U.S. Political Parties

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2016, 10:23 AM)6andcounting Wrote: What has changed about abortion, minimum wage, immigration or foreign policy between Bush and Obama? 

First of all I find it funny that you did not ask about health care.

Foreign Policy......We have not invaded two countries with troops under Obama.  You may not care about US troops dying, but many people do.  There has been a BIG difference in our foreign policy.

Immigration....The fact that there is gridlock in congress does not mean bot parties are the same.  Obama has issued executive orders on immigration.

Taxes.....2013 budget deal rescinded some of the Bush tax cuts.

Basically you either don't know what is going on, or you completely ignore anything that does not fit your agenda.

Saying that both parties are the same because they both spend money is like saying there is no difference between a radio and a hamburger because they both cost money.

[Aquapod770]

This election is proving our 2 party system is broken. Hopefully it will be enough to wake people up, but I somehow doubt it.


On one hand, you have one party trying everything they can to keep a certain business turd from getting the nomination and he just keeps winning.

On the other hand, you have the opposite party handing the nomination to an evil witch.



My hope is the republicans go to a contested convention, pick someone other than Trump, and he chooses to run 3rd party. Then you have Sanders running as an independent giving us 4 choices in the election.

[CageTheBengal]

(03-19-2016, 11:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: This election is proving our 2 party system is broken. Hopefully it will be enough to wake people up, but I somehow doubt it.


On one hand, you have one party trying everything they can to keep a certain business turd from getting the nomination and he just keeps winning.

On the other hand, you have the opposite party handing the nomination to an evil witch.



My hope is the republicans go to a contested convention, pick someone other than Trump, and he chooses to run 3rd party. Then you have Sanders running as an independent giving us 4 choices in the election.

Sanders says he doesn't plan to run as an independent because he doesn't want to risk a Republican getting the win over Hillary.

[CKwi88]

(03-19-2016, 11:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: This election is proving our 2 party system is broken. Hopefully it will be enough to wake people up, but I somehow doubt it.


On one hand, you have one party trying everything they can to keep a certain business turd from getting the nomination and he just keeps winning.

On the other hand, you have the opposite party handing the nomination to an evil witch.



My hope is the republicans go to a contested convention, pick someone other than Trump, and he chooses to run 3rd party. Then you have Sanders running as an independent giving us 4 choices in the election.

(03-19-2016, 11:37 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Sanders says he doesn't plan to run as an independent because he doesn't want to risk a Republican getting the win over Hillary.

I think that they should all be able to run. Let Hillary run as the Democratic, Bernie as a Socialist-Democratic (although he'd have to come up with a new name, a good number of people live in fear of the S or C words) Cruz/Kasisch as the Republic and Trump as the whatever political party he'd fall under (neo-fascist? He'd be in the same boat as Bernie then)

Have an election, if no one secures more than 50% of the popular vote, take the two highest percent and have runoff election.

On that note, can anyone enlighten me on why we need the electoral college still? 

[6andcounting]

(03-19-2016, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all I find it funny that you did not ask about health care.

I did mean to mention Romneycare. It was passed without Republican support, so that might be the one thing that is different. But it's not like the next Republican president is actually going to repeal it. Mostly like there will be minor changes and claim it's a "massive overall" or "repeal and replaced" or some other strong political buzzword.

(03-19-2016, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Foreign Policy......We have not invaded two countries with troops under Obama.  You may not care about US troops dying, but many people do.  There has been a BIG difference in our foreign policy.

Immigration....The fact that there is gridlock in congress does not mean bot parties are the same.  Obama has issued executive orders on immigration.

Taxes.....2013 budget deal rescinded some of the Bush tax cuts.

Basically you either don't know what is going on, or you completely ignore anything that does not fit your agenda.

Saying that both parties are the same because they both spend money is like saying there is no difference between a radio and a hamburger because they both cost money.

There are ground troops on the ground in every country we continue to bomb. They are just called advisors and aren't carrying out offense themselves missions, save for a rescue or something. Of course, the work they do is used for targeting people and places to bomb, and bombing surely is an offensive mission. Who was the last president to not bomb Iraq? It's been a while. Calling it "limited airstrikes with no boots on the ground" is how Obama has been circumventing a) having to get a declaration of war from Congress 2) admitting that bombing countries across the ME is an act of war. No one says Pearl Harbour was a limited airstrike with no boots on the ground. It was an offensive attack and an act of war. Maybe Trump or Hillary will finally pull the military from the Middle East or at least stop dropping bombs.

Obama and Bush both deported illegal immigrants, but have no meaningful changes occurred. Neither tried to build a wall (not necessarily literally construct a wall, but fix the border in general) and neither really cared for widespread amnesty. If obama wanted amnesty, he would have passed it in his first 2 years with a super majority. Instead he waited 6-7 years to pass executive orders that weren't going to hold up in court, at least not in their entirety. Yeah, he really wanted change by ignoring it when he had the power to actually make the changes. Same thing applies to guns and the drug war. He talks about it now, but has done next to nothing and ignored it completely when he could have gotten anything he wanted in his first 2 years.

He extended the Bush tax cuts his first term, and ended them in his second term. What did that really change? Nothing.


Your radio example doesn't apply to anything I've said. I said politicians spend money to get themselves elected, not because they are vastly different people.

My agenda is to discover a politician who isn't a corporatist necon that just says whatever to get votes from their target demographic. I'll keep looking. The demographics politicians target are wildly different, so hurray for us, we found something different between politicians afterall.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2016, 02:54 PM)6andcounting Wrote: But it's not like the next Republican president is actually going to repeal it. Mostly like there will be minor changes and claim it's a "massive overall" or "repeal and replaced" or some other strong political buzzword.

Making up something out of thin air and stating it as a fact is not a verty persuasive way to win an wrgument.

(03-19-2016, 02:54 PM)6andcounting Wrote: There are ground troops on the ground in every country we continue to bomb. They are just called advisors and aren't carrying out offense themselves missions, save for a rescue or something. Of course, the work they do is used for targeting people and places to bomb, and bombing surely is an offensive mission. Who was the last president to not bomb Iraq? It's been a while. Calling it "limited airstrikes with no boots on the ground" is how Obama has been circumventing a) having to get a declaration of war from Congress 2) admitting that bombing countries across the ME is an act of war. No one says Pearl Harbour was a limited airstrike with no boots on the ground. It was an offensive attack and an act of war. Maybe Trump or Hillary will finally pull the military from the Middle East or at least stop dropping bombs. 

So you are seriously going to stick to your position that limited air srikes and non-combat advisors is axactly the same as a full scale invasion and occupations of two countries?

Thouasnds of military troop casualties is EXCTLY the same as zero.  No difference at all.

(03-19-2016, 02:54 PM)6andcounting Wrote: He extended the Bush tax cuts his first term, and ended them in his second term. What did that really change? Nothing. 

Again their is clearly a change in the tax brackets.  You can not just make up stuff and claim it is true.
So basically you don't care about actual policy at all.  as long as the candidate was not a "coporatist neocon" you would vote for hims/her even if their proposed tax plan had a 90% bracket and wanted to bring back slavery?
How can you ignore all policy issues and just vote for a label?  You are even worse than the people who automatically vote either DEM or REP.  at least those people are making a conscious decision about actual policy positions.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-18-2016, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There will never be a viable third party in this country until we get major campaign finance reform.  the two major parties control too much of the money and resources needed to elect a candidate.

Point taken.

But money wouldn't matter if the electorate wasn't ignorant [not stupid] and lazy.  Money matters because 30-second ad spots and billboards influence voters.

We don't need campaign finance reform.  We just need voters to take responsibility.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 05:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Point taken.

But money wouldn't matter if the electorate wasn't ignorant [not stupid] and lazy.  Money matters because 30-second ad spots and billboards influence voters.

We don't need campaign finance reform.  We just need voters to take responsibility.

Unfortunately many of the voters who consider themselves the "most informed" are actually just pawns of the propaganda machines for both parties.  They brag about how much they know. but then they just mindlessly repeat the rhetoric and speaking points the party tells them to.

[StLucieBengal]

6andcounting is correct. There is hardly any differences.... The progressives have made it close enough.

At least with the tea party and the socialist movements they will be an actual debate.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-20-2016, 10:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Unfortunately many of the voters who consider themselves the "most informed" are actually just pawns of the propaganda machines for both parties.  They brag about how much they know. but then they just mindlessly repeat the rhetoric and speaking points the party tells them to.

OK....Not sure how that is actually different from anything I said.  I'm not making a distinction of perception, but reality.  Sure, I've met more than a few "zealots" on both sides who are clueless to actual facts.

Uniformed is uniformed...I don't care what they "consider themselves". My point stands.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-18-2016, 01:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There will never be a viable third party in this country until we get major campaign finance reform.  the two major parties control too much of the money and resources needed to elect a candidate.

But I believe that a third party is exactly what we need to break the gridlock in congress.  It doesn't even have to be a big third party.  It just needs to control enough seats to swing votes one way or the other.  

I don't think there will ever be enough parties so that every person has one that 100% meshes with his beliefs.  But something needs to change so that we can start fixing some of the problems facing this country.  As long as "compromise" is seen as a dirty word in congress the United States will continue to suffer.

100% agree Fred.  Not only do they control the cash, they control the debate commission, so Americans aren't given easy access to other platforms.  I've been advocate of third parties for breaking the gridlock for a long time.

Kinda off topic, but another thing.....as a registered independent, I'm tired of my tax dollars funding a primary I am not allowed to participate in.  The deck is stacked.....

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 02:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: OK....Not sure how that is actually different from anything I said.  I'm not making a distinction of perception, but reality.  Sure, I've met more than a few "zealots" on both sides who are clueless to actual facts.

Uniformed is uniformed...I don't care what they "consider themselves".  My point stands.

I was talking about what you "consider yourself".

[6andcounting]

(03-19-2016, 10:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Making up something out of thin air and stating it as a fact is not a verty persuasive way to win an wrgument.

Trump's plan is literally government-funded universal healthcare.

(03-19-2016, 10:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are seriously going to stick to your position that limited air srikes and non-combat advisors is axactly the same as a full scale invasion and occupations of two countries?

Thouasnds of military troop casualties is EXCTLY the same as zero.  No difference at all.

I never argued that the two things you described are the same thing, and I imagine you knew that when you typed this. I simply stated that the Middle Eastern people getting bombed don't see anything different between a Bush bomb and an Obama bomb. You responded with the no ground troops thing, which I pointed out is pathetic political doublespeak for not calling acts of war acts of war.

(03-19-2016, 10:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again their is clearly a change in the tax brackets.  You can not just make up stuff and claim it is true.
So basically you don't care about actual policy at all.  as long as the candidate was not a "coporatist neocon" you would vote for hims/her even if their proposed tax plan had a 90% bracket and wanted to bring back slavery?
How can you ignore all policy issues and just vote for a label?  You are even worse than the people who automatically vote either DEM or REP.  at least those people are making a conscious decision about actual policy positions.

Is this the tax bracket thing you are talking about?

"So basically you don't care about actual policy at all." No, but I'm sure you honestly believe this because you think one party is a better choice over the other, while I'm saying they both suck equally because they're the same.. Neither party supports policies that actually embrace the non-aggression principle or individual's liberty so I don't support either party.

I said virtually every American politician for decades is a necon corporatist; however, that doesn't mean you are automatically for the NAP or liberty if you aren't one. Seizing 90% of someone's labor (which i guess makes the person only 90% a slave) or seizing all of their labor (making them 100% a slave) is hardly non-aggression or individual liberty.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 06:19 PM)6andcounting Wrote:  Neither party supports policies that actually embrace the non-aggression principle or individual's liberty so I don't support either party.

So issues like same sex marriage and abortion have nothing to do withindividuals liberties?

Are you saying that with a straight face.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 06:19 PM)6andcounting Wrote:  I simply stated that the Middle Eastern people getting bombed don't see anything different between a Bush bomb and an Obama bomb. You responded with the no ground troops thing, which I pointed out is pathetic political doublespeak for not calling acts of war acts of war.

And you still can not say that a few drone attacks are the same as full out invasion.  That makes no sense at all.

And I am pretty damn sure that middle eatsern people see a HUGE difference between a few random drone strikes and fullinvasion.  They are not that stupid.

What you are doing is making huge broad generalizations and claiming they are the exact same thing.  It is like the ridiculous people who claim there is not difference between asking people to register their guns and a complete ban on gun ownership.

"Both policies infringe on the riughts and freedoms of gun owners.  They are EXACTLY THE SAME.  No difference at all between tose two policies."

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2016, 06:19 PM)6andcounting Wrote:

Is this the tax bracket thing you are talking about?them 100% a slave) is hardly non-aggression or individual liberty.

Are you serious?

Comparing the tax burden of people who are not in the brackets that changed?  This is your proof that the change was meaningless?

What is next.  A chart showing the effect of the same sex marriage laws on heterosexuals?

"Look.  No difference at all.  The same number of heterosexuals are entering into same sex marriages now as before the law was changed.  ABSOLUTE PROOF that the change in the law had NO EFFECT AT ALL!  The two parties are exactly the same."  

[6andcounting]

(03-22-2016, 08:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So issues like same sex marriage and abortion have nothing to do withindividuals liberties?

Are you saying that with a straight face.

The Supreme Court legalized both nationally. Obama (and Hillary) had the same had the Republican view on gay marriage until supporting it was worth more votes just a view years ago. Many, if not most, of the state that legalized gay marriage before the ruling did so by direct props on a ballot, not through either party.

And gay marriage is one portion of a much larger discussion about government's role in anyone's marriage and the IRS handling of taxes based on marriage, among things. And that doesn't begin to cover divorce courts, probate and family court issues that are a necessary part of government licensed marriages. Of course, Repubs and Dems agree on all of this so discussion doesn't occur and most people don't even realize perspectives that differing from the establishment party exists.

[6andcounting]

(03-22-2016, 08:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you serious?

Comparing the tax burden of people who are not in the brackets that changed?  This is your proof that the change was meaningless?

What is next.  A chart showing the effect of the same sex marriage laws on heterosexuals?

"Look.  No difference at all.  The same number of heterosexuals are entering into same sex marriages now as before the law was changed.  ABSOLUTE PROOF that the change in the law had NO EFFECT AT ALL!  The two parties are exactly the same."  

Well, is this the tax bracket you were asking about or not? I was asking because I didn't know and therefore couldn't discuss it without clarification.

[6andcounting]

(03-22-2016, 08:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you still can not say that a few drone attacks are the same as full out invasion.  That makes no sense at all.

And I am pretty damn sure that middle eatsern people see a HUGE difference between a few random drone strikes and fullinvasion.  They are not that stupid.

What you are doing is making huge broad generalizations and claiming they are the exact same thing.  It is like the ridiculous people who claim there is not difference between asking people to register their guns and a complete ban on gun ownership.

"Both policies infringe on the riughts and freedoms of gun owners.  They are EXACTLY THE SAME.  No difference at all between tose two policies."

A few drone attacks? Thousands killed by drones, many confirmed civilians, but most listed as unknown whether they were civilians or actual terrorists. And none of this addresses how all of this is done at the president's directive without a declaration of war against anyone, any country or any group. And the intervention is far beyond drones. There's bombing runs by jets (at least least the Afgan hospital wasn't bombed by troops on the ground) , arming rebels (well, people who claim to be rebels to get free weapons) and aid to countries (like Pakistan, who is still holding the doctor who helped us locate Osama as a prisoner). America's military invention in the middle east has spanned decades, and continues with both parties. But Democrats don't call it "war" so all the bombings, killings and overthrowing of leaders we don't like aren't acts of war.

[Bilbo Saggins]

The two dominant political parties are quite similar in that neither are willing to bring up serious discussion on a host of issues concerning the nuts and bolts of how our "democracy" functions and issues which are entrenched through precedence. To name some of the issues that will never be touched on/altered no matter which party people vote for:
The US's staunch support for the militarily aggressive and human rights trampling state of Isreal, support for Saudi Arabia's radical Islamic royal family, the broken electoral college system that has allowed at least one president to win an election while losing in the popular vote, a legal system based entirely on precedent rather than logic/morals, a federal reserve that controls the national money supply that is not under federal or public control, real campaign finance reform, the US's overwhelming dominance in global "defense" spending, the US's status as the #1 weapons exporter in the world, substantial climate change policy, action working toward the notion that all institutions should be ran democratically rather than be allowed to function as mini-command economies or mini-dictatorships, decentralization of power away from positions such as the presidency/Supreme Court justices, reform of the judicial system, our out of control Intelligence Community that takes our money and breaks our laws with impunity, the omnipresent creep closer toward a police state in which police are allowed to violate civilian rights with impunity, and I could probably go on and on.

The political paradigm has been defined in this country-any and all who step outside of it or rock the boat too much are blacklisted or obfuscated. We may bicker about abortion, or prayer in school, or small percentages in taxes, but at the end of the day we will probably not be allowed to vote for anyone who is serious about changing anything regarding how this country operates or is serious about fixing firmly entrenched "precedence" mistakes. Even a "radical" or "wildcard" candidate such as Sanders or a Trump would probably not touch these issues with lip service nor policy change. How's that for an "echo chamber"?