Is America becoming a one-party state?

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Both give excellent examples. However, WHY are the moderates in this country sitting on their hands and not doing anything about it? There are millions that could make a heck of a lot of noise. Like having a "walk out of work day" or something. Grab EVERYONE'S attention.

I would love to see someone like McCain bolt from the Republican party, and declare his candidacy as either a Democrat or an Independent. Yes, his views are different from mine on many things, however they are very close to mine on others. HE is a true legislator, concilator, etc. I would wager my maxed out credit card that if he bolted to the Dems and ran he would win in a landslide. Sure wish someone would talk him into it.

This is an interesting prospect. If McCain can peel off enough liberal Republicans, and I believe there are 5 more that would join his "gang of seven" given the right circumstances, and draw in some Lieberman democrats, he could form a centerist balance of power party that could steal from both sides.

He is an outspoken admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, and a "Bull Moose" movement driven by his enormous ego would seem the most dangerous threat the Republican power monopoly could face.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Realist05]

Correction Bud, America is the "Party State"!






[edit on 25-7-2005 by GrandCourtJester]

Spicoli! Excellent, dude!

It's leaning to one side right now, because the other side clearly has no strong individuals. Although I'm republican, just give it time - Democrats will get a strong candidate soon.

If you ask me the apparent slide to a one party government is nothing more than propaganda supported by groups who's interest include destroying people's faith in the two largest parties. The reason for the apparent similarity in goals between the two parties should be clear, they do in fact have the same goals. Each party wishes to control the government, generally through the electoral system and through campaign financing. Right now it's the Republicans who are in charge, and as many have said we had 8 years of rule by Democrats before Bush's two terms. The co-opting of special interest groups is nothing new, it's simple commercialism. Notice how when one cell phone company comes up with something good it isn't long before all the other companies have somthing equal.

As much as my faith in the government may falter from time to time I still have much faith in the American people. I am of the belief that the populous would not stand for a one party totaliterian rule. Any news of such a move is mostly likely reported by people or groups with interests in opposing parties. Much of the latest accusations made by the Dems have been baseless and have little to do with the real issues at hand. We live in a world of rampant commercialism, a tool embraced by both parties. Much as you see a commercial claiming Coke to be better than Pepsi, you see commercials of how Bush lied and Kerry is Jesus reborn. The simple fact of the matter is that Kerry was so far removed from the vast majority of voters that they had no interest in anything he had to say. What the Democrats really need to do is hire some good strategists, if they had some they would've found out that a wind surfing, sun tanning collegiate from the upper class northern suburbs is likely to turn off much of the middle and lower class voters from the heartland.

America will never be a one party state as there is too much money to be made in politics and the opposing party will never stand for it. All this talk of neo-cons is hogwash because if anything their goal is the destruction of the Republican party. The majority of American voters, and sepcifically the younger ones, identify with a moderate political ideology. Any group wishing to have ultimate rule will most likely be anything but moderate. The Democrats are simply suffering from poor strategy, instead of seeking to make people turn against Bush, they should be busting their asses to make people like their next candidate. Bush also had a trump card in the both elections where as the Dems picked a poor running mate for Gore and no one had ever heard of Kerry or Edwards. During times when the economy is doing poorly people tend to become more conservative and will identify with a conservative candidate for that reason. Remember also that most voters are not as well informed as those on ATS and might identify with a conservative candidate simply because he is called conservative.

On an unrelated personal note I'd like to point out the European Union to my ATS brethen in the UK. I read a lot of posts from people in England who believe the "NWO" or what have you is headed by the US government, or that the United States is seeking to take over the world. I personally believe that if anyone should watch their back it's those of us in the EU, as it has already consolidated much of western Europe as well as taken their money in return for the Euro. Remember, Enlgand has had a few hundered year head start on world domination. This is more targeted towards EU ATSers who like to call the American people "fools" "sheep" and the like. I live in America and the EU scares me more than the Republican party. In America we have still not settled the problem of State's rights versus Federal rights, and to me the EU seems to pose the same problem. If the EU decides somthing is good, yet France decides it's not, I have a feeling the EU will win out. Western Europe also has a long history of totaliterian monarchies, England still has much loyalty to their "Royal Family" (who it turns out is not even english), I am of the opinion that this would be helpful to anyone wishing to establish such a rule again. Americans value their freedom above all else, the infringments made possible by the PATRIOT Act have been attacked and lambasted since it's inception. I believe much of the hype over these infringements generated by European news sources is simply to distract people from what is going on in their native soil.

My only question is: Would this thread exist if Al Gore had won??

Toelint has a point. Actual vote counts between the R & D's is pretty close nationally, district geography has a lot to do with the R's controlling the house and senate, and of course Algore got more votes than Bush; just not in Florida.
The D's problem with getting back in power is a lack of positive attitude about anybody or anything. Unless you count better prison conditions at Gitmo a positive initiative.

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?

America is poor? You have to be kidding we are much richer as a country than England. As far as unpopular - did not realize we are in a popularity contest. Most American do not care how the world perceives us. And setting global policy on the back of popularity is doomed to fail.

Originally posted by Toelint
My only question is: Would this thread exist if Al Gore had won??

Without a doubt, at least one like it

Originally posted by theebdk

America is poor? You have to be kidding we are much richer as a country than England. As far as unpopular - did not realize we are in a popularity contest. Most American do not care how the world perceives us. And setting global policy on the back of popularity is doomed to fail.

8 trillion in debt is rich? I wish I lived inyour world!
How many kids at your school 'beat up' on the unpopular kids?
The way I see it, it is a popularity contest. If the US annoys enough of the world, they could easliy 'bring us to terms'. Fortunatly, they believe in fixing their own problems first. Perhaps we should (fix our own problems first).


[edit on 30/7/2005 by FallenOne]

The Democratic Party and the Republican party are one party with two faces. They all want one think. Take control of Washington. Why we did not listen to George Washington? He say we should not base our country on a party system! and he is right! look at how much damage the Republicans and Democratics has cause us!

Washington warned about factionalism in his farewell address, but his cabinet was already splitting along Federalist / Republican lines around Adams and Jefferson. Washington was the only possible figure that could be "above" politics.

I am amazed to see how many people fall into the "let's all get along" camp as well as the "They're all the same" attitude toward the R & D's.

Of course there will be differences between people that think capital should be free and those that favor government control and redistribution.

Originally posted by Realist05
I am amazed to see how many people fall into the "let's all get along" camp as well as the "They're all the same" attitude toward the R & D's.

Of course there will be differences between people that think capital should be free and those that favor government control and redistribution.

My problem isn't that they are exactly the same, only the way they choose their battles. Both parties do bow to the same master- big business.

Most of the big issues of contention that the parties actually ACT on are matters of our own personal lives, which the government has questionable constitutional authority to regulate, and which don't have such heavy implications for business.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Drivers licenses for illegal aliens, etc etc. Why are these the issues exactly?

Why isn't stopping illegal immigration a more active issue in government than denying them drivers licenses? Because the Republican party can't afford to actually fight the boogey man that their segment of the media is constantly using to scare us to their side. Illegal aliens are imported consumers subsidized by tax payers to make up for the fact that big business is under-paying them. It's just a big scheme for making the American citizen earn less and pay more. The democrats often go one better and welcome them with open arms, selling citizens out in the name of minority votes and even illegal votes cast through election-fraud utilities such as the Motor Voter Law which was once used in a test to obtain absentee Ballots for all three stooges, Sandy Clause, and other noteable gag-names, including somebody's PET DOG!

The Republicans made a push at education briefly, but have you noticed how their interest waned after the goal of bringing big business into education via private school vouchers was shot down? The Democrats haven't made any concerted effort to rock the boat on education either of course. Each party is content to use it as an election issue without really pushing for serious improvement.

The democrats masquerade as an internationalist dove party, but they didn't have the fire in their belly to really treat weaker nations fairly, because even during the Clinton years Africa was little more than a big coffee planatation and mineral mine- a colony in all but name for the West. You'd think the internationalist party would reign in the corporate rape of weaker nations and make a large national effort to help those nations back onto their feet so that they could become valuable allies in the future.

It just seems like a lot of the differences between the parties are just immobile planks in the platform that never see any real action. The hot-button issues seem to often be raids on the liberty of the American people, seeking only to stir us up and create division, fear, and virtriol to aid the parties at the polls.
They may not the same, but they share some very important fatal flaws in common.

Vagabond, all good points.
It seems as if electoral politics in America is sort of like sailing; parties tack close to the wind, secure with thier bases and hoping to attract swing voters.
Where I see America today is a country with the ruling party doling out pork and involving itself overseas in a manner that makes most Republicans uncomfortable, but without a reasonable alternative, because the Democrat leadership seems to have abandoned rationality in favor of domagogery.
Witness Deans' attack on the recent Supreme Court decision on property rights, where the lib majority approved public takings, but Dean accused the right of taking the position. Realist05's mind boggles...

Electoral politics in our two party system has become quite a mess. I've made up my mind to go into politics, and it's a long road ahead of me, no doubt full of having to walk a fine line with people I believe are part of the problem.
If I could be anything though, and enjoy an incredible amount of success, one of my dreams would be to break down the barriers for minor parties. I'm from California, where House seats abound, and if I have my way when the time comes to make my run for the state senate, if I could find a way, I'd like to lead the way to revamping election laws in such a way that a small third party or an independent could really be a respectable contender against the incredible resources and proceedural entrenchment of the two major parties.

I think people should have a real choice. If there were three or four or five candidates on a given ballot, instead of just two, even if three of them were born losers who couldn't expect more than 5 or 10% of the vote, the major parties would have to really listen. They'd have to appeal to the voter in every possible way. If the republicans wouldn't act on illegal immigration, they'd risk losing 10% and thus losing the election. If the democrats wouldn't really get in there and shake up education or whatever other key issue their constituents cared about, they'd face a similiar fate.

What I wouldn't give to really have a choice on a election day.

Well, I've read almost everything here and it appears that for some odd reason most of you would rather have lying democrats regain that 50 year stranglehold on America. What you will NEVER admit is JFK & LBJ's war record far surpasses anything Bush has done so far. Hello Vietnam and 40,000 dead. Also, I also notice that Bill Clinton ( who launched a war against KOSOVO without ever answering to the UN such as Bush did ) is given that constant free pass on most bad thing's. It's too bad that there are hour's of Bill Clinton going on and on about how Saddam is a threat to the world and we may have to go to war. All one need's is GOOGLE and QUICKTIME and reality begins to take form over all of the sillyness I read here.

By Nov.22, 1963 the death toll for American advisors in South Vietnam was under 100, so it's hard to pin Lyndon's folly on JFK.
The point about Democrat dominance is quite valid, though, because America was in effect a one party state then; Republican minorities meekly followed New Deal and southern Dems around. Thier high water mark was in the 1964 elections; after civil rights legislation they lost the southern wing of the party that they had been antagonizing since Roosevelt's second term, and that group became Republican, giving the "right" the balance of power today.

Suggest you keep your eyes on the present 8 year Presidential Term Limit fries.

Bush seems to be mastering getting what he wants from the senate, with exception of some nominees.

Bush wants no term limitations and gets it, then I would think NWO and especially Bonesman are ready to introduce a NWO to it's people and enhance pressure-efforts to sway other Countries to refrain from promoting or passing laws that do not suit Bush and Bones.

Dallas

One of the third parties should win the next elections, because both the democrats and the republicans are puppets of the same master. At least that's the picture I get, from what I've read about them.
But I can almost bet Bush will still be president after 2008 (even though it's not possible with the current laws of the US), but that will change, somehow

Originally posted by Realist05
By Nov.22, 1963 the death toll for American advisors n South Vietnam was under 100, so it's hard to pin Lyndon's folly on JFK.

Kennedy doesn't get nearly enough credit for what appeared to be his idea for Vietnam. Remember that the Green Beret's were created under JFK. Their motto- Liberty to the Oppresed. Their mission profile- to augment indigenous forces by training and tactical advising, as well as adding a special operations capable element to the force they assissted.
It was a good idea- I strongly doubt JFK ever would have gone into Vietnam the way Johnson did. Our advisors really were advisors- they fought- but they were there as a force multiplier, not as a force in their own right. The idea was to "teach a man to fish" rather than fishing for him. The whole point seems to be that we were going to aid the Vietnamese without going in.
Bay of Pigs fit the same profile- although Kennedy only inherited that operation from a previous administration, and in my view failed to fully follow the pattern by giving the exiles air support.

In short, I'm not quick to blame Kennedy for Vietnam based on the what I know at this time (keeping in mind that I probably don't know everything). I think the idea of doing less with more was a good idea for counter-insurgency operations in foreign nations, because it ensures that if basic requirements for a successful war (as spelled out later in Weinberger Doctrine) are not met by the country being assissted, that a major commitment to a quagmire will not develop for the United States.