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 said: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 said: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?
dstebbins said:did I say that?
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.Comrade Brian said: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.
dstebbins said: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 don't recall anyone complaining about this when it didn;t apply to Republicans - not even the Republicans.dstebbins said: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.
Ummmmm....no.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.
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.dstebbins said: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.
ThePhoenix said: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!
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.Conflict said: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 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?