Why Democrats can't hold office.

[Roland_Deschain]

I think the answer to that is pretty simple: there is a constant swing in support from one party to another as people see (or at least think they see based on what the media is telling them) our country doing poorly. Regardless of uncontrollable factors, people are going to blame the person in charge and look to replace them when they want to see things going better.

As we've all seen (both in history and in the last decade), it's notably easier to mess everything up than it is to fix things. When things are bad, repairs become all the more difficult because they cannot come as fast as people want them. Until we wind up with some sort of utopia where everyone's rights are supported and their freedoms don't encroach upon others (and religious people stop thinking they need the power to control others when no harm is actually coming to anyone) we're going to switch from party to party. The grass is always greener on the other side, and shy of utopia, there will always be another side. So long as things aren't as good as we want them to be, we'll be willing to go somewhere else to help get us a little closer to our ideal.

Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. U.S. citizens in general will have loyalty to whoever isn't sucking at the time, and that often winds up being whoever isn't in power.

I can agree with pretty much all of this.

Stability can be as much of a threat as instability - the trouble being that the longer we have someone doing damage in a position to do so, the greater the damage can become. The constant switching between parties and presidents keeps us safe from any one person or party molding the U.S. too much into what they want to see it become. Some times this may be for the better, but others it could lead us into ruin. The inherent instability protects us from one single set of views taking control.

I know that stability can also be a problem. Yet then again we also have the power to impeach our president if the country should see fit. One thing I just HATE to see is a president like Bill Clinton pull our country into one of the highest wealth points we have had in like what... 50-60 years? It just doesnt matter though when a jackass can pop into office and destroy all of that. I guess it just baffles me how fast one person can change everything. I mean speaking of leading us to ruin, we did vote Bush two times, and he did serve his full terms. So techinically in my lifetime he has come closer to leading us into ruin than any other former president (my lifetime that is). Sometimes The instability scares me because republicans and democrats vary on so many issues, and when always switching between the two of them... its very hard to find a calm settling point... or to get into the flow of anything for that matter. People do always think the grass is greener on the other side... however sometimes the grass is dead and full of weeds and the "average american" cannot see over the fence until the leap is taken. This posses danger to a country that is very easy manipulated.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

The underlined discussion I would like to see is "Why we cannot stick with one party for very long?"

I would contend.

A. Neither party is making a legitimate or real effort to address issues like a lack of jobs, healthcare, gay marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, wealth & wage disparity or generally anything important that affects americans. This leaves ppl with a general sense of discontentment neither party can fulfill.

B. Due to a lack of separation between corporation and state, and a lack of proper checks & balances, public opinion and overall levels of satisfaction are no longer as important as campaign funding or money. Things have devolved into a political climate where candidates with bad policies can be voted into office if they have good financial backers.

C. Due to a lack of education and awareness on issues, americans often support the wrong things. A lack of awareness led to the public being duped by George Dubya Bush's warnings of "WMD's". The same is occurring on a wide assortment of issues ranging from the economy to healthcare to defense spending. The public being poorly equipped to gauge the validity and effectiveness of economic policies, plans, reforms, inititiatives and other assorteds means those things no longer are important enough to invest the time or effort necessary to comprehend them.

D. Lack of critical thought or skepticism. It would appear somewhere along the line many have developed a coping mechanism mentality whereby they worship authoritarianism and government as if they were deities. Many attempt to elevate their own gods above the level of criticism, and in a sense the government is treated the same. Those who criticize or relate factual arguments relating to government wrongdoing are labeled heretics - conspiracy theorists and other negative things in an attempt to assassinate their character and dismiss their opinion. Its widespread and many aren't even aware that they do it.

BTW, if you disagree at least bother trying to offer a differing opinion.

That's what a discussion is, after all.

I think the answer to that is pretty simple: there is a constant swing in support from one party to another as people see (or at least think they see based on what the media is telling them) our country doing poorly. Regardless of uncontrollable factors, people are going to blame the person in charge and look to replace them when they want to see things going better.

Why a constant swing in support? Certainly it may imply dissatisfaction on some level or a certain degree of systemic dysfunctionality?

Its often indicative of a coping mechanism mentality to pretend a government or authority figure is wholly benevolent, incapable of sin, above criticism and cannot bear a burden of blame for people being dissatisfied with it.

Until we wind up with some sort of utopia where everyone's rights are supported and their freedoms don't encroach upon others (and religious people stop thinking they need the power to control others when no harm is actually coming to anyone) we're going to switch from party to party.

In a way, it looks as if you're avoiding the topic of specifically why people may feel dissatisfied towards a political party or government in general.

Should it not be considered a possibility that people are dissatisfied because both parties suck and the government sucks in general?

Yes/no/why?

Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. U.S. citizens in general will have loyalty to whoever isn't sucking at the time, and that often winds up being whoever isn't in power.

What factors determine whether or not a party is "sucking" precisely?

Stability can be as much of a threat as instability - the trouble being that the longer we have someone doing damage in a position to do so, the greater the damage can become. The constant switching between parties and presidents keeps us safe from any one person or party molding the U.S. too much into what they want to see it become. Some times this may be for the better, but others it could lead us into ruin. The inherent instability protects us from one single set of views taking control.

Concepts such as stability and instability are neither intrinsically good nor evil. They have the capacity to be both in terms of positives and negatives.

Instability may decrease the amount of potential damage, in theory. But, it also may have a side effect in terms of decreasing the amount of good that can be done as well. With enough instability we may reach a point where no one is in a position of authority long enough to exact any type of positive change.

Thus, is it accurate to say that instability keeps us "safe" and that it somehow guarantees negatives or positives are not being invoked?

Dysfunctionality brought on by a multitude of administrations who weren't in office long enough to effect positive change is as bad as dysfunctionality brought on by a single administration in office long enough to exact negative change.

There is no "safe" as there is nothing that is entirely benevolent nor evil which can be used as a point of reference.

I cannot believe you would make this comparison. It shows an incredible disregard for human rights and the value of life. To compare killing Native Americans to destroying rocks is simply disgusting, and to then go on to imply that they are less of humans and their life is of less value because they were not U.S. citizens is unbelievable. You can think what you will about the intelligence of yourself and others, but this says all I need to know about you.

Considering coca cola assassinates workers in foreign countries to prevent them from forming unions, and apple employees child labor & runs worker concentration camps under near slavery conditions to build the macs and ipods I would guess you and other americans use - I don't see how you manage be so self-righteous about this.

I guess it just baffles me how fast one person can change everything. I mean speaking of leading us to ruin, we did vote Bush two times, and he did serve his full terms. So techinically in my lifetime he has come closer to leading us into ruin than any other former president (my lifetime that is).

Bush could never have gotten away with it were it not for the individual apathy and disregard for Bush's actions many americans are guilty of.

Bush pushed for the Patriot Act. Some said it infringed upon american rights and liberties. Others in their authoritative and absolutist mindsets simply labeled anyone who disagreed with the Patriot Act as "tin foil wearing conspiracy theorists, alarmists and sensationalists".

The same precedent applies to many of Bush's policies which were potentially bad. Some criticized and opposed Bush's measures, others mindlessly and brainlessly supported them without thinking about the issues.

You can't blame Bush -- one person for everything that happened under his administration. Bush could never have done those things if so many hadn't supported him.

And things haven't changed. Americans are still supporting a large number of the wrong policies and issues. Like they say, politics mirrors real life and the political status quo is merely a reflection of the attitudes, beliefs and views of the public.

Sometimes The instability scares me because republicans and democrats vary on so many issues

They don't vary at all in my eyes.

The healthcare reform proposal the democrats made under Obama was almost identical to a proposal republicans made years earlier.

Ditto with any number of issues.

On the surface, they may appear different, but oftimes it may be both parties are utilizing a 'good cop, bad cop' gambit whereby republicans pretend to be the crazy bad cop and democrats take on a good cop persona.

Yeah, compared to the insanity that is the republican party at times, democrats might look good. But, in reality, neither party is making a legitimate or real effort to do any of the things they say they are.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

You can't blame Bush -- one person for everything that happened under his administration. Bush could never have done those things if so many hadn't supported him.

I agree with most of your post except this. I mean sure we shouldnt just blame bush because his commitee also had the same air of bad decisions and pressure when it came to the choices leading up to the war in Iraq.

However we CAN blame him for allowing it to happen. when your the president (the final decision), ignorance, simplicity, peer pressure, and stupidity... should NOT be allowed as any form of excuse. Just because his comitee and the vice president put pressure and false ideals into his head, does not mean that he had to become the manipulative tool that he was. If Bush was a good president, he would have told all of them "no dice", and not rushed a war.

Except he was not a good president. He was manipulated in many ways. He also had a huge lack of judgment. And the fact that it was his call to press forward is alone enough reason to put blame on him. It didnt really matter if his entire commitee said we should invade. If he said no... it wouldnt have happened. We need a president to think for our country, not a presidents commitee to think for the president.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I agree with most of your post except this. I mean sure we shouldnt just blame bush because his commitee also had the same air of bad decisions and pressure when it came to the choices leading up to the war in Iraq.

However we CAN blame him for allowing it to happen. when your the president (the final decision), ignorance, simplicity, peer pressure, and stupidity... should NOT be allowed as any form of excuse. Just because his comitee and the vice president put pressure and false ideals into his head, does not mean that he had to become the manipulative tool that he was. If Bush was a good president, he would have told all of them "no dice", and not rushed a war.

Except he was not a good president. He was manipulated in many ways. He also had a huge lack of judgment. And the fact that it was his call to press forward is alone enough reason to put blame on him. It didnt really matter if his entire commitee said we should invade. If he said no... it wouldnt have happened. We need a president to think for our country, not a presidents commitee to think for the president.

Hello, hello! Much thanks for the open dialogue!

I don't know if you remember, but I think I addressed this point on page 1.

Yes, we need a President who is rigid and moral in terms of them being willing to oppose wars and other things which are in many ways profiteering campaigns.

But, as stated earlier, when the democrats make even a weak effort to crack down on banks and reform portions of the banking industry they lost 65% of their campaign funding which allowed republicans to take the majority from them.

A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502913.html

From this we might conclude opposing issues like wars and other things rich and wealthy demographics profit from is equivalent to political suicide.

If that's the case, what we really need is to decrease the influence campaign funding and money has upon the political process.

Unfortunately for us, with corporations being deemed individuals who should be allowed to pay political advertising monetary fees in the name of "free speech" being considered acceptable, that is a step entirely in the wrong direction.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

True about the campaign funding.Voted in by repub members of the US Supreme Court I might add.

Politics seems to be determing everything in this country and that's not good.

It means politicians put party over what is best for the country.
If the repub party says invade Iran and they get in power then we invade and to hell with the consequences.
Getting Obama out of office is more important than raising the debt ceiling or passing a payroll tax reduction.

Someday those kind of political games/gamesman ship is going to be the end of the USA as we know it.

May sound apocalyptical but it is what it is.