Yes, of course. Two-party systems are clearly broken. You're being a little unfair, though - there are countless things Obama has tried to get done in his terms, only to be blocked over and over. He tried to take action, but the two-party system stopped him.
Okay, maybe I was being a little unfair there. Yes, the two-party system does try to stop people, that I agree with. The thing is, though, he's a part
of that two-party system. He still wants to see his party win in office, and doesn't want to risk another party trying to take control of the Presidency. What's ironic is even though the parties are ALL ABOUT WINNING and the other LOSING, they don't want to bring a minority party into this... it's too risky among their own power.
The French and the Russian revolutions both failed because of the people involved. It's all very well and good to have ideals; but if some people care about themselves more than about the ideals, it's all going to collapse.
I agree with this, but the nature
of a person is too care about themselves more than the ideals. It's extremely hard to find a person that won't. Maybe that's why... I don't know, more people in the government would mean less power for each individual person to gain control of everything, yet harder to establish things such as laws. So how should we do this? It's a very complicated question. I mean, of course America will eventually fall, it's such a pity. But it will be either because of
1) Too many corrupt government officials/senators/representatives/president
2) Citizens rioting because of this
3) Military attacks
I think that the U.S. has a good government, but of course there are flaws. There are many corrupt government officials out there, the thing is that there are so many positions that it doesn't (hopefully) affect the system too much
, yet the people such as the President will appoint people for cabinet positions that are just their friends, rather than someone that will actually know what they're doing. That's why I think that it would be smarter if the citizens elected cabinet members...then again, people are desperate enough to kill the President, VP, Speaker, and President Pro Tem. just to get their party in power. Well, maybe not all of them, but it's possible.
I just wish that we had a multi-party system- it allows more peoples' voices to be heard.
Libertarians, meanwhile, still need to answer the same question I posed at first. Who is going to do all the work of government if not government? Over and over again, handing over these services to the private sector - or, god forbid, expecting citizens to somehow do them themselves, out of the goodness of their hearts - has proven disastrous. My sense of people who call for small government is that they are mostly people upset that they aren't allowed to do certain things...
Imagine a world without the FDA. Governments do a thousand invisible things for us that we don't even notice, and that's why we absolutely cannot dispense with them.
Okay, I think you have a good point there. But doesn't the Libertarian Party (I'm too young to be affiliated with a party, so I can't really vote or anything or choose a party-I'm just giving one as an example)
still do basic government purposes, they just give more individual freedom? I mean, that might be a bit of a balance...
And for the elections coming up, I did end up seeing last night's Presidential Debate. Honestly, I think it would be cool if a third party won. Just so that we could see the shocked looks on the faces of the Republicans and Democrats in our two-party system. I wish they would let Gary Johnson participate in the debates, but he doesn't have 15% according to polls, and of course it's the major parties making the rules.