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.
I've been called bi-polar, many times.. Does that count?
Quote:I've been called bi-polar, many times.. Does that count?
From a certain point of view.
I talked to a guy from Australia and I think a couple people here talked about it but they have some kind of ranking system where instead of picking one voters number candidates 1-10 and then they go down the list until someone has 50% or more of the rankings and that's who wins. On the surface that sounds like a really smart way of doing it. I don't know enough about it but to me that makes a lot of sense.
Quote:I talked to a guy from Australia and I think a couple people here talked about it but they have some kind of ranking system where instead of picking one voters number candidates 1-10 and then they go down the list until someone has 50% or more of the rankings and that's who wins. On the surface that sounds like a really smart way of doing it. I don't know enough about it but to me that makes a lot of sense.
Hah that sounds like the voting system for the baseball hall of fame.
Another problem is the size of elections. When we're all trying to vote on something so big it becomes impossible to really know all the issues.
I like the idea of the representatives selecting a president instead of voting for a president. Your state rep should be the most important politician to each of us they're sent to represent people of a specific area.
Let's face federal elections are just team sports at this point that was never the purpose.
Quote:Another problem is the size of elections. When we're all trying to vote on something so big it becomes impossible to really know all the issues.
I like the idea of the representatives selecting a president instead of voting for a president. Your state rep should be the most important politician to each of us they're sent to represent people of a specific area.
Let's face federal elections are just team sports at this point that was never the purpose.
Size is a problem, and I'm pretty sure a LOT of people are upset with how the country is run and how powerless we all feel to affect change. Sticking with the status quo is suicide. We should be progressing...taking the better elements of different ideals and improving. Radical ideas are shunned...residual prejudices from the cold war blind people from differing viewpoints. Communism is not evil. Socialism is not evil. Conservatism is not evil. Liberalism is not evil. They are just different ideas of how to run a country. They are not inherently evil. Someone should not be dismissed just because they identify as something different. Some people clamor for McCarthyism. Now THAT is evil.
We shouldn't be content with what we have. We can always improve. Take what works, debate what doesn't and be open to a different viewpoint.
If we allow the representatives to vote for the president, wouldn't that just be taking more power away from the people? I seriously doubt that would fly. It goes against the very basic ideals of the country.
Quote:I like the idea of the representatives selecting a president instead of voting for a president. Your state rep should be the most important politician to each of us they're sent to represent people of a specific area.
We could call the concept "Parliament".....
Quote:We could call the concept "Parliament".....
At least they have three major parties instead of two.
Quote:At least they have three major parties instead of two.
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?
Quote:Size is a problem, and I'm pretty sure a LOT of people are upset with how the country is run and how powerless we all feel to affect change. Sticking with the status quo is suicide. We should be progressing...taking the better elements of different ideals and improving. Radical ideas are shunned...residual prejudices from the cold war blind people from differing viewpoints. Communism is not evil. Socialism is not evil. Conservatism is not evil. Liberalism is not evil. They are just different ideas of how to run a country. They are not inherently evil. Someone should not be dismissed just because they identify as something different. Some people clamor for McCarthyism. Now THAT is evil.
We shouldn't be content with what we have. We can always improve. Take what works, debate what doesn't and be open to a different viewpoint.
If we allow the representatives to vote for the president, wouldn't that just be taking more power away from the people? I seriously doubt that would fly. It goes against the very basic ideals of the country.
Not really taking power away from people at all. Just localizing the scope of influence, IF I know my Rep is going to be my voice in selecting our leader people are going to work harder to elect the best Rep possible. As it is I bet most people can't even name their Rep without looking it up.
I'm not saying that is the solution just an idea.
Bottom line I personally believe all of our problems are rooted in "trickle" down government. Washington figures whats best and then legislation is passed by Washington, dictated on high and everyone from Oregon to Florida is forced to abide by one set of laws.
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?
Clinton had his problems, but Government grew 1000 times after 9/11. That was the day everything changed.
Quote:Size is a problem, and I'm pretty sure a LOT of people are upset with how the country is run and how powerless we all feel to affect change. Sticking with the status quo is suicide. We should be progressing...taking the better elements of different ideals and improving. Radical ideas are shunned...residual prejudices from the cold war blind people from differing viewpoints. Communism is not evil. Socialism is not evil. Conservatism is not evil. Liberalism is not evil. They are just different ideas of how to run a country. They are not inherently evil. Someone should not be dismissed just because they identify as something different. Some people clamor for McCarthyism. Now THAT is evil.
We shouldn't be content with what we have. We can always improve. Take what works, debate what doesn't and be open to a different viewpoint.
If we allow the representatives to vote for the president, wouldn't that just be taking more power away from the people? I seriously doubt that would fly. It goes against the very basic ideals of the country.
I'm a stark anti-socialist, however you are correct no system is inherently evil.
For example the military is essentially one big socialistic form of society that operates within our country. It's for the most part very efficient and really you couldn't have it any other way.
I do believe some systems are easier to compromise and give evil people the ability to abuse power.
Quote:Not really taking power away from people at all. Just localizing the scope of influence, IF I know my Rep is going to be my voice in selecting our leader people are going to work harder to elect the best Rep possible. As it is I bet most people can't even name their Rep without looking it up.
I'm not saying that is the solution just an idea.
Bottom line I personally believe all of our problems are rooted in "trickle" down government. Washington figures whats best and then legislation is passed by Washington, dictated on high and everyone from Oregon to Florida is forced to abide by one set of laws.
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.
Quote:I'm a stark anti-socialist, however you are correct no system is inherently evil.
For example the military is essentially one big socialistic form of society that operates within our country. It's for the most part very efficient and really you couldn't have it any other way.
I do believe some systems are easier to compromise and give evil people the ability to abuse power.
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.
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.
No I wouldn't vilify someone for being a socialist, but I'll oppose them the entire way. I think socialism is dangerous and implementing in incremental levels is no better. I'm a Libertarian because Republicans like to much government for me.
Quote:No I wouldn't vilify someone for being a socialist, but I'll oppose them the entire way. I think socialism is dangerous and implementing in incremental levels is no better. I'm a Libertarian because Republicans like to much government for me.
What if it was state-run social programs?
Quote:What if it was state-run social programs?
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.
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.
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.
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 never said it created problems we have never seen before. However with the rise of cable news sources and the multitude of outrageously biased reports, political pundits, opinion based news touted as facts, the entire nation is split to the point where the two parties are really meaningless. Any candidate either party nominates is going to be exactly the same as the previous candidate. Same stances, same lobby support, no difference of opinion or perceived judgment because if you don't toe the party line exactly then you'll never be elected. Simple as that.
Also, while the two party system has been a part of American politics since the beginning, never have two parties been in control for this long. The ages of the party systems are broken up into different eras. Each era before our current one lasted about 30 years give or take. The one we are currently in, the Fifth Party System, has been in effect since 1933. Think about how entrenched in a way of thinking people have become due to this stagnation of American political progression.
To your point, welfare is the biggest problem this country has?