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 it good for any party to control all three branches?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Forget about WHICH party is in control, is it a good idea for ANY party to control all three branches?

I, and a lot of others, have complained about only TWO parties not representing everyone so how can ONE party. I dont care if it were Libertarians I still would not want to see them in TOTAL control. We claimed that the USSR was a dictatorship for only having one party and now we have the same, or close. The only good I see coming from this is the Republicans will not be able to blame ANYONE but themselves when the ball is fumbled.

I dont really care that Bush was elected I would have been hard pressed to choose the bigger idiot, but I dont see this working out very well.

Like I have said over a couple threads Maybe with the Democrats self destructing and the Republicans already splintering maybe we can get more Libertarians and Constitutionists in power.




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
In most cases I would say no, but with this conservative group, I am happy


PONTUS
Senate 55-45
House 233-205

And the Biggie and the reason I am VERY happy

The Supreme Court with maybe 3 NEW appointees!


God has truly Blessed this nation this week....IMHO.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Amuk, I'm considering maybe becomeing Libertarian...pending my further investigation into what that entails. You could be right about that being the "new" party.
I don't think it's good for only one party to be in power. There might not be much balance or compromise in that. One party would only represent the values of only part of the population? It worries me also.
Possibly could become similar to a dictatorship? I really hope not.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
It worries me also.
Possibly could become similar to a dictatorship? I really hope not.


See what Dubya says about dictatorship in my signiture below....



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Welcome to Christian-Zionist America. Be very afraid.

Now god will control this nation. The wall between seperation of church and state will crumble (which help MAINTAIN religious freedom you firggen hypocrites) and I will move to canada
.

No wonder your turned Jesus into a white man, so old white men would follow him to their doom
.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Cash3w]

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Cash3w]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Amuk > I'm with you on the whole unbalanced situation. With a pure republican goverment (lets face it the democrats wont be able to pass wind much less a bill in the new system) all the checks and ballances dont much matter because they are all circumvented by the fact there is only one party controlling all three branches of the goverment.

Unfortunately I don't see this as opening up an avenue for third parties. I think its infact going to have the opposite effect. Given the huge blow to the democrats I don't think they will be able to mount a decent campaign in 2008, and many other parties wont bother given the results of 2004. Sadly I think we are in for a long ride with a republican goverment that only represents and guards 1/6th of the population of this country.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cash3w
Welcome to Christian-Zionist America. Be very afraid.
and I will move to canada
.

No wonder your turned Jesus into a white man, so old white men would follow him to their doom
.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Cash3w]

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Cash3w]


Good go now along with Robert Redford!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The Supreme Court with maybe 3 NEW appointees!
.


Be careful for what you wish for Ed you may not get what you expect.

Funny thing if Renquist retires it means that one of the most conservative members of the court is leaving. Any nominee made by the President must still go through the Judiciary Committee. Granted the Congress has more republicans, but the judiciary committee will still be made up of both republicans and democrats. I think the President will be hard-pressed to push through someone as conservative as Renquist. So trading a conservative for a moderate is just fine with me. Because as we know from O'Connor some justices tend to get more liberal over time. And well, if he actually does get a conservative - the court will still be no different than it is now.

As for Ginsburg and O'Connor retiring, I think they will manage to hold out another 4 years.


B.

edit: spelling


[edit on 11/4/04 by Bleys]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
You could be right but Thomas got through.....and Bush has quite the clout....I do want a conservative court though.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The people of the United States have determined that one political party is better suited to controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency than any of the others.

Specifically, the people of the United States have decided that in most cases, Republicans are better able to carry out our wishes than Democrats at this point in our history.

With a chronic decline in popularity since the Clinton years, the Democrats would be best served by conducting an overhaul of their party and starting over with some fresh ideas, because the ones they have aren't working out so well.

For Republicans, the challenge is to use the special powers we have temporarily delegated to them to run the country honorably and wisely, and thereby continue to receive majority support and the privileges that come with it.

We, the people of the United States, will be checking back on Republicans, Democrats and all political parties by way of popular elections over the coming years, and if officeholders fail to please us, they will be replaced.

This is how it works, and this is precisely how it is supposed to work.



[edit on 11/4/2004 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The people of the United States have determined that one political party is better suited to controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency than any of the others.
[edit on 11/4/2004 by Majic]


I dont really see it that way to me it looks more like they DONT want the Democrats more than wanting the Republicans, how else can you explain electing a man that job approvel was less than 50%?

BOTH candidates didnt even run on their merits but on "at least I aint the other guy" tatic.

If we really did check in on them and replace them when they screwed us over I would not be nearly as concerened. All of you cheering for this would you feel the same if the Democrats controled all three branches? I would.

As I have said before if TWO parties do not represent us how can one?

Any way you slice it the party in power now was only chosen by about 1/6 of the population, not half as a lot of people claim that is hardly representing the Majority.

This thread is not to boo and hiss any party in General like I said I wouldnt trust the Libertarians to control it all, hell I wouldnt trust MYSELF to control it all.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Majic
The people of the United States have determined that one political party is better suited to controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency than any of the others.


I dont really see it that way to me it looks more like they DONT want the Democrats more than wanting the Republicans, how else can you explain electing a man that job approvel was less than 50%?


The sentence you quoted is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.

The people of the United States have indeed determined that one political party is better suited to controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency than any of the others.

Whether that means we like the Democrats less or the Republicans more is academic and speculative. We have no record of public intent, only of public deeds.

The fact is that we have granted effective control of our federal government to the Republicans for now, and for reasons unique to each of us.

That's really all there is to it.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I am not saying that they didnt elect him and dont care which party it is my complaint is over one party whoever they be controling everything.

I hope things turn out ok but it is a recipe for disaster IMO



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Unfortunately I don't see this as opening up an avenue for third parties. I think its infact going to have the opposite effect. Given the huge blow to the democrats I don't think they will be able to mount a decent campaign in 2008, and many other parties wont bother given the results of 2004. Sadly I think we are in for a long ride with a republican goverment that only represents and guards 1/6th of the population of this country.




Not true.

The Libertarian party is growing like wildfire, and the fire just keeps growing.


I spoke to 15 people in my community today, telling them about the Libertarians and explaining to them that there are more than just Republicans and Democrats.


Of the 15 people I spoke too, 15 disliked bush and kerry. 3 of them voted for bush because he's not kerry. 5 of them voted for kerry because he's not bush. 7 of them didn't vote. 15 of them thought there was only two political partys in America. 15 of them got most of their news from Fox, ABC, NBC, MSNBC. All 15 of them gave me some money to help pay for advertisements I plan on airing in my area, after I asked.

I told all of them to research the Libertarian party at www.lp.org, I told them that if they liked the Libertarian stances that the best form of advertisement is word of mouth advertisement and the only way to make a change is to spread the news to your friends- if it weren't for me how would you have found out about this?


If anything, the Libertarian will keep on growing.

If you wana know, I live on Oahu (Kapolei)



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I am not saying that they didnt elect him and dont care which party it is my complaint is over one party whoever they be controling everything.

I hope things turn out ok but it is a recipe for disaster IMO


I don't see how anybody can say they did or didn't elect him, there are a few states that have not finished counting, and Ohio hasn't counted the provisional or absentee ballots. It seems this whole thing was over before it was finished, I find that strange. But your right, this will be a disaster if it stands. We will see America go backwards in time, sad. I voted all libertarian for local offices. Now that there's nothing more to lose, I will vote LP for president next election, if this country survives that long. At least Bush can't be president again after this, unless he changes that too, which is a very real possibility IMO.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
27jd

Please use word of mouth advertisement to advertise for the Libertarian party

It doesn't cost money- and its free publicity for your party

All you got to do is knock on someones door and say, "Hello, im part of a local petition to end income tax for all residents within our area, but I need 500 signatures"

If you get a *wow, you can really end income tax*, say "Actually I just fooled you, but if you really do want to end income tax, vote Libertarian on 2008. You don't have to give away your hard earned money. Do you know what a Libertarian is?"

From there, they will probably say either "Nope" or "Yup, aren't they like really strange hippies?"
Educate from there


Trust me, everyone I've talked to has said "wow man, sign me up, I hate income tax". And, I don't think I can find someone who dissagrees unless I talk to 500 people.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by aukaiman55
27jd

Please use word of mouth advertisement to advertise for the Libertarian party


I plan to, the only reason I voted for Kerry was because he was the only viable alternative to Bush, I know I betray myself that way, but I was not thinking about myself, I was thinking about the countless innocent human beings that will be killed in the next four years. I guess it was an effort made in vain, it makes me think this election was rigged from the beginning and that Kerry knew he would not win, he gave up too easy. I will not make the mistake of trusting the system again, the only effort I will focus on now is changing the system itself.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Here is the beauty of the thing. Even though the Republicans controll the Executive and Judiciary branches of the government, in two years all members of the House must run again. Many members of the Senate must also campaign. At that time, the President must try to commit to the middle ground to help his party retain/win the seats they are running for. The Republican Right Wing is not going to rule this country for the next four years.

In fact, campaigns are being set up this very minute for elections in 2006. President Bush and the RNC (As well as the DNC) have people already working on this election. In my opinion, you will see Bush migrate towards the middle so he can help his party "win" the next election. If Bush were to go extreme because he has nothing to lose, a Democrat would be a shoe in as the next President.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
For the question at hand, I don't think it's that bad of a thing, as long as it's not abused.

For instace, if they want to put in conservative ideals in the budget or what not, that is what they were elected to do.

If they start making people go to church on sunday, well, I've got my AR-15 for a reason, and it aint just democrats


Honestly though, yes, there are going to be some conservative laws past, but nothing too extreme, because all those people in congress have to get reelected.

As for the 3rd party - I agree, I find myself drawn towards a mix of constitutionalist/libertarian more so then Republican. The thing is though, a vote for either one is a non vote, and I feel that it is MUCH better to have the conservative republicans in power rather then democrats because I dissagree that strongly with just about every democratic view.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Here's something else to consider: Bush got the most votes of any President in History. Kerry got the secondmost.

All this talk of the Democratic Party being dead, and beaten is pure hogwash. Out of approimately 115 million votes, Bush got roughly 59.5, Kerry about 56. Bush only won by 4 electoral votes, Regan won by over 500.

The Democrats don't need to change anything except get some more people out to vote. I don't believe any state was won by more than 200,000 or so votes, but I could be completely wrong on that. If so, it was only one or two states. The majority of states were won by very narrow margins.

There are two possible outcomes from all of this.

A. Nothing changes. The Democrats stay where they are, try to reenergize their base, and have another go in 2006.

B. The Dems move to the right, and try to adopt a more Conservative agenda. This is the more likely possbility, and the one that will help those of us in 3rd parties more than anything else. Here's how.

By leaning more to the right, the Dems will pick up a large number of Moderates who are uncomfortable with being clumped together with Evangelical Christians. Strong showings by other parties can capture the voters left behind by this shift. People like George Will, highly educated, Conservative, but not Fundamentalist, may become eager to find refuge within the Dems, or possibly the Libertarians or Greens. This is a crucial time for 3rd party members, and we need to take this opportunity to be as vocal as possible.

However, I have two numbers I want to share with you: 2,882,995 is how many votes the Green Party got in 2000. 112,440 is the current number of official Green Party votes for this year's election (this number is not expected to change much). The reason? Ralph Nader. If any 3rd party is to have a legitimate chance of making a run at the White House, they need a big name and well-known face to go along with it. Someone like Ron Regan would be beneficial, even if only in a Public Relations role.

Complete control of the Government by any one-party is known as a one-party system. It is the traditional form of government found in Facist and Communist nations. It is dangerous, any way you look at it, and is damaging to freedom. I respect your happiness at the fact that you feel your party has the power to pass certain laws you believe in, but Democracy is built on the power of the people to decide for themselves, not on the power of the Government to mandate anything. This is the foundation of our nation, and is sadly being forgotten.

Anyone remember when being a Republican meant small government, anti-federalist, and fiscal responsibility? I do, because those are the reasons I was a Republican.

- Dom




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join