Democrats and Republicans...

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I know that I'm probably opening a can of worms here but I wanna know the Escapist community's thoughts on this. (This is my first time posting in the politics section, so if this is essentially a repeat of a previous thread I apologize.)

So lately I've noticed the following trend on most news sites when an article concerning Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or any of their policies pops up.

I read the article, go down to the comments and see a never ending deluge of dems. and reps. sniping, and insulting one another. Neither side attempting to find compromise, instead finding it easier to insult, degrade, and in general just be arrogant snobs about whose party's dick is bigger.

I'm not really surprised at this as much as I am disappointed. The party gap has widened to such a degree that no one can find common ground anymore, and that divide shows no sign of narrowing anytime soon.

I mean would it really be so hard to find commonalities between political ideology, or at the very least acknowledge that one party may have a point while yours doesn't?

I wanna believe that can happen. But at the same time I know it won't, not until the leaders of said parties can stop being selfish assholes and focus on more than their mudslinging their opponents.

Your thoughts Escapist? Is the system broken? Is there still hope? Any other miscellaneous political thoughts?

You know, Obama bent over backwards for more than 3 years and now the Republicans are trying to destroy his healthcare reform by attacking an originally Republican idea that they added in to appease, the personal mandate.

That is just one little example among a vast number. But I think it really exemplifies why I think Obama's attempts to be bipartisan are so harmful. To be honest, I wish there was less bipartisanship, at least on the Democrats' side, because I cannot consider simply adopting Republican positions as bipartisanship.

Is the system broken? I think so. Two-party system, first past the post, campaign financing, legal bribery, these are issues that really hurt the democratic process.

I'm a Canadian Conservative... Both parties seems kinda nuts to me.

TKretts3:
I'm a Canadian Conservative... Both parties seems kinda nuts to me.

...Well you're certainly not wrong. Most politicians down here really only care about re-election more than anything.
Something that could easily be cured if we imposed term limits on more of them...

That might also knock out some of the partisanship that's gripped congress for way too long.

They're all a bunch of dirty Liberals.

its the inevitable result of an exclusively two party system: everything becomes dualist, binary and polarized.

and its no way to run a country for the best.

in fact tbth a one party state might actually be better (because at least then you have internal discussion on trying to find the best way forward)

to the sheeple in the street it just become a matter of "picking a team" and never having to actually think again.

the US, imo, needs more political parties. Libertarians and "real" fiscal and social conservatives would probably be a start.

there's pretty much always more than two valid ideas or answers to a question or problem.

as it is your country is pretty much politically crippled as the whole dealing with the debt mess and resultant credit downgrade because they couldn't get their shit together has recently illustrated.

the modern US has huge problems with its electoral and political system. they could probably be a least partly fixed with a few broad and sensible brush strokes but unfortunately i'm not running the planet. as it is those within the current system have no incentive to fix "it" because ofc everything in the world is the other teams fault and as long as they can keep that up they all do well out of it.

but you don't.

Eh, the Republicans tend to appeal to all sorts of prejudices and bigoted thinking, the Democrats say "well, we aren't as bad as them".

Yeah, not a great system.

I feel like the Democrats are being the smartest of the two. At this point, they're sort of just laying low and staying the straight man in all this. And as the Republicans further overstep their boundaries, they'll look better by comparison. Because that's really the political climate at this point--people aren't choosing who they support by what party they like the best. They're choosing by who they dislike the least. So as the Republicans continue to systematically isolate themselves from everyone who isn't white, male, and rich the Democrats are looking better and better by comparison.

I deteste both parties and honestly believe they are meant to keep everyone bickering and divided as a means of maintaining power for both of them. Until people wise up and see the "good cop bad cop" con going on it will stay that way. As long as people fall for it, why not keep it going? They would be crazy not to. People are gullible, they will buy into anything.

They just keep tossing the ball over the short kids heads. Neither party is "the good guy" They are both bad guys refusing to allow the majority of the people to have a say in the matter.

They just keep switching places to ensure people have a side to hate. As long as they get people to vote against a party, they will always vote " for a party" out of fear of what the other guy might do.

Meanwhile they have maintained a nice Plutocracy keeping the serfs at bay.

Lil devils x:
I deteste both parties and honestly believe they are meant to keep everyone bickering and divided as a means of maintaining power for both of them. Until people wise up and see the "good cop bad cop" con going on it will stay that way. As long as people fall for it, why not keep it going? They would be crazy not to. People are gullible, they will buy into anything.

They just keep tossing the ball over the short kids heads. Neither party is "the good guy" They are both bad guys refusing to allow the majority of the people to have a say in the matter.

They just keep switching places to ensure people have a side to hate. As long as they get people to vote against a party, they will always vote " for a party" out of fear of what the other guy might do.

Meanwhile they have maintained a nice Plutocracy keeping the serfs at bay.

Well...I don't exactly agree with that. For that to really work, the parties would have to be happy with the other side having a time in power.

On the other hand, being the less scary party does seem to be what the Democrats are going for.

Dreadman75:
I mean would it really be so hard to find commonalities between political ideology, or at the very least acknowledge that one party may have a point while yours doesn't?

IM-possible.

The Republican Faithful are convinced that all Democrats are Stalinist sleeper agents who want to make abortion and gay marriage mandatory, tax all middle-class people at 200% so they can dance naked around the piles of burning money, steal ALL THE GUNS, and pre-emptively establish Sharia Law before surrendering to Al-Qaeda.

The Democratic Faithful think the Republicans are ignorant Fascist yahoos who don't believe in science, exalt the rich like they were divine entities while thinking the problem with the Poor is that they're not in enough PAIN yet, want to establish some sort of twisted Christian Theocracy that allows usury but not abortion, think women are subhuman, want to demolish the environment for taking up too much space, reinstate debtor's prison (and DID bring back torture), and pre-emptively nuke whichever third-world hellhole they're mad at this week.

So, yeah, not a whole lot of common ground there. The Dems _have_ been known to try to extend the hand of Bipartisanship, but after pulling back a bloody stump for the 80,141st time, I think they've finally started to figure out that the Reps are unwilling to negotiate with DOUBLE HITLER.

Of course, most Americans, if asked questions about what policies they want WITHOUT PARTY LABELS ATTACHED, generally want policies 'left' of the Democrats. This is irrelevant. ONLY THE TRIBE MATTERS.

:-P

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
I deteste both parties and honestly believe they are meant to keep everyone bickering and divided as a means of maintaining power for both of them. Until people wise up and see the "good cop bad cop" con going on it will stay that way. As long as people fall for it, why not keep it going? They would be crazy not to. People are gullible, they will buy into anything.

They just keep tossing the ball over the short kids heads. Neither party is "the good guy" They are both bad guys refusing to allow the majority of the people to have a say in the matter.

They just keep switching places to ensure people have a side to hate. As long as they get people to vote against a party, they will always vote " for a party" out of fear of what the other guy might do.

Meanwhile they have maintained a nice Plutocracy keeping the serfs at bay.

Well...I don't exactly agree with that. For that to really work, the parties would have to be happy with the other side having a time in power.

On the other hand, being the less scary party does seem to be what the Democrats are going for.

LOL! Many of the candidates have batted for both sides. Republican Rick Perry was first elected as a democrat. Hell in Texas they even vote for each other. Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJn9IfkGg0
It doesn't matter who is elected the votes will be the same. It is a joke. They go into it mudslinging, but then have dinner together afterwards. It is all just a show.

KKK was formed by the democrats, who are now against it, and are calling the republicans the KKK. They just keep going back and forth. There is no win here.

I find the tiny differences between the two disturbing to say the least. They may say that they are miles apart and that the other but really they are hardly different at all.

Revnak:
I find the tiny differences between the two disturbing to say the least. They may say that they are miles apart and that the other but really they are hardly different at all.

It doesn't look that way to me. You seem to have one that is merely badly, and another that is significantly worse, IMHO.

thaluikhain:

Revnak:
I find the tiny differences between the two disturbing to say the least. They may say that they are miles apart and that the other but really they are hardly different at all.

It doesn't look that way to me. You seem to have one that is merely badly, and another that is significantly worse, IMHO.

If you were to chart political perspectives on a 20X20 graph, they'd be a block diagonally apart.

Revnak:

thaluikhain:

Revnak:
I find the tiny differences between the two disturbing to say the least. They may say that they are miles apart and that the other but really they are hardly different at all.

It doesn't look that way to me. You seem to have one that is merely badly, and another that is significantly worse, IMHO.

If you were to chart political perspectives on a 20X20 graph, they'd be a block diagonally apart.

Yes, on most political spectrum charts their dots overlap each other with their actual actions. They talk alot, but neither side acts on it.

I think the system is a fucking mess and that our political system needs an overhaul. I don't even think it's a matter of conservatives vs. liberals anymore, the parties have both sunk so low i almost feel dread for voting all. Mind you i still vote for the lesser evil because Jah knows the Republican party in my state is completely divorced from reality, but i still wish the parties would add some standards.

Dreadman75:
I know that I'm probably opening a can of worms here but I wanna know the Escapist community's thoughts on this. (This is my first time posting in the politics section, so if this is essentially a repeat of a previous thread I apologize.)

So lately I've noticed the following trend on most news sites when an article concerning Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or any of their policies pops up.

I read the article, go down to the comments and see a never ending deluge of dems. and reps. sniping, and insulting one another. Neither side attempting to find compromise, instead finding it easier to insult, degrade, and in general just be arrogant snobs about whose party's dick is bigger.

I'm not really surprised at this as much as I am disappointed. The party gap has widened to such a degree that no one can find common ground anymore, and that divide shows no sign of narrowing anytime soon.

I mean would it really be so hard to find commonalities between political ideology, or at the very least acknowledge that one party may have a point while yours doesn't?

I wanna believe that can happen. But at the same time I know it won't, not until the leaders of said parties can stop being selfish assholes and focus on more than their mudslinging their opponents.

Your thoughts Escapist? Is the system broken? Is there still hope? Any other miscellaneous political thoughts?

You're looking at it the wrong way.
It's the voters who are broken.
How many years have you voted the same 2 parties into power? 100 years? 200 years?
Of course they're not going to care about what they have to do after they get into positions. They're worried that they might get a little less power next season if they won't find anything to shame them with so they concentrate on that.

Give other people a chance.
You'll be surprised with the results.

Dreadman75:
I know that I'm probably opening a can of worms here but I wanna know the Escapist community's thoughts on this. (This is my first time posting in the politics section, so if this is essentially a repeat of a previous thread I apologize.)

So lately I've noticed the following trend on most news sites when an article concerning Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or any of their policies pops up.

I read the article, go down to the comments and see a never ending deluge of dems. and reps. sniping, and insulting one another. Neither side attempting to find compromise, instead finding it easier to insult, degrade, and in general just be arrogant snobs about whose party's dick is bigger.

I'm not really surprised at this as much as I am disappointed. The party gap has widened to such a degree that no one can find common ground anymore, and that divide shows no sign of narrowing anytime soon

Parties constantly change , if say Nixon were to run today for the Republicans (if he hadn't taken 2 terms and didn't do his watergate thing) he would be denounced as too Liberal and too Moderate, on the other hand if Obama were to run in 1868 for the Democrats they would laugh so hard at the mere prospect of a black Democrat. That said the 70's and 80's is where the Republican party started becoming so Conservative as it is today with the 90's bringing a more Christian focus to the party as it joined forces with the Christian Coalition. The Democrat party on the other hand had amassed a large New Deal Coalition during the Great Depression but it lost its Conservatives after they became a bit too liberal.

Truth is neither party stands for a concrete ideology (at least not post-1877), they're mostly just coalitions of multiple political groups which either move into a party or form their own which would get absorbed by either party. Things change even if they don't seem like they do.

The system IS broken. Although to say that would be to say that it was ever at one point "not broken". The problem lies mainly in the United States constitution, which enforces the "winner take all" results of elections.

I highly encourage anyone with the capability to vote this November in the United States to vote third party. Not because they'll win, but as a form of protest.

Dreadman75:

TKretts3:
I'm a Canadian Conservative... Both parties seems kinda nuts to me.

...Well you're certainly not wrong. Most politicians down here really only care about re-election more than anything.
Something that could easily be cured if we imposed term limits on more of them...

That might also knock out some of the partisanship that's gripped congress for way too long.

Yes, with term limits they'd be free (more often) to enact the agenda their campaign contributors wished of them without any thought of being held accountable by voters whatsoever! Glorious!

It's hard for me to compromise with republicans when I find virtually all of their ideas and beliefs completely wrong and often reprehensible.

Seanchaidh:

Dreadman75:

TKretts3:
I'm a Canadian Conservative... Both parties seems kinda nuts to me.

...Well you're certainly not wrong. Most politicians down here really only care about re-election more than anything.
Something that could easily be cured if we imposed term limits on more of them...

That might also knock out some of the partisanship that's gripped congress for way too long.

Yes, with term limits they'd be free (more often) to enact the agenda their campaign contributors wished of them without any thought of being held accountable by voters whatsoever! Glorious!

Yes but in order to do so they'll be forced to compromise more since they won't have the safety net of potentially unlimited re-elections to fall back on.

I've always seen it as this: With a definitive limited time in office the politicians will, indeed, be forced to enact whatever their agendas are quickly. However, their agendas may not meet the most "welcoming" response, depending on the political climate of the time. Maybe they'll get lucky and they won't have to compromise at all, but most of the time the opposing party would block it. Therefore, that really only leaves them with 2 viable options, and a third pointless one.

1. They either give it up. (Not likely, but always on the table)

2. They compromise in order to get it passed.

3. (The pointless one) They try to pass it as is and it gets shot down.

That's how I've always seen implementing term limits going. It's definitely on the optimistic side, but that's how I like to view the world.

But since you don't seem to enjoy the idea of term limits, let me ask you: What do you think would narrow or completely obliterate the party divide?

My two cents:
Democrats are a bunch of douches, but Republicans have a mind as alien as that of a North Korean, and just as indoctrinated. The only difference is the material they are indoctrinated in.

Dreadman75:
Yes but in order to do so they'll be forced to compromise more since they won't have the safety net of potentially unlimited re-elections to fall back on.

I've always seen it as this: With a definitive limited time in office the politicians will, indeed, be forced to enact whatever their agendas are quickly. However, their agendas may not meet the most "welcoming" response, depending on the political climate of the time. Maybe they'll get lucky and they won't have to compromise at all, but most of the time the opposing party would block it. Therefore, that really only leaves them with 2 viable options, and a third pointless one.

1. They either give it up. (Not likely, but always on the table)

2. They compromise in order to get it passed.

3. (The pointless one) They try to pass it as is and it gets shot down.

That's how I've always seen implementing term limits going. It's definitely on the optimistic side, but that's how I like to view the world.

But since you don't seem to enjoy the idea of term limits, let me ask you: What do you think would narrow or completely obliterate the party divide?

This is interesting to me. I'm also in favor of term limits, but for a completely different reason. I think it would help some in getting them to actually talk about things rather than arm wrestle each other to the death, but I think more than anything term limits would eliminate the career politician.

And before I go any further, my idea of term limits is also a bit different. For both the House and the Senate, I'd give a single politician a maximum of 12 straight years in office. That's 6 terms for a member of the House, and 2 terms for a member of the Senate. After that, a member of the House must sit out for 2 terms (four years) and a member of the Senate must sit out for 1 term (six years). That way they can continue to learn and contribute over the years, but it makes them have to have a backup plan, and makes sure they aren't running for re-election just because they don't want their income to go away. They are first and foremost civil servants, not government employees.

I understand that it takes a lot of education to be a politician these days, my brother just graduated in December with a Master's degree in public affairs with hopes of becoming a politician. He currently isn't old enough to run for any positions, so he has a salaried job with the university he graduated from as a sort of liaison between his university, other universities, and the state capitol. So there are other things you can do with those degrees and that education apart from being a politician. They will be alright. At this point, we need to concern ourselves with the quality of politicians we are allowing to run our country year after year. We need to fix this system which is rigged to allow career politicians to sit around and do next to nothing year after year, but remain in office due to the incumbency effect and a lack of voter diversity where they come from. If people want to elect the same party for decades on end, then fine. But at the very least we need to make sure new blood is being allowed to circulate in, to be sure people are running and re-running for office for the right reasons.

As viewed from the UK, it seems to me that the Republicans are out-of-touch far-right wingers, while the Democrats main line seems to be 'at least we aren't Republican'.

Lilani:
I feel like the Democrats are being the smartest of the two. At this point, they're sort of just laying low and staying the straight man in all this. And as the Republicans further overstep their boundaries, they'll look better by comparison. Because that's really the political climate at this point--people aren't choosing who they support by what party they like the best. They're choosing by who they dislike the least. So as the Republicans continue to systematically isolate themselves from everyone who isn't white, male, and rich the Democrats are looking better and better by comparison.

The trouble is the democrats are not better. Just like the republicans, they only want to follow their own agenda.

OT: I am currently looking around for a good third party I could vote for in the november elections. Doubt they would win, but at least I can put my vote to an alternative.

Saucycarpdog:

Lilani:
I feel like the Democrats are being the smartest of the two. At this point, they're sort of just laying low and staying the straight man in all this. And as the Republicans further overstep their boundaries, they'll look better by comparison. Because that's really the political climate at this point--people aren't choosing who they support by what party they like the best. They're choosing by who they dislike the least. So as the Republicans continue to systematically isolate themselves from everyone who isn't white, male, and rich the Democrats are looking better and better by comparison.

The trouble is the democrats are not better. Just like the republicans, they only want to follow their own agenda.

Well, yes. But I guess I just see them as better because their agenda is not "No rights for gay people, no rights for pregnant women, racial profiling isn't a bad thing, no even remote attempts at preserving the only planet we have, and lower taxes without any further budget reform."

It doesn't help when some Conservatives claim that Libruls are literally pawns of Satan, either.

Unfortunately OP it is far easier to hate a group than it is to find common ground and respect others opinions.

It is interesting that you brought this up because I said this (below) a few days ago-

farson135:
Very soon someone is going to write a post calling me a communist because I disagree with their opinion. Whoops, wrong decade (but same fucking story).

I'm pretty sure nobody here is going to call YOU a 'communist'.

A Royalist, _possibly_.

I have no interest in finding common ground with a party that advocates reproductive repression, subjugating minorities and lining the pockets of the fatcats at the expense of the proles. Fuck the Republican Party with a rusty snowshovel. That party's entire ideology, from the top down, is utterly worthless trash.

Well, considering that the parties are aggressively defining their platforms around what the other party isn't, I don't think that we're likely to find bipartisanship any time soon. OTOH, people can and do have reasonable political discussions here in the U.S., often about how both political parties are completely out of touch with the actual solutions most people want.

Take the absurd healthcare debate, and the equally absurd solution. You know what a majority of Americans (60%, by most polls) want? Single-payer. Because it makes sense.

Dreadman75:
What do you think would narrow or completely obliterate the party divide?

A different election system. PR would actually make third parties and coalition governments a viable possibility.

farson135:
Unfortunately OP it is far easier to hate a group than it is to find common ground and respect others opinions.

It is interesting that you brought this up because I said this (below) a few days ago-

No, people don't behave like big evil conspiracies that want to steamroll everybody they disagree with and do whatever they please. But political parties do. THAT is the difference.

Lilani:
No, people don't behave like big evil conspiracies that want to steamroll everybody they disagree with and do whatever they please. But political parties do. THAT is the difference.

Have you read any of the posts on this forum? If some of the people on this forum are to be believed Republicans are either stupid or hopelessly corrupt.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked