Why bi-partisanship is so important to the survival of our country.

The political season is upon us once again. And once again we have an incumbent in office who is fighting to stay in and a host of folks that are suffering the slings and arrows to replace him.
Let me posit a question to you all.

What would the country be like, if we didn't have the GOP fighting Obama every step of the way?
What would it look like?

Now there has been much talk about Bachmann lately. Her conservative views on a variety of subjects have been the topics of many threads here.

"If Bachmann becomes president _______ will happen."
On and on and on and on.
Now imagine she becomes president.

Could you imagine what the country would look like if there were no democrats?


I don't mean for this thread to be a rant. Just the opposite. It's a cold, hard look at the practicalities of our countrys' political system. As much as we are at each others throats here on the boards, we are the yin and yang of the political forum.

Your thoughts?



(mods, please move if forum is incorrect)

I can agree with you but let me take it a step further I think we need more sides going against each other. Like you said we have had republicians going after Obama. And in my opinion nothing is really getting done because it is a tarde off basically follow the agenda and your party will be in charge shortly.. Justw ait a couple years. But I thin if we had more parties that actually had some buite and a following. We could stop this nonesense and give people a sense that there vote actually matters and give people a pride of getting active and involved in what goes on in there country.

reply to post by American-philosopher


I'm not sure that would be a benefit. (And here I am, a Tea Party - Independent saying that ) We need sides. We need polarity.
If it's us v them then okay. But if it's us v them v those guys v these guys v some more guys. . . . .

Then the issues may get lost in the crowd.

Thanks for replying.

Every day congress meets, we lose alittle bit of our liberty.

Just let the system crash and start over.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Every day congress meets, we lose alittle bit of our liberty.

Just let the system crash and start over.

Agreed. I'm not promoting anarchy, although it does have merit, but more along the line of checks and balances.

We need politicians to man up and put COUNTRY before party and corporations. Until that happens, nothing will get better, IMO.

Originally posted by BiggyMcBigPants
We need politicians to man up and put COUNTRY before party and corporations. Until that happens, nothing will get better, IMO.

But which politicians?
I agree, we need people in office with stones. Who? What would they promote? Would it benefit me or you. Would it benefit neither?

reply to post by beezzer


The bipartisan nature of our politics has failed us. The two parties basically work together to spread disinformation, and mass discontent amongst the populace. The two party system creates an eternal battle of "your wrong, I'm right". This causes a division of ideals, distracting us (the people) from important decisions, due to the dogma created by each party.

While you Beezzer as a conservative (I assume you are) do not like the word "progressive". That is how politics must be, always changing and always improving itself. Instead of sticking with age old polices which have failed, and moral polices which are inspired by religious zealots.

We do not need two parties so one can be there to condemn the other. That is the job of the people. The parties no longer represent the people, the only represent the capitalist state. Money is worth more than blood to them.

No more parties who "represent" people. The people must represent themselves.

Of course bi-partisanship is needed and important. If everyone agreed on everything we would be in worse shape than we are now...regardless of who has the power.

Getting along is overrated.

reply to post by beezzer

Honestly, does it matter which politicians at this point in time? It just needs to happen, regardless of party affiliation. And yes, you will disagree with some of the approaches that are taken or made, as will I disagree with some as well. But we need to get back to what is best for the country first and foremost and NOT what is best for party, which is what I see happening now.

We cannot vote our way out.

It does not matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, onw serves eggs sunny side up one scrambled. Either way the people always lose and big corporate wins.

Why after nearly 50 years of stating "I voted for the lesser of two evils" I have to conclude our nation is not only insane but slightly collectively retarded.

The last real republican was Eisenhower and the last real democrat was JFK.

If we do not wake up and take the system completely apart it will never get fixed.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by beezzer

 

The bipartisan nature of our politics has failed us. The two parties basically work together to spread disinformation, and mass discontent amongst the populace. The two party system creates an eternal battle of "your wrong, I'm right". This causes a division of ideals, distracting us (the people) from important decisions, due to the dogma created by each party.

Au contraire. I think that bipartisanship has saved us. It has savaed us from a one party system, a "monarchy".

While you Beezzer as a conservative (I assume you are) do not like the word "progressive". That is how politics must be, always changing and always improving itself. Instead of sticking with age old polices which have failed, and moral polices which are inspired by religious zealots.

I think politics needs to evolve. Call it prgressive, though that name has ben hi-jacked by a group with a particular ideology.

We do not need two parties so one can be there to condemn the other. That is the job of the people. The parties no longer represent the people, the only represent the capitalist state. Money is worth more than blood to them.

On this we must agree. They don't represent the people. I'd like to vote most of the bums out!

No more parties who "represent" people. The people must represent themselves.

What would our country look like, then?

Originally posted by BiggyMcBigPants
reply to post by beezzer

 

Honestly, does it matter which politicians at this point in time? It just needs to happen, regardless of party affiliation. And yes, you will disagree with some of the approaches that are taken or made, as will I disagree with some as well. But we need to get back to what is best for the country first and foremost and NOT what is best for party, which is what I see happening now.

I do agree. But it's all in the interpretation of "the best for our country".

Which would lead to at LEAST two sides.

Originally posted by nyk537
Of course bi-partisanship is needed and important. If everyone agreed on everything we would be in worse shape than we are now...regardless of who has the power.

Getting along is overrated.

Agreed. Has there ever been a country that had a population that "agreed" on everything?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
We cannot vote our way out.

It does not matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, onw serves eggs sunny side up one scrambled. Either way the people always lose and big corporate wins.

Why after nearly 50 years of stating "I voted for the lesser of two evils" I have to conclude our nation is not only insane but slightly collectively retarded.

The last real republican was Eisenhower and the last real democrat was JFK.

If we do not wake up and take the system completely apart it will never get fixed.

Can I ask, if it gets fixed, what would it look like?

For every yes there must be a no, for every up there must be down, for every left there must be a right, so for every administration there must be a pro and anti. That is a rather simple fact. It is hardly likely that any government could sustain itself without a healthy division, so long as that division is kept civil. When one party is in power then it is necessary for the minority party to act as the critics, the skeptics, and the detective. Such an arrangement is the natural state of balance in any political system.

Even in one-party states such as Cuba, China, and North Korea there are pro and anti-administration factions it all just depends on to what extent their disobedience is permitted.

reply to post by Misoir


Well put! Back to my original premise, imagine our country if just ______________ was in power.

As a conservative, even I wouldn't agree with everything a conservative candidate would put forth.

Originally posted by beezzer
Agreed. Has there ever been a country that had a population that "agreed" on everything?

Only the ones who are forced to "agree" on everything.

I don't think there's a dime's difference between the two parties, unless it's the AREA in which they wish to continue to spend beyond their means.
Here's an excerpt from an article I have always enjoyed:

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
glass-still-half-full.blogspot.com...

reply to post by beezzer


I'm totally with you on this one. When you have polarization, you have different views and you expand on your options. Very simply, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
So many Americans have vastly different incomes, views on social matters etc.... that there's just no way that everyone's voice could be heard if ther'e wasn't different political backdrops.

The problem is that this is a representative republic, and once our leaders are in place they do whatever suits their own agenda. It's really quite sad. I for one would love for most issues to be handed to the people to vote on. I think as a nation we can think on our own. True majority rule.