Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:The two party system is a major problem, but one that likely won't be solved unless there's dissent within both major parties at the same time.


Both parties have grown too large, and everybody follows the party line.  Bipartisanship is a joke, and one side will propose one thing during their term, and the other side will vote against it.  Then the next time the other side will propose the same thing, and the side that originally proposed it will vote against it.


I think we'd be better off without political parties at all, but that's being unrealistic.  So barring that, I think more parties is better than less.  Because right now it's "Big Government' vs "Small Government (except when it suits us)".  And of course neither side wants the other side to look good.  There's no incentive to work together.  Sure, sometimes they do to get things done.  But only so they can get their own agenda passed.  It doesn't matter what's best for the country, all that matters to them is what the party line says.


It's those of us who have believes in the middle that are left out in the cold.  With our only choices to be between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.  Sometimes we get to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but they've never got any real chance of winning.

Of course the hardcore Republicans and Hardcore Democrats don't want a third party.  They're fine with the two party system, because they want a better chance at having things their way.  It's also easy for them to blame the other guy when things go wrong.  If there were more parties, it means they'd have a much less chance of getting their guy elected.  As long as their guy has a 40%+ chance of getting in, then that's all they care about. Give the third party candidate a chance, and their chances drop almost in half.  It's their way or the highway.  


It also allows them to do nothing but sling mud at the other candidate.  Throw money at the election, and whoever throws the most will win.  Because the moderates don't have another choice.  

 

Absolutely. There was a time in this country when a political party could be replaced by another major party or it would gain different leadership and change its politics all together. That can't happen with these two parties the way things are set up now. Teddy Roosevelt, in 1912, set up his own political party (called the Progressive Party, or more commonly referred to as the Bull Moost Party) and ran for president. He didn't win, but he got 27% of the vote, more than the Republican candidate. The same 20-30% turnout occurred for most of the Progressive Party candidates and nine were elected. When was the last time you heard of a third party having that much success? Could that happen today? You may reference the tea party, but that's more of a lobby pretending to be a political entity than anything else in my opinion. 

I think about this exact subject all the time. 


 

I wonder what it would take to change things.  How can we make it better somehow?  Is there any hope for the "sheep"?  Why do we pick the side we chose?  
  

Quote:To your point, welfare is the biggest problem this country has? 

 

At the risk of derailing the thread...

 

If my math is correct, assistance for the poor, elderly and disabled (Medicaid, CHIP, Safety Net programs like SSI, EIC and Child Tax Credit, etc) accounted for about 20% of federal expenditures in 2013. This does not include Social Security and Medicare benefits. In my brief search I could not find empirical evidence that women are having children specifically to keep and/or increase the level of government assistance they receive. My personal, anecdotal experience suggests to me that it happens much less than critics claim, but I'd really be interested in any data supporting either side.

 

On topic, social media is the fertilizer (imagery intentional, it is mostly manure) for the growth of acrimony in our political climate. Even the most extreme voices have a platform, and so few do much research before forming their opinions.

Quote:At the risk of derailing the thread...

 

If my math is correct, assistance for the poor, elderly and disabled (Medicaid, CHIP, Safety Net programs like SSI, EIC and Child Tax Credit, etc) accounted for about 20% of federal expenditures in 2013. This does not include Social Security and Medicare benefits. In my brief search I could not find empirical evidence that women are having children specifically to keep and/or increase the level of government assistance they receive. My personal, anecdotal experience suggests to me that it happens much less than critics claim, but I'd really be interested in any data supporting either side.

 

On topic, social media is the fertilizer (imagery intentional, it is mostly manure) for the growth of acrimony in our political climate. Even the most extreme voices have a platform, and so few do much research before forming their opinions.

 

I tend to agree.

 

If you think women are out there having "welfare babies" to increase their income, you have little or no knowledge of welfare or poor women.

 

Actually, the two party system for a long time was the reason compromise happened in our political system. A multi-party system allows the electorate to become splintered and fragmented, making compromise harder to achieve. I think rollerjag is on to something regarding multi-media / social media - it's as if we have four hundred parties within a two-party system. No one wants to alienate their base, no matter how small.

Quote:I tend to agree.


If you think women are out there having "welfare babies" to increase their income, you have little or no knowledge of welfare or poor women.


Actually, the two party system for a long time was the reason compromise happened in our political system. A multi-party system allows the electorate to become splintered and fragmented, making compromise harder to achieve. I think rollerjag is on to something regarding multi-media / social media - it's as if we have four hundred parties within a two-party system. No one wants to alienate their base, no matter how small.

Welfare babies is just a sensationalistic talking point.


Absolutely I agree the two party system had it's purpose, but It's abundantly clear that it no longer works for the benefit of the country as you pointed out. People have access to a lot more information (good and bad) these days.


Let's not be so against change. That's how we came to be in the first place.

Quote:I'm not afraid to admit that the Brits, Canadians, Kiwis, and Australians do a few things better than we do.

 

We haven't had truly effective government since the Clinton years.  Funny, he's not nearly as polarizing now as he was when he was in office.  The right and the left both, at the very least, respect the man.

 

Why is that?

 

IMO, that's when the polarization we have now began.  He was a master triangulator.

 

I think operators on both sides have since committed to such hyperbole, etc. in an effort to paint one another as extreme.

 

Remember when it was cool to call everything "extreme" in the 90s?  Didn't matter what the product was, that's how it was merchandised.  Culture began to shift.

 

Any rational thought from either side is now annihilated by those seeking to destroy the other.  There's no debate any longer.  There are no winners or losers in public discourse.  Any salient point is completely ignored, misrepresented, or flat out lied about.  After all, you tell a lie enough, it becomes "true."

 

Once upon a time, we had leaders who believed and were able to articulate that yes, indeed there were truths that were self evident.

 

Now, all that's left is lawyeresque spin.  Depends on what the definition of "is", is.... etc...

 

I'd encourage anyone who cares, to study how this nation's government was founded.  They were very, very bright people who searched every corner of earth and it's history to develop the best system before or since based on what did/didn't work in the past.

 

They also warned of keeping this once great nation from becoming what it has by trying to limit government.  But unfortunately, even they knew that a government run out of control would be it's own undoing, and they also knew it was likely to happen again over time.  History repeating itself.

 

But just like the people had the power to form it when the nation was founded, the foundation remains there to do the same again if necessary.  Should in the course of human events it becomes once again necessary.

Quote:Okay so what are people's thoughts on how divisive we have become in this country. Just look at it...the majority of politicians on both sides (though I completely believe it is much worse on one side...) have turned everything into a black and white issue? I know this isn't really a new thing in politics, but to me, it seems like it is worse than ever. It's starting to border on pre-civil war (not that I think that'll happen, but know that there are a LOT of people who would be okay with secession.)

 

In my opinion, this is the result of having a two party system. In this kind of system, everything is one way over the other, no matter what. No compromise, no debate. Those are the party lines and everyone complies with it. Lobbys have too much influence on politics. We only have two legitimate candidates for every election, so if you believe in fiscal responsibility but also social justice you have no one to vote for. 

 

Anyway, I would like a civil discussion without name calling and dismissive comments. I know that's a tall order on the internet, but try. It's not that difficult. 

 

First of all, love the avatar.  :thumbsup:

 

I wish I knew the answer as to how to really fix this problem.  I disagree with you that one side or the other more so sees everything as a black and white issue.  Both sides are equally to blame.

 

There are a few different types of people that vote for our politicians.

 

1. The staunch party people that will vote a straight Democrat or Republican ticket in every election, regardless of the candidate or the candidate's stance on issues.
   
2. The "un-educated" voters that get their news and information from television shows like "Saturday Night Live" or "The Daily Show".
   
3. The "populist" crowd who votes for a candidate based on popularity rather than qualifications.
   
4. The "what's in it for me" crowd that will vote for whatever candidate offers them "more stuff".
   
5. Finally, there are some people that actually follow the news and current events.  These people are usually identified as "moderates" since they don't really lean one way or the other.
   

One change that I would like to see is how the Senators get elected/appointed.  By design, the Senate is supposed to support State's Rights and should be selected by each State's Government.  Senate members were never supposed to be chosen by the people, they were supposed to be chosen by the State.  The popular vote of the people is supposed to be the House of Representatives.  That is why each State has an equal number of members in The Senate (2 for each State) and a number or Representatives in The House based on the State's population.  This would require the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

Another change that I would like to see has to do with tax laws.  The income tax is unfair and is possibly a big reason why we see so much divide.  As people are more successful and earn more, they are also penalized more.  I would be happy to see a flat tax, or better yet a fair tax implemented that makes it even across the board.  We are a nation of consumption at all economic levels.  The problem with doing something like this is it takes power away from politicians and gives it back to the people.

 

I'll post more thoughts later.

Quote:Welfare babies is just a sensationalistic talking point.


Absolutely I agree the two party system had it's purpose, but It's abundantly clear that it no longer works for the benefit of the country as you pointed out. People have access to a lot more information (good and bad) these days.


Let's not be so against change. That's how we came to be in the first place.

 

Feel free to start one. Good luck.

 

The problem with new political parties is that they tend to be one-issue products, wrapped around a somewhat charismatic person.

 

So what's your issue and who would be your front-man/woman?

Quote:If you think women are out there having "welfare babies" to increase their income, you have little or no knowledge of welfare or poor women.

 

I have personally heard two women openly admit to me that they wanted more children so they could receive more government assistance. This doesn't include the untold number of times I've been told, by kids (usually teens) or relatives, that someone in their family did it for those reasons. 

Quote:I believe in states rights to a certain degree, but history has shown that full sovereignty for states produces many bad things as well. There are certain things that the country should not allow to happen.

 

 

That's fine. Being an anti-socialist is just another point of view. However, I assume you won't vilify someone for wanting to incorporate some socialist-style programs. Like the military. We need to be open to different view points. There are many socialist-like programs in Europe that have increased the quality of life for people. No one can deny that. Yes, it has caused financial issues, but it's all new. You have to give time to work out the "kinks" so to speak. 

 

I just can't understand how people can be so against differing opinions in this country. That's what this place is all about...there was a time in this country where having communist or socialist views would land you in jail or . That's a point that is sorely understated in American history. 

I'm al about the 10th Amendment. If you don't like the way your state does something, move to Georgia, Alabama, etc. Europe can keep their Socialist policies, I prefer to like in "America" or what's left of it.

 

Quote:It'd oppose it in my state. If other state's decided to go for it so be it but whatever state I lived in I'd try and oppose it. For me making government as small as possible is ALWAYS my goal. I know tons of people disagree and that''s fine but I try and stay consistent I'm always looking to limit, restrict, and minimize government. 

Wow, the 10th Amendment at work... Massachusetts wants to legalize gay marriage, move there. Tennessee legalizes weed, go for it.  If it's not in the constitution, it's left to the states to decide. That's really all there is to it. The Departments of everything in DC are unconstitutional.

 

Quote:The idea that the 2 party system is creating problems we've never seen before is silly. These problems have always been present and modern politics is much more civil than the early politics of this country. The problem we have is that too many people are receiving their livelihood from the government and therefore have zero incentive to reduce the size and scope of the government; the incentive is actually the opposite. But, since they don't pay for it they don't care. Just keep my check coming while I keep making more benny babies and it will be all good.

I think it was Jefferson that said if we ever got to a two party system, America has died. (Clearly the rum and my recollection are not syncing)...lol

 

Quote:I think about this exact subject all the time. 


 

I wonder what it would take to change things.  How can we make it better somehow?  Is there any hope for the "sheep"?  Why do we pick the side we chose?  
  

I'm not sure it's possible with the current two parties playing for the same side.

 

Quote:First of all, love the avatar.  :thumbsup:

 

I wish I knew the answer as to how to really fix this problem.  I disagree with you that one side or the other more so sees everything as a black and white issue.  Both sides are equally to blame.

 

There are a few different types of people that vote for our politicians.

 

1. The staunch party people that will vote a straight Democrat or Republican ticket in every election, regardless of the candidate or the candidate's stance on issues.
   
2. The "un-educated" voters that get their news and information from television shows like "Saturday Night Live" or "The Daily Show".
   
3. The "populist" crowd who votes for a candidate based on popularity rather than qualifications.
   
4. The "what's in it for me" crowd that will vote for whatever candidate offers them "more stuff".
   
5. Finally, there are some people that actually follow the news and current events.  These people are usually identified as "moderates" since they don't really lean one way or the other.
   

One change that I would like to see is how the Senators get elected/appointed.  By design, the Senate is supposed to support State's Rights and should be selected by each State's Government.  Senate members were never supposed to be chosen by the people, they were supposed to be chosen by the State.  The popular vote of the people is supposed to be the House of Representatives.  That is why each State has an equal number of members in The Senate (2 for each State) and a number or Representatives in The House based on the State's population.  This would require the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

Another change that I would like to see has to do with tax laws.  The income tax is unfair and is possibly a big reason why we see so much divide.  As people are more successful and earn more, they are also penalized more.  I would be happy to see a flat tax, or better yet a fair tax implemented that makes it even across the board.  We are a nation of consumption at all economic levels.  The problem with doing something like this is it takes power away from politicians and gives it back to the people.

 

I'll post more thoughts later.

I'm all for repeal of the 17th....Let's get rid of the 16th while we are at it! They want the power, to control us. Use the 2nd to protect the rest...

PS...they are out there...

 

Someone needs to pay for this! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj7y-_aIbNw

Anyone denying there are people abusing the welfare system as a way of income hasn't spent much time with the poor. The welfare system is flawed, the ones that TRY and get off are penalized, the ones that accept it as a way of life are rewarded.

 

Clintons work for welfare was a step in the right direction, to bad Obama nuked it. 

Quote:I have personally heard two women openly admit to me that they wanted more children so they could receive more government assistance. This doesn't include the untold number of times I've been told, by kids (usually teens) or relatives, that someone in their family did it for those reasons. 

 

So you think poor people - people who have often made poor economic decisions - are making wise economic choices?

 

Do you have any idea how much a woman receives in AFDC, and how much "extra" she gets per child? Look it up, and then tell me you think women are having kids to "make money".

Quote:PS...they are out there...

 

Someone needs to pay for this! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj7y-_aIbNw

 

Women on welfare are out there? Breaking news!

 

Women are not making money by having more kids. They are just falling deeper and deeper into the poverty pit.

 

Hey, if it were such a great deal people on here would be trying it. Want to change places with any of them?

Quote: 

I think it was Jefferson that said if we ever got to a two party system, America has died. (Clearly the rum and my recollection are not syncing)...lol

 

 

 

When the choices for leaders are consistently between a Giant [BAD WORD REMOVED] and a Turd Sandwich, the system is doomed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UthMHjoNyjA

 

edit **Whoops, apparently the word for a certain feminine hygiene product is bad.  For anyone that easily offended, do not click on the link.

Quote:When the choices for leaders are consistently between a Giant [BAD WORD REMOVED] and a Turd Sandwich, the system is doomed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UthMHjoNyjA

 

edit **Whoops, apparently the word for a certain feminine hygiene product is bad.  For anyone that easily offended, do not click on the link.

 

Yeah, that added a whole lot to the discussion.

 

Tell me when we had all these political giants roaming the earth (since about 1820).

 

Who are these political saints that you seek?

Quote:Yeah, that added a whole lot to the discussion.

 

Tell me when we had all these political giants roaming the earth (since about 1820).

 

Who are these political saints that you seek?

Lighten up Francis.  It's called a sense of humor.  Your reaction and need for me to somehow justify a little topical comic relief about polarizing candidates and our political system in general, makes it all the more worthwhile.  Although, I see hope for you. Political saints, good one. 

 

I find myself more and more voting against candidates trying to impede my ability to protect and provide a good life for myself and my family, than for a candidate making promises.  Unfortunately, the choice is usually between a giant [BAD WORD REMOVED] and a turd sandwich.

Quote:I have personally heard two women openly admit to me that they wanted more children so they could receive more government assistance. This doesn't include the untold number of times I've been told, by kids (usually teens) or relatives, that someone in their family did it for those reasons. 

 

I can cite as many families where the opposite is true, where they do whatever they can to get off the public dole or, at the very least, don't produce children just to increase their benefits. Welfare recipients are an easy target. The abusers are easy to spot, and a lot of people want to think they are the reason this country is going to hell. These same people will vote for a politician that makes sure a Navy base that is their source of income remains open, whether it is vital to our national defense, or not. There are many recipients of government welfare.

 

Welfare babies are not the scourge and drain on our system they are portrayed to be. Regardless, what is the solution? Starve the children? Mandatory vasectomies and/or tubal ligations?

Being in the Navy isn't the same as being on Welfare. That's just ridiculous.

 

I'm all for unemployment... Sometimes bad things happen to good people and you get laid off etc. But when you have zero skills or will to work and have been on it your whole life, and have more bay-bays to increase your check size, that's a problem.

Quote:Being in the Navy isn't the same as being on Welfare. That's just ridiculous.

 

I'm all for unemployment... Sometimes bad things happen to good people and you get laid off etc. But when you have zero skills or will to work and have been on it your whole life, and have more bay-bays to increase your check size, that's a problem.

 

Don't sweat it man, they "know" that it doesn't happen and when it does it isn't really a drain on our system. Never mind that you, me, and others actually "know" women who readily admit to getting knocked up for the bennies. What we know is irrelevant compared to what they know.