03-13-2016, 12:02 AM
(03-12-2016, 11:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Political parties were supposed to make voters more knowledgeable. You know a guy belonging to this party supports x, y, z. Except it turned into blind loyalty and cheerleading as if the paris are sport teams. The parties hardly hardly different, let alone opposites. The media pits them as opposites and the parties love it because people thing there are only two sides that represent the entirety of every issue.
I never really watch Maher. I agree with him a lot and I l8ke how he has guests of all sides, but just don't like him for some reason. John Oliver is real biased, but he covers topics the mainstream media never touch. He used to anyways, I think the amount of great episodes he puts out is slowing up because it's harder to find new material.
The parties started out as single issue (or possibly themed) allegiances. They were temporary alliances in order to approach particular controversial topics in the legislature, IIRC. Much like how things like the lack of a standing army, separation of powers, and the authority of the states went by the wayside, we saw the political parties grow into more permanent organizations. Really, we have Jefferson to blame for this.
I do have to say that what I hate the most about them is how dumb it has made the American public to the issues and what goes on in our government. They don't pay any attention beyond the D or R next to the name. They don't really know where their elected officials stand on anything and they don't understand the processes of the government. Local, state, or federal. They likely couldn't name the elected members of their local government yet could tell you what the big fight is on 'the Hill' right now between the conjoined twins.
