wasn't very right now was he?

Why don't they start a REAL revolution.
It worked out well the last time,didn't it?

we need to have open elections (no party's), run off elections between the two highest vote counts (no electoral vote), an 11 member government board that can go through the present law book, and any law that is founded on misrepresentation or lies can be stricken from the books without congress's approval or say in the matter,  and most of all OUR CONSTITUTION BACK

The "tea party" shows, that the US system of two parties doesn't represent the will of the people any more. Like the republicans, the democrats may face a secession of a new party after the mid term elections or the next race for presidency. This is a democratic process, leading to a future of coalition-governments. That way it can even heal the deep wounds in US-politics in the political war between Republicans and Democrats over the last decades.

I would lol vkemp...if what you said wasn't true. Obama even increased the speed i.m.o. I don't know if thats the change he was talking about .For one reason or another he seems to get away with everything.

because Hitler called his party "National Socialist" and included many freebies for the workers as a protected class.  State paid vacations and state discounts on housing and cars, to us Americans, has seemed pretty uniformly "statist"

> Douglas Reynholm wrote:

> "It's the highway to fascist socialist government at 55 mph or 65 mph."

Fascism has little or even nothing in common with socialism.. How do you see them as a unified political system?

don't both typically involve government ownership of the means of production?

i know wiki isn't a reliable source, but as an example of a view of what fascism is, from wiki "Fascists believe that a nation is an organic  community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity...  They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism."

now socialism "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources"

both seem to reject individualism and try to focus on the whole. both seem to be in favor of the government controlling most of our lives...

> Born2BwilD wrote:

> look guys, for those of you that think that the dem's and rep's are in a war, you are foolish chumps.... there working together just like the WWF they decide whos going to win, just to keep us sedated in thinking that we really have a choice... it's a lie.>

I agree that the government is a plutocracy, but the parties, while dominated by factions pursuing their own private interests, are not mere actors of a twisted reality show.

so I guess nobody in Europe is socialist, since the Govt owns shit in the name of the workers, that makes it fascist

Obama brought balance to the Force

since Nixon backed down the reps and dems are fighting against each other more and more. Carter faced serious resistance from the republicans. Cilnton was nearly kicked out of office due impeachment and hunted by republican accusations over both presidencies. Bush II was hated in the end. What Obama faces is without example. That radical opposition, which remembers me of an witch hunt, of reps and tea-bags is political destruction and for the reps may end in political suicide. That is what i call a "war" between two partys, which claim to represent around 50% each of the US-population. Since the electorate is changing, that representation has growing problems and leades to radicalism. Short and radical answers for complicated issues are populism, which is in the end hopeless to achieve when elected. Leading to more radical populism against their foes (reps/dems). In normal democracies that would cause secessions from the major parties to represent more or less radical views. E. g.: Britain. Britain is ruled by a coalition of conservatives and liberals. The liberals achieved the status of king-maker, after decades of lone governments of labor or conservatives. Even now we see the same development in the US. In a view decades the US-party system will have 4-6 parties fighting for votes (left, mid-left, center-left, center-right, mid-right, right).