The Unsavory Psychology of Two-Party Politics

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: dfnj2015

While most of what you said is correct, Democrats are the ones that make the long standing issues America faces.

So Bernie thinks the banks should be broken up?
Who consolidated them? FDR.

RE: long standing issues America faces

Please give me more details of what you think Democrats have done to destroy this country.

There you go again defining what it means to be a Democrat. How about you tell me what should be done with the banking cartel? Break them up? Or leave them alone?

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over what FDR did or did not do. Let his words speak for themselves:

Close financial control, through interlocking spheres of influence over channels of investment, and through the use of financial devices like holding companies and strategic minority interests, creates close control of the business policies of enterprises which masquerade as independent units.

That heavy hand of integrated financial and management control lies upon large and strategic areas of American industry. The small business man is unfortunately being driven into a less and less independent position in American life. You and I must admit that.

Private enterprise is ceasing to be free enterprise and is becoming a cluster of private collectivisms: masking itself as a system of free enterprise after the American model, it is in fact becoming a concealed cartel system after the European model.

We all want efficient industrial growth and the advantages of mass production. No one suggests that we return to the hand loom or hand forge. A series of processes involved in turning out a given manufactured product may well require one or more huge mass production plants. Modern efficiency may call for this. But modern efficient mass production is not furthered by a central control which destroys competition among industrial plants each capable of efficient mass production while operating as separate units. Industrial efficiency does not have to mean industrial empire building.

And industrial empire building, unfortunately, has evolved into banker control of industry. We oppose that.

FDR said, "We oppose that." Stop twisting history around claiming Democrats want monopolies and cartels.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mordekaiser

I can't support a man like trump. He doesn't even have substance for me to look over his ignorance. I would not vote for Cruella Deville but it doesn't make the situation any less embarrassing. That Jackson comment was rediculous.

I don't support Trump. I pity him.

a reply to: dfnj2015

A Democrat is traditionally someone who takes the best pieces of every other parties ideals and uses that as their platform. They're baseless without other parties. A true liberal would benefit most from a multi-party system, so Democrats are easily failures in a 2-party system.

The FDR comment isn't a pissing contest, it's an observation- Democrats are the ones breaking and reconstructing the bank system constantly with views of 'what is correct'. To a contradictory nature. My point exactly is you quote FDR and yet his ideas conflict with Bernies completely, as they did with Jefferson before FDR. Basically you have a Jefferson camp and a FDR camp, but both are "Democrats" when it comes to banks.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It seems the topic of "psychology" went completely over the heads of the thread...

When what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be a Republican is irrelevant, all we have is psychological reasons. Are you only going to accept discussion that is in line with your way of thinking. I think there's more to this whole party discussion that simple fandom.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: dfnj2015

A Democrat is traditionally someone who takes the best pieces of every other parties ideals and uses that as their platform. They're baseless without other parties. A true liberal would benefit most from a multi-party system, so Democrats are easily failures in a 2-party system.

The FDR comment isn't a pissing contest, it's an observation- Democrats are the ones breaking and reconstructing the bank system constantly with views of 'what is correct'. To a contradictory nature. My point exactly is you quote FDR and yet his ideas conflict with Bernies completely, as they did with Jefferson before FDR. Basically you have a Jefferson camp and a FDR camp, but both are "Democrats" when it comes to banks.

Again, it's not for you to define what a Democrat is if you are not one. Here's what Bernie Sanders stood for:

The six largest financial institutions in this country today hold assets equal to about 60% of the nation’s gross domestic product. These six banks issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards and over 35% of all mortgages. They control 95% of all derivatives and hold more than 40% of all bank deposits in the United States.

We must break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Those institutions received a $700 billion bailout from the US taxpayer, and more than $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve. Despite that, financial institutions made over $152 billion in profit in 2014 – the most profitable year on record, and three of the four largest financial institutions are 80% bigger today than they were before we bailed them out. ‎

Our banking system must be part of the productive, job-creating economy. The Federal Reserve, a government entity which serves as the engine of the banking industry, must eliminate its internal conflicts of interest, provide stricter oversight, and insist that the banks serve the economy in a way that works for everyone, not just a few.

* Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.

berniesanders.com...

If you do not like the idea of breaking up the banking cartel then just say so. But don't twist it all up saying Democrats are poo poo. That is the psychological part of the thread the OP was trying to get at. Why can't you just say you are against breaking up the banks without insulting or defining what it means to be a Democrat? Maybe you can't. Maybe you have no position other than to oppose Democrats.

double post

a reply to: dfnj2015

And you don't see any similarities to Jefferson?

I like how you say I don't get to define Democrat, but then post what a Democrat says. The literal dictionary definition of liberal is closer to me than you, you just have issue with it. It's 'open to change' this obviously isn't a solid stance, like 'for banks' / 'against banks' it's consistently 'changing it can be beneficial' that's it. Just ironic, the one thing, banks, that will ultimately lead to Global Currency, be destabilized by being broken up. Again.
Sorry to shut you down donkey man, I like your posts. But I even like Bernie- as a Republican. His absurd too expensive plan does at least allocate the money in the correct places.

It ultimately comes down to the State, a California Republican, New York Republican, Texas Republican are all way different stew. In Cali because of social state programs that aren't national, it can makes sense to finally find absurdity with the system and want to vote 'no more', while Arkansas or whatever chokes from the decision.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: dfnj2015
And you don't see any similarities to Jefferson?

No, I don't.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
I like how you say I don't get to define Democrat, but then post what a Democrat says. The literal dictionary definition of liberal is closer to me than you, you just have issue with it. It's 'open to change' this obviously isn't a solid stance, like 'for banks' / 'against banks' it's consistently 'changing it can be beneficial' that's it.

I can't say this in any other way. Either you agree with this or you don't. You don't get define what it means to be a Democrat. This is the stance:

Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.

I think this kind of stance is what it means to be a Democrat.

Obama was not a Democrat. He was nothing. He did nothing. He just continue Bush's foreign policy. And Congress did not let Obama have a domestic policy.

So in a discussion about the unsavory psychology of two-party politics I think it must include what it means to have a party. If both parties are exactly the same then maybe that's the source of what is unsavory.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
Just ironic, the one thing, banks, that will ultimately lead to Global Currency, be destabilized by being broken up. Again.
Sorry to shut you down donkey man, I like your posts. But I even like Bernie- as a Republican. His absurd too expensive plan does at least allocate the money in the correct places.

Thanks for ad hominem attack. Don't worry, you are not shutting me down despite your delusions of doing so.

The history of banking is a good study:

www.youtube.com...

I am very much aware the banking system is designed NOT to be in labor's favor.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
It ultimately comes down to the State, a California Republican, New York Republican, Texas Republican are all way different stew. In Cali because of social state programs that aren't national, it can makes sense to finally find absurdity with the system and want to vote 'no more', while Arkansas or whatever chokes from the decision.

Well, one thing is for sure, the status quo favors the rich. Every year the rich get richer and the middle class is driven deeper and deeper into a poverty wages as described by the facts presented in this video:



I'm sure you have brilliant mind and have it all figured out. And I accept your view that doing nothing is what you want.

But there are many Democrats and progressives who want to see laws passed and public policies changed to address income inequality in this country. Now you may think Democrats and progressives are insincere and ineffective. But standing for change is just a position.

But I'm curious, as a Republican, is wealth inequality even an issue for you? If you think there's a problem what public policies would you like see implemented to address wealth inequality in this country? Maybe you want to see Federal Reserve abolished. That would be interesting. I thought Ron Paul had some interesting ideas.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It seems the topic of "psychology" went completely over the heads of the thread...

When what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be a Republican is irrelevant, all we have is psychological reasons. Are you only going to accept discussion that is in line with your way of thinking. I think there's more to this whole party discussion that simple fandom.

Without getting into the Psychology (or rather the Social Psychology) of it all, about all that is left is my party is better than your party fanboy bickering.

About every political thread across the site (and them some) are already that as it is.



Then again, there is the systemic analysis stuff.........

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Obama was not a Democrat. He was nothing. He did nothing. He just continue Bush's foreign policy. And Congress did not let Obama have a domestic policy.

That's not entirely accurate.

The Dem's tend to go by the "Neoliberal" form of "American Imperialism", while the Republican's tend to go by the "Neoconservative" format.

The Neocon's are a bit more 'honest' I must say, albeit more bare knuckle. The Neolib's like to keep it more under the radar via the likes of the CIA/DIA (overthrowing governments by various means such as rigging elections, assassinating leaders, sending in Al Qaeda as in Syria). The Neocon's like to flex the industrial war machine more than play the 'sissy' games. They'll all do the same stuff ultimately though, Disaster Capitalism 101 (which is the agenda of capitalizing from global disasters whether natural or otherwise), etc.

Shock Doctrine (intro):


Economic Hitmen (intro):

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Man I read that book years ago it changed a lot of how I looked at things.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That's a good summarization, I was going to include some of those points in my OP but didn't want to go off the tracks. Glad someone brought it up.

That being said it are semi different approaches to similar objectives.

Yes, finally more are starting to care but are caught up just the same as with others in partisan politics. Unfortunately it's all part of the design to keep it divide and conquer, no focus on that the partisan sides are different sides of the same coin.

Keep in mind a lot of the net opine is trolls though. They play the side to have the other ones go off. Have seen many switch sides over the years, even whole chat rooms of the past had opposition trolls.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

SNAP!

Go getting all real and the thread turns to crickets!

I thought this place was supposed to be above top secret?

Grow a pair foos!