Just curious as to how many others feel this way.

[Renae]

I have been jaded towards both parties for the past 10-11 years. It seems like all the adults have left DC, and the kids are tearing up the joint. I am curious of other peoples thoughts on the issue.

Am I alone?

The Jpeg below explains my thoughts.

View attachment 67198248

I blame the voters, it's their fault not the political parties.

 

[MorrisDay]

I fully agree.....and as an older American, I can see the downhill slide that the USA has taken over the past 50 years. A once Great Nation....is slipping badly into ruin.

Why? The 7 Deadly Sins have consumed our country. "It's All About Me" is now the rule. JFK had it right......"It's not what your country Can Do for You....it's about what you can do for your country!"

Just the minimum wage controversy on it's own, flies in the face of that statement! Other examples are Abortion(not a right in my book), the gay agenda, Govt. should pay for your condoms, taking God out of schools, PC crap and other perceived offenses ....and a lot more. It's the All About Me Syndrome! A sickness permeating America with it's own brand of perversity.

Just make sure you don't accidently vote for a Democrat.

 

[MorrisDay]

Can't argue here. That's why I am an Independent who leans to the right but many in the Republican party piss me off, especially the far right wing obstructionists but the RINO's as well. I would vote for a moderate Democrat but there are none running. Even Hillary is too left for me and I wouldn't vote for a lying, dishonest crook, whether she is indicted or not. I'm hoping for a third or even a fourth party choice that is moderate. Unfortunately, extra parties tend to be even more out on the fringes. Trump is sort of a moderate in that he has extremist views on some issues but Democratic views on others. He may wind up being the best choice after all.

If it helps, just look at it as you are voting for the lesser of two evils but by all means vote. As you know, ALL the democrats will vote and vote often. They will come in busloads to vote for Hillary. The stay-at-home republicans is how we ended up with 8 years of what we have now.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I have been jaded towards both parties for the past 10-11 years. It seems like all the adults have left DC, and the kids are tearing up the joint. I am curious of other peoples thoughts on the issue.

Am I alone?

The Jpeg below explains my thoughts.

View attachment 67198248

Yep I'm a righty who is independent for sure.

 

[Sweden]

Because it is a wasted vote. First, third parties are every bit as corrupt as the Democrats and Republicans because American politics demands it. Secondly, even if they did get elected by some miracle, they'd never get anything done. There would be no changes and no improvements. No, change is going to come from within the main parties, but only if the American people demand it.

Change can only come if the people get together and make it happen, not just 'demand' it. This means, imo, that many more need to arise from a sitting position and become politically active.

Minor parties can make a big difference. In Britain if UKIP had never existed they would not be having a referendum on EU membership. The Conservatives only granted one in an effort to retain voters on their side.

 

[Mithrae]

But that's really the problem, third parties are 99% identical to either the Democrats or the Republicans, they just have one or two elements that are blown completely out of proportion. Unless that particular issue is something you feel strongly about, they're not going to be any better or worse than the two choices you already have.

If they're so similar, then a vote for a third party would at least be a minimal-risk vote against the duopoly. Of course it would be much, much better in a system with preferential voting and an absolute majority requirement to win, so the vote is never wasted even if the first choice doesn't win. But many Republicans and Democrats aren't completely stupid, and are capable of changing their rhetoric (and in extreme circumstances perhaps even their governance!) if there's enough proof that what they're doing is becoming increasingly unpopular. Even in the American system, third party votes probably aren't entirely wasted.

Unfortunately it does often seem to be the radical nationalists - the Trumps, the UKIP Sweden mentions, or Australia's One Nation party - who tend to make the biggest splashes, but I guess that's why democracy is merely the least-worst system of government we've discovered :lol:

 

[Mithrae]

There are a few dozen democracies in the world. All have developed in their own way and each differs from the others. One thing they do have in common however: they all have political parties. It rather looks as though democratic government cannot function without them.

The only alternative I can think of is direct democracy, where every citizen can vote on every law and policy initiative. Not workable imo. Do you have any better ideas?

There's no way to stop politicians from associating with each other as informal 'parties,' but I'm not sure there's any need to endorse the concept of political parties on ballot papers, parliamentary seating and government structure. They might have been necessary a century or two ago. Now? The only halfway decent argument I can see for their existence lies in vetting candidates for suitability to lead... and I'm sure we can all think of one or two examples where that hasn't exactly been successful, or has even been precisely the opposite, vetting a suitable figurehead and pawn rather than a good leader!

Parliaments don't need parties at all: Representatives are supposed to be representing their constituency, not splitting their loyalty with the whims of their party. And the requirements of countries like Australia that the executive government be formed from a parliamentary majority is unnecessary at best - and arguably a dangerous blending of powers leaving less room for checks and balances. Why should a head of state not be elected by majority of popular vote (or by winning a popular vote in a majority of electoral divisions)? Prerequisites such as an existing experience in parliament/government might be useful, for the head of state and for his appointed cabinet. Direct democracy has its shortcomings, but elements of it might be incorporated in the form of more regular referendums and the potential for representatives' more accurate polling of their constituents' views than unofficial polling organisations can manage.


Edit2: Political parties are 'useful' and successful because they can simplify the message and unite voters. But as far as government structure goes, those aren't necessarily important or even desirable attributes. However candidates might informally identify themselves in the media or elsewhere, endorsing party designations in ballots etc. seems unnecessary at best, to my mind.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Given all the votes Sanders and Trump are getting it is clear that many people agree with you.

 

[Sweden]

There's no way to stop politicians from associating with each other as informal 'parties,' but I'm not sure there's any need to endorse the concept of political parties on ballot papers, parliamentary seating and government structure. They might have been necessary a century or two ago. Now? The only halfway decent argument I can see for their existence lies in vetting candidates for suitability to lead... and I'm sure we can all think of one or two examples where that hasn't exactly been successful, or has even been precisely the opposite, vetting a suitable figurehead and pawn rather than a good leader!

Parliaments don't need parties at all: Representatives are supposed to be representing their constituency, not splitting their loyalty with the whims of their party. And the requirements of countries like Australia that the executive government be formed from a parliamentary majority is unnecessary at best - and arguably a dangerous blending of powers leaving less room for checks and balances. Why should a head of state not be elected by majority of popular vote (or by winning a popular vote in a majority of electoral divisions)? Prerequisites such as an existing experience in parliament/government might be useful, for the head of state and for his appointed cabinet. Direct democracy has its shortcomings, but elements of it might be incorporated in the form of more regular referendums and the potential for representatives' more accurate polling of their constituents' views than unofficial polling organisations can manage.


Edit2: Political parties are 'useful' and successful because they can simplify the message and unite voters. But as far as government structure goes, those aren't necessarily important or even desirable attributes. However candidates might informally identify themselves in the media or elsewhere, endorsing party designations in ballots etc. seems unnecessary at best, to my mind.

Of course a head of state can be elected by popular vote - and should be imo. But a head of government is something very different.

The stability of governments matters. And it is necessary that a head of government - a Prime Minister - has a majority that he can rely upon for a reasonable period of time. And he must appoint ministers who he can trust not to resign on a whim. I really cannot see how parliamentary democracies could function without parties.

And they are useful for electors, giving them some idea of who and what they are voting for. If every candidate was an 'independent' how could they work out what he or she thought on every issue. And once elected what would stop the MP changing his mind as often as he changed his pillow-case?

 

[Cephus]

If they're so similar, then a vote for a third party would at least be a minimal-risk vote against the duopoly. Of course it would be much, much better in a system with preferential voting and an absolute majority requirement to win, so the vote is never wasted even if the first choice doesn't win. But many Republicans and Democrats aren't completely stupid, and are capable of changing their rhetoric (and in extreme circumstances perhaps even their governance!) if there's enough proof that what they're doing is becoming increasingly unpopular. Even in the American system, third party votes probably aren't entirely wasted.

Unfortunately it does often seem to be the radical nationalists - the Trumps, the UKIP Sweden mentions, or Australia's One Nation party - who tend to make the biggest splashes, but I guess that's why democracy is merely the least-worst system of government we've discovered :lol:

Except it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Our system is winner take all. Whoever wins is in control. You don't get any brownie points by voting for someone else. You're not immune to the policies of whoever actually claims victory. Therefore, throwing a protest vote doesn't actually get you anything and because the overwhelming majority of Americans will never vote for a third party, they will always lose and thus, their policies will never be implemented. Besides, as I said, most third parties aren't significantly different than the major two anyhow. It isn't like you're voting for something dramatically new and different, it's just the same old crap repackaged.

 

[jimbo]

There are a few dozen democracies in the world. All have developed in their own way and each differs from the others. One thing they do have in common however: they all have political parties. It rather looks as though democratic government cannot function without them.

The only alternative I can think of is direct democracy, where every citizen can vote on every law and policy initiative. Not workable imo. Do you have any better ideas?

Democratic government absolutely works in small groups. It will not work in large groups. No one has the time or inclination to devote that much effort to politics. So we elect representatives to do it for us. That we get even that wrong most of the time only proves the point.

 

[Casper]

I have been jaded towards both parties for the past 10-11 years. It seems like all the adults have left DC, and the kids are tearing up the joint. I am curious of other peoples thoughts on the issue.

Am I alone?

The Jpeg below explains my thoughts.

View attachment 67198248

Been my opinion since I was a teenager, neither Party actually represents the American People or serves the Nation's best interests.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Been my opinion since I was a teenager, neither Party actually represents the American People or serves the Nation's best interests.

Could we pin a year on this please?

Thank You.

 

[Casper]

Could we pin a year on this please?

Thank You.

Late Sixties and Early Seventies. That help?

 

[Ntharotep]

I don't think I need to say
Considering I use words like the Bipartisan Empire, The Donkey Elephant Empire, and abolish political parties and vote for individuals...
Whatever you do don't research the money the Government puts into the two party system. It will depress you even more.

Might have been Adams (don't actually remember) who said political parties serve two purposes. 1, to divide the people and, 2 to keep a small number of men in power.

 

[PoS]

Pretty much:

Vote libertarian!

 

[Ntharotep]

Also. Though a bit dated (2011), this relatively short piece was nicely written and shows this isn't a new disappointment brewing:
The Founding Fathers Warned of the Threat of a Two-Party System

 

[Winchester]

Vote libertarian!

I usually do.

 

[Cephus]

Vote libertarian!

Sure, be even crazier than the crazies on the left and right. :roll:

 

[Mr Person]

.and as an older American, I can see the downhill slide that the USA has taken over the past 50 years. A once Great Nation....is slipping badly into ruin.

Why? The 7 Deadly Sins have consumed our country. "It's All About Me" is now the rule. JFK had it right......"It's not what your country Can Do for You....it's about what you can do for your country!"

Just the minimum wage controversy on it's own, flies in the face of that statement! Other examples are Abortion(not a right in my book), the gay agenda, Govt. should pay for your condoms, taking God out of schools, PC crap and other perceived offenses ....and a lot more. It's the All About Me Syndrome! A sickness permeating America with it's own brand of perversity.

When people lament the alleged fall of America from some golden age to modern decay, I have to wonder how carefully they have considered the last 115 years of history. Two massive factors, which have nothing to do with "American Exceptionalism", played an overwhelming role in making America the economic powerhouse and, in turn, military powerhouse:


1. The one-two punch of two world wars fought on the soil of those countries we compete against. Those two wars, while inflicting millions of casualties on American soldiers, inflicted ten if not twenty times more casualties on the combined rest of the warring countries. Both wars were fought over foreign soil - the same soil occupied with those who are in economic competition with us. Infrastructure, buildings, everything was smashed over huge areas of land. That set those countries WAY farther back then we were set back.

2. The economic suicide committed by those countries who could have seriously challenged us economically had they not become totalitarian socialists: China and the Soviet Union.


Our lead in economic potential following the two world wars had way more to do with our lead in 1945-70, etc., then did any sentiments about how exceptional people who decided to be born on American soil are.

the gay agenda

I just noticed that you blamed the alleged downfall of America on the desire to grant the equal protection of law and the due process of law to gay people.

I probably wouldn't have typed anything if I'd seen that the first time around...

 

[MickeyW]

When people lament the alleged fall of America from some golden age to modern decay, I have to wonder how carefully they have considered the last 115 years of history. Two massive factors, which have nothing to do with "American Exceptionalism", played an overwhelming role in making America the economic powerhouse and, in turn, military powerhouse:


1. The one-two punch of two world wars fought on the soil of those countries we compete against. Those two wars, while inflicting millions of casualties on American soldiers, inflicted ten if not twenty times more casualties on the combined rest of the warring countries. Both wars were fought over foreign soil - the same soil occupied with those who are in economic competition with us. Infrastructure, buildings, everything was smashed over huge areas of land. That set those countries WAY farther back then we were set back.

2. The economic suicide committed by those countries who could have seriously challenged us economically had they not become totalitarian socialists: China and the Soviet Union.


Our lead in economic potential following the two world wars had way more to do with our lead in 1945-70, etc., then did any sentiments about how exceptional people who decided to be born on American soil are.






I just noticed that you blamed the alleged downfall of America on the desire to grant the equal protection of law and the due process of law to gay people.

I probably wouldn't have typed anything if I'd seen that the first time around...

Just think how much different things would be if Gen. Patton was allowed to attack Russia like he wanted to do in 1945, when they were very weak.....and if Gen. MacArthur had been allowed to attack China, like he wanted to do in 1945, when they were weak.
Most likely today, we would not have had to contend with either of those powers and the Viet Nam and Korean wars would not have had the backing that they did from China and would not have occurred.
No, you misunderstand me. I do not blame anyone for the downfall of America for wanting equal protection under the law. However, I do blame the deviate folks, in part, in America, for contributing to the lack of morals in America. The Democratic Party, the MSM and Hollywood, are all complicit in this downhill slide.......by supporting deviate sex practices and their misguided agenda.

Equal Rights under the Law, have never been an issue with me. Special Rights for certain groups....are an issue.

 

[PoS]

Sure, be even crazier than the crazies on the left and right. :roll:

Following the Constitution makes people crazy? :doh

 

[Cephus]

Following the Constitution makes people crazy? :doh

Only when doing so fanatically.

 

[Mithrae]

Of course a head of state can be elected by popular vote - and should be imo. But a head of government is something very different.

The stability of governments matters. And it is necessary that a head of government - a Prime Minister - has a majority that he can rely upon for a reasonable period of time. And he must appoint ministers who he can trust not to resign on a whim. I really cannot see how parliamentary democracies could function without parties.

Why would any government minister ever resign on a mere whim and cripple their political career, with or without a party affiliation? If that were a concern, there's much better ways to reduce the risk than political parties. And why would a head of government/state (I don't think there's any need for the two roles to be distinct) with appropriate executive responsibilities and authority need a reliable legislative majority? Parliament is supposed to be a balance against the government, not an extension of it, but blind partisanship or political posturing/maneuvering can create deadlocks in any system where such checks and balances exist. So is it better to do away with those balances, or just accept the deadlocks, or try to minimise the partisanship?

And they are useful for electors, giving them some idea of who and what they are voting for. If every candidate was an 'independent' how could they work out what he or she thought on every issue. And once elected what would stop the MP changing his mind as often as he changed his pillow-case?

Maybe they could ask what s/he thinks No-one knows where a party will stand on every issue regardless, and they break their promises whenever it's expedient.

On the other hand, a lifetime of being required to suppress their own views and often integrity in order to toe the party line and uphold its image hardly encourages the kind of character voters might prefer in their leaders. I for one would much rather see politicians who ARE willing to change their views in light of new information or circumstances, than those who put image and the imagined virtue of consistency ahead of honesty and their own intelligence.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

You are not alone.

This "presidential" race has been anything but "presidential".