Which party or mix is best for the US? (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Should it be a mix of parties or a single party in charge?

Why?

 

[Pacridge]

I've come to believe that the two major parties are so full of money, power and greed that they are anyhting but focused on helping the average American. Both parties take huge amounts of cash and support from corprate and special interest. I have no idea what the solution is to this, but I honestly believe it's hurting the country. I'd really like to see some independant party or canidate come forward showing real strength. Unfortunately the way the media is controlled by so few now and the fact that neither party is going to support anyone working outside their lines. This isn't going to happen. Anytime someone starts to show any promise both parties and the media go to work on them and within short order a majority of the country thinks they're a nut case.

 

[Fantasea]

The two major parties differ sufficiently in their platforms that each presents a clear economic choice. All other issues are ancillary.

The one party offers a cradle to grave Europeam style socialistic society in which the government seeks to tax away wealth from the 'haves' and redistribute via legislated programs to the 'have nots'. It's constituents look to government to solve all of the their problems.

The other party stresses the potential of the individual to take advantage of opportunities and work his way up the economic ladder through his own efforts and keep more of his earnings. Its constituents look to government to ease the way by reducing tax and regulatory burdens.

In the past decade or so, based upon election results, movement has been from the former to the latter.

Informed people make an informed choice and vote their pocketbooks.

 

[Hoot]

In Canada, if someone like a Ralph Nader gets 5% of the total vote, then his party gets 5% representation in Congress.

this could be the only way to take away some of the power of the two party system and get more representation from differing groups of Americans.

Hoot

 

[Fantasea]

In Canada, if someone like a Ralph Nader gets 5% of the total vote, then his party gets 5% representation in Congress.

this could be the only way to take away some of the power of the two party system and get more representation from differing groups of Americans.

Hoot

On that basis, in 1992, we would have had somewhere around 40% Clinton, 35% Bush, 20% Perot, and 5% Nader.

In effect, since neither Clinton, nor Bush had a majority and would have always been at odds, Perot would have had the controlling swing vote and, therefore, would have been the major power.

Imagine what a circus that would have been. I'm sure the practice of political duels would have been resurrected.

 

[pwo]

Though I am Republican, I voted for a mix. It is good for all opinions to be heard. More views is a good thing. Many people believe that neither party is really representing them. So, every person should have a party that fits them.

...As long as everyone votes conservative.

Just kidding.

 

[Jufarius87]

no party has the complete answer i will give an example by telling my thoughts on social issues

im pro-life (republican)
im against the death peanalty (democrat)
im against gay marraige (republican)
im for strong gun control (democrat)

ya see im 2-2 i side w/ rep. twice and dem. twice most american are mixed like this but are forced to pick one extreme over the other

i do however beleive that for the most part democrats are flat out wrong on most economic policies but they are also good watch dogs when we go to far w/ tax cuts and helping corperations and the like so, ultimately a mix leaning some what to the right, is most favorable to america

 

[Fantasea]

The choice is simple. Each party has a particular philosophy which can be summed up in three words. One's own personal philosophies will always identify more closely with one than the other. Since the party philosophies evolve very slowly, most folks will not live to see a major shift.

So, take your choice:

Socialist-Liberal-Democrats or Capitalist-Conservative-Republicans

That's all you get.

 

[heyjoeo]

Well right now we have the group called the "Republocrats." I don't hardly differentiate between the two. They are different basically by name.

Third parties need to be provided the same oppertunities (sp?) from the government to put forth their party. Not only that, but they need MUCH stricter spending reglations to even give the 3rd parties a chance.

The whole system is corrupt, no matter which way you look at it. Oh well.

 

[Fantasea]

Well right now we have the group called the "Republocrats." I don't hardly differentiate between the two. They are different basically by name.

Third parties need to be provided the same oppertunities (sp?) from the government to put forth their party. Not only that, but they need MUCH stricter spending reglations to even give the 3rd parties a chance.

The whole system is corrupt, no matter which way you look at it. Oh well.

Basically the same? About the same as day and night.

Socialist vs. Capitalist
Liberal vs. Conservative
Democrat vs. Republican​

 

[heyjoeo]

No your absolutely incorrect.
The first two are right.
The last one, Democrats are more like slightly leaning right moderate conservatives.

I'd like to see your thought process on how the republican and democratic parties are different

 

[Gabo]

Our nation needs to return back to what originally made it so great:

Libertarianism.

This style of government allowed us to be the most free nation for quite a while, and because of it we soared ahead of all the other countries and became the best in the world.

However, since then Socialist ideas are becoming more common and implemented within our society and we are losing the freedom we so fondly desire.

Not only that, but our bipartisan system has come to a point where people believe they must choose between a lesser of two evils, thinking they have no way to change the government for the better.

Many are even ignorant to the fact that our nation is becoming Socialist.

It's time to take a stand. Vote for the party that wants everyone's views to be accepted, instead of just the views of the majority. Vote Libertarian!

 

[Fantasea]

I'd like to see your thought process on how the republican and democratic parties are different

Everything else in the respective agendas flows from this fundamental difference.

The Democratic position is that because of weaknesses it sees as being inherent in the conglomeration of ethnicities, cultures, religious persuasions, and the like that comprises the population of the United States, there must be a central point, populated by elitists who know best, that can provide socialistic 'cradle to grave' government 'care' fashioned after the current European model.

It promotes policies and programs which will ensure that the financial gap between the various groups is narrowed by tax policies that encourage the redistribution of wealth. It seeks to promote 'equality' by bringing the upper levels down to the lower levels. They see competition as a negative.

Although, for practical reasons, it claims to celebrate diversity, it really sees the population as a homogeneous mass.

It sees the responsibility of government in the light of feeding a man by giving him a fish every day for life.

The Republican position is that the differences in the population enable a variety of ideas to emerge and be developed into avenues of wealth building. It cites the tremendous number of individuals who, from humble or impoverished beginnings, have built fortunes for themselves and created the jobs which provide employment for so many others. It believes that what one man may accomplish may be accomplished by others. It sees competition as a positive.

Its tax and social policies encourage all to seek improvement of their circumstances through the exercise of their abilities and ambitions. It understands that for one person to succeed does not mean that another must fail. It sees wealth as limitless and attainable by all who are willing to make the effort to acquire it and that the fruits of one's labor should not be taxed away.

It sees the population as a group of individuals who should be encouraged to, as the old Army recruiting slogan intoned, 'Be All You Can Be."

It sees the responsibility of government in light of teaching a man to fish, thereby feeding him for life.

 

[Gabo]

The Republican position is that the differences in the population enable a variety of ideas to emerge and be developed into avenues of wealth building. It cites the tremendous number of individuals who, from humble or impoverished beginnings, have built fortunes for themselves and created the jobs which provide employment for so many others. It believes that what one man may accomplish may be accomplished by others. It sees competition as a positive.

Its tax and social policies encourage all to seek improvement of their circumstances through the exercise of their abilities and ambitions. It understands that for one person to succeed does not mean that another must fail. It sees wealth as limitless and attainable by all who are willing to make the effort to acquire it and that the fruits of one's labor should not be taxed away.

My good friend, what you have just described is the Libertarian Party!

It sees the responsibility of government in light of teaching a man to fish, thereby feeding him for life.

Here's the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans will steal money from a man and force him to learn how to fish like they do, while Libertarians will allow the man to learn how to fish whatever way he wants.

It promotes policies and programs which will ensure that the financial gap between the various groups is narrowed by tax policies that encourage the redistribution of wealth. It seeks to promote 'equality' by bringing the upper levels down to the lower levels. They see competition as a negative.

And republican don't?
I don't see any republicans trying to abolish minimum wage.
I don't see any republicans trying to make schooling private.
I don't see any republicans trying to stop government special interest funding.
I don't see any republicans stopping the monopolies big businesses have.

The origin of the Republican party was quite Libertarian in nature, allowing for freedom and prosperity. However, through many many years it has become almost exactly like the Democratic party, with minor issues varying between the two.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The Republican position is that the differences in the population enable a variety of ideas to emerge and be developed into avenues of wealth building. It cites the tremendous number of individuals who, from humble or impoverished beginnings, have built fortunes for themselves and created the jobs which provide employment for so many others. It believes that what one man may accomplish may be accomplished by others. It sees competition as a positive.

Its tax and social policies encourage all to seek improvement of their circumstances through the exercise of their abilities and ambitions. It understands that for one person to succeed does not mean that another must fail. It sees wealth as limitless and attainable by all who are willing to make the effort to acquire it and that the fruits of one's labor should not be taxed away.
My good friend, what you have just described is the Libertarian Party!

That’s wonderful. Now why don’t you exhort all the Libertarians to join the Republican Party? Look at all the confusion that would be eliminated.

Here's the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. Republicans will steal money from a man and force him to learn how to fish like they do, while Libertarians will allow the man to learn how to fish whatever way he wants.

Seems like a recipe for failure to me. Inefficient, to say the least.

And republican don't?
I don't see any republicans trying to abolish minimum wage.
I don't see any republicans trying to make schooling private.
I don't see any republicans trying to stop government special interest funding.
I don't see any republicans stopping the monopolies big businesses have.

It is apparent that you and I are not seeing with the same eyes.

The origin of the Republican party was quite Libertarian in nature, allowing for freedom and prosperity. However, through many many years it has become almost exactly like the Democratic party, with minor issues varying between the two.

The differences are far greater than you seem to believe and the gulf was widening until the Democrats deciphered the handwriting on the wall and began leaning in the other direction.

 

[Gabo]

That’s wonderful. Now why don’t you exhort all the Libertarians to join the Republican Party? Look at all the confusion that would be eliminated.

How about the other way around? Unlike Republicans, Libertarians don't have control freaks like George Bush who are trying to increase government size and further limit our freedoms. If anything, genuine Republicans should become Libertarian.

Seems like a recipe for failure to me. Inefficient, to say the least.

Allowing someone to choose their service provider is a recipe for failure and inefficient? On the contrary, monopolizing and allowing only one provider of a service is inefficient and causes failure.

It is apparent that you and I are not seeing with the same eyes.

I haven't seen Bush try to do any of those things that I mentioned, all of which would allow for the capitalistic society you say Republicans are all about.
It appears Republicans are a party with people varying from Socialists to Conservatives. Quite a wide range for just one political party.


I don't understand the logic behind Democrats and Republicans. They continue to say our nation has complete freedom while lobbying for more restrictions on rights and more increases to the horrendously huge government budget.

 

[heyjoeo]

The differences are far greater than you seem to believe and the gulf was widening until the Democrats deciphered the handwriting on the wall and began leaning in the other direction.

NEGATIVE. I want you to look at the states won during Clinton's election. The shift of the Republican party caused them to appeal to the states originally held by Democrats. If anything, the Republicans are copying off of the Democrats.

Also you are looking wayyy too deeply into the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties want to accomplish the same thing: to make money and be in power. Both parties are corrupt. Politicans are corrupt. "Analyze" all you want but you cannot get away from that fact.

 

[Fantasea]

The differences are far greater than you seem to believe and the gulf was widening until the Democrats deciphered the handwriting on the wall and began leaning in the other direction.

NEGATIVE. I want you to look at the states won during Clinton's election. The shift of the Republican party caused them to appeal to the states originally held by Democrats. If anything, the Republicans are copying off of the Democrats.

DOUBLE NEGATIVE. The Democrats failed to notice that so many of their constituents were moving up the economic ladder in terms of income, and therefore, tax liability. They also failed to notice that many of their 'politically correct' views were not resonating with their core constituency.

Hence, as I have noted before, in successive elections over a twelve year span, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House, twice.

Their elitist arrogance blinded them to the fact that they were on this ski slope, slaloming toward oblivion.

Also you are looking wayyy too deeply into the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties want to accomplish the same thing: to make money and be in power. Both parties are corrupt. Politicans are corrupt. "Analyze" all you want but you cannot get away from that fact.

I won't argue this point except to say this. In the matter of making money, the Democrats want to make it more and more difficult to amass it, are exceptionally covetous of what I have, and struggle mightily to separate me from all that it can. When I am bled dry, will they then be content?

The Republicans, on the other hand, encourage me to make all that I can and are satisfied with a comfortably small portion. The remainder, they understand, will be used to earn more, which, in turn increases, painlessly for me, the amount they will collect. This cycle continues and I and the government are both pleased at the outcome.

 

[Gabo]

I won't argue this point except to say this. In the matter of making money, the Democrats want to make it more and more difficult to amass it, are exceptionally covetous of what I have, and struggle mightily to separate me from all that it can. When I am bled dry, will they then be content?

The Republicans, on the other hand, encourage me to make all that I can and are satisfied with a comfortably small portion. The remainder, they understand, will be used to earn more, which, in turn increases, painlessly for me, the amount they will collect. This cycle continues and I and the government are both pleased at the outcome.

Does it really matter which of the two parties is slightly worse? They both opt for plenty of control over our daily lives, and continue to enlarge the national budget, which is plenty horrendous as is.

We need to tell our government representatives that we're tired of being leeched off of and we want to lead our own lives like we once were able to!

 

[Fantasea]

We need to tell our government representatives that we're tired of being leeched off of and we want to lead our own lives like we once were able to!

You seem to be longing for the days when individuals were respectful and considerate of others, ready to lend a helping hand, and didn't get hung up over what was and whas not politically correct.

 

[Gabo]

You seem to be longing for the days when individuals were respectful and considerate of others, ready to lend a helping hand, and didn't get hung up over what was and whas not politically correct.

I long for the days when the Constitution was followed....

When the government didn't control and oversee every detail of our lives....

When we could make our own decisions and reap the consequences, whether they were good or bad.....

When we could take home what we earned from working....

And most importantly.... When WE lived our lives, instead of the government telling us how to live them.....


Times like that were what made America shine, and what made our country so great.

People changing to be evil or good has nothing to do with all the regulations imposed on us. The only part of government affected should have been the judiciary sytem. We might have required more policemen and judges, but no way in heck we needed numerous limitations on our rights to try and control us.

 

[MeChMAN]

I think we need to quit making the people of this country vote for one extreme or the other it dosen't do anything but divide us.

 

[Fantasea]

I think we need to quit making the people of this country vote for one extreme or the other it dosen't do anything but divide us.

The division began in revolutionary times when a third of the people supported breaking away from England, one third wanted to stick with England, and the other third didn't care, either way.

It continued through the Civil War. It continued all through the twentieth century.

Some folks want socialism and some want capitalism.

What would you suggest?

 

[Pacridge]

Some folks want socialism and some want capitalism.

What would you suggest?

Not letting either one run unchecked.

 

[Pacridge]

I long for the days when the Constitution was followed....

What parts of it do you see not being followed?