What America needs is another Party

[grasping the after wind]

View attachment 234605

Nice chart. The North/South seems to me to be no different than the West/ East . Is
there a need for both? Could they not be combined into one. If not please explain why?

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is an interesting thing. My knee jerk reaction was to say, "America need ZERO parties, certainly not any more ways to divide and dilute the corruption over more minds."

And, then I remember how "no parties" quickly dives into totalitarianism. But, the complete and utter pollution of political parties is a symptom of the underlying problem.


Humans don't care about each other. That is the problem. There are 7,200,000,000 walking around this world with the illusion of global connectivity; humanity is spoiled. There is no centralized interest amongst humans for overall preservation. We say it as a soundbite, but there wouldn't be a justification for the atrocities committed if we really cared. We never believe one person can change the world until it is our world that needs changing.

But that is the point, we are all in this together. What I just said likely would be taken as hippie claptrap. It may even be deemed ridiulous, but it is a cliche of prescience that humanity is so spoiled with itself that it doesn't have to care about anyone else.

Actually totalitarianism is not no parties but one party. Additionally I don't share your cynicism about the condition of humanity as I think most people actually care about others. Not as much as they care about themselves but they still do care to a fairly good extent. IMO the bulk of the atrocities we have seen over the last 100 years or so stem from people believing that they have
the solution to the world's problems if only everyone else would allow them to change the world as they see fit and agree that their vision of the perfect world is the only genuine one. So there is an
attempt to change the world to fit a specific group's preferences. When others object and say they prefer something else the world changers become extremely intolerant and violent.

 

[FenderTL5]

Nice chart. The North/South seems to me to be no different than the West/ East . Is
there a need for both? Could they not be combined into one. If not please explain why?

One axis is economic where the other is social policy.
The chart came from a website called political compass I modified the graphic, erasing plotted data/info.

 

[JackRT]

Being a Rabbi doesn't mean you were necessarily a Pharisee and Jesus sure wasn't.
Rabbi G4461 ῥαββί rhabbi hrab-bee'
Root: of Hebrew origin <H7227> with pronominal suffix
Cross Reference: TDNT - 6:961,982
Vine's Words: Master, Rabbi
English Words used in KJV:
Master (Christ) 9
Rabbi (Christ) 5
rabbi 3
[Total Count: 17]
of Hebrew origin [<H7227> (rab) with pronoun suffix]; my master, i.e. Rabbi, as an official title of honor :- Master, Rabbi.

Yes, it was the official title of honour for a rabbi.

What about Mary Magdalene? That sounds more like the Liberals (Sadducees) would do.

What about her? Where does she enter the conversation?

Nicodemus seems to be the only Pharisee who'd fall in this category (plus Joseph of Arimathea probably who I believe was part of the Sanhedrin). And of course, Gamaliel (who mentored Paul before he was converted) was the high priest which most be that Paul was being groomed for prior to his conversion while he was going sround persecuting Christians (under Pharisaic orders).

I agree that both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arithamathea were Pharisee Rabbis and Joseph was likely a member of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel took over the leadership of Bet Hillel following Rabbi Hillel's death. He was never the High Priest.

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. Also at that time the High Priests were appointed from the Sadducees (Levites) and were an extremely conservative and even reactionary group dedicated to preserving the status quo at all costs. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

You might recall from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and some of the disciples were actually charged with blasphemy and brought to trial before the Sanhedrin. They were dismissed after being defended by Rabbi Gamaliel who was himself a member of the Sanhedrin and a prominent Pharisee. If Jesus appeared before the high priest at all it was simply to be remanded over to Pontius Pilate. The Romans wanted him for a lot more than disturbing the peace in the temple. They wanted him for sedition and treason.

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was the woman threatened with stoning. Christian, particularly Catholic tradition, has been very unkind to Mary Magdalene. She has been variously identified as the woman taken in adultery or the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair or possibly both. She is portrayed as a great sinner who became a great saint. The Gospel of John says that Jesus cast seven demons from her. Some might jump to the conclusion that demonic possession is indicated here. However, we must examine this in the context of the times. Disease was thought to have been caused by invisible demons. We know today that this is wrong - disease is actually caused by invisible germs or viruses. It seems that we have renamed the demons! John is simply saying that Jesus cured her of some unspecified disease. As for the charge that she was a prostitute, that first appeared in a sixth century sermon by Pope Gregory.

 

[Kaon]

Actually totalitarianism is not no parties but one party.

It is the literal party of no party, because every possible defender and executor of the government process has abdicated their power and rights in exchange for apathy transformed into concrete action.

Letting someone completely run you means you are not your own person anyway; you cant be a part of any political process because you are owned.

Additionally I don't share your cynicism about the condition of humanity as I think most people actually care about others. Not as much as they care about themselves but they still do care to a fairly good extent. IMO the bulk of the atrocities we have seen over the last 100 years or so stem from people believing that they have
the solution to the world's problems if only everyone else would allow them to change the world as they see fit and agree that their vision of the perfect world is the only genuine one. So there is an
attempt to change the world to fit a specific group's preferences. When others object and say they prefer something else the world changers become extremely intolerant and violent.

It has to be a grossly corrupt world to say that the state of this plane of existence somehow reflects a caring nature of humanity. Humans do a wonderful job of deceiving and deluding themselves into feeling better, while ignoring what doesn't affect them.

Everything affects us - everything we do affects all of us. This is what is being missed.


Humans let other humans get away with literal murder - ON TV - in America, and around the world. You don't have to share my alleged cynicism, but we can at least not pretend that humanity care about humanity - especially if it doesn't benefit a particular human or humans.

 

[Speedwell]

You are working from a left right dichotomy very different than my own. From my perspective,
and I am not alone in this so don't think it is idiosyncratic and therefore simply dismiss it,
the far left is characterized by complete government control (uber socialist totalitarianism as in Fascism and Communism) while the far right is no government control art all ( anarchy) . On that continuum Libertarianism would be the farthest right philosophy short of anarchy. Perhaps you could explain your dichotomy between left and right where anarchy is a far leftist thing. To me anarchy is the opposite of totalitarianism so I cannot see how anarchy and totalitarian forms of
Socialism could both occupy the same side of the spectrum.

I would have thought that the extreme left and right positions both represent totalitarian control, the difference being who is doing the controlling. It's a question of the ownership of capital, whether public or private. To the controlled, of course, it is not much of distinction.

 

[grasping the after wind]

One axis is economic where the other is social policy.
The chart came from a website called political compass I modified the graphic, erasing plotted data/info.

Again Nice Chart and thanks for the information. I really don't see much philosophical difference between being for against governmental control of social policy and for or against government control of economics. People may differ on which particular social behaviors they want controlled but control is still control and freedom is still freedom and people that favor control will want most kinds of social behavior controlled even if they prefer their own pet behaviors be left alone. People tha

It is the literal party of no party, because every possible defender and executor of the government process has abdicated their power and rights in exchange for apathy transformed into concrete action.

Letting someone completely run you means you are not your own person anyway; you cant be a part of any political process because you are owned.




It has to be a grossly corrupt world to say that the state of this plane of existence somehow reflects a caring nature of humanity. Humans do a wonderful job of deceiving and deluding themselves into feeling better, while ignoring what doesn't affect them.

Everything affects us - everything we do affects all of us. This is what is being missed.


Humans let other humans get away with literal murder - ON TV - in America, and around the world. You don't have to share my alleged cynicism, but we can at least not pretend that humanity care about humanity - especially if it doesn't benefit a particular human or humans.

Well I certainly don't care about humanity. I do care about individual people though. Very much so. and I don't consider myself to be some benevolent outlier.

This is what Dostoyevsky thought of lovers of humanity.
“The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.”

 

[Kaon]

Again Nice Chart and thanks for the information. I really don't see much philosophical difference between being for against governmental control of social policy and for or against government control of economics. People may differ on which particular social behaviors they want controlled but control is still control and freedom is still freedom and people that favor control will want most kinds of social behavior controlled even if they prefer their own pet behaviors be left alone. People tha


Well I certainly don't care about humanity. I do care about individual people though. Very much so. and I don't consider myself to be some benevolent outlier.

This is what Dostoyevsky thought of lovers of humanity.
“The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.”

This is a classic romanticism of the dichotomy of philanthropy and misanthropy. I get it. There is space reserved for the idealized potential I may see in humanity - that I know is real - that may allow me to experience compassion and love for "them." But, my personal mentality is that we were already told to stay away from the world, judge entities by their fruits, test their spirit, don't cast our pearls before swine, and be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. I cant romanticize humanity when individual and whole would have no inherent care to help if it didn't mean some sort of recognition and uplift of the id, ego, and/or superego.

If you look deep enough in the spirit of this plane of existence, you can see the kernel of vanity even in altruism. What we think love is is a gross marginalization of the actual thing; we barely know how to love each other, because if we did this world would look fundamentally different. This is a spiritual war; guard has to be up.

 

[FenderTL5]

Again Nice Chart and thanks for the information. I really don't see much philosophical difference between being for against governmental control of social policy and for or against government control of economics. People may differ on which particular social behaviors they want controlled but control is still control and freedom is still freedom and people that favor control will want most kinds of social behavior controlled even if they prefer their own pet behaviors be left alone..

I understand your point and i'm not arguing against it but the political party platforms in the USA do not match that.
For example; In the 2016 primaries ALL of the GOP candidates were in the upper right quadrant, favoring neo-liberal economic policy (ala Milton Friedman) but favoring limits on social issues (anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, against medical marijuana and recreational drugs) and "the rule of law."

 

[2tim_215]

Yes, it was the official title of honour for a rabbi.



What about her? Where does she enter the conversation?

It was the Pharisees who were going to stone her to death for being a prostitute but when Jesus intervened (by writing something in the sand) and they all dropped their stones and left. You want to sat that the Pharisees get an undeserved bad rap yet Jesus was constantly at odds with them..

I agree that both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arithamathea were Pharisee Rabbis and Joseph was likely a member of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel took over the leadership of Bet Hillel following Rabbi Hillel's death. He was never the High Priest.

I thought that Gameliel became the high priest but was apparently wrong, the High Priest was Caiaphas but Gameliel was certainly one of Leaders of the Sanhedrin who was largely responsible for Jesus Crucifixion.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Gamaliel-in-the-Bible.html

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. Also at that time the High Priests were appointed from the Sadducees (Levites) and were an extremely conservative and even reactionary group dedicated to preserving the status quo at all costs. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

You want to dignify them? I don't given what they did to Jesus as mentioned previously.

You might recall from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and some of the disciples were actually charged with blasphemy and brought to trial before the Sanhedrin. They were dismissed after being defended by Rabbi Gamaliel who was himself a member of the Sanhedrin and a prominent Pharisee. If Jesus appeared before the high priest at all it was simply to be remanded over to Pontius Pilate. The Romans wanted him for a lot more than disturbing the peace in the temple. They wanted him for sedition and treason.
This is true.
If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

I trust my Bible, a lot more than I trust the so-called scholars, who are just men.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was the woman threatened with stoning. Christian, particularly Catholic tradition, has been very unkind to Mary Magdalene. She has been variously identified as the woman taken in adultery or the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair or possibly both. She is portrayed as a great sinner who became a great saint. The Gospel of John says that Jesus cast seven demons from her. Some might jump to the conclusion that demonic possession is indicated here. However, we must examine this in the context of the times. Disease was thought to have been caused by invisible demons. We know today that this is wrong - disease is actually caused by invisible germs or viruses. It seems that we have renamed the demons! John is simply saying that Jesus cured her of some unspecified disease. As for the charge that she was a prostitute, that first appeared in a sixth century sermon by Pope Gregory.

So, if it wasn't Mary Magdalene, then which prostitute was it? Or is that something that was added too?

So all of those negative references to the Pharisees by Jesus were also not accurate according to the Scholars? We need to examine it in context of those times rather than today. Change the narrative to fit your purposes. I'm not claiming that the Sadducees were "good" people, but neither were the Pharisees. Neither are the Democrats for that matter.[/QUOTE]

 

[JackRT]

I thought that Gameliel became the high priest but was apparently wrong, the High Priest was Caiaphas but Gameliel was certainly one of Leaders of the Sanhedrin who was largely responsible for Jesus Crucifixion.

In the political/religious climate of early first century Judaism, the High Priests were selected by the Roman procurator from the Sadducees who had become Roman "quislings" or collaborators. As a prominent Pharisee, Gameliel had no possibility at all of ever being the High Priest. The Bible indicates that the arrest and "trial" of Jesus was entirely the idea of the High Priest and his inner circle of Sadducees and Herodians. This was all conducted at night at the residence of the High Priest on a high holy day. The Sanhedrin was for bidden to meet on a holy day or at night or in any other place than the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount. Given the Pharisee domination of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest had to act secretly. I cannot dispute that there may have been individual Pharisees that were against Jesus but to implicate the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin in the execution of Jesus is simply wrong

 

[ubicaritas]

Outside of the Republican party, the culturally conservative Evangelical has no substantial traction, so I don't see a third party that is aligned with that kind of worldview being a possibility.

 

[2tim_215]

Fascinating. What does that mean? What's the difference between a Pharisee and a Sadducee? I am genuinely interested in your stratification analysis.

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-the-pharisees-700706

 

[2tim_215]

In the political/religious climate of early first century Judaism, the High Priests were selected by the Roman procurator from the Sadducees who had become Roman "quislings" or collaborators. As a prominent Pharisee, Gameliel had no possibility at all of ever being the High Priest. The Bible indicates that the arrest and "trial" of Jesus was entirely the idea of the High Priest and his inner circle of Sadducees and Herodians. This was all conducted at night at the residence of the High Priest on a high holy day. The Sanhedrin was for bidden to meet on a holy day or at night or in any other place than the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount. Given the Pharisee domination of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest had to act secretly. I cannot dispute that there may have been individual Pharisees that were against Jesus but to implicate the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin in the execution of Jesus is simply wrong

The Sanhedrin (70 elders) consisted of both Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were the legalists (similar to the Conservatives). Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites. The Sadduccees were the liberals of the day who most likely questioned the word. It was the Sanhedrin who were the ones who had Jesus executed. Of course, it was the Romans who actually pulled the trigger. When you get right down to it, everyone was responsible for Jesus death in some way. Are you aware of how the Sanhedrin were formed?
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-the-pharisees-700706

 

[Albion]

[QUOTE="grasping the after wind, post: 72959126, member: 256417d]The roadblocks they have built are not Constitutional roadblocks but simple procedural ones
not requirements of the Constitution. So I repeat the actual system is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]
Gee. I'm surprised at what I am reading if I am getting it correct--the system, in your view, is legally rigged in favor of the big two parties but you think this is "fine."

Yes, it is legal, but I cannot imagine thinking that it is perfectly fine.

 

[cow451]

The Libertarian Party is here and on the ballot in every state. And it is neither far left nor far right.

Nor is it one that is getting off the ground. Reason: Most Americans want a government that actually does something. Libertarians can’t sell that to the Left or the Right. IMO

 

[Albion]

Nor is it one that is getting off the ground.

You may be wrong about that, but to prove the point would require a lot of looking at party registrations, vote totals, ballot status, elected candidates, and that sort of thing.

 

[cow451]

You may be wrong about that, but to prove the point would require a lot of looking at party registrations, vote totals, ballot status, elected candidates, and that sort of thing.

Seems the LP ceiling is pretty low. At the national level, their candidates have been lackluster at best.

 

[Albion]

Seems the LP ceiling is pretty low. At the national level, their candidates have been lackluster at best.

Well, last time their presidential candidate drew more votes, by far, than at any previous time in the party's history. However it is still a long, slow process getting to be influential, that's true. The same thing--or close to it--could probably also be said of the Green Party. Both are doing better than the third parties of the past.

 

[2tim_215]

People don't seem to realize that Ross Perot, running as an independent got over 20 million votes even after he dropped out. I'm sure that was far more than any other third party in modern day history.