+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Moses, The Bush is Burning! (/showthread.php?tid=1875)
Pages:
1
2
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - A Black Falcon - 10th May 2004
Two parties. Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, Democrats and Whigs, then the nation seperated and there were a bunch of parties, then the Democrats and Republicans until now. :)
Illusion, if you want to talk about hateful politics... the period in the 1850s is one of the worst ever. Remember, the end result was secession and the Civil War, but things got bad well before that politically... the Whigs collapsed by the late 1850s, torn apart by sectionalism. There were a whole lot of factions, with the parties split between north and south... the 1860 was essentially two seperate elections (with different competitors in each part) in the North and the South, for instance.
Except a couple of more successful third-party movements, like the Populists of the late 1800s.
Oh, and how exactly were they so much smarter? I don't see it. ... but I was just reading a book about the Civil War... Oh, Bush is stupid, but is appeasement so much better? Oh, sure, I can see why -- they wanted to make sure to keep the nation together -- but the South would be happy with nothing less than absolute gaurantees of slavery and national policy to take over parts of Latin America to expand slaveholding territories...
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - -iLluSiON- - 10th May 2004
I was mainly referring to pre civil-war... it's common knowledge that the mid 1800s was a terrible time for America and its politics.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - A Black Falcon - 10th May 2004
Post civil war had problems too, with the north in control and reconstructing the south fairly harshly... and as for before the 1850s... well, slavery had been an issue forever. It just got worst in the 1850s, but it'd been a problem for a long time... not as critically, but the compromises about slavery go all the way back to the Declaration of Independance!
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - -iLluSiON- - 10th May 2004
These events are completley different than the issues of today. Some politicians today are more snot-nosed than ever and sometimes it turns out to be a blame game. With the media controlling everything and displaying issues to the public, American politics is solely about the amenability of the government and is slowly becoming currupt.
I forget who said it, but I remember reading somewhere that someone was comparing us to the Roman Empire. We reached our peak not too long ago and are slowly on a decline...
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Dark Jaguar - 10th May 2004
Here's the thing, okay, allow parties, but do you really think it's healthy that there are ONLY two, and the SAME two? Why aren't either of these parties dying and being replaced with something else? I do believe it would be far more healthy and a lot less of a boring cycle that will NEVER EVER GO ANYWHERE EXCEPT TO STAGNATION if parties were being created and dying all the time in a dynamic fasion.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Darunia - 10th May 2004
Don't forget about the Bullmoose Platform. :nodding:
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - A Black Falcon - 10th May 2004
Ahh, good old 'civilization is in decline'! A standard saying of many in every era in history. And once or twice they're actually right! But given how often it's wrong for every time it's true, I think everyone can safely ignore such things. The "good old days", when you look at it, really weren't that much better...
I do think two parties is the better system. When I look at countries with many, I see relative chaos... it makes strong government hard. Okay, good for when the opposition is in power, but not so good when you are... it focuses things and makes a lot of policy possible. It'd be really hard to pass much if everyone only answered to the people at home...
As for which parties, there have been two times when the (conservative) party changed... why the "Grand Old Party" calls itsself that while it's far newer than the Democrats is kind of odd, really. :)
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Dark Jaguar - 10th May 2004
It's not that it's in decline, it's that it's standing perfectly still. The parties have become SO divided that policy is VERY hard to ever actually change. The second one party suggests something, anything, the other party, SIMPLY because the first is "the enemy", has GOT to be completely against it. A while ago, it seemed like this had changed. Both parties had seemed to finally work together, realizing that working for the agendas of each of their little "clubs" wouldn't work and working for the COUNTRY is what mattered. That didn't last long though.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Darunia - 11th May 2004
Both without parties, it'd be notoriously hard to trust anyone. There'd be no one to dig up dirt on one another; and it'd be much harder to raise the funding to get ANYONE elected. And at least with parties, you know where the candidate stands. Sometimes.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - -iLluSiON- - 11th May 2004
And allow civil disorder and havoc to persue...
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Sacred Jellybean - 11th May 2004
Quote:Both without parties, it'd be notoriously hard to trust anyone. There'd be no one to dig up dirt on one another; and it'd be much harder to raise the funding to get ANYONE elected. And at least with parties, you know where the candidate stands. Sometimes.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting increasingly sick of all the scandals and smear campaigns. Without political parties, these wouldn't be anywhere near as intense. Members of opposing parties would have less motivation to find whatever facts they can and put a spin on them to further their political agenda.
Also, without "knowing where each candidate stands" via a silly label, voters would be obligated to examine the candidates individually and make a more informed decision. There wouldn't be any more party-loyal idiots who blindly accept whatever their favorite political group tells them to.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Darunia - 11th May 2004
Well, I was just playing the devil's advocate. I don't know if we need them or not anymore. It'd just be a very strange and different way without parties.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - A Black Falcon - 11th May 2004
Partyless democracy would be too chaotic to make sense... parties would inevitably form, as they did in the US (it was not by design). How many, though, that is the question.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Darunia - 11th May 2004
We should either have a lot more like France, or preferably, none at all. Two is at the same time too many and too few.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Weltall - 11th May 2004
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:I don't know about you, but I'm getting increasingly sick of all the scandals and smear campaigns. Without political parties, these wouldn't be anywhere near as intense. Members of opposing parties would have less motivation to find whatever facts they can and put a spin on them to further their political agenda.
Also, without "knowing where each candidate stands" via a silly label, voters would be obligated to examine the candidates individually and make a more informed decision. There wouldn't be any more party-loyal idiots who blindly accept whatever their favorite political group tells them to.
No, then we'd have even fewer people who would bother to vote.
I have to wonder, the 2000 election was hotly contested and both sides said they won, Americans chose them or them. But that's not really true. At least half did not vote at all and chose no-one. So, at best, about a quarter of our population, give or take, decides who runs the joint.
Moses, The Bush is Burning! - Dark Jaguar - 11th May 2004
I think either more need to form, or somehow, someway, parties must learn how to live and die dynamically. No, I don't mean "a new conservitive party" because that's just the same party with a new name. I mean a completely DIFFERENT way of thinking. The idea that there's two ways to think and no others is just plain arse, and to think that one or the other is the "opposite" is also that word I said. They are different, a bit, but not opposites. They take a few issues and take completley different sides, but it's always the same stuff, always the same slander, but it's more divided now than ever. I'm not the only one, though honestly the company I keep thinking this leaves me wondering :D, but really, a LOT of people I know are really getting sick and tired of the party system playing America like saps, making them think that it's the best way, or the only two "real" choices. It's SO divided that no real work is getting done any more. Is it the republican's or the democrat's fault this rebuilding has had some of the trouble it's had? I'd say it's the constant bickering over every little detail making it take months to come to any decision that lead to it. The two parties no longer even TRY to work with each other any more. Listen to debates, and if you are like me, you will notice that they are essentially EXACTLY like the last few debates we had around here a week or so ago.