Could abandoning the two-party system help Americans stop the insanity that is the far-left in the Democrats and...

Could abandoning the two-party system help Americans stop the insanity that is the far-left in the Democrats and ultra-religious-right in the Republicans? As I see it, these groups tend to shout the loudest and they play a major part in both parties with the moderates being forced to take it or leave it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=w0nc3XAsgHI
democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

who the fuck is going to dismantle it

why do people care about US politics so much, just let them shoot each other

The only way to solve the US is either hostile takeover or wiping it off the face of earth.

Mind your own fuckin business.

Because I like the US and I don't like seeing them spiralling into insanity. Only Germans deserve such fate.

No

Rude

there is no far left
what drug are you smoking

Why are German women so annoying?

Because then commies would win.

So is ruining Europe thrice

>no far left
youtube.com/watch?v=w0nc3XAsgHI

How?

>far-left in the Democrats

Reminder that the people peddling the propaganda that the dems are left are nwo shits. The dems are further right than the reps now.

>ww1 was germanys fault

nope, racial dialectics doesn't amount to anything
it's not health care, it's not social security, it's not antitrust, it's not green energy, it's not equal pay or raising minimum wage
it's literally hot air

Democrats are hardly far-left in global or even western scale.

>everything I don't like is right wing

It’s your fault for losing

Not all of them. But the far-left is definitely present there and catered to.

nope

yep

you got to give me some concrete examples or you are just pulling it out of your ass

Everyone is a brainwashed monkey that keeps fighting amongst themselves instead of trying to actually do anything.
They're too busy being obsessed with enemies that don't exist like republicans, Islam, """China""", and Putin to see that the real enemy is their oligarchic government.

Commies or Nazis would stage a subversive coup in the event of a bipartisan mending of ties. My guess is commies would win because they're more organized in their guerilla tactics than Nazis are.

However, that's besides the point. The average American isn't driven nor charged by politics, so "moderates" or "centrists" are what you'll find in most people here. You're taking Internet arguments at face value.

american commie is full of losers, they can't even get a proper party together, fascism is more likely

democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform
or just listen to Bernie

They're still more effective in organizing riots than fascists are, at least here. Black Bloc can very well succeed if people don't protect their property.

>if people don't protect their property
Wouldn't they get machinegunned?

bernie had to become centrist and he still didn't stand a chance
america has always been shifting towards the right, the democratic party hasn't represented the poor since the 1930s, these extremists have to live in the reality that is consumerism, they are not theoretical entities from history

>hasn't represented the poor since the 1930s
They do. Just not those with American citizenship.

Not if (((they))) pass more anti-gun legislation.
Demographic shifts, especially in states like Texas tend to prove otherwise. And more anti-consumerists are left wing in nature.

It would be like this
>socialist democrat party
>Christian democrats
> Conservative party
> Liberaritarian party
> Tea party
> Greens
> Communist party

I'm pretty sure they can't just ban guns like that without a grandfather clause.

You're retarded if you think the US political system isn't favoring extreme rhetoric and both parties aren't embracing it. Democrats have been moving further left ever since Obama decided he wanted to be a divisive little fuck and stir up tensions across class boundaries, political spectrums, and race. Try to remember that in 2016 he was meeting with admitted far left domestic terrorists in the Oval Office and before he was elected to any office he had extensive ties to communist thinkers in America, and on the campaign trail he spouted constant inflammatory statements about race and the economy to bring an angry voter population together and seperate them from their neighbors based on ideological goals such as government take over of the energy industry, racial reparations, redistribution of wealth through tiers, and nationalizing health care. He was undoubtedly far left in appearance, and probably only compromised on his goals because he knew the Washington Society very well and realized these goals were impossible since the democrat party was mostly level headed at the time. In 2012 the conservative backlash was insane, and gave rise to candidates who ran on pure vitriol like Santorum and Perry who both promised religious right policies to an evangelical base. These candidates were of course just hot air and in it for the political notoriety, but they were evidence of the growing anti-Obama era sentiment. Enter 2014, when a GOP that was simply anti-Obama murdered the Democrat party in the senate elections and proceedud to stone wall him like nothing else, and in response Obama stepped up his racial rhetoric on things like Latino immigration and the BLM movement to try and ensure a minority driven win for his party and oddly corporate conservative successor Hillary.

Enter 2016, when an admitted socialist who talked of radically changing society and a far-right billionaire who wanted to undo decades of policy and kick out the largest minority group both ran. You're a fool if you ever though Hillary the mouthpiece stood a chance in this election, and the democrats were too because they kneecapped their one chance at beating a man who became a political juggernaut in a few months with their stupid super-delegate system. Trump destroyed Hillary politically and probably crushed her positions for years after his win too, and the GOP once again proved that the democrats unwillingness to fully embrace Obama-era policies that moved them further left gained them nothing while still leaving them to be viewed as the cronies of Obama in the eyes of fence sitters. Now we are seeing ridiculous far left and far right movements just springing to life everywhere, like the retarded useful idiots of antifa and the useless idiot alt-rightists of Spencer. While this is happening we've seen centrism become unacceptable online and entire regions walling themselves iff ideologically like California with its left policies and the midwest's evangelicals. Dont you see how fucking dangerous this is, this behavior was seen with the factions in the Russian revolution, the anti-fascists and fascists in Italy, and in Spain during the 30s. The country is fucked and doomed for a civil war if we don't restore both our moderate right parties.

>the far-left in the Democrats
Wot m8? There is no such thing xD

Every parliamentary system favours extreme rhetoric. But in the US, more so then practically anywhere else, extremism in policy is very much absent. On the left anyway. I'd call a lot of the policy the right are pushing in regards to christian identitarianism, voter suppression, weapon ownership, etc, extreme.

Idpol is not leftist
It at best is an inbred basrard son of the weakest parts of Critical Theory

I don't think there is anything that extreme in weapon ownership. MAYBE the rhetoric they use, but I just see it as an issue to disagree on, not extremism.

I'm surprised the Libertarian Party isn't bigger. They could take votes from both parties.
Also, Americans are so brainwashed voting third party is insane to them

It really is extreme, looking into it. I used to think it was just a matter them having old laws that people could have guns, but when I read more about how recent some law changes were, as well as how gun policy was tied in with the changes that came in the IRA and the Reagan administration, they started looking a lot more driven by ideological extremism.

Then how come it's literally only leftie parties that support it?

I don't know about Finland but in Germany the most extreme thing leftist politicians will say is that we should tax the rich and regulate multinational corporations and spend more money on the poor which is exactly the same things leftists like Bernie say in America.

It isn't. The right pushes it's own version of idpol just as much. Their idpol is about protecting christian, national values, traditions, patriotism, and in some extremists eyes, the white race. People only viewing identity politics as something people on the left by into is part of the right's propaganda.
>it's only idpol when people I don't like do it

Yep. There isn't much extremism to be found outside of countries in Asia or South America, where revolutionary armies have existed.

Left can be very extreme on other things that economical policies, for example ban on cars, "kill all men", free immigration etc. But if you only look at real leftist issues, they tend to be really calm and balanced.

I'm pretty sure democrats started it though, back in the 60s with affirmative action and whatnot.

You forgot federalization of Europe, no cap on immigration and "Islam belongs in Europe"

>democrats started it though, back in the 60s with affirmative action and whatnot.
Same decade the republicans ran a candidate supporting segregation for president. The civil rights movement was about identity politics just as much as the pro-segregation movement was.

>democrats
>far left

Aight. But dem idpol is now far more prevalent than rep idpol, especially when it comes to media and it splits the society into smaller groups than republican idpol.

Does the US even have any leftist politicians other than Bernie Sanders?

Jill Stein

>far left democrats
Actually not as influential as you think if you're talking about Bernie and co. Hillary-type Dems are a bit like Trudeau in that they pretend to be progressive to get votes. There are still Blue Dog Democrats and they're relatively okay.

The Religious Right also isn't as important as you think. They're basically puppets who will vote Republican no matter what while rarely actually seeing anything like the sort of results they want. Soulless neo-cons make lip service to social conservatism in order to get evangelical votes. This is why evangelicals voted for Trump despite that their values are completely at odds. The Religious Right has been around since the 60s and they've accomplished basically nothing.

The Democratic Party have some social democrats, that's about as far left as mainstream American politics goes.