Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.
Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.
I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don't know what fascism is.
The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don't disagree that they wouldn't allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify.
i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they've arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.
you can't disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don't consider it fascism, doesn't mean a reasonable person can't disagree.
The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.
One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.
As you say, you can't disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.
Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.
Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.
That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.
Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.
Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.
Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.
I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don't know what fascism is.
The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don't disagree that they wouldn't allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.
i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they've arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.
you can't disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don't consider it fascism, doesn't mean a reasonable person can't disagree.
The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.
One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.
As you say, you can't disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.
Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.
Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.
tehy literally arrest political opponents.
Like who?
sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.
That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.
but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.
I don't think your claim can be proven
oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.
Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.
this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.
It's the definition, not my interpretation. Words have meanings.