Who is attacking America?

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

That I fully agree with.
In the above case, the compromise needs to go the other way.

[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?

[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.