What logical reason is there to support an opposing political party system? Other than create division, what else can it possibly provide? Just look
at all the synonyms
there are in the English language for division! Each synonym has its own
synonyms and so forth. Looking at these words you'll notice another common bond shared by most of them, that being their reference to negativity.
This theory can be applied equally to the word opposition
. This word is also synonymous
with negativity, while it also happens to describe this systems very purpose. Hell, it's exactly what opposing parties were created to do, oppose one
Now some people may think that opposition is necessary for debate? That maybe true when trying to determine the best possible outcome to a specific
circumstance, but is this a sensible approach to the greater good? When looking for what's best for a single nation overall, is it logical to
categorize issues into separate groups? Does it really make sense to integrate groups of issues into individual ideologies? Doesn't doing this mean
the likelihood of fitting one of these groups completely impossible? Isn't it also impossible that one of these groups represents your interests
entirely? Isn't that exactly what we have with this system?
What if you're a pro choicer and happen to believe gay marriage is irrelevant, but you're strongly for gun rights? What if you want social programs
like Medicare/Medicaid, but also small government? How about a devout Christian that's absolutely against nation building and wars of oppression, yet
feels illegal immigrants should be welcomed? Are any of these people represented by a particular political party? Hardly! Does anybody feel totally
represented by one? I highly doubt that it's possible without twisting your overall views? Can anyone honestly claim total representation? So, why is
I won't go into the details here, but political parties came long after the US was established. They were warned against by founding members to what
evils they would bring. The current Dem/Rep system in the US has resisted additional parties at all costs. No matter how strongly the people express
their need for alternate representation, it has been denied by the controlling two party dominance.
The presidential debates -- the single most important electoral events in the process of selecting a president -- should provide voters with an
opportunity to see the popular candidates discussing important issues in an unscripted manner. Unfortunately, the presidential debates fail to do so,
because the major party candidates secretly control them.
Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic
parties seized control of the debates by establishing the corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan
institution, the CPD has deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.
Since 1988, negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees have secretly drafted debate contracts that dictate precisely how the presidential
debates will be structured. The CPD, which is co-chaired by the former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, has obediently implemented
those contracts. read more...
A good, but lengthy, video on party corruption can be viewed at
. It shows the most recent evidence of this where
only certain, both the Obama and McCain, campaigns negotiated secret contracts that dictated the terms of all the 2008 presidential debates. These
contracts are what kept certain candidates from being included in later debates. Candidates like Dem-Dennis Kucinich and Rep-Dr.Ron Paul, despite
popularity, were not permitted to attend latter debates? These rejected men even belonged to the two controlling parties? What chance do others have?
To be clear, opposing party systems are useless for a nations prosperity. Separate ideologies that create opposition and division within a
constitutional republic is a crippling practice in itself, but to further damage a nations prosperity by corrupting and limiting this system is
sabotage! Opposition and division in the US has been fought against successfully throughout history. Segregation and opposition have always been
concluded as negatives, and defeated in their relations to race, gender and creed inequalities. We have learned unequivocally to stand against these
tools of degradation in all areas, yet we actively participate in this example? We only accept this negative practice where it should be opposed most?
We refuse, with good reason, to tolerate this everywhere but here? Common sense is enough to tell you something is very wrong! When it comes to our
greater good, why shouldn't we choose only the very best offered? Why don't we demand equal opportunity for all our best minds that are willing to
serve us? We stand by and accept a candidates exclusion due to his lack of funding, or his party affiliation? We support a system that disqualifies a
republican VP because we wish to elect a democratic president? What sort of imbeciles support a system that denies selecting any two candidates they
wish? Wouldn't it be much wiser to incorporate all the best ideas from all candidates? This system approves and disapproves entire ideologies
regardless of what's good in them.
Why wouldn't candidates be willing to adopt each others good ideas and implement them? Is there really any need for partisanship/bi partisanship when
referring to one nations interest? This is madness! If the motivating factor was the progression and prosperity of a nation there would be no need for
opposing parties, partisanship, multiple ideologies, political factions, or any other type of divisional tool. If leadership sought only what's best
for all there's no use for any of these things. Why are people supporting such a confusing, complicated system to find relatively simple answers to
what's best for us? Do you honestly believe these issues are really this complicated?