It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is America becoming a one-party state?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
What goes on behind the scenes of the American government is open for speculation, but what is open for observation seems to be the fruition of a Republican scheme to consolidate the party into a position of absolute power. I would point to the following:

1. The abandonment of any fiscal conservativism and passing of socialist style federal education spending and medicare prescription coverage, leaving democrats with no broad social agenda.

2. The absorbtion of thousands of democrat office holders fron state and local levels into the party since the 1990's, along with the fiscal contributions of thier supporters.

3. Adding through judicial appointments control of the courts in addition to congress and the executive, now through a simple majority vote in the Senate.

4. Forcing the Democratic Party into increasingly radical positions that reflect the agendas of thier special interest constituancy groups, and presented by angry representatives (Dean) that have little appeal outside of thier base supporters.

Notwithstanding the notion of a 50/50 nation, can anybody argue that the Republicans are set to control the U.S. for a generation?




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   


Notwithstanding the notion of a 50/50 nation, can anybody argue that the Republicans are set to control the U.S. for a generation?


Well I can't argue for it as I am starting to see a moderate backlash now that these groups are starting to show thier true stripes on such issues as Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Tech, Abolishment of Senate Filibusters, Launching a War on false pretenses, and a number of other issues. Look to 2006. If the Republicans loose some seats it could be the Inflection Point of a new trend.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
How many seats can they lose? The House of Reps is now set up so that incumbants are unchallenged in the vast majority of races run, and more Demsenators are up for election in 06 than Republicans.

Plus, the money is adding up a lot faster for the right than left these days, and that is the mother's milk of politics.

Short of a economic collapse, you will not see a takeover of either house.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Going by the tittle of the thread, I will say that the ruling party would love to be the only political party in this country.

But...........taken in consideration that our nation is democratic in nature, other parties would always be allowed run.

Looking at what goes on in Capitol Hill with our leaders, it may seem that is exactly what they are doing..........becoming one party in power.

Remember before Bush and the Republicans it was 8 years of Clinton and the Democrats, so is nothing new it happens.

But what scares most people is when the balance of power lean......... to the political party in power people tend to be uneasy about this things.

But not to worry most Americans doesn't like absolute power.

Perhaps what it's going on is nothing more that the seed of one party been planted deep withing our political structure for future impact in others parties when they become in power.

Is nothing new it happens all the time, but for some reason it seems very bold and very desperate in nature?

That is how I perceive the entire ordeal that is brewing in our nations ruling classes, “our political parties”



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
3rd parties don't work in the U.S.

Republicans or Democrats absorb and co-op them within a single election cycle.

What I would argue is that the Dems are becoming critically weak, punier than even the Republicans after the '64 election, and seem to have no clue as to how to bring themselves back to party parity by attracting new voters rather than alienating them.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Actually the resentment against the Republicans that is already growing in our country, and the weakness shown by the Democratic party is sure to make a third party stronger in the next elections.

I feel that we may have a new party emerging from the dissatisfactions and bad politics of our two main parties.

I will be one to welcome a major change in our political structure of only two political ruling classes as the Republicans and Democrats.

It's about time for a third party choice.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The way things are heading, it's possible that the Democrats will continue to move more to the left and become an ultraliberal fringe party; if that happens, probably the Republicans would split into a more social conservative party and libertarian party.

[edit on 5/21/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Scandal ridden newspaper mogul Conrad (Lord) Black says in his autobiography, "A Life in Progress", that it was when the Democratic party opened it's nomination process in the convention of '68, that they lost their way. They went from picking winners, like Roosevelt and Kennedy, to losers, like Mondale and Dukakis. Special interest pressure groups began influencing the nomination process, and supporting sympathteic candidates, as a way of furthering their agendas. However they tended to be 'out of touch' with the mainstream, so the party gradually drifted. Though they kept congradualating themselves on being America's "Natural Ruling Party", pressure group politics had side tracked everything.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by GrandCourtJester]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
We already are a one-party state. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican, it's same nonsense, different party.

I wasn't even going to vote at all last fall until I happened upon the Constitution Party web site. Then I found my niche.


I was looking into Libertarian, but they're a bit too anarchistic and socially liberal for my liking.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
They are the same in many respects, a disdain for the constitution being one of them.

But to ignore the differences between thier most important constituents (i.e., the biggest financial contributers) is the same as saying that the issues they contest are not important, which is demonstratably wrong.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
What you fail to realize, realist, is that neither party really sets out to accomplish any real change in regard to the major differences.

Clinton wooed the liberals, yet accomplished nothing for them. Bush, the other end, with the same accomplishments. As a matter of fact, Bush has done more for the liberals than he has for those who voted for him.

The two parties are owned by the same groups, and they are out to accomplish the goals set forth by their masters. These goals are not to the good of the citizenry.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I have not failed to realize it, I pointed it out at the top of the thread.

You are correct in as far as Clinton has been the most successful Republican President of recent times and Bush the most successfull Democrat because of thier unprincipled "triagulation" and adoptation of thier opponants' agendas.

You are incorrect in that true believers that contribute funds and ring doorbells for the parties have very different goals and objectives, whether or not they are aware of the corporate strings being pulled behind the curtains.

To say they are being manipulated to the point of looking like WWF opponants that get nothing done is beside the point.

"Real change" is something the founders made very difficult to do, and in spite of the New Deal coup in the 30's that is still true today.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

The two parties are owned by the same groups, and they are out to accomplish the goals set forth by their masters. These goals are not to the good of the citizenry.


I guess this quote sumarized all, indeed our nation has turned into a one-party state under the umbrella of two party names.

You are very correct Thomas.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I do beleive that we are now at the mercy of one government. The Democrats are now a mirror image of their counterparts and they all have the same ultimate agenda.

Now, when i hear a Democrat pounding on the podium, against Bush, i cant help but think its all an act.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Notwithstanding the notion of a 50/50 nation, can anybody argue that the Republicans are set to control the U.S. for a generation?


They will control national politics for the foreseeable future because of one thing: Control over voting mechanisms.

Look at Bush's numbers since Bush's re-(S)election. They've fallen and fallen. They're lower than any other president re-elected. The majority of Americans do NOT favor his policies. That is a major fallacy hoisted onto the American public by way of a compliant and complicit media.

The public better wake up soon. It's time to realize one salient truth: We the people far outnumber the government. And we also have the power to throw them out on their azzes or to throw them in jail where so many of them truly should be.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
As so many of you also pointed out, the two major parties are actually one in the same: the Republican party the member in front jamming it to us and the Dems are of course, the azzEnd..


It's time for a few REAL parties driven by real citizens to take form and to compete. Until we break up this two-party crap, nothing will change.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I feel sorry for you Americans living in a land thats supposed to be free, to me as an Englishman , your living in a state controlled environment caused by the neocons in George Bushes Government. Don't you think its time to get rid of whats making your country poor and unpopular?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I feel sorry for you Americans living in a land thats supposed to be free, to me as an Englishman , your living in a state controlled environment caused by the neocons in George Bushes Government. Don't you think its time to get rid of whats making your country poor and unpopular?


Yeah, problem is, even if you did jail this bunch, there'd be more where they came from. Everyone has a price, it seems--just about anyone can be bought out with promises of money, power, and prestige.


I'm a third-party voter--don't know if you Brits know what that means, but since you're on ATS you've probably figured that out by now.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Realist, you apparently do not understand what I said, as you think I referred to "true believers". This is a conspiracy board; if you read a few threads in the NWO forum and the Secret Societies form, you'll get the picture I was painting. The doorbell ringers or any other "true believer" types are not the masters.

Bulldog, you seem to be simply focusing on Bush. You need to widen your views, and while you're at it, look at your own government. You aren't as chock-full of freedoms as you think you are, and the same ones that own our government owns yours, too. Don't feel targeted; our two governments are not the only ones. AS a matter of fact, both of our governments are responding to their pulled strings to break the Middle EAst and to bring them into the fold.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Understanding and acceptance are two different things. I respect the posters to forum and secret society form, but do not make the mistake of believing everything written there. I like to keep a critical mindset with everything I'm told, the more forceful or demanding the writer is about thier point of view, the more suspicious I get.

That being said, would anyone watching Howard Dean on Meet the Press talking about hating people because of thier political affiliation and jailing political opponants believe he was doing it for show? Or that a conspiracy of secret masters that he is unaware of is pulling strings over the organization he is chairman of?

Sometimes there is no more than meets the eye.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join