• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bipartisan Politics: Does it Hurt America?

Bipartisan Politics: Does it Hurt America?

  • Meh..... it really does nothing.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29
Sean Hannity banging away every day (and he does... listen to his talk show) to make the Democrats look horrible. Democratic "news" agencies making Republicans look like sinister folks. This happens 12 hours a DAY on certain networks.

Each side struggles to make the other look like fools. Like Anti-Americans. To the point of cult brain-washing.

Is this REALLY a benefit to America?

did you mean "partisan politics"?
 
I can agree with that if we remove the enormous power special interest groups have; we should just give them their own parties, so they can stop screwing up the other ones.
How do you give anyone a political party?
 
Bipartisan does not equal political hacks (who call themselves pundits) raking in the money from the people who are taking their garbage for truth.

The question is would political hacks still do this we had a multi-party system?
 
Sean Hannity banging away every day (and he does... listen to his talk show) to make the Democrats look horrible. Democratic "news" agencies making Republicans look like sinister folks. This happens 12 hours a DAY on certain networks.

Each side struggles to make the other look like fools. Like Anti-Americans. To the point of cult brain-washing.

Is this REALLY a benefit to America?



All that to discredit Democrats and hope they vote Republican. Maybe one or two percent can be swayed, but with the Dems doing the same thing to discredit Reps, the two percent swing evens itself out.

Of course the real game-breaker is the fear factor. The side that can convince voters that the other side wants too much government, can't find jobs, can't solve the home crises, is weak on crime, national defense, and terrorism is a winner.

ricksfolly
 
How do you give anyone a political party?

I have no idea how to practically implement a multi-party system, but my point was that if we went to something like that, we should reduce the power of special-interest groups lobbying of the Dem's and GOP because the groups will have other parties to influence.
 
I like special interest groups. No matter what, they are a practical way of pushing policy through.
 
I have no idea how to practically implement a multi-party system, but my point was that if we went to something like that, we should reduce the power of special-interest groups lobbying of the Dem's and GOP because the groups will have other parties to influence.

If the States were to simply make a carbon-copy of the British system (multi-party, generally three major parties with several minor parties), all of this bipartisan obstruction and absolute idiocy on both sides would atleast be subdued.

Besides, what's one more thing the States steal from Great Britain? XD
 
I have no idea how to practically implement a multi-party system, but my point was that if we went to something like that, we should reduce the power of special-interest groups lobbying of the Dem's and GOP because the groups will have other parties to influence.
That's the thing - it cannot be 'implemented' except through people that are willing to take the time and make the effort to do it for themselves.
The two-party system isnt created by law, and a multi-party system cannot be created by law.
 
That's the thing - it cannot be 'implemented' except through people that are willing to take the time and make the effort to do it for themselves.
The two-party system isnt created by law, and a multi-party system cannot be created by law.

True but the two-party system makes sure that its stays as a two-party system with confusing and ever changing ballot access laws.
 
True but the two-party system makes sure that its stays as a two-party system with confusing and ever changing ballot access laws.
If enough people decide otherwise, it won't.
 
Most of the thread was in a greement the system is broken. We are living in a period of American history where I believe we will have to confront nationalism. The need for economic protection is clear to everyone. The next step is about getting individuals into government to do it. The tea party is the first real challenge to the two party system I have seen in my life. So the change has begun and the America we once thought of as a melting pot will most likely close its borders and start national manufacturing in order to save it's own unique Identity. On to 2012.
 
True but the two-party system makes sure that its stays as a two-party system with confusing and ever changing ballot access laws.

Having a serious 3 party system won't kill the ills you have with the "system". It may even make them worse.
 
It seems that when the parties are working together that it hurts America. So as long as they are bickering then I say good.

When did "bickering" even do any good.??
But cooperation is the first step to accomplishment.
Have the political parties ever wondered why so few participate?
In the year 2020, I can see it now, no more Dems and GOP, only Libertarians and Liberals.
Things change.
 
I simply advocate more competition in the electoral process.

But the political process is not necessarily congenial to that level of competition, especially with what you want out of it.
 
When did "bickering" even do any good.??
But cooperation is the first step to accomplishment.
Have the political parties ever wondered why so few participate?
In the year 2020, I can see it now, no more Dems and GOP, only Libertarians and Liberals.
Things change.

Bickering does plenty for citizen participation, though it has plenty of limitations.

On one hand, people say they do not like the partisan politics. On the other, during partisan politic eras, the people are also the most active. There is a split between what people think ought to occur, and what people actually do.
 
Sean Hannity banging away every day (and he does... listen to his talk show) to make the Democrats look horrible. Democratic "news" agencies making Republicans look like sinister folks. This happens 12 hours a DAY on certain networks.

Each side struggles to make the other look like fools. Like Anti-Americans. To the point of cult brain-washing.

Is this REALLY a benefit to America?

Bipartisan Politics is just as it should be.

What hurts the United States of America is our senators and representatives voting straight down party lines. When I see a mixture of votes from the Dems and Reps voting both yea and nay, I say that's our system working right.
 
Bipartisan Politics is just as it should be.

What hurts the United States of America is our senators and representatives voting straight down party lines.

Last time I checked only Reps voted the straight ticket. For some reason, probably constituent differences, many Dems have broken ranks.

ricksfolly
 
Last time I checked only Reps voted the straight ticket. For some reason, probably constituent differences, many Dems have broken ranks.

ricksfolly

In a system where legislation can be enacted through a majority vote, you often see the minority party voting in unison while the majority party is more fractured. The majority party has the luxury of picking where along the spectrum to draw each bill, thus allowing some members the political benefit of voting against the proposal.
 
I have no idea how to practically implement a multi-party system, but my point was that if we went to something like that, we should reduce the power of special-interest groups lobbying of the Dem's and GOP because the groups will have other parties to influence.
This is, of course, silly - more parties doesn't mean less influence from "special interests" - it just means they spread their influence differently.

So long as people have the right to group together to get what they want from their congresspeople, there will always be special interest groups - and, as political free speech is a basic tenet of American society, that right will never go away. If you have an issue with a particular special interest group gaining, IYHO, too much influence over people in congress, the corrsct response is NOT to try to limit that group thru legislation or to change the rules for that group, but to get beehind a group (or create yur own group) in an effort to counter that influence.
 
Last time I checked only Reps voted the straight ticket.
This is sheer ignorance.
Willful or not, I'll let you decide, but ignorance none the less.
 
In a system where legislation can be enacted through a majority vote, you often see the minority party voting in unison while the majority party is more fractured. The majority party has the luxury of picking where along the spectrum to draw each bill, thus allowing some members the political benefit of voting against the proposal.

Good point, and it brings up another political anomaly. Dems are more prone to listen to their voters than the Reps because they want to be fair, but it also makes them look weak and flip-floppy.

On the surface voters like the idea of being able to make a difference, but down deep inside it's a different story. They really want their leaders to be strong and unyielding.

That's probably the reason many Democrats forget where their best interests lie and vote Republican.

Obama Should to pull all the troops now, but he's afraid it will show weakness and doom the Democrats, but if he really did it on his own, against all media, military and political pressure, that would show real courage and, eventually, overwhelming support.

Do it, Obama. Order it NOW... Just like Truman 58 years ago

ricksfolly
 
Good point, and it brings up another political anomaly. Dems are more prone to listen to their voters than the Reps because they want to be fair, but it also makes them look weak and flip-floppy.

I don't think there's any evidence to support this, nor does it follow from my point.
 
Good point, and it brings up another political anomaly. Dems are more prone to listen to their voters than the Reps because they want to be fair...
You mean, more precisely, Dems who fear for their re-election are less likely to support legislation that is unpopular with their constituents than Dems who do not fear for their re-election.
 
Back
Top Bottom