Who is attacking America?

[Sailor Steve]

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

The way we use our democracies is rather pathetic, the majority votes for one of two major polictical parties, (both in the U.S and here in the UK.)
So we only really give ourselves 'one more choice' than a dictatorship.
Why?
What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

Some other ju88ver2 would be very unhappy?
As i see it many stances democracy tries to keep too many people too happy for too long and now it may be the time for reality check.
Greece is good example...everyone had happy times until thing started to come around.
The bankers and the lobbyist are not the only to blame.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by JU_88

What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

Speaking stateside, both of our political parties have invested a lot of capital in an effort to entrench the narrow view that they are the only viable choices for governance. Third parties, regarless of political stripe, are assaulted with vigor by both sides as this system of duality ensures increased job security for R and D alike. The message has been so effective that I wouldn't expect change in my lifetime.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

What if you're wrong? What if you are not? Indecision can be fatal as well.

Y'know Europeans often chide us for complaining about gas prices so furiously when they already pay double or even triple and manage to live with it. My response is it's only our constant bitching about it that keeps those prices lower. Otherwise we'd have compromised ourselves right into the same boat by now. That battle like every other American political battle from pipelines to abortion rights these days is not over yet and that is the problem.

Originally Posted by JU_88

The way we use our democracies is rather pathetic, the majority votes for one of two major polictical parties, (both in the U.S and here in the UK.)
So we only really give ourselves 'one more choice' than a dictatorship.
Why?
What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

I don't see how having several political parties really makes sense in our form of government. Yours maybe, but I want my administrations being voted in with over 50% of the vote. Having two parties ensures this. Having more than that virtually guarantees the opposite and that opens the door to radical rule.

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.

That's an idealistic view. It may be that way on paper, but in practice, you're up against all of the money, power, media airtime and true believers that the R's and D's can bring against you. That's a huge barrier to entry.

[u crank]

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's an idealistic view. It may be that way on paper, but in practice, you're up against all of the money, power, media airtime and true believers that the R's and D's can bring against you. That's a huge barrier to entry.

As it should be. I don't think just any fly by night organization should have a shot at the oval office.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

What if you're wrong? What if you are not? Indecision can be fatal as well.

I always assume that I might be wrong. I consider people who "know" they're right to be the most dangerous people alive. They are the ones who end up trying to silence those who disagree.

That battle like every other American political battle from pipelines to abortion rights these days is not over yet and that is the problem.

Wait a minute. You just finished saying that complaining about things is what keeps them from getting out of hand, but in this sentence you say that the battle not being over is the problem? You want the abortion battle to be over? What if it ends up being over, but not in your favor? You reserve the right to complain, but only for yourself?

I don't see how having several political parties really makes sense in our form of government. Yours maybe, but I want my administrations being voted in with over 50% of the vote. Having two parties ensures this. Having more than that virtually guarantees the opposite and that opens the door to radical rule.

Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.

No, what keeps third parties down is the power exerted by the existing parties. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Brainwashing plays a big part though, and it seems to be working.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

Wait... So what in Sam Hell are we doing now?

You know the roots of the parties, I'm sure. I never did learn that, so your statement came as a surprise. WTF are we doing?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by krashkart

You know the roots of the parties, I'm sure. I never did learn that, so your statement came as a surprise. WTF are we doing?

As August mentioned, no sooner had they claimed they hated parties they began to form them.

George Washington and John Adams are called 'Federalists', but in fact they adhered to no official party. Secretary Of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton fought tooth-and-nail over several issues. Hamilton finally won when Jefferson had had enough and resigned. When Adams and Jefferson ran against each other Hamilton supported Adams. Jefferson called himself a Republican because he believed in a Republic, and Hamilton called himself a Federalist because that was the term that was already being applied to those of his philosophy thanks to the Federalist papers. Jefferson's friend James Madison started a grass roots movement supporting Jefferson. When Jefferson defeated Adams the second time they ran against each other, Hamilton accused Madison of creating the first real political party in America, and he was probably right. Ever since they've been playing the same games against each other.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As August mentioned, no sooner had they claimed they hated parties they began to form them.

Guess it would help if I read the whole thread before jumping in.

George Washington and John Adams are called 'Federalists', but in fact they adhered to no official party. Secretary Of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton fought tooth-and-nail over several issues. Hamilton finally won when Jefferson had had enough and resigned. When Adams and Jefferson ran against each other Hamilton supported Adams. Jefferson called himself a Republican because he believed in a Republic, and Hamilton called himself a Federalist because that was the term that was already being applied to those of his philosophy thanks to the Federalist papers. Jefferson's friend James Madison started a grass roots movement supporting Jefferson. When Jefferson defeated Adams the second time they ran against each other, Hamilton accused Madison of creating the first real political party in America, and he was probably right. Ever since they've been playing the same games against each other.

Okay. Now I see where it all went off track. Thank you.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, what keeps third parties down is the power exerted by the existing parties. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Brainwashing plays a big part though, and it seems to be working.

Oh really? Can you name a third party that should have been viable that was kept down by the existing parties? Maybe what you call brainwashing sounds more like a case of sour grapes.

Wait a minute. You just finished saying that complaining about things is what keeps them from getting out of hand, but in this sentence you say that the battle not being over is the problem? You want the abortion battle to be over? What if it ends up being over, but not in your favor? You reserve the right to complain, but only for yourself?

Actually I don't really care which way the abortion battle goes as long as i'm not asked to pay for them. I was thinking more along the lines of casino referendums for example being soundly and repeatedly rejected by the voters yet bills legalizing them continue to arise every year. As for reserving the right to complain only for myself that is ridiculous. I neither promote or prevent anyone from complaining.

Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

That may be true about factions Steve but the founders had no problem forming them in spite of what they may have said. Heck the Continental Congress itself was considered a faction, a rebellious faction, by the royal government.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

Oh really? Can you name a third party that should have been viable that was kept down by the existing parties? Maybe what you call brainwashing sounds more like a case of sour grapes.

I can think of one. It includes all our names but has yet to be created. 'We the people'. That phrase alone is a joke.


'We the people' never happened. We are divided.

[Skybird]

August, you have two sides, both sides insist they are the only ones being right and thus none is willing to make a compromrise with the other.

What do you do?

Giving them knifes and locking them into a sealed room until only one is left?

And I do not even mention the price to be payed by others for the deadlock of these two absoutely right sides.

your position reminds me of what I often call "detemrination" - but determination regarding how to wage war and how to fight a battle to destroy the enemy.

That is not what a pluralistic or democratic setup is about. And republic or not the USAdefines itself as a democratic setup, and even as the cradle and present lighthouse of modern democracy (whether that is right can be disputed, but that is not the point here).

I agree though on your statement earlier that compromise can lead too far and can lead to being asked always for one tiny little step of more, and more, and then some more. It'S what I call the "creeping approach" of something, I often complained about this regarding Islams' behaviour towards the West and how it wants to make it fall back one little baby step by another. But there are other examples as well - especially when it comes to terms like "social justice" and redistribution of wealth.

However, a political system seeing compromise in general as a weakness, as a defeat, that must be prevented in a war-like stubborness and "detemrination" - such a political system has a problem. It first gets stunned, and then gets eaten up from inside.

That is what is the case currently in the US, as I see it.

Europe's problem is more the erosion by a unified secret choir of politicians replacing public contro,a dn awareness with a secret dictatorship that installs itself by gentle brainwashing, and political correctness at the same time demanding far too much compromises.