How do our conservative SB members feel about if the US had just one major party system. Kinda like China where there are "other" parties but only one holds all the power. Imagine if Obama or any other democrat (which will automatically be labelled socialist liberal) were never elected again. We could have Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and any other of our conservative true american friends in power to execute the real solution to our problems.

Yes liberals whine, cry, and protest when a republican win. Yet it pails in comparison to the outright aggressive attacks and all out bitching done by die-hard conservatives when a democrat win. Nothing the new democrat candidate does apparently is right; never even giving the guy a chance. On the other hand when their person is in office NOTHING they ever do is wrong. The realization i have started to come to is that some of these people would seriously be in favor if their party were always in control. Of course they would want other parties to exist such that they could pat themselves on teh back of the illusion of democracy; but as long as in practice xyz republican candidate always won than its USA #1.

My views are neither quite republican nor democrat. I voted for Obama even though i spent the last year until August thinking i'd vote McCain. Nonetheless I would NEVER want to see one party regardless of my views have exclusive hold over a certain branch of the government over an extended time.

2/17/2009 8:39:38 PM

Quote :

"How do our conservative SB members feel about if the US had just one major party system"

if?

We do have a one-party system. If McCain were president, there would still be an $800b stimulus plan, or thereabouts, maybe with a few more tax-cuts substituted for the spending. We'd still be bailing everyone out. We'd still be adding more troops in Iraqistan. Regulatory agencies of all kinds would still be growing and prospering...and on and on and on. There is no substantive 2nd party.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 8:50 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2009 8:46:34 PM

^amen

the only semblance we have of two parties now is

INFORMED

and

UNINFORMED

2/17/2009 8:52:24 PM

Quote :

"Yet it pails in comparison to the outright aggressive attacks and all out bitching done by die-hard conservatives when a democrat win. Nothing the new democrat candidate does apparently is right; never even giving the guy a chance. On the other hand when their person is in office NOTHING they ever do is wrong. The realization i have started to come to is that some of these people would seriously be in favor if their party were always in control."

I think you've adequately described both republicans and democrats. I mean an examination of the last 8 years would yield the same exact conclusion of the democrats (who for instanced, railed GWBs "faith based initiatives", but Obama wants to expand them and you haven't heard a word about that)

Everyone wants and wishes that their party were in control all the time. That's why they're so keen on granting the government powers when they're in control, because they never stop to think "oh shit, what happens when we lose an election"

2/17/2009 8:52:39 PM

this thread was over with the first post

lock it up

2/17/2009 9:12:49 PM

If parties didn't exist the country might be better. Right now everyone pretty much votes with their party. It's not about doing what is right for the country, it is about sticking with your party even if they are wrong.

2/17/2009 10:05:04 PM

Quote :

"If parties didn't exist the country might be better. Right now everyone pretty much votes with their party. It's not about doing what is right for the country, it is about sticking with your party even if they are wrong."

Ultimately, this is what is wrong with [American] politics.

2/17/2009 10:18:08 PM

Conservatives do not have representation anymore. McCain was no where near being conservative in my book.

Regardless of party, Dem or Rep, I would love for a fiscally responsible president to take office after Obama. I wouldn't mind seeing the Liberatarian party gain some traction and actually produce a strong candidate. It would be a welcome "Change".

2/17/2009 10:18:36 PM

I agree with tulip and hoff.

Instead of having different parties I would love for them to do away with parties completely. Imagine if you had to actually research who you were looknig for instead of just saying I vote for my brand. People might actually think for a second... strange yet scary.

2/17/2009 10:23:33 PM

Quote :

"Yet it pails in comparison to the outright aggressive attacks and all out bitching done by die-hard conservatives when a democrat win. Nothing the new democrat candidate does apparently is right; never even giving the guy a chance. On the other hand when their person is in office NOTHING they ever do is wrong."

wrong and dumb

both sides bitch equally

2/17/2009 10:24:22 PM

Quote :

"If parties didn't exist the country might be better"

100% agreed.

Quote :

"McCain was no where near being conservative in my book. "

He was trying hard to fit the image; surely Palin did.

I'd argue this attempt is what cost him the election. Contrary to common Conservative
Evangelical Christian and Neo-Con belief the republicans did not lose so much power this
past election due to not being "conservative" enough.

Quote :

"I would love for a fiscally responsible president to take office after Obama. I wouldn't mind seeing the Liberatarian party gain some traction and actually produce a strong candidate"

I really have begun to question lately the actual political power of the American people after the unprecedented (in last couple decades)
of a huge grassroots campaign like Ron Paul's that ultimately got squelched by the media and power brokers of our society.

Whats better coke or pepsi?

2/17/2009 10:31:03 PM

Quote :

"Kinda like China where there are "other" parties but only one holds all the power."

You really have no idea how a communist state operates, do you?

No, there is no real parliamentary democracy taking place, but the Chinese communist party is not dominated by one man or even one faction (not even under Mao). That is one defense of political communism: it limits the negative aspects of democracy without sacrificing the benefits of a pluralistic political system.

That doesn't make it a better system, just better at whatever it chooses to do. Regretfully, for much of its history, China's system chose to impoverish and murder its citizens, which it was much better at doing than the American system was (which has only ever managed to impoverish its own citizens).

2/17/2009 10:38:48 PM

^^McCain lost because Obama is a rock star. Obama also ran a much better campaign.

I agree with Dan Carlin, in that Palin was McCain's attempt at swinging for the stands, it was a hail mary pass. He had already lost the game and had little to lose by gambling on Palin.

Ohh, you don't know who Dan Carlin is? You should listen to his podcast.
http://dancarlin.libsyn.com/media/dancarlin/cswdcb33.mp3
http://app-store.appspot.com/?url=viewPodcast%3Fid%3D155974141


[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : -]

2/17/2009 10:42:34 PM

Quote :

"pails in comparison"

it pails in comparison to the amount of bucket this thread should be filling.

2/17/2009 10:57:51 PM

Quote :

"Instead of having different parties I would love for them to do away with parties completely. Imagine if you had to actually research who you were looknig for instead of just saying I vote for my brand. People might actually think for a second... strange yet scary. "

The trick is, how do you eliminate political parties without simultaneously infringing on constitutional rights to freedom of association and speech?

2/17/2009 10:58:26 PM

Quote :

"it pails in comparison to the amount of bucket this thread should be filling."

you really are just a cock-sucker aren't ya. Going out of the fucking way to troll and ad hom threads i create or reply within irregardless of the topic at hand.

Sorry fucktard after working 12 hours today, while you were sipping on lattes with your gay lover in the crap liberal paradise aka Seattle, i came home and mistyped "pail" instead of "pale". FUCK OFF

2/17/2009 11:14:42 PM

Mao actually had very thorough control of his own Politburo. How many times did Zhou Enlai denounce himself in front of the Party even while dying from Cancer?

Not to mention the fact that Maoist China wasn't even Communism real or Soviet.

2/18/2009 3:05:50 AM

Quote :

"We could have Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and any other of our conservative true american friends in power to execute the real solution to our problems."

If you choose to ignore the fact that the majority of "true Americans" who cared enough to vote went the other way...

2/18/2009 6:07:56 AM

Quote :

"Yes liberals whine, cry, and protest when a republican win. Yet it pails in comparison to the outright aggressive attacks and all out bitching done by die-hard conservatives when a democrat win. Nothing the new democrat candidate does apparently is right; never even giving the guy a chance. On the other hand when their person is in office NOTHING they ever do is wrong"

lol... This post has to be just troll bait. I would hope you don't honestly believe that. Bush was probably THE most attacked president of all time, and I am not talking about his last few years. Try to think back to pre-9/11.

2/18/2009 6:16:47 AM

^
True... both sides get attacked, and rightfully so. However, I think the types of attacks vary, and therefore some people believe one side gets it worse. I typically attack republicans for their tendency to be socially conservative, and I tend to attack democrats for their tendency to be economically liberal. Personally, I view the democrats as more of a threat because I simply don't see social conservatism going very far. The social advances we've made, that most republicans oppose and want to undo, will almost certainly not ever be undone. However, democrats tend to want more socialist-style policies (tax, spend, nationalize, etc.) and these have a very good chance of actually happening, so are the bigger threat.

Quote :

"The trick is, how do you eliminate political parties without simultaneously infringing on constitutional rights to freedom of association and speech?"

Exactly. Which is why I will always support the strategy (for combating religion, too,) of dilution, not evaporation. In other words, instead of trying to reduce the 2-party system to a zero-party system, we should try to increase it to 3 or 5-party system. No single party would likely ever have total control, which is good. Plus, parties would then tend to work together, rather than being completely split in half.


Aficionado

Quote :

"this thread was over with the first post... lock it up"

joe_schmoe

Quote :

"...the amount of bucket this thread should be filling."

Dear mods: Is this kind of posting in the soap box allowed? Posts like these not only have nothing to do with the topic, but they are insulting, investigative and often harm both the thread itself, as well as people's interest in reading it.

2/18/2009 7:27:07 AM

I would prefer multiple parties, a dozen maybe, all on the same level. I would also rather have the two houses of congress serve different purposes and do away with having a president all together.

2/18/2009 8:21:10 AM

Quote :

"Dear mods: Is this kind of posting in the soap box allowed? Posts like these not only have nothing to do with the topic, but they are insulting, investigative and often harm both the thread itself, as well as people's interest in reading it."

lulz

seriously?

2/18/2009 9:04:47 AM

Quote :

"Dear mods: Is this kind of posting in the soap box allowed"

I think Schmoe is just mad that is ex g/f had teh train ran on her at my frat house while they were dating.

2/18/2009 9:19:02 AM

Wow, I think that deserves a suspension. It's bad enough you make this idiotic thread, but then you say some shit like that that has no place here.

2/18/2009 9:50:38 AM

^^
Are you agreeing with me? Then why are you pouring fuel on the fire?

Quote :

"I would also rather have the two houses of congress serve different purposes and do away with having a president all together."

Please elaborate.
I think the distinction between the two houses is just fine, as is the electoral college -- because they are truly "american" in that our system of representation is split between the people and the states. This synthesis is paramount, and shouldn't be messed with. Alleged problems often cited about the electoral college or the 2-house congress are usually just symptoms of the real problems caused by the 2-party system. (The 2-party system is the real problem.)

And as for doing away with the president: I understand the sentiment -- the president is highly over-rated, and has too much power in our technology-enabled-celebrity-worship environment. Certainly the framers of the constitution didn't adequately predict the degree of celebrity that would endanger the role the of the president. I mean, at least the last 4 presidents have been far more charming than effective. But "do away" completely?... as in do away with the executive branch? No. Not good.

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2009 10:04:24 AM

Quote :

"I would also rather have the two houses of congress serve different purposes "

Well, that was how it was set up originally. The house represented the interests of the people, the senate, the interests of the states. Then we amended the constitution to have senators elected by the people and the have both since pandered to the people, resulting in a decrease in state power, and an increase in size and importance of the federal government.

2/18/2009 10:37:57 AM

Quote :

"lol... This post has to be just troll bait. I would hope you don't honestly believe that. Bush was probably THE most attacked president of all time, and I am not talking about his last few years. Try to think back to pre-9/11."

I think the pre-9/11 bitching that took place from the left was mostly due to the circumstances under which Bush became president. Had it not been a rightfully contested election then I seriously doubt the left would have started off with such a negative perspective of things.

Be that as it may, following 9/11 bush had complete support from the left and received little to no criticism until he invaded Iraq. Even post invasion things were still peachy for bush until around the start of 2004.

Obama has been attacked with less reason and has even had ideologues say they want his plans to fail without even giving them a chance. The right has definitely provided more acrimonious accusations and operated with less justified derision than was applied to Bush at the start of his term.

2/18/2009 10:45:11 AM

^^And that's the problem with the whole system. Everyone puts too much stock into the President, saying that if this, this, and that don't happen then he's a failure. He's only one person, he can't accomplish much with so many people against him.

Obama has some great plans but they will only work if everyone cooperates, and unfortunately it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Therefor all these rightists who are giving him shit before he's even had a chance to do anything are purposefully going to cause him to fail, and its only going to put our country into a worse position.

Even if you don't think his plan is the best, at least there's a fucking plan. Blocking him from accomplishing anything is just going to make it worse and those selfish assholes should be ashamed of themselves.

2/18/2009 10:52:12 AM

Quote :

"Be that as it may, following 9/11 bush had complete support from the left and received little to no criticism until he invaded Iraq. Even post invasion things were still peachy for bush until around the start of 2004. Obama has been attacked with less reason and has even had ideologues say they want his plans to fail without even giving them a chance. The right has definitely provided more acrimonious accusations and operated with less justified derision than was applied to Bush at the start of his term."

So what? Because the left commited a crime by going along with Bush, the right should be forced to go along with Obama?

Two wrongs do not make a right. We should instead be promising to hate the president on purpose just in case he attempts to pull another Iraq out of his ass. Who knows, maybe Obama will decide tomorrow to spend the nation into bankrupcy without oversight or even reason, jacking up tarriffs and taxes to pay for it, impoverishing us all and creating a second Great Depression, just as Hoover did.

Could you honestly say everyone should give him a pass on that just because we fucked up and gave a pass to Bush to commit different attrocities?

2/18/2009 11:12:24 AM

Quote :

"Be that as it may, following 9/11 bush had complete support from the left and received little to no criticism until he invaded Iraq. Even post invasion things were still peachy for bush until around the start of 2004. Obama has been attacked with less reason and has even had ideologues say they want his plans to fail without even giving them a chance. The right has definitely provided more acrimonious accusations and operated with less justified derision than was applied to Bush at the start of his term."

One could say that Congress is simply learning from previous mistakes and will now be much more ready to question the President on massive bills like this. I think a comparison to the stimulus would be the Patriot Act. There certainly are differences, but there are some crucial similarities: high speed rush to pass the bill, little time for review, and fearmongering about how slowing passage will lead to the destruction of the Republic. At least with the Stimulus Bill, there was more of an effort to review the bill though I wish there was more coherence and review given the price tag.

2/18/2009 11:28:35 AM

Quote :

"Even if you don't think his plan is the best, at least there's a fucking plan. Blocking him from accomplishing anything is just going to make it worse and those selfish assholes should be ashamed of themselves."

The dems argument is that the crises is so bad, we have to do something now. They aren't too worried about what that something is (did any of them even read the spending bill?)..we just have to do something. Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing (don't doctors have an oath about that?)

And trying to block his plans to nationalize huge segments of the economy is not being selfish.

2/18/2009 11:38:57 AM

Quote :

"The house represented the interests of the people, the senate, the interests of the states."

Also, the House was to represent the "masses" (and thus had the most power), and the Senate the "natural aristocracy" (the smartest or most successful). Today they both represent the masses, which would have been to the chagrin of Jefferson:

Quote :

"You are afraid of the one, I, the few. We agree perfectly that the man should have full, fair and perfect representation [in the House]. You are apprehensive of monarchy; I, of aristocracy. I would therefore have given more power to the President and less to the Senate."

- Adams to Jefferson, 1787

2/18/2009 11:45:07 AM

2/18/2009 12:12:32 PM

^^ you mean the lobbyists and their own self interest to get re-elected.

[Edited on February 18, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : a]

2/18/2009 12:13:10 PM

Quote :

"Could you honestly say everyone should give him a pass on that just because we fucked up and gave a pass to Bush to commit different attrocities?"

Quote :

"So what? Because the left commited a crime by going along with Bush, the right should be forced to go along with Obama?"

I'm not sure if you understood the point which i assumed was illustrated through referencing an earlier comment by use of the quote i placed above my post. My point was that both sides do stoop to mere squabbling and bitching and that bush was not a innocent victim of attack dogs from the left, as that poster was suggesting.

2/18/2009 12:15:32 PM

Quote :

"Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing (don't doctors have an oath about that?)"

2/21/2009 6:36:02 AM

Basically you're asking, "What if America had Japan's political system?"

I can tell you good sir, it doesn't work very well for the average citizen.

2/21/2009 6:42:56 AM

VIVA LA ONE-PARTY SYSTEM

2/21/2009 11:34:29 AM

Return of the Democratic-Republican Party?

2/21/2009 2:34:04 PM

If all the sore-loser republicans who call themselves "Libertarians" right now would actually re-register and run for offices and vote for lib candidates

we could actually have a third party

unfortunately, in about 10 or 15 months some flyer is going to cross the desks of a lot of people with either

A) pro-life
B) lower taxes
C) anti-obama
D) pro-Jesus

rhetoric* and these "libertarians" will be suckling the teat again...

Quote :

"SUCKLING THE TEAT"

meanwhile,
roe v. wade will never be overturned; if it wasn't overturned while bush was running the show in 2004-2006 with the house, senate, courts, and no need to run for re-election (i call it the republican perfect storm), it will never be overturned

the vast majority of people who worry about tax rates have the vast majority of their salary taxed at the lowest levels

obama is going to have a second term, if he won without a record, why the hell would he lose with one

the wall separating church and state is going to hopefully be stronger than ever now

so actually, carry on with the teat suckling

[Edited on February 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM. Reason : (*note - there will probably be at least one flyer that has all 4 of the rhetoric groups)]

2/22/2009 2:16:43 AM

Quote :

"would actually re-register and run for offices and vote for lib candidates we could actually have a third party"

This is what I keep screaming.
The GOP is dead. If they don't migrate to the libertarian party, the dems will have control for perhaps decades.

I bet a young and popular libertarian could beat obama in 2012, or at least get more votes than the GOP.

Quote :

"the wall separating church and state is going to hopefully be stronger than ever now "

I sure fucking hope so. Obama did acknowledge those without faith, but he's still a bit preachy

2/22/2009 2:29:46 AM

It already feels like our elected presidents are becoming more and more ceremonial. Sure they may sign pieces of paper for looks but its not like our hugely independent globalizing economic sector isn't holding their hands while they do it. It just seems we're going the way of Britain with ceremonial monarchy.

[Edited on February 22, 2009 at 2:35 AM. Reason : albeit 4 year term monarchy]

2/22/2009 2:34:46 AM

nancy pelosi is the only thing that keeps me from thinking the dem's could have a majority for 15-20 years

she could give the majority back to the repub's single handed

SINGLE HANDED

2/22/2009 2:36:19 AM

honestly I feel that the 4 year elections have become a tool to monitor the status and opinion of the American population by the economic superpowers at large. they use this information to access what to capitalize on because in this day and age profitability is the only moving apparatus of which policy is enacted upon

2/22/2009 3:42:10 AM

^
Very good point. As it currently stands, the two parties keep mutating in order to keep the populace split as near 50/50 as possible. Some would say that the two parties are just opposite sides of the same coin. Metaphorically, one is the yin, and one is the yang, and instead of an actual democracy, we live under the single-party yin-yang rule.

2/22/2009 4:33:44 AM

some would say aristocracy. I for one would say that the real nobility of America lies within the so called "constituents" of our fellow congressmen. Theres a lot of money being thrown around in politics and it seems the main reason is to keep things the same, an ever lasting monopoly of the have's over the have-nots. And sadly the US presidency's main objective has become none other than that, to keep things the same.

2/22/2009 4:51:23 AM

also let me just note that with this rhetoric i'm not advocating any type of revolution because as of now America is pretty much set into its path. As a staunch conservative I have come to terms with globalization as an ongoing process, begrudgingly. The dollar is being tested more than ever to see if it has legs, and even with all the debt we're accumulating it looks like its going to prevail. I really wouldn't be surprised if the democrats are right about this bill. People say its going to fuck everything up but I dont think the real writers of the bill itself are going allow the dollar drop a la 1930's depression wise. Dont be fooled, the corporate sector of America is very enterprising indeed.

2/22/2009 5:24:01 AM

I wish there were no parties. Part of the problem is that everyone votes with their party most of the time and a lot of people don't even take time to think what would be best for the country. Everyone is out for their party and themselves with the 2 party system. As one of my teachers at NC State said, "In some ways Al Gore's documentary was the worst thing that could have happened because, if you want to save the environment then you are a democrat, but if you don't want to then you are a republican."

2/22/2009 2:15:43 PM

^ i think that goes back to my informed vs uninformed issue

2/22/2009 2:29:14 PM

people also overlook the power of powerbrokers and kingmakers that exert major influence to our national leaders behind the scenes while being very little if at all in the public spotlight.

2/22/2009 3:29:31 PM