Re: (ReacTor) Five Futures Where the US Ended Not With a Bang But a Whimper

On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:07:30 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2025 09:05:22 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>

How many of you can name a moderate Democrat? How many can name AOC's
tribe? Exactly...

>
Thanks for illustrating why I think we need /two/ centrist parties to
replace the current major parties.

>
True but you DON'T want two centrist parties whose roots are
geographically based. That's what you've got in Canada and it's more
than a bit dysfunctional.

That's a good point. It may be hard to achieve, though.

That's essentially what the United States had in 1860 with Lincoln
being the winner out of 4 parities' candidates - 2 in the north, 2 in
the south. Which produced a situation nobody would want to reproduce
today!

It has seemed to me since 2008 that the Republicans have wanted to
reproduce /exactly/ that every time their man (and I mean "man") was
not in the White House. This may even go back to 1992 as shown by
Newt's shutdown and their Contract On America, which their first
attempt at fulfilling led to the Great Depression, and we may -- or
may not -- be seeing their second attempt today.

It has not escaped my notice, BTW, that some non-Republican States
have groups in them that have been thinking along the lines of
secession (and joining Canada, if Canada is dumb enough to have them
-- accepting them would be likely to produce war with the remaining
USA, after all) now that Trump is back in office. This thinking
probably began before that, of course, but was dormant under Biden,
having been invigorated under Trump's first term.

I would not have you believe that I think that bad behavior is limited
to one Party or the other.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"