From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 13:57:50 -0800, Bobbie Sellers   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >On 2/7/26 11:47, The Horny Goat wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 23:44:30 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>    
   >>> The phrase that’s missing here is “multiparty democracyâ€?. Can you   
   have   
   >>> a real democracy with a realistic choice of only two parties, where   
   >>> every contest is seen as a zero-sum game? And with so much political   
   >>> interference in the election process?   
   >>>   
   >>> I think the US is an outstanding example as to why the answer is no?.   
   >>    
   >> Catch is you either have a 2 party state or a multi-party state. Which   
   >> would you prefer - the present US situation where the parties are both   
   >> deserting the center or the British situation where you have a party   
   >> in power where they have managed to dig themselves a pit, fallen into   
   >> it and yet are still guaranteed 4 more years of power - and the   
   >> opposition parties as much at war with each other as they are with   
   >> Labour.   
   >>    
   >> Because even in the last year of Biden there was little or no talk of   
   >> policies remotely in the center. My reaction to the second Biden   
   >> debate (which I watched live) was "here I thought Biden had a good   
   >> chance - but after tonight this is going to be a defeat of epic   
   >> proportions". And I wasn't sure whether his policies or his mental   
   >> acuity was his worst problem.   
   >   
   >	But Biden did not run. Kamala Harris was the Democratic candidate   
   >and started late to finish last which was not her fault at all.    
      
   Yes, the Democrats really exceeded themselves in 2024 in their   
   eagerness to lose.   
      
   As I have noted before, Democratss do not /win/: when a Democrat comes   
   out on top, it is because the Republicans /lost/. Specifically, in the   
   Presidential race, as the others are affected by State-level issues.   
      
      
      
   >The    
   >consequences   
   >are terrible for the USA. Which was already with the removal of limitations   
   >on contributions to Political Parties and Candidates pointing itself to the   
   >obsolescence  of its power.   
      
   I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about trying to   
   force certain cities/states into insurrection so the Army can be used   
   against them then, yes, it is terrible. Indeed, it is /treasonous/.   
      
   But the damage done by removing contribution limitations goes far   
   further than that. A lot of the "no taxes" crowd were wholly owned   
   subsidiaries of the Koch brothers, for example.   
      
   >	Before that the pretence of Representative Democracy was removed   
   >in ther 1920s in limiting the number of Representatives of the American   
   >People at 435 regardless of our massive population increases.   
      
   This was done to make having to rebuild the Capitol every decade or   
   saw to accomodate an ever-growing House unnecessary. Had computers   
   been around at the time, the decision might have been different, as   
   another reason was the increased complexity and paperwork involved.   
      
   The /real/ problem was separating ther House from the People by   
   insisting that each State have at least one Representative. That,   
   however, would be very hard to correct.   
      
   >	When the radical religious right seized control of the Supreme Court   
   >of the USA it may have dealt a fatal blow to the liberalizations of the   
   >Social Order which have happened since World War II.   
      
   I don't think that has happened yet. To be sure, two Justices are   
   wholly-owned subsidiaries of (different) rich white men, and Moscow   
   Mitch managed to get three appointed by Trump (arguably another act of   
   treason), but voting analysis suggests the splits are not that clear.    
      
   >	The choice by the people of the present leader is unfortunate for   
   >many reasons foremost in my minds the rejection of science that disagrees   
   >with the profits of many who must hate the generations which may come.   
      
   The Democrats lost because the Republicans didn't. In the popular   
   vote, just barely (nothing like a mandate); better in the Electoral   
   College (but by no means a landslide).   
      
   >	I am 88 yoa and was born in a freer time but amid rumors of war   
   >and now we have a leader in the USA, others in Russia and China who   
   >are on the verge of  creating chaos.   
      
   The USA leader appears to me to be primarily interested in dominating   
   the headlines. Some of his seamier advisors, however, may have an   
   agenda or two.   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)