Who is attacking America?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

Money. Advertising. Influence. The existing parties control all those. Ron Paul isn't ousted because of popularity. The people believe what their parties tell them. The only way to get anywhere is by playing the party game.

Me, I have no sour grapes. I'm just an observer. I don't like either party, and I don't like any of their candidates. If I don't vote, I'm either lazy or perverse. So I write in the candidate I want, knowing that he doesn't have a chance because everyone else who feels as I do will still vote for the party candidate, because they've been told that if they don't they're "throwing away" their votes, and they "don't count".

Yes, the parties control everything where elections are concerned, and most of the people are indeed brainwashed into believing that's the only way.

As for reserving the right to complain only for myself that is ridiculous. I neither promote or prevent anyone from complaining.

And yet in the same paragraph you did both, which is why I responded as I did.

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.

Complaining is good.

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

That the battle is not over is the problem. So we shouldn't complain?

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.

That is quite true. That it's human nature to form factions is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that it seems to be human nature to convince oneself that his faction, his ideal, his belief is the only correct one and then do his best to quash all dissenting opinion. That's what parties do, and that seems to be the case with many here.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And yet in the same paragraph you did both, which is why I responded as I did.

Who have I prevented from speaking here Steve?

...quash all dissenting opinion. That's what parties do, and that seems to be the case with many here.

Again which dissenting opinion has been quashed here? Who are these mysterious "many" that you claim are at work here denying your rights?

Seems to me you're inventing a reason to get upset and a shadowy enemy to blame it on. That's a tactic used by every dictator who ever came to power.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Who have I prevented from speaking here Steve?

You seem to miss the point, which is that in the one case you say that we've kept gas prices down by complaining, but on the other it's bad that the abortion question is still open. Do you want it closed? I was only commenting that you seem to be saying that in the one case complaint is good, but in the other having the question absolutely finalized, which precludes complaint, is good.

Again which dissenting opinion has been quashed here? Who are these mysterious "many" that you claim are at work here denying your rights?

Of course we can say anything we want here. I was referring to several members, on both sides, who pop in once in awhile and speak as if they were the final authority. You avoided my comment on people who "know" things being dangerous. Do you agree then with the members who tell you that the other guys are stupid? I only commented on absolutes.

Seems to me you're inventing a reason to get upset and a shadowy enemy to blame it on. That's a tactic used by every dictator who ever came to power.

Funny that you should parrot my original comment in this thread and try to turn it around on me. The funny part is that you could be right. I worry about such tendencies in myself. The difference I see is that is that I recognize that possibility. You've argued in a couple of good circles and made it personal, but my original comment still stands. The people who insist on "no compromise" must by nature believe that they are the only ones who have the correct answers. This makes them dangerous.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You seem to miss the point, which is that in the one case you say that we've kept gas prices down by complaining, but on the other it's bad that the abortion question is still open. Do you want it closed? I was only commenting that you seem to be saying that in the one case complaint is good, but in the other having the question absolutely finalized, which precludes complaint, is good.

Well yes I would like to see the abortion question settled because the constant acrimony over it is tearing at the fabric of my country. People have been assaulted, even murdered over it. I would think any sane person would want to see that ended, but again I don't care one way or the other whether it's legalized or banned so please don't try and pick a side for me.

Of course we can say anything we want here. I was referring to several members, on both sides, who pop in once in awhile and speak as if they were the final authority. You avoided my comment on people who "know" things being dangerous. Do you agree then with the members who tell you that the other guys are stupid? I only commented on absolutes.

I'd say that people have the right to speak if they are the final authority. That doesn't mean they are an authority at all, nor does it prevent you or me or anyone from voicing our disagreement or support. I still don't see where anyone is restricted from doing that in any way.

As for your dangerous comment, i didn't "avoid" it, I just didn't see much point in commenting on it. What you call dangerous one might call decisive. There is no one standard that can be applied to everyone and every situation and I'm not going to quote every word and comment people make. That is too much like work for a forum I frequent to unwind and relax.

Funny that you should parrot my original comment in this thread and try to turn it around on me. The funny part is that you could be right. I worry about such tendencies in myself. The difference I see is that is that I recognize that possibility. You've argued in a couple of good circles and made it personal, but my original comment still stands. The people who insist on "no compromise" must by nature believe that they are the only ones who have the correct answers. This makes them dangerous.

"Try to turn it around on you"? "Made it personal"?

Look Dude obviously I am no longer able to communicate my thoughts with the people on this board. Since you see my post as a personal attack then I guess i'll concede the field to you. I'm not getting into another pissing match, especially not with someone whom i have respect for.