• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Party Affiliation Preference

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
42,525
Reaction score
8,545
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As Trump runs for President what I've been saying for a couple years on this forum is bubbling to the surface.

The two political parties are actual one, single, indivisible organization that exists primarily to just continue to exist while enriching those who are members of it.

The opponents of Trump have only one thing in common: They stand to gain by the continuance of the existing staged rivalry of the two major parties.

The coalition is comical in the grouping of the co-conspirators. They are not joined by their recognized political affiliation, the Liberal or Conservative lean or their past loyalty or anything except the desire to continue to exploit the political spoils system that makes them rich.

In the meantime, their PR organization, the Media, trumpets their universal condemnation of the Trump candidacy using the wailing shrieks of our failed oligarchs of the political ruling class as proof.

The proof that Trump is not qualified is that the champions of the current failed system that we are using say he will fail. Failures predicting failure. What a system!

Fail to do what? Fail to get us into another 20 year war? Failure to run up another 20 Trillion dollars in debt? To not divide us along any line that any local trouble maker can contrive? To not continue to export jobs? To not continue grid lock? To not continue to fail at dealing with traditional enemies? To not aggravate and abandon traditional international friends? To continue to not care for our veterans while scores commit suicide each year?

What exactly are the perennial political hangers on afraid that Trump will fail at that they have not already failed at in outlandishly spectacular terms?
 
Last edited:

Verthaine

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As Trump runs for President what I've been saying for a couple years on this forum is bubbling to the surface.

The two political parties are actual one, single, indivisible organization that exists primarily to just continue to exist while enriching those who are members of it.

The opponents of Trump have only one thing in common: They stand to gain by the continuance of the existing staged rivalry of the two major parties.

The coalition is comical in the grouping of the co-conspirators. They are not joined by their recognized political affiliation, the Liberal or Conservative lean or their past loyalty or anything except the desire to continue to exploit the political spoils system that makes them rich.

In the meantime, their PR organization, the Media, trumpets their universal condemnation of the Trump candidacy using the wailing shrieks of our failed oligarchs of the political ruling class as proof.

The proof that Trump is not qualified is that the champions of the current failed system that we are using say he will fail. Failures predicting failure. What a system!

Fail to do what? Fail to get us into another 20 year war? Failure to run up another 20 Trillion dollars in debt? To not divide us along any line that any local trouble maker can contrive? To not continue to export jobs? To not continue grid lock? To not continue to fail at dealing with traditional enemies? To not aggravate and abandon traditional international friends?

What exactly are the perennial political hangers on afraid that Trump will fail at that they have not already failed at in outlandishly spectacular terms?

Exactly what does your post have to do with party affiliation preference?

Personally I think both major political parties stink.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
42,525
Reaction score
8,545
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Exactly what does your post have to do with party affiliation preference?

Personally I think both major political parties stink.

Me, too. the point of the post is that party affiliation is not much different than a Ponzi Scheme. If someone is trying to tell you it's important and good, there is almost always a misunderstanding or a hidden benefit to the purveyor.

That Trump is running outside the lines on the two parties and has thereby united the two parties against him speaks volumes.

Who can believe that the carpet baggers who are looting the treasury really have the best interests of the country and its people at heart?
 

Verthaine

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Me, too. the point of the post is that party affiliation is not much different than a Ponzi Scheme. If someone is trying to tell you it's important and good, there is almost always a misunderstanding or a hidden benefit to the purveyor.

That Trump is running outside the lines on the two parties and has thereby united the two parties against him speaks volumes.

Who can believe that the carpet baggers who are looting the treasury really have the best interests of the country and its people at heart?

Personally,I am not a big fan of political lables like Liberal or Conservative as being to limiting. I believe in doing the right thing,rather doing what is ideologically pure.

I also view politicians to be somewhere between leeches and pond scum.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,093
Reaction score
13,786
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The two political parties are actual one, single, indivisible organization that exists primarily to just continue to exist while enriching those who are members of it.
5967bacfe51880fea38e3ea9adcc5e1a68316b68a3f4446212913ed3566dc164.jpg


Yes, there are some points of agreement, such as:
• The basic legitimacy of a democratic republic and elections
• A basic acceptance of market economy
• Free trade
• Some international policies
• Some military policies

However, claiming "they're the same!" ignores their positions and policy actions in terms of:

• The fundamental purpose of government
• The importance and/or extent of federalism
• Abortion
• Tax policy
• Safety nets
• International relations
• Regulation of business
• Gun control
• Educational policy and spending
• Environmental policy, even basic acceptance of the fact of climate change / AGW
• Transportation policy
• Jurisprudence and interpretative philosophy of the US Constitution and various laws
• Civil rights
• Sexual harassment (especially in the military)
• Women in the military (remember when that was controversial?)
• Same-sex marriage
• The fundamental dynamics of partisanship

I can't go on, I'll go on.


The opponents of Trump have only one thing in common: They stand to gain by the continuance of the existing staged rivalry of the two major parties.
Yeah, not so much. Quite a few anti-Trumpers are leaning libertarian, and may vote Johnson.


In the meantime, their PR organization, the Media, trumpets their universal condemnation of the Trump candidacy using the wailing shrieks of our failed oligarchs of the political ruling class as proof.
Actually, it sounds a lot more like they're just pointing at the guy and saying "listen to what this jerk said today!"

Seriously, what more do they need to do? He's already insulted Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, blacks, women, vets, babies, mothers... I'm certain he will kick an orphan before this campaign is over. Absolutely no bias is required to notice that his campaign is a dumpster fire, and that Clinton is also occasionally shooting herself in the foot.


The proof that Trump is not qualified is that the champions of the current failed system that we are using say he will fail. Failures predicting failure. What a system!
Uh, no. The proof that he is not qualified is evident pretty much every time he opens his mouth.

He is completely inconsistent and incoherent about almost every policy position, except that one time a month when his handlers manage to get him to read off a teleprompter. Two days later, he's saying that Japan should build up its military, and hint that the only way to stop Clinton from revoking the 2nd Amendment is to shoot her.


Fail to do what...?
It's pretty obvious that Trump would drag us into another war; run up massive deficits; splinter the nation even further; drive us into a recession with his protectionist policies; antagonize our allies; and fail to care for vets.

Will Clinton do better on these counts? I have to say "yes." She seems less likely to get us into yet another decade-long war, to spark a recession with protectionist nonsense, to alienate our allies, to treat vets like doormats, to give the wealthy yet another round of massive tax breaks, to support abortion rights, to support civil rights, to actually do something beneficial for the environment, and so on. She won't be great for deficits, but she definitely won't be worse than the guy who thinks the federal government can slash taxes, increase spending and somehow bring down the deficit.

We need to remember that no one, not even a President, not even a totalitarian dictator, can do most of what the public often expects. People have ridiculous expectations for a President, who is often caught in a web of vetocratic mechanisms. Still, I for one have no doubt that Clinton is a better option, on a policy and personal basis, than Trump.


What exactly are the perennial political hangers on afraid that Trump will fail at that they have not already failed at in outlandishly spectacular terms?
Aside from what's mentioned above: Some people are concerned about Trump's autocratic, plutocratic, narcissistic and nepotistic tendencies. I'm not so sure he is as bad as some of the more extreme examples, but I have to say, I really don't want to find out.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
42,525
Reaction score
8,545
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
5967bacfe51880fea38e3ea9adcc5e1a68316b68a3f4446212913ed3566dc164.jpg


Yes, there are some points of agreement, such as:
• The basic legitimacy of a democratic republic and elections
• A basic acceptance of market economy
• Free trade
• Some international policies
• Some military policies

However, claiming "they're the same!" ignores their positions and policy actions in terms of:

• The fundamental purpose of government
• The importance and/or extent of federalism
• Abortion
• Tax policy
• Safety nets
• International relations
• Regulation of business
• Gun control
• Educational policy and spending
• Environmental policy, even basic acceptance of the fact of climate change / AGW
• Transportation policy
• Jurisprudence and interpretative philosophy of the US Constitution and various laws
• Civil rights
• Sexual harassment (especially in the military)
• Women in the military (remember when that was controversial?)
• Same-sex marriage
• The fundamental dynamics of partisanship

I can't go on, I'll go on.

(Sorry, edited for length...)

So Trump says dumb stuff and you fear that he will do what the current administration has done? If Hillary is half as "autocratic, plutocratic, narcissistic and nepotistic" as Obama, then she is twice as all of these as Trump.

Regarding the laundry list of the ideas that you think the two parties hold disagreements, I submit that these are talking points that never actually create real action except for judicial appointments. Our legislators are terrified of actually stating an opinion or acting on anything so appointing judges seems to be the only way to make meaningful changes in our laws. Democrat appointees seem to like to apply a standard in which they try to apply what they think the intent of a law should be despite what the words of the law actually say the intent of the law actually is.

What are the steps we can take domestically that will address the stated problems of AGW when China and India are bringing another coal fired power plant on line every week or two?

Democrats seem to be less and less circumspect in the selective application of enforcement of law. In Hillary's case, she seems to be completely insulated from enforcement. She also seems to be absolutely confident that nobody will attempt to enforce laws that apply to her activities. She and Barrack and Bill seem to be absolutely comfortable in asserting their power and then to disregard law and either act illegally themselves or not apply enforcement to friends who break law. I find this to be troubling.

Trump does seem to have a problem controlling his words. His activities in his career seem to have produced enough success to have created a pretty sizable fortune for him and his companies that he earned using normal and usual capitalist approaches.

Hillary's track record working under Obama is not a great one in the outcomes of her efforts, but riding the coat tails of her husband, she is successful politically. What are the improvements that benefit the US in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe, China, the Far East, controlling terror world wide or any other international arena? Now, outside of her government work, what jobs has she held? As a secretary of State, she was grossing less than $200,000 per year. Where did that $100 million plus net worth come from when we know, because she told us, that she and Bill were flat busted broke in the year 2001.

Trump says dumb stuff and Hillary is incompetent, a thief and a crook. Not the best of all possible choices.

I take some comfort in the fact that the Stock Market is doing great and the rest of the world is doing worse. No matter who is new president, the US will still be an economic power, the Russians will still be expansionist, the Chinese will continue to play with their currency and the developing nations will continue to be hot bed incubators for terrorists.

I get to retire soon and watch my 401K continue to grow. Go Colts!
 
Last edited:

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
42,525
Reaction score
8,545
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Personally,I am not a big fan of political lables like Liberal or Conservative as being to limiting. I believe in doing the right thing,rather doing what is ideologically pure.

I also view politicians to be somewhere between leeches and pond scum.

Sorry, I'm working full time, remodeling a house and doing all the household stuff needed to eat and sleep. I don't mean to ignore you.

Labels are not limiting at all since the language is constantly changing. If you don't like the meaning o a word today, wait a few days and it will probably change.

The parties are constantly changing as well. The Republican Party was the abolitionist party. Now Biden says that Republicans want to put folks back into chains. In the 60's, all of the Democrat Southern Governors were striving to maintain segregation. Al Gore Sr. and the majority of those who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the Senate were Democrats. Now the history is being re-written to change this fact to be a less inconvenient truth.

I agree with your assessment of Politicians. For the most part they have no honor, honesty, unbendable morals or cherished values that will never change. What they do have is an unmeasurable need to get re-elected and will do anything to satisfy it.

In short, a disgustingly unsavory class of pit vipers who exist in their careers only to continue to exist in their careers.
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,583
Reaction score
1,866
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The two-party system is basically divided up between "winners" (Republicans) and "losers" (Democrats) with respect to the American traditional status quo. That's why there's only two major parties: "winners" and "losers".

In recent decades the "losers" numbers have increased, understandably, due to sheer population asymptotic increase under the economic component of our system where "traditional" success is naturally limited by capitalist hierarchical phenomena .. until they are finding themselves "winning" more often at the voting booth and then legislating changes that change the American traditional status quo a bit so they look less losing and "winners" look more like losers.

As the traditional "losers" become more favored during elections, they gain at the expense of others .. and those others are a considerable segment of the traditional "winners". Enter the Donald to represent this group of traditional "winners" feeling like losers.

So this year we have traditional "winners", who have become losers because the traditional "losers" had been winning, supporting Trump, Trump who is smart enough to behave in ways that appeal to them, and we're surprised how large in number they are. The brain trust of the Republicans were very surprised, too.

Like Bernie could be his own party, so could Donald, as their segments don't perfectly fit the American traditional status quo polarization .. but not Hillary, as she's the epitome of the traditional "losers", what with being a woman and having a philandering husband and still being liberal and all.

Sure, a new party could emerge that embraces everyone economically, "winners" and "losers" alike, but it's the social issues that politicians and activists use to compel votes that divide us all up, which would thus keep such a party from succeeding, as that party would have to put social issues on the back burner and essentially have no opinion on them .. which, what with the media making social issues everything, would likely keep that party from gaining any traction.

So we're left to form citizens groups, like Move On (left wing), Citizens United (right wing), and Powerful American Political Alliance (essentially centrist) to attempt to wield influence over the two political machines that keep winning, only the latter group having no left or right -wing opinion on social issues.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
42,525
Reaction score
8,545
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The two-party system is basically divided up between "winners" (Republicans) and "losers" (Democrats) with respect to the American traditional status quo. That's why there's only two major parties: "winners" and "losers".

In recent decades the "losers" numbers have increased, understandably, due to sheer population asymptotic increase under the economic component of our system where "traditional" success is naturally limited by capitalist hierarchical phenomena .. until they are finding themselves "winning" more often at the voting booth and then legislating changes that change the American traditional status quo a bit so they look less losing and "winners" look more like losers.

As the traditional "losers" become more favored during elections, they gain at the expense of others .. and those others are a considerable segment of the traditional "winners". Enter the Donald to represent this group of traditional "winners" feeling like losers.

So this year we have traditional "winners", who have become losers because the traditional "losers" had been winning, supporting Trump, Trump who is smart enough to behave in ways that appeal to them, and we're surprised how large in number they are. The brain trust of the Republicans were very surprised, too.

Like Bernie could be his own party, so could Donald, as their segments don't perfectly fit the American traditional status quo polarization .. but not Hillary, as she's the epitome of the traditional "losers", what with being a woman and having a philandering husband and still being liberal and all.

Sure, a new party could emerge that embraces everyone economically, "winners" and "losers" alike, but it's the social issues that politicians and activists use to compel votes that divide us all up, which would thus keep such a party from succeeding, as that party would have to put social issues on the back burner and essentially have no opinion on them .. which, what with the media making social issues everything, would likely keep that party from gaining any traction.

So we're left to form citizens groups, like Move On (left wing), Citizens United (right wing), and Powerful American Political Alliance (essentially centrist) to attempt to wield influence over the two political machines that keep winning, only the latter group having no left or right -wing opinion on social issues.

As you consider the outcomes of the two parties' efforts, can you really believe that they are actually two parties?

The Dems shriek with constancy that the Reps want to take away a woman's right to choose. Did it happen under Reagan or Bush?

Your "Winners and Losers" meme buys right into the Good Guy/Bad Guy identification put forth by the intelligencia. However, did the Losers in your example do any better under Obama than Under Bush? With the top 1% doing much better and the Median Household Income way down under Obama, maybe not so much. Roe v Wade is in force despite the changing political fortunes of the two parties. The national debt doubled under Bush and it doubled under Obama. No difference there.

Bush and Obama have combined to produce the worst world situation since 1913.

Obama was supposed to be the great unifier of the nation and has bought about the most divided populace since the 60's.

Today, minorities seem less satisfied with their lot in life and the chasm between rich and poor is greater than ever before.

Whatever the stated goals and priorities of the major parties are, the actual outcomes are what we need to examine and those outcomes come out regardless of which party is stealing our tax dollars. They can easily be compared to professional wrestlers in the fights they want us to think they are fighting. Their promises are worth far less than the average Sham Wow type product and their performance falls short of their empty promises.
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,583
Reaction score
1,866
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As you consider the outcomes of the two parties' efforts, can you really believe that they are actually two parties?

The Dems shriek with constancy that the Reps want to take away a woman's right to choose. Did it happen under Reagan or Bush?

Your "Winners and Losers" meme buys right into the Good Guy/Bad Guy identification put forth by the intelligencia. However, did the Losers in your example do any better under Obama than Under Bush? With the top 1% doing much better and the Median Household Income way down under Obama, maybe not so much. Roe v Wade is in force despite the changing political fortunes of the two parties. The national debt doubled under Bush and it doubled under Obama. No difference there.

Bush and Obama have combined to produce the worst world situation since 1913.

Obama was supposed to be the great unifier of the nation and has bought about the most divided populace since the 60's.

Today, minorities seem less satisfied with their lot in life and the chasm between rich and poor is greater than ever before.

Whatever the stated goals and priorities of the major parties are, the actual outcomes are what we need to examine and those outcomes come out regardless of which party is stealing our tax dollars. They can easily be compared to professional wrestlers in the fights they want us to think they are fighting. Their promises are worth far less than the average Sham Wow type product and their performance falls short of their empty promises.
Yes, the two major parties are indeed no different when it comes to their affect on the average American: both are taking us all down.

It's all here: The Problem. The "History" section shows that, over time, no matter which party was in charge, prosperity for the average American simply eroded. Then skip down to Foundational Problem #6 and see the numbers .. and it's only worsened since 2010!

But candidates of the major parties are going to keep winning because of their pandering approach to "winners" and "losers" and the media's focus on them at the expense of both other parties and citizens groups (like Powerful American Political Alliance) that could make a positive difference.
 
Top Bottom