Show your work on how both sides are the same. We'll wait. Show how Dems are trying to destroy democracy and function as a dictatorship. It will be easy with the GOP, but since it both sides we want to see your work.
LOL, thanks for that precise bit of clarity. Your certainty is extremely persuasive. The electoral system we've created local/state/national promotes the dysfunction and hinders proper discourse and competition. It's a rigged system and only the parties/politicians benefit. If you think it's only one side you're either in on the con or being conned.
He already claimed that the idea that Reps tried to destroy democracy is lunacy. You're wasting your time.Show your work on how both sides are the same. We'll wait. Show how Dems are trying to destroy democracy and function as a dictatorship. It will be easy with the GOP, but since it both sides we want to see your work.
Shocker!Sorry, I didn't know there were rules that I had to only reply to certain comments and not others. I said I was going to respond to Smogzinn's legitimate (but wrongheaded) post... but I think I won't respond at all.
Nice self-confirming bias, dipshit. You are not clever, nor original.P&N is still P&N, a pathetic leftwing strokefest that's creepy as hell. This -in a nutshell- is what's wrong with politics. See ya in a couple years when I come back for another experiment.
Sorry, I didn't know there were rules that I had to only reply to certain comments and not others. I said I was going to respond to Smogzinn's legitimate (but wrongheaded) post... but I think I won't respond at all. P&N is still P&N, a pathetic leftwing strokefest that's creepy as hell. This -in a nutshell- is what's wrong with politics. See ya in a couple years when I come back for another experiment.
This is your daily reminder that your political opinion is worthless.
By the Republican party.I'm not sure the two party system is the problem. The problem is that it's an us versus them scenario. Rich versus poor, haves versus have nots, those in power versus those not in power. We have cleverly over time been pitted against each other, and guess who benefits? The government of the U.S. should exist for the benefit of it's entire populace, and to promote fairness and equality among it's citizens.
We have people so cleverly trained that they argue for those very issues that are harming them such as reduced taxes for the rich or a mediocre minimum wage. We are kept arguing over abortion or systematic racism while hands are reaching into our wallets and removing as much of our income as possible to distribute to the ruling class without us even realizing it.
Every two years we have a chance to use the power of the people to completely change the ruling party, yet we never give them enough time or power to do so because we think we need "checks and balances". This is really all about money, it's the root of every decision and issue that haunts us. Every political motivation behind the scenes is a grab for more money, or more power to try and extract more money.
I prefer incompetent corruption to competent corruption if those are my only 2 choices. I think Nixon today with the backing of Fox would have successfully and completely destroyed democracy.
Well, yeah, back then you actually had to do things for the people in order to get them to vote for you. That isn't necessary anymore. Doing things for the people has been successfully reclassified as communism.Nixon's corruption was generally limited to his own desire to hold on to power. Policy wise he did much to move the nation forward in ways no GOP politician would touch today.
hahahah, nice one. You got me. I especially like how you say that me describing the sarcastic, insulting, degrading, and condescending attacks on me as hateful is just me 'thinking I know you people better than you know yourselves.'
It is a cover for an opinion that is a rationalization to protect the ego from pain. Those just obviously look look dumb if your own ego doesn't happen to have that issue.Maybe, although I get more of a sense that they are sitting around smugly smelling their own farts.
Like I said in my original response people who subscribe to the #bothsides nonsense seem to spend most of their time arguing because they are criticizing all parties their opinions are inherently credible and well reasoned. Usually this is a cover for an opinion that is dumb.
The fact that you have this attitude shows that you didn't enter this thread with the intent on having a rational discussion, you intended to confirm your feelings about something, which you did by picking a fight you knew you'd lose.
So, yeah, have fun. See you in a few years and we can do this all over again. I look forward to seeing what that timeframe spent self-hating does to your behavior.
Humanity suffers from an unavoidable problem I call dealt with in all real religions, the problem rooted in the invention of language and the ability to communicate via associations of words used to describe reality. The problem is that the words we use and the associations we make with them can have no actual reality but they can be used to hurt.I think it's just unrealistic to think you can do away with parties. Every country in the world with democracy (and many without) has seen the development of a party system. It seems to be an unavoidable feature of politics (and maybe some of the problems with the US system stem from the founders misguided idea that you could avoid having such things). The rest of what you say makes sense, though.
If you want to improve the democratic party, you need to start voting for them instead of republicans or 3rd parties. One true statement that you can make about American politics is that unless the entire nation moves to ranked choice voting or something along that line, we will only ever have to viable parties. Typically, those parties would form in such a way as to represent the spectrum of American perspectives. The biggest problem with that right now is that one of the parties has figured out they don't even need a platform to win elections. Republicans have no interest in representing anyone so long as they can continue to win elections. That has led to a scenario where we no longer have two reasonable parties, only one. In that scenario, regardless of how bad democrats are, no sane person can vote for republicans anymore.Excellent posts, here is what I've learned so far:
1) Hateful strangers know me better than I know myself
2) This incestuous echo chamber is petty and tribal
3) Most of the discussion here confirms my thoughts on why our politics is so toxic and dysfunctional
Smogzinn responded to my points so I owe him a response. I'll be happy to elaborate and clarify what I mean so you actually understand the points. But I'll just throw this out once again... I have never said the parties are equally bad, so you all need to put that straw man away. I said they are both bad and have both heavily contributed to the worsening political landscape. You can dwell on which is worse (and I'll basically agree with you) but in my mind, that's a sideshow. We have structural issues (the two-party apparatus being a major component) that are breaking down society, and today's GOP is more symptom than cause.
Typically, those parties would form in such a way as to represent the spectrum of American perspectives.
They also sometimes have conflicting ideals due to covering so much of the spectrum. Splits on support of war, splits on support of 2A, splits on support of law enforcement... lot of room to slip knives in between the armor plates...This here is one of the major problems with the Democrats right now. The two parties are supposed to represent a large spectrum of our nation, but right now the Republicans only represent a very narrow band in the far ultra-violet and the Democrats are trying to represent literally everything else. It makes for a platform that is too large. Every issue requires so much compromise that no one ends up getting anything useful done.
(Relatively) civil discourse has existed in our system in the past, so why couldn't it again?
People don't want to hear this, but the path back to civil discourse lies almost exclusively in reigning in the radicalism of the Republican Party.
Here's a real good article (it's long of course) about why this country is so divided. Does some really in depth analysis, on several causes. It hides it's conclusion of why quite well until the end, but for me the answer is no surprise. I will let you all decide for yourselves. So yea, you have to RTFA.Just checked the poll results. I can't believe the number who voted no, that civil discourse cannot be had under a "two party system." Are you kidding? We've had relatively civil discourse in this two party system for a long while. We don't have it anymore, but that isn't because of the two party system. It's because of today's republican party. Please attempt to assign blame where it belongs.
Under A two-party system? YesJust checked the poll results. I can't believe the number who voted no, that civil discourse cannot be had under a "two party system." Are you kidding? We've had relatively civil discourse in this two party system for a long while. We don't have it anymore, but that isn't because of the two party system. It's because of today's republican party. Please attempt to assign blame where it belongs.
Right, so is the idea that nothing can be done to make Republicans more reasonable and therefore civil discourse and good governance are now impossible? If so, and this is a genuine question, why isn't the logical answer to strike now while we control the machinery of government and destroy them before it's too late? Please note I don't advocate this in any way, because I think there is a chance of making things better.Under A two-party system? Yes
Under OUR CURRENT two party system? No.
Reasonable discussions require reasonable people. One party isn't reasonable and lives in an alternate universe.
I think they are trying to blame it on Pelosi because they literally have nothing else. While yes I agree it's a ridiculous idea to say 'it's Nancy Pelosi's fault for not fortifying the Capitol sufficiently against a violent mob of our supporters we incited', what else are they supposed to say?It's always darkest before the dawn. It's getting really dark in my opinion. For example, Jan 6 is not Nancy Pelosi's fault. The new strategy is clearly to kill liberals by causing them to laugh themselves to death. How far now before we hear, "I'm Melting."
Yeah, that's such an incredibly weak and beta argument.I think they are trying to blame it on Pelosi because they literally have nothing else. While yes I agree it's a ridiculous idea to say 'it's Nancy Pelosi's fault for not fortifying the Capitol sufficiently against a violent mob of our supporters we incited', what else are they supposed to say?