Author Topic: the two party system and why its a good thing....and the TEA PARTY (Read 1467 times)

45-70.gov · « **on:** July 01, 2012, 05:24:14 AM »

''a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule''
i forget who said that

but it is so true
the ONLY way to control a mob is with another mob
a third mob only splits up the mob most like it

this is not a 3rd party thread or lesser of 2 evils

just whats good about the 2 party system....AND HOW IT CAN BE IMPROVED

i think closed primaries for one
ALL primaries on the same day for another
PRIMARIES SHOULD BE DOMINATED BUY OTHER GROUPS TO HELP EDUCATE THE VOTERS
groups like NRA and recently the TEA PARTY have done good things to influence outcomes

Gary G · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2012, 06:20:01 AM »

Well, the two party system is a good thing for the banksters and elites. It allows them to buy both sides.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2012, 11:13:33 AM »

any suggestion on how to remove the 2 party system??

twoshooter · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2012, 04:26:33 PM »

It cannot " be done", if it happens, it will happen. The last time it successfully occurred, I believe the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans. The Whigs faded out and once again there were two parties. I could see a realignment though, with factions migrating between the two. It is very difficult if not impossible for me to choose a "party" as basic tenants of both I find repulsive, while others of both are reasonable and commendable. I do think that a 50.1 / 49.9 split will in the end be unsustainable, something will have to give. There will have to arise either a need so great or a condition so abhorrent to a large enough segment of the population to create an irresistible movement for change.

Needles · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2012, 06:52:30 PM »

Problem is, if you look at the system as set up for ONLY two parties, it degenerates into what we have today. Both sides become so polarized in the extremes that neither side fully represents what most of the people want. If you look at the system as being set up for AT LEAST two parties, then other parties can develop and take over votes as they become more of what the people want. When it gets down to what we have now, the difference between the US and China is one political party. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a platform that I agree with. Occasionally, a single person on one side or the other will say or do something intelligent, but I've learned not to expect it, and their own party usually turns on them when it happens.

Gary G · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2012, 12:10:27 AM »

If we could go back to the old way of electing presidents as well as senators, there would be no parties and no welfare/warfare state in my opinion.

Dee · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2012, 12:42:10 AM »

As long as you have "career politicians" whom think only of "protecting their career", and as long as you have a "voting populace", willing to vote for the "lessor of two evils", you will always have a government that will continually slide farther and farther into the abyss of "government self-service", based on the "government is all powerful".
Voting for the "lessor of two evils" is "fear voting" plain and simple. One can deny this all one wants, but their reasoning for voting the "lessor of", is fear of the "more of". The problem with this voting method, is the "lessor of" eventually surpasses the "more of", and the "lessor of voter" continually has to "move his voting standards" to accommodate the next "lessor of" candidate.
Jefferson warned of the party system, but the voting populace has it's own individual agendas in a collective sort of way. The unions vote democrat, because the democratic candidates want the votes, and financial support. i.e.? Power for both groups.
The welfare recipient votes democrat, because the present form of democratic politician, wants socialistic government, and supports the welfare system.
The once poor farmer, now has evolved into the somewhat wealthy, and in many cases wealthy farmer. Why? He too has sold out for the money of the democratic offer of bigger government. It is called "farm subsidy", but is in fact the biggest "welfare program" of all, and the farmer has learned to "double down" and sign his wife and or children up for the same "farm subsidy" that he himself (whom actually farms) gets. And so, the "farm subsidy" is always in the farmers mind when he picks a usually democratic candidate. i.e. He vote in fear of protecting his "believed deserved" farm welfare.
Is there a solution to this mess? I believe yes! Kick out the career politician, with TERM LIMITS. Kick out the lobbyists, lobbying for POWER IN THE FIELD. And cut out the "subsidies", i.e. "WELFARE" for control in all aspects of private business, and let the "capitalist system" go back to a "pass or fail" system. Will it happen? Nope! Too many lobbyists, and too many so-called private enterprizers on the government dole. They will vote their pocket book rather than their heart.
Whether it be the union worker, the welfare government housing crowd, the farmer, or the public school educated socialist youngster. Until this country hits rock bottom, this is what we will continually spiral down too. Do I support the "tea party movement"? You damn right I do. It is the last bastion of common sense, but it too is a minority, and will be "I fear" in the end. An also ran. JMO

twoshooter · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2012, 02:22:19 AM »

I did not notice mention of the military and defense contractors that always generate fear and pony up money to get REPUBLICAN votes, or the police and homeland security apparatus that does the same domestically, or the business that is always crying about their subsidies and tax loopholes, or the churches that decry any government interference and are tax exempt, but sure as hell mess with politics and generate funds on the right.

Dee · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2012, 02:24:44 AM »

Then I would suggest you mention them yourself. The political tits are endless on both sides. I mentioned the bigger ones that come to MY mind. Yours may be different.

magooch · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:05:55 AM »

There is nothing chiselled in stone that mandates a two party political system in this country. It is just that two dominate parties have evolved. The Republican Party is ostensibly more conservative--maybe not to the degree that many of us would like--and the Dumycrat Party is--well, we know that it has evolved to embrace just about everything espoused by Marxist communists.

It is sad that so many in our poopulation have allied themselves with the commies, but it is the natural evolution of democracy where those who become dependent on government will support government that feeds their dependency.

There are plenty of other parties that lurk on the fringe, but they will always be minor players and will probably at best only be effective as an occasional spoiler.

As a side note, it is interesting that those who call themselves Democrats are adament that they belong to the "Democratic Party"; wouldn't that logically mean that they be called Democratics? Not that I care, because there is no getting around the true nature of their politics--communism!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:17:19 AM »

There is nothing chiselled in stone that mandates a two party political system in this country. It is just that two dominate parties have evolved. The Republican Party is ostensibly more conservative--maybe not to the degree that many of us would like--and the Dumycrat Party is--well, we know that it has evolved to embrace just about everything espoused by Marxist communists.

probly the biggest obstacle to another party rising is the electoral college

any suggestions or any one trying to end this?

??

Dee · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:27:33 AM »

I would agree magooch, in that the lines have been intentionally "blurred" so that it is only thru close scrutiny that one can pick out what the politician truly represents. In the last election the majority here was going for McCain, ignoring his 30+ year career of eroding our constitutional rights while pretending to be a conservative.
The reason other truly more conservative candidates, were not on the ticket was failure from the voting public to check the "available facts" on each candidate. Laziness, and apathy, caused "fear of one candidate" to vote the lessor of two "known evils". This only results in continually "lowering the bar of expectations" to match the voters "compromised standards", is to "continually settle for less". So here we are today, waiting on the collapse that will surely arrive.
Collectively we as a country have gotten exactly what we deserve, and what we have put into the effort of the election process.

magooch · « **Reply #12 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:35:17 AM »

We need to hope that the Electoral College stays put. Without it, there would be no chance for small population states to have any say whatsoever in selecting the President. As it stands, a handful of highly populated states have far too much influence and within those few states it is the metropolitan areas with their liberal bent that pulls this country off center. Even relatively conservative states have to constantly battle their liberal cities where the libs seem to congregate.

Like most things, the Electoral College isn't perfect, but I shudder to think where we would be without it.

Dee · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:58:37 AM »

I would agree with that also.

twoshooter · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:16:10 AM »

On that I concur also. On most issues there is no Illinois- there is Chicago. Here in Missouri there is KC/ St Louis, and then the rest of us. The bulk of our population is concentrated in relatively small areas, and if you are not on a coast, you are often overlooked.

lakota · « **Reply #15 on:** July 02, 2012, 10:12:16 AM »

I dont think the 2 party system is a good thing. One party is extreme left and the other party is extreme right but the majority of the population is probably extreme middle. Just who is it that is being represented?

twoshooter · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2012, 11:40:22 AM »

I have heard often that statement about how the coast has a net tax loss. I would be happy to prevent further loss and have you keep your money, and your culture, ideas, customs etc etc. The number one valued commodity from my view is space. We have quite a bit here, but not enough.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2012, 12:09:54 PM »

I will stay put in North Central Texas, and watch Rome burn I suppose. My fire truck is out of water, and the west coast doesn't seem worth saving anyway. As for the East Coast, there are areas there, a good fire might improve.
If hanging ever comes back into vogue, Washington would be a good location to start, and then the U.S. might have a chance.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2012, 01:21:06 PM »

Short of armed rebellion we will never get rid of the "two party system". It is too well entrenched and any attempt to dismantle it will only bring them together, long enough to crush those who would try.

BTW, I am not suggesting that we rebel. If we were to try we would lose horrifically!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2012, 01:44:22 PM »

back to the electoral college

the big cities dictate where the intire states elevtoral votes go

ALSO can any one name the last time a third got ONE electoral vote??

at that rate we WILL be stuck with the 2 parties we still have

luckily i live in a swing state

i like gorgia i think
you have to get 50%+1 to win....or there is a run off
that way a third man is not always a spoiler

good to see you back DEE....i always learn something from you

Dee · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:14:19 PM »

Well, if you learn anything from me worthwhile, point it out to me. I could use it to convince my wife I'm not just senile.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #21 on:** July 02, 2012, 03:43:01 PM »

Quote from: Dee on July 02, 2012, 03:14:19 PM

Well, if you learn anything from me worthwhile, point it out to me. I could use it to convince my wife I'm not just senile.

i was giving you a hard time over voting 3rd party....[not supproting Mcain]

you pointed out you live in texas

and all your electoral votes would go to Mcain anyway.......you were right

Dee · « **Reply #22 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:17:59 AM »

I don't remember the conversation, but I know, and knew then, the information you mention is true. However, 45-70.gov. I am more interested in explaining to God Himself, why I voted for a "Godly Man", instead of a heathen because the heathen had a better chance to win. That was, and is always, my reason for voting for anyone.
While others may scoff, and say that I am wasting my vote, and helping the bad guy, I view it as standing for what is right, and for Godly principles, no matter what. Being Christian, is not always popular, and sometimes Christian principles are not easily understood by other voters, but they'll just have to get over it.
In this next election, I already knew before hand what Obama was, and he has proved to me, I was right. However, I also know what Romney is, and what he stands for, and what he believes, so I am once again met with a hard decision.
Weather I lived in Texas, or Maine, my reasons for supporting a candidate would be the same regardless of the result.

Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** July 03, 2012, 01:56:19 AM »

The Tea Party, but they are not in power, and most likely never will be. We are heading for an economic fall that will make the last one look very minor in comparison. The last one descended on an agricultural based society, that was mostly aware on how to go about taking care of themselves. This present society however, has evolved into a "right to" society, sometimes referred to as a "nanny state". Most don't even know how to check their own oil, and their over-weight, game playing, button pushin, children are even worse off. Without gasoline, and a lighter, they couldn't build a fire to keep warm. Provided they survived the gasoline and lighter experience.
I look at my old high school annuals (1950s thru 1960s), and realize that in the entire school, from 1st grade to 12th, there were 2 people that were grossly over weight in the whole school, and 2 or 3 that were slightly over weight. And NOW, when I go to a high school football game, or reunion, that virtually almost everyone there (including some of the players) are FAT!
The two party system, and lack of term limits is what has led us "collectively" to where we are today. They play the game, and they take turns being the "lessor of two evils" that American voters so love to "justify" each election, and argue about the rest of the time.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2012, 02:12:10 AM »

all good points

but what i am trying to figure out is

how can you stop a 2 party system with out giving tremendous power to government?

the TEA party is not a party...
..but a groug trying to take over a party rather tham hopelessly try to start another

Dee · « **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2012, 07:00:21 AM »

The "Tea Party" isn't a party because not enough folks will step out of the ditch, and back into the road. They want a sure thing, and "standing on the side of right" is not a sure thing on this earth.
If enough would step up, and instead of voting out of fear, but would vote for RIGHT, then something like the "Tea Party" might become viable. Until then? Same ole, same ole. When the United States finally hits rock bottom, then and only then, will people stop trying to trade a little of their freedoms off, a little at a time, for a little false sense of "prolonged security" that never lasts. IF! There's anything left to salvage.
This habit of the American voter, and their "lessor of two evil" way of voting, is like puttin a dog collar on a coyote, and naming him Spot. No matter how much they want the coyote to act like the family pet, and protector. He keeps stealin their chickens, and sound, moral reasoning as to why, continually escapes them.
Mitt Romney is nothing but a younger, slicked up version of folks like McCain. His past deeds are out there for all to see, and yet he got the nomination. There are many folks out there with good family morals, but that neither makes them Christian, nor a good leader.
Romney has always blown in what ever direction the political wind blew him, and he always will. That's just who he is.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:28:01 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on July 03, 2012, 03:44:13 AM

Quote
how can you stop a 2 party system with out giving tremendous power to government?
.
Always vote alternative party. Never vote ElphaDonk. Consider not voting... a national vote out_ _don't give them a quorum.. A no vote Party...then you have a right to complain.. If you vote ElphaDonk then you helped cause the problem...
.
..TM7

well if 80% did as you say
then 20% would decide who runs the country

DEE
The "Tea Party" isn't a party because not enough folks will step out of the ditch, and back into the road. They want a sure thing, and "standing on the side of right" is not a sure thing on this earth. If enough would step up, and instead of voting out of fear, but would vote for RIGHT, then something like the "Tea Party" might become viable. Until then?

they are not a party because the way it is they cannot competa with either DEMZ or REPUBS
let alone both.....they do stick together to keep out new parties

so they work within their limatations and try to take over a party
seems like talk radio and fox give them some support
support they would loose as a 3rd party

Dee · « **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:35:12 AM »

I don't disagree with that. My family support the Tea Party and attend local gatherings when possible. I think the Tea Party is more of a mind set anyway. I'm 100% Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Anything replacing or changing those two, and I not on board.
Anyway, I think things may have gone too far to bring it back by voting anyway. Too many programs to sucker the youngsters, and some of the older crowd in. That's not countin all the subsidy programs, and give aways too. Both sides want their free ride of sorts.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:54:14 AM »

Quote from: Dee on July 03, 2012, 11:35:12 AM

I don't disagree with that. My family support the Tea Party and attend local gatherings when possible. I think the Tea Party is more of a mind set anyway. I'm 100% Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Anything replacing or changing those two, and I not on board.
Anyway, I think things may have gone too far to bring it back by voting anyway. Too many programs to sucker the youngsters, and some of the older crowd in. That's not countin all the subsidy programs, and give aways too. Both sides want their free ride of sorts.

looks like your seeing what i am having a hard time defining

can the TEA party take over the reblicans
or do you think they would do better working within the democratic party
now getting the TEA PARTY to ''field'' good candidates is what we do in the primaries

2 party system/ lesser of 2 evils is what we have
like it or not
i just think fixing or improving it would be easier than abolishing it
most suggestion to abolish it would have worse un-intended consequences

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:14:58 PM »

Quote

I am more interested in explaining to God Himself, why I voted for a "Godly Man", instead of a heathen because the heathen had a better chance to win. That was, and is always, my reason for voting for anyone.

Glad to see you're back Dee, posts like this are why you were missed

I would have no problem with the two party system if one of those parties were fiscally conservative. There is one party that claims to be conservative but their actions have proven otherwise.

There is only one way to eliminate the two party stranglehold - vote for a party besides those two.