the American 2 Party System

Kalevalatar · #**121** 18th January 2011, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by WannaWitness

So.... what can I say? Just let each individual vote what their conscience honestly tells them, pray, and trust in God.

This.

WannaWitness · #**122** 18th January 2011, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Kalevalatar

This.

I think you'd fit in quite nicely on "Bridge Builders".

VolRaider · #**123** 18th January 2011, 08:28 PM

[quote=WolfBitnGodSmittn;52281099]Call me a cynic but when it comes right down to it, i dont see a bit of differance between the republican and democratic parties, with the possible exception of abortion

Both head us toward centralization, strengthing the federal reserve, moving us toward a north american union AND a new world order.

Both parties are a joke. Neither one of these parties cares one iota about the American people. They appeal to their base during an election year and then stab them in the back once in power. Every president likes to see how far he can go toward a left or right ideology and, after their party gets waxed in midterm elections, they drift back to center in order to attract votes for the next election cycle. It has nothing to do with making America better. It has nothing to do with ideology.

The parties have one motto: It's all about the game, and how you play it.

Cris413 · #**124** 18th January 2011, 09:30 PM

America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution

A long article...but very interesting read

NoBama2012 · #**125** 26th January 2011, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by WolfBitnGodSmittn

Call me a cynic but when it comes right down to it, i dont see a bit of differance between the republican and democratic parties, with the possible exception of abortion

Both head us toward centralization, strengthing the federal reserve, moving us toward a north american union AND a new world order.

They both increase the size of the government and its power, they both have militarized our police forces, both have passed legislation trashing our constitution...

I have a theory though... its the same money from corporations and banks that fund both sides... these people are NOT working an agenda fit to benefit Americans, they are working agendas benefitting their corporate benefactors.

We need to get the corporate money back out of the election system

I say: Don't dink with a system that has created the most powerful and most prosperous nation in the history of mankind.

MacFall · #**126** 26th January 2011, 01:04 PM

The prosperity and (economic, I assume you mean) power has happened despite the political system, not because of it. The political system has only created the biggest, strongest, most bureaucratic government in history, including the USSR.

liars_paradox · #**127** 12th February 2011, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by MacFall

How do you suppose that might happen? I'm genuinely interested to hear your theory.

Because, if we didn't have these "territorial" restrictions, then many national-level decisions would be determined by a select few locations which happen to be heavily populated. If the people living in these "core areas" tend to only vote for a particular party, and the less populated areas can't get enough votes to make an impact, then that is supported by the core areas is the only party that is going to come into power.

A government that doesn't place what you call "territorial restrictions" is called a unitarian form of government. I think that unitarianism works for small countries, because the less populated areas don't take up so much space. But, for large countries like the US, it's best to go with federalism, because the less populated areas still take up large areas in this country.

It kind of makes things fair for people living in the "hinterlands" of this country because the core areas have so much power and influence already. At least with this kind of government, you offset the imbalance of power that the core areas have.

MacFall · #**128** 12th February 2011, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by liars_paradox

Because, if we didn't have these "territorial" restrictions, then many national-level decisions would be determined by a select few locations which happen to be heavily populated.

This seems to assume that a significant majority of people living in the same area all have the same political interests. I don't think that's necessarily true. It's more likely (I think) that where parties are based on location, they would be coalitions of very small, incontiguous communities.

You may be right though, and I don't have a dog in the race. I'm not a big fan of individuals outsourcing their decision-making to bureaucratic bodies at all, no matter how the body is constituted. So I'm just theorizing for the fun of it.

realtruth101 · #**129** 18th February 2011, 10:01 AM

I find the whole two party system to be a perfect system, that was created to control a very large body of people, lending itself to make people believe they are in control, all the while there are those who are controling both parties. The fact most Americans don't see whats going on, and don't understand how it is always kept in near perfect balance, one side has just a little more power, then switches back to the other side.........They really must be laughing their butts off, when they see how strong you support either side of their cleverly crafted machine

MacFall · #**130** 18th February 2011, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by realtruth101

I find the whole two party system to be a perfect system, that was created to control a very large body of people, lending itself to make people believe they are in control, all the while there are those who are controling both parties. The fact most Americans don't see whats going on, and don't understand how it is always kept in near perfect balance, one side has just a little more power, then switches back to the other side.........They really must be laughing their butts off, when they see how strong you support either side of their cleverly crafted machine

That's something that people don't usually realize when they criticize government for being inefficient. The question is, inefficient for whom? For those who believe that the government is intended to serve them, of course it seems inefficient. But for those who are actually in government, it works perfectly. At least until it becomes so big that it crashes down under its own weight, which will happen eventually in any political (i.e., parasitic) relationship.