 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - US Politics Thread |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES                    Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| A discussion that shant be so easily derailed.
So, how about them there bills? |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Overestimated and pathetic. Security for freedom at the cost of freedom. When it's wartime, all for you and nothing for everyone else. But thats military, lets look at domestic. Oh wait, that hurricane is blocking my view of FEMA's flop. | |||
|
jeff Double metal axe  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Originally posted by Rom Manic YOU DID IT |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Well, my main complaint with US politics is the "two party system". To have a shot at winning, candidates have to simply choose one side or the other. So parties are more like teams than anything, more concerned with winning, and defeating their opponent then promoting any specific ideals.
So you have the Republican Party being taken over by neoconservatism (more liberal then conservative, really) and formally fringe elements of extreme social conservatism, in an effort to "energize the base" over relatively trivial issues. Then the Democrat are bastardizing there former ideals to "appeal to the center". Basically an "if you can't beat them join them" philosophy. I also find it annoying that each side is very quick to tout the benefits their proposals, and point out the consequences of the other side's opposing plan. But neither side even tries to be pragmatic about things and try to find a plan that bring the benefits, while minimizing the consequences. |
|||
|
Metal Man88 Gold axe It appears we have been transported to a time in which everything is on fire! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| None of our presidential canidates look or act all that good. Until recently they all looked to be relatives of skeletor, and one can never tell what Obama would look like, given a year in politics could chop that healthy look off his face.
I also dislike the fact two major parties run the show--what about the more moderate or pragmatic ones? Can't we emphasize the issues, like George Washington did, and ignore parties? |
|||
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| Party politics are bad. Politicians get more focused in helping their party than helping their country. Really bad. | |||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
| As much as I don't like the Republican or Democratic parties, they're not going away anytime soon. Most voters don't know that much about the issues and party generalizations are how they decide to vote. "Republicans love a 1950's-esque society and Democrats love trees, gays and minorities mirite?" the hypothetical ignorant voter may think. Although this is not exactly true. Many Democrats and Republicans have very similar stances on the economy, foreign policy and so on. Partially due to lack of interest and/or knowledge on the issues voters often go with the stereotypes of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, despite often not having a grasp of what "liberal" and "conservative" actually mean. Parties outside the main two, sadly, don’t stand much chance. Some prefer the tradition of two parties. Campaign and election laws also unfairly target minor parties. Most of the voters either see the Democrats and Republican as representing completely opposite views and thus Green, Socialist, Libertarian and other minor parties as unnecessary. Also important is that many voters are made to feel as they waste a vote when they vote outside the major parties.
Additionally parties are ways for politicians and citizens to organize with others who have similar views and concerns. This is no different that video game enthusiast joining a forum such as this to discuss how awesome a game is. Mass politics need parties on some level. A single individual could not run for president without some sort of organization promoting similar views. To summarize, parties or similar political organizations are necessary to a certain extent. However, the mostly fake, over-hyped party divide in the U.S. is unnecessary. |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| But ultimately, doesn't having the most money often end up being the basis of US politics? And once one's in the picture, isn't slowing things down the point of politics? | |||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| As I always say:
Conserve the good, and be liberal for new ideas. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| For what its worth the Democrats and the Republicans wold be like coalitions in other states. They're both a bunch of caucuses that sit around and argue amongst themselves. Although under Rove the moderate branch of the Republican party doesn't really hold seats or much sway. Even the "liberal" branches are engulfed within neocon ideology - this includes the Log Cabin Republicans.
Likewise, the Democrats are a broad based group. I mean, Hillary is hardly a "leftist" by any means in many countries. Even within the US bounds. Plus, there is a large contingent of conservative democrats. US politics, are to say the least, quite interesting. I often have to sit up late at night and engulf myself in Roll Call and the Hill and just get caught up  |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff If it made sense, it wouldn't be much fun at all. Were it to be universally just, we would have nothing to complain about. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| It makes perfect political sense, actually This is what happens when larger power groups take over. Those that don't agree fully get slotted into the one that is most similar to them. A US socialist party during the Reagen administration actually fed a lot of intellectuals to the Republicans It helped breed the neocon movement. I wish US politics were as black and white as they seem on the surface. |
|||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| So what do people actually mean when they say neoconservative, or neoliberal?
What's the difference between a new conservative and an old conservative, or new liberal and old liberal? I don't understand it. It's the same. Liberal means that one wants change, new things. Conservative means you just want the good old stuff. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| It's not the same.
Neo-liberal relates to the old movement of liberals in the mid part of the 19th century. Laissez-faire, relaxed social controls, no tariffs, smaller governance. There were a lot of liberal camps, but that is the modern neo-liberal movement. It is economic. In the US liberalism is defined as more or less a bunch of social issues - like gay rights - and then people peg on derogatory economic concepts, like socialism. So, if you're a person that is coined a liberal in the US, you might as well, for the most part, be coined a socialist or a leftist. Remembering of course that any "moderate" democrats would be centre-right in any other country. Neo-conservatives relate primarily to an adventurous foreign policy that bolsters Americans interests in an idealistic sphere. Reading usually helps. |
|||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I once had a socialist college professor tell me that there is no difference between the two major American parties. But he only felt that way because we don't have a socialist party (or one that wins elections, anyway).
I would like to point out a couple of things, though. Please don't forget that the Republican and Democratic parties have completely open membership. Its not like a college fraternity. Anyone can call himself a republican or democrat, whether or not his views are even remotely related to the main stream of his party. Some Republicans have a conservative ideology at heart, while others are just politicians claiming fealty to one party (but whose political views will change according to whatever they think will get them elected). The same is true with the democrats. (edited by Koryo on 01-05-07 01:27 AM) |
|||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo Obviously they're not exactly the same, but on many issues Democrats and Republicans agree. Democrats and Republicans both support similar "Free" Trade and foreign policy laws. I also have a problem labeling (most) Democrats left or socialist. Anything resembling socialism is mostly left alone. I suspect very few Democrats are well versed socialists or leftists. Also, we have a self declared socialist Senator now. The Socialist Party was fairly strong at the turn of the century. Quite a few Socialists won local and state offices, although some were not allowed to take office. The Socialist Party also played a huge role in labor movements and anti-WWI efforts. A combination of legal crackdown, stolen rhetoric, large party concessions, and split into a Soviet backed party led to their demise. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Which is one of the reasons why he didn't like them. He was quite opposed to "free" trade. But then, he was also urging the proletariat to rise up and throw off their oppressors, so what can I say?  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - US Politics Thread |
| |
