What would a one-party state in the US be like?

a reply to: Profusion

People always say that this time it's different, it's not though. Parties disappear because no one wants to keep them in power any longer, and that's subject to the publics whims, it was just 12 years ago where the Democrats were on the verge of disbanding and the Republicans were looking like they would be the only party.

I actually agree with another poster, the Democrats are basically center right these days. What's actually opening up is a hole for a far left party. If/when the Republicans are done, the Democrats will probably move a bit further right due to all the additional districts they soak up.

a reply to: Profusion

2 words.

Police State.

Regardless of "party" in charge.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Profusion

None of the six posters have proven anything including BELIEVERpriest who at least went to the trouble of giving an actual reason for their belief.

Consider this. Rather than looking at the parties as Democrat vs Republican, look at it as Federalism vs Anti-Federalism.

I'm with you on that point. I pointed out something similar earlier in the thread:

"I believe that when it comes to the military (and alphabet agencies), it is a one-party state."

But, while I do believe that both of the points above are extremely important issues, let's put them in perspective. Consider the following:

Democrat vs. Republican

The fact is that always supporting the military (and alphabet agencies) and being federalists are just two points in the above analysis in the grand scheme of things.

To most Americans, those two points don't seem very important. Look at the analysis I linked to above, I think it's an excellent analysis and yet it only mentions federalism in a historical context and the support of the military is a given, it's just a question of how much to support the military. Alphabet agencies aren't even mentioned, that's also a given.

But, when you put it all in perspective, I don't see how anyone can doubt that there are two parties in the USA.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Profusion

People always say that this time it's different, it's not though.

The reason I believe this time it's different is because this time, people have reasons to keep the Democrats in power that haven't existed in America's history. I gave you four rock-solid reasons, only time will tell. The above statement is an example of the "Appeal to Tradition" logical fallacy.

a reply to: Profusion

Thanks for responding! This post really does have an interesting poll factor to it.

My belief stems primarily from my lifetime observance of how stagnant our society and life for the common man has become despite which party "rules" the White House. As you mention in your post, nothing changes and the status remains quo.

Between my increased awareness of the untruthful media (thanks ATS!) and conversely finding truth within media such as FB/YT (hard-hitting reality of just how removed people are from actual knowledge) it's become clear at how well our citizens are being played.

For people to so strongly rally behind one set of about 10 ideological beliefs or the other(that also never change as the decades drift by) and truly believe that one of these powers elected to sit in what's so obviously a puppet's throne is going to make a difference anymore is foolhardy and downright dangerous for what remains of our society.

The strongest differences a president seems to make anymore concern the pockets of the presidents and their favorited corps and cronies. Sure it affects the monetary successs of the groups and pacs and subsidiaries of the party's ideologies to a degree because it's a race to see who gets to benefit economically from the position while the real controllers such as banks and corps already wield the reigns. Basically, it's all about the money and it leaves quite a trail that tells a tale.

a reply to: Profusion

Here's the thing. People will always disagree on things. Politics is something that humans just can't agree on. If the Democrats became the chief party, it wouldn't take long before that party fractured from dissenting views on directions for the country. Sure both parties would be more liberal than what we have now, but we will have two parties.

originally posted by: Profusion
The reason I believe this time it's different is because this time, people have reasons to keep the Democrats in power that haven't existed in America's history. I gave you four rock-solid reasons, only time will tell. The above statement is an example of the "Appeal to Tradition" logical fallacy.

People always have reasons to make the 1 party the 1 party though, just look at history, 1 party always comes to total power for a reason and they always lose it for a reason.

a reply to: Profusion

We already have a one-party system. Most people just refuse to see the plain-as-day writing on the wall. The party divide is a lie. They work together for one united goal.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Profusion

We already have a one-party system. Most people just refuse to see the plain-as-day writing on the wall. The party divide is a lie. They work together for one united goal.

Fabian Socialists.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Profusion

We already have a one-party system. Most people just refuse to see the plain-as-day writing on the wall. The party divide is a lie. They work together for one united goal.

Fabian Socialists.

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: Profusion
For people to so strongly rally behind one set of about 10 ideological beliefs or the other(that also never change as the decades drift by) and truly believe that one of these powers elected to sit in what's so obviously a puppet's throne is going to make a difference anymore is foolhardy and downright dangerous for what remains of our society.

I have come to many of the same conclusions that you described in your last post. I really have to disagree strongly with your "about 10 ideological beliefs" statement though. The conservative right sees their "ideological beliefs" mostly as life and death issues because of religion. Liberals tend to see their "ideological beliefs" as life and death issues mostly for pragmatic reasons like getting enough benefits from the government to survive without having to work.

I understand why the dynamic you just wrote about exists completely. Although the person in the video below was obviously delusional, it's an example of the kind of mindset you're dealing with on both sides.


www.youtube.com...

Some more examples:


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Profusion

We already have a one-party system. Most people just refuse to see the plain-as-day writing on the wall. The party divide is a lie. They work together for one united goal.

Please explain how the following article is true if your proposition above is also true:

Detroit was once one of the world’s great cities. It was the 4th largest metropolis in America, jobs were plentiful because of the auto industry, and Motown even kept it on the cutting edge musically.

Unfortunately, from 1962 until the present day, the mayor of Detroit has been a Democrat.

The result?

Detroit’s population has dropped from 1.8 million to just over 700,000, the unemployment rate is over 50% if you count the people who’ve given up on finding jobs, property values have dropped so much you can buy homes in the crime-ridden city for $500, and Detroit has gone bankrupt.
THIS is What Happens When Democrats Take Over American Cities

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Profusion

We already have a one-party system. Most people just refuse to see the plain-as-day writing on the wall. The party divide is a lie. They work together for one united goal.

Fabian Socialists.

Your first post in this thread made me believe you thought there are two parties in the US. This last post of yours has me thinking you're in you're in the one-party camp. Would you mind clearing that up?

a reply to: Profusion

My statement about the ideological beliefs was kind of confusing and I'll break it down a bit.

The people have those basic polarized political issues to go with which tends to make them rally for one side or the other. But it's a game. These issues never really change much other than some back and forth state level laws. Again, it's static. These issues, as important as they are, are simply hung out there election after election for people to get excited about and keep people focused on them rather than the many other facets of government control that need changing.

So I'm saying that by thinking the president is going to make a difference with these issues is both ridiculous and dangerous as more and more freedoms are lost through the years and the control systems get more cemented all the time because people are easily swayed to think that the president is the magical one who makes everything different.