single party dominance leads to tyranny. (1 Viewer)

[dstebbins]

By this I mean that when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency, they can tyrannize because they can agree on so much. The party in control can get anything they want done with little trouble. But if the parties contradict between the two branches, it keeps each party on their toes. I mean look at right now! anything Republicans want done, such as the Patriot Act or this new amendment banning the desecration of the flag, is done quickly and easily because both Congress and the Presidency agree on everything. If the parties conflicted each other, then the only laws that could be passed would be those with consensus

That's why, when the 2006 election rolls around, I'm voting Democrat accross the board. I urge you to do the same, even if you like Bush, just to prevent future tyranny.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I agree that a one-party dominance leads to tyranny, and dictatorship(one-party, like USSR, China,etc.) though a two-party dominance is also tyrannous because it basically gives people two choices, and it is especially when the two parties differ on only a few subjects.

 

[dstebbins]

I agree that a one-party dominance leads to tyranny, and dictatorship(one-party, like USSR, China,etc.) though a two-party dominance is also tyrannous because it basically gives people two choices, and it is especially when the two parties differ on only a few subjects.

I don't follow you. Sure the people are tyrannous, if that's what you're saying, but aren't the people supposed to be the tyrants in a democracy?

 

[Comrade Brian]

I don't follow you. Sure the people are tyrannous, if that's what you're saying, but aren't the people supposed to be the tyrants in a democracy?

What I mean is, is that neither democrats or republicans will get us out of future tyranny as you call it, no single party will.

 

[dstebbins]

did I say that? I actually agree with you. In fact, I think I specifically said in my thread-starting post that if we had a democrat Congress and a republican president or vise versa, there would be a lot less tyranny, although some, because the interests of both parties will be expressed.

 

[Comrade Brian]

did I say that?

Yes you did,

"That's why, when the 2006 election rolls around, I'm voting Democrat accross the board. I urge you to do the same, even if you like Bush, just to prevent future tyranny."

Anyways, I'm glad that you think the democratic party won't save us from tyranny, or republicans, both parties are about corrupt as the other, and on the wider scale, their views differ slightly, and since about Reagan, have been going more right-wing, both of them.

I think a multiparty system should be adopted(3 or more parties in legislative)
this way, politics won't be as always two-sided, there will be many differences.

 

[F41]

Hold on to your hats because the Republicans/Conservatives are about to gain control of the Supreme Court as well., Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that is when comes the real power I don`t think has happened before.

Control of The House, The Senate, The Supreme Court, and The WhiteHouse.

Oorah!

 

[Comrade Brian]

Oh, I just can't wait for them to control everything.:roll:

 

[dstebbins]

Yes you did,

"That's why, when the 2006 election rolls around, I'm voting Democrat accross the board. I urge you to do the same, even if you like Bush, just to prevent future tyranny."

Anyways, I'm glad that you think the democratic party won't save us from tyranny, or republicans, both parties are about corrupt as the other, and on the wider scale, their views differ slightly, and since about Reagan, have been going more right-wing, both of them.

I think a multiparty system should be adopted(3 or more parties in legislative)
this way, politics won't be as always two-sided, there will be many differences.

I actually don't belong to any party. I think all parties, even third parties, are corrupt because they are tied down to party interests and thus bypass the interests of the people. By "party" I mean the group of party supporters that actually attend the meetings and choose the candidates they want to run for office. I mean think about it: It's kind of hard to get reelected if you're not nominated to rerun, isn't it? That's why I don't belong to any party, although I claimed Democrat when I signed up for this site, because I want the elected officials to respond directly to the people, not indirectly through their parties.

For more insight on why I claim no party, see here.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, this relates to this thread because I don't care about what party gets in office, as long as the branches contradict in views.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I think all parties, even third parties, are corrupt because they are tied down to party interests and thus bypass the interests of the people.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By this I mean that when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency, they can tyrannize because they can agree on so much. The party in control can get anything they want done with little trouble.

I don't recall anyone complaining about this when it didn;t apply to Republicans - not even the Republicans.

That's why, when the 2006 election rolls around, I'm voting Democrat accross the board. I urge you to do the same, even if you like Bush, just to prevent future tyranny.

Ummmmm....no.
See, there might be a zillion things I don't like about the GOP in general and Bush in particular, but I have not seen, nor do I imagine I will EVER see, a reason to think the Democrats will do those thimngs better.

 

[F41]

I think all parties, even third parties, are corrupt because they are tied down to party interests and thus bypass the interests of the people.

I must ask, what is the interest of the people if none of the parties represent them? The way I see it, the intrest is proclaimed when a certain party has been elected by the people.

In this case it is in the view of the Republican party, and if a Democrat was to be elected, it would be represented in their view.

All Parties represent a certain interest and it is the one who comes out on top that is the majority represented.

Their is and never will be one party to represent all the people, this is an unrealistic fantasy to think there ever could be.

Example: I am pro-life, others are pro-choice, tell me how one party can represent my interest and still represent their interest?

Note: The above question is to explain to me how a single party can represent the interest of all without the risk of becoming a tyranny, not to take it off topic.

 

[Conflict]

Hold on to your hats because the Republicans/Conservatives are about to gain control of the Supreme Court as well., Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that is when comes the real power I don`t think has happened before.

Control of The House, The Senate, The Supreme Court, and The WhiteHouse.

Oorah!

I wouldn't be worried except for the fact that their a bunch of neo-conservative/liberal authoritarians.

It is the growth and power of the executive branch that we should be most worried about. As it has been shown the executive branch can control the state through conspiracy and collusion without even giving a second thought to any mere legislative and judicial branch.

 

[dstebbins]

I wouldn't be worried except for the fact that their a bunch of neo-conservative/liberal authoritarians.

It is the growth and power of the executive branch that we should be most worried about. As it has been shown the executive branch can control the state through conspiracy and collusion without even giving a second thought to any mere legislative and judicial branch.

You're forgetting one thing. The President cannot do jack without the consent of at least a third of Congress. The President can, in theory, start taking action without asking for legislation to be passed, but if 2/3 of Congress don't like it, they can pass legislation and, once it's vetoed, override the veto, requiring the President to withdraw from whatever he is doing that the legislation forbids or risk impeachment. If you ever need proof, just look back at about a half a century ago. The Infamous Watergate Scandal of Richard Nixon forced Nixon to resign to avoid the eternal dishonor of impeachment. Congress never got to impeach him, but Nixon left office all the same.

Congress can override the President. It's been done before.

 

[iron butterfly]

To believe in any great power being offered to any/a party ,is a sign of laziness ,in a government uniquely designed ,around the people ,of the people ,for the people ......what do I mean .....hold yourselfs forward not the son of some morfidite ,swindling ,pirate that comes out of business deals with the pay checks of a 1000 working men in he's pockets .Think about it .....self made millionares ????? ..must be big men is all I got to say !!!!

I'm 52 years old and I've seen where those " millionares " come from .Its like your teachers told ya .......ride a rat or be ridden like a rat but either way do it with a smile on your face its the patriotic way to be!!!!

P.S. A tyrant walks to tyranny but he never walks alone .

:roll:

 

[Alias]

By this I mean that when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency, they can tyrannize because they can agree on so much. The party in control can get anything they want done with little trouble. But if the parties contradict between the two branches, it keeps each party on their toes. I mean look at right now! anything Republicans want done, such as the Patriot Act or this new amendment banning the desecration of the flag, is done quickly and easily because both Congress and the Presidency agree on everything. If the parties conflicted each other, then the only laws that could be passed would be those with consensus

That's why, when the 2006 election rolls around, I'm voting Democrat accross the board. I urge you to do the same, even if you like Bush, just to prevent future tyranny.

If that is the reason you want me to vote democrat, then it's not good enough. You have to offer me an alternative that is more attractive for the good of the country. Until then, I am voting republican. And that is a recent idea since I was always a Minnesota democrat until Reagan. Carter made me leave the democrat party and it has only gotten worse.