Joe Biden elected 46th president of the United States

[LostMarbels]

The Democrats stand accused. Pray tell when and where were million people accused?

Never.

What jurisdiction?

There is no jurisdiction concerning this action that never happened.

O really?

Yes.

 

[pitabread]

He does both or either depending on the circumstances. Read the book of Daniel. He alters circumstances to make a person think, or to entirely remove with interference. Only He is capable of making the decision as to when to actively interfere, when to let the situation ride, and when to merely suggest. He nows the past present and future so He alone has the "big picture."

As I said previously, there are a boatload of theological implications with the above claims. I'm just glad it's not something I need to worry about, not subscribing to said theology in the first place.

You do not answer to me for your opinion of God---ever. We all will answer to God.

Or not.

Besides, I have a feeling that any real supernatural deity won't be so insecure as to be bothered by the opinions of a few mortal beings. And if such a being is so insecure as to be upset by my comments, then they certainly aren't a being worthy of any reverence or worship.

I said you had foolish opinions about God, I did not say they bothered me. Your opinions do not affect my life in any way.

Your reactions in this thread and continued argument suggests otherwise. If you really weren't bothered, why even continue this conversation?

Debates with you guys are pretty useless and I usually end up walking away as it becomes boringly predictable, repeating the same thing over and over only to have you guys keep asking or saying the same thing also.

Now you know how I feel.

 

[pitabread]

Democrats have a major credibility issue they will need to clear.

It's not the Democrats that have the credibility issue. Trump is effectively trying to undermine the entire U.S. electoral system. You'd think some of you would have a problem with that...

 

[LostMarbels]

It's not the Democrats that have the credibility issue. Trump is effectively trying to undermine the entire U.S. electoral system. You'd think some of you would have a problem with that...

What I have said may be inconvenient... it might even be uncomfortable even offensive to some, but it is not out of malice or some perceived notion of attempted fraud. People do have issues with the electoral system being undermined. That is precisely why we are up in arms over this. One cannot discount the actions Democrats have taken this election cycle.

I do not know why I have to keep clarifying those in office. But for some reason people not even in politics take things personally, as if it is against them directly.

 

[pitabread]

What I have said may be inconvenient... it might even be uncomfortable even offensive to some, but it is not out of malice or some perceived notion of attempted fraud. People do have issues with the electoral system being undermined. That is precisely why we are up in arms over this. One cannot discount the actions Democrats have taken this election cycle.

I do not know why I have to keep clarifying those in office. But for some reason people not even in politics take things personally, as if it is against them directly.

For the record, I'm not even American so I'm not taking this personally at all. It's not my country's electoral system on trial here.

And for the record, I do think the electoral/two-party system needs an overhaul in the U.S. It's odd that the U.S. has such an antiquated system (although I do recognize there are arguments on both sides of that fence).

 

[LostMarbels]

For the record, I'm not even American so I'm not taking this personally at all. It's not my country's electoral system on trial here.

And for the record, I do think the electoral/two-party system needs an overhaul in the U.S. It's odd that the U.S. has such an antiquated system (although I do recognize there are arguments on both sides of that fence).

For decades what we have had, has been a two-headed snake. Two heads, the same establishment body, and a very well laid out illusion of choice. To be honest, our government hasn't been listening to their people in quite some time. At least that is how I view it.

 

[RDKirk]

For the record, I'm not even American so I'm not taking this personally at all. It's not my country's electoral system on trial here.

And for the record, I do think the electoral/two-party system needs an overhaul in the U.S. It's odd that the U.S. has such an antiquated system (although I do recognize there are arguments on both sides of that fence).

We don't actually have a "two party" system. We don't even officially have a "party" system at all. In fact, there are a good number of political parties. But for some reason, there have never been more than two parties that have been able to maintain political significance at any one time.

 

[pitabread]

We don't actually have a "two party" system. We don't even officially have a "party" system at all. In fact, there are a good number of political parties. But for some reason, there has never been more than two parties that have been able to maintain political significance at any one time.

When I say "two-party" I'm referencing to the latter statement: that it always comes down to Democratic vs Republican.

Whereas living in a country where multiple parties are represented in various levels of government, I feel like our system does give voters a greater sense of choice.

For example, our 2019 federal election results (seats won):

 

[Arcangl86]

When I say "two-party" I'm referencing to the latter statement: that it always comes down to Democratic vs Republican.

Whereas living in a country where multiple parties are represented in various levels of government, I feel like our system does give voters a greater sense of choice.

For example, our 2019 federal election results (seats won):

I think what he was referring to is that our electoral systems are actually the same, and the two main parties don't have any special status, but they are still the only two who can win at a federal level.

 

[RDKirk]

When I say "two-party" I'm referencing to the latter statement: that it always comes down to Democratic vs Republican.

Whereas living in a country where multiple parties are represented in various levels of government, I feel like our system does give voters a greater sense of choice.

My question is, though, what is the social mechanism by which your country maintains multiple significant parties.

There is no reason in law why the US cannot--at least twenty parties actually exist. The reason power is not shared more equivalently among them is somehow social.

I do think that the US Libertarian party was a definite spoiler in the state of Georgia voting: The difference between Biden and Trump is less than 10,000 votes...but the Libertarian candidate garnered 61,000 votes. But who did she spoil?

 

[mmksparbud]

As I said previously, there are a boatload of theological implications with the above claims. I'm just glad it's not something I need to worry about, not subscribing to said theology in the first place.



Or not.

Besides, I have a feeling that any real supernatural deity won't be so insecure as to be bothered by the opinions of a few mortal beings. And if such a being is so insecure as to be upset by my comments, then they certainly aren't a being worthy of any reverence or worship.



Your reactions in this thread and continued argument suggests otherwise. If you really weren't bothered, why even continue this conversation?



Now you know how I feel.

I know how atheists and agnostics feel---so why do you keep on with this? I already said several times---if you shut up, so will I. All You have to do is not make any comments to me, I will make none to you---simple.

 

[pitabread]

I already said several times---if you shut up, so will I.

You first.

 

[pitabread]

My question is, though, what is the social mechanism by which your country maintains multiple significant parties.

I've often wondered that myself. I kinda wish I had an answer, because it's something I've just always been used to, but can't really explain. With the Bloc Quebecois at least, it's because of Quebec's somewhat unique position in Canada as a French-speaking province. But with the rest of Canada, seeing things divided among 3 parties is just the way it's largely been.

 

[Andrewn]

My question is, though, what is the social mechanism by which your country maintains multiple significant parties.

There is no reason in law why the US cannot--at least twenty parties actually exist. The reason power is not shared more equivalently among them is somehow social.

I think it's the same reason that there are only 3 major car companies.

Some time ago, I checked how many major parties each of the G7 countries have, defining a "major" party as one that has > 4% of the seats in the house of representatives / commons. Most of the other 6 countries have 4 parties (including Canada). Germany has 6, if I remember correctly .

 

[7thKeeper]

I think it's the same reason that there are only 3 major car companies.

Some time ago, I checked how many major parties each of the G7 countries have, defining a "major" party as one that has > 4% of the seats in the house of representatives / commons. Most of the other 6 countries have 4 parties (including Canada). Germany has 6, if I remember correctly .

Finland has 9 parliamentary parties and another 9 extra-parliamentary ones. And I don't think that includes the communist parties.

And what keeps the States in the two party state is essentially from what I've seen, the two parties themselves. With them holding the most power, the rules for who to include in the debates, etc involving elections are skewed in a way that members from other parties have a harder time to get expose. They do have some support, but it's hard for them to break past a certain point. And yes, it does seem to be a cultural thing as well.

 

[mmksparbud]

You first.

Why? I asked you first. If you do not use my name then I have nothing to respond to.

 

[pitabread]

Why? I asked you first. If you do not use my name then I have nothing to respond to.

Because I really don't care if you keep responding or not. I'm just here for the arguments.

 

[bekkilyn]

This is beginning to sound like the start of a new relationship.

 

[SimplyMe]

I've often wondered that myself. I kinda wish I had an answer, because it's something I've just always been used to, but can't really explain. With the Bloc Quebecois at least, it's because of Quebec's somewhat unique position in Canada as a French-speaking province. But with the rest of Canada, seeing things divided among 3 parties is just the way it's largely been.

The issue in the US is that it is difficult for a third party to get any power. To become president, a party's candidate must win in enough states that they get a majority of Electoral Votes -- and even if a third party gets enough to keep anyone else getting a majority, then it merely goes to Congress, where the State's delegations choose the President (and they will obviously tend to go with their party). As such, it is difficult for a third party to get any momentum -- even if they get a Congressman or two, they still have little to no power.

By contrast, in Canada and Europe they use Parliamentary systems. You vote for your local representative and, once they are all elected it is up to Parliament to form a government. There is no "re-election" if no one gets a majority (at least typically), instead the parties closest to each other tend to band together to form a government. So, even though you might be a member of a relatively small party, with only a few members in Parliament, they still get a say and can even be part of the "majority" that is controlling Parliament and have a say in who the new Prime Minister will be.

 

[mmksparbud]

Because I really don't care if you keep responding or not. I'm just here for the arguments.