View Poll Results: Do you believe that partisan politics divides people unnecessarily?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    25 80.65%
  • No

    6 19.35%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 100

Thread: Is partisan politics too partisan?

  1. #31
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I think your questions said more than that, but I accept that was your intent

    The fact is, our political system was designed to be a two party system. While people can (and do) have a wide variety of views and ideologies, in the end our problems are "solved" through the political process which is dominated by two parties.
    On the contrary, our system was never designed with political parties in mind. If I remember correctly, one of the founders stated specifically that political parties would screw the whole thing up.

    So we have a multitude of opinions and two parties to represent them. Does that mean that they are or are not "representative" of the people? I'd say yes and no. The two parties certainly do not do a comprehensive job of representing everyone's opinions, but they do a fairly decent job of representing those in the middle of the ideological spectrum. Though we often like to think that, for any given issue, there's a "republican" position and a "democratic" one, but the truth is that there is diversity within each party as well as between the two parties.

    That's because people are different. Different people have differing life experiences that have led them to have a different world view than others do. Simply having a polite discussion isn't going to change the fact that these differences can be huge. Then add in fact that people are not quite the rational beings we like to imagine we are and that leaves me with little hope that there is a simple way to resolve difficult and troubling differences amongst the various groups of people.
    Perhaps. The reason I tend to disagree is that I personally don't agree with either party on the ideal approach to most issues. I see other issues (such as abortion) as too complicated and subjective to justify having public policy on those issues dictated at the federal level at all. It does more to distract against larger problems in society than it does to undo any social wrong no matter which way the policy is dictated.

  2. #32
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    Maybe people don't like the natural results of a war they declared 30 years ago ? Well, be careful what you ask for...........................
    Awww such a victim

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And what does this have to do with the content of my post? Is there anything you disagree with specifically or would like to discuss?


    Yes. I disagree with your use of the word "unnecessarily"--------------The Right wanted total war, they've got it, and now they want to whine about "mean people" ?.................Oh, Christ......................

  4. #34
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Trying to do what? Make Bonzai happy? Definitely not. Still won't quit my day job though.
    Well if you weren't trying to make him happy, why did you imply that he's determined not to be? I'd try to make him happy and see the result before I declared him a malcontent.

    Not that I disagree with you, mind you. This place has enough disagreeable malcontents that if they're not being paid to come here and screw up the conversation by the people that want to disenfranchise us, then they're giving away their good work for free.

  5. #35
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    On the contrary, our system was never designed with political parties in mind. If I remember correctly, one of the founders stated specifically that political parties would screw the whole thing up.
    Yes, it wasn't their intention to have political parties, so my use of the word designed was clumsy. However, by creating a winner takes all system, they made it impossible to be any other way. Such as system makes it inevitable that parties will form with the purpose of capturing 50% +1 of the votes. More than two parties, and that becomes either a death knell for two, or political paralysis



    Perhaps. The reason I tend to disagree is that I personally don't agree with either party on the ideal approach to most issues. I see other issues (such as abortion) as too complicated and subjective to justify having public policy on those issues dictated at the federal level at all. It does more to distract against larger problems in society than it does to undo any social wrong no matter which way the policy is dictated.
    Most people do not agree with any party on all issues. However, people's worldview does lead them to cluster around certain ideas, like how some people view the states as better arbiters of some policies. I see no reason to think that having 50 partisan debates would be any less "distracting" than having one. In fact, I disagree that people having strong opinions on important issues are "distractions" at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #36
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    Yes. I disagree with your use of the word "unnecessarily"--------------The Right wanted total war, they've got it, and now they want to whine about "mean people" ?.................Oh, Christ......................
    So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

    Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?

  7. #37
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

    Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
    No, the idea is to let the republican party push itself farther and farther to the right, leaving the center (which is where the majority of the voters are) for the democrats
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #38
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

    Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
    I have a feeling you and I are going to disagree about a few things but I do sincerely appreciate the sense of humor.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    So, in response to the right's effort to divide the populace against its self, your response to fight against that is to work twice as hard to divide people?

    Are you hoping to divide people so much that they go so far off the edges of the political spectrum that they wrap around or something?
    I am hoping to match my enemies' goals.................They've shown me no mercy and I have decided to show them the same.....................

  10. #40
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yes, it wasn't their intention to have political parties, so my use of the word designed was clumsy. However, by creating a winner takes all system, they made it impossible to be any other way. Such as system makes it inevitable that parties will form with the purpose of capturing 50% +1 of the votes. More than two parties, and that becomes either a death knell for two, or political paralysis
    True enough, but the party structure is not established by the constitution at all. There's nothing that mandates the existence of political parties at all.

    In fact, these days there are more people that don't vote than people that do, mostly because people have lost faith in the party system. If those people were to form a third party, that party would steamroll both of the existing ones.

    And runoff elections are already possible if no candidate wins a majority. There's nothing that says that states can't amend their constitutions to create that dynamic. Some already have it if I'm not mistaken. Adopting that policy alone would allow for the end of two-party dominance. If they had public campaign financing based on which party voters register with, where crossing a certain threshold of registered voters guaranteed an equal portion of campaign funds, it would eliminate special interest control of the election process at the same time.

    Most people do not agree with any party on all issues. However, people's worldview does lead them to cluster around certain ideas, like how some people view the states as better arbiters of some policies. I see no reason to think that having 50 partisan debates would be any less "distracting" than having one. In fact, I disagree that people having strong opinions on important issues are "distractions" at all.
    The opinions aren't the distraction. The refusal to respect the right of someone to disagree with you is the distraction. Having 50 partisan debates allows for the decision to be made locally so that those municipalities can have what they want locally without forcing it on people universally. If you don't like what your state government does, you can move. If you don't like what the federal government does, all you can do is secede or revolt (neither of which are without partisan consequence themselves).

    It also allows for the different approaches to succeed or fail on their merits. If people disagree on the best approach to solve a problem, it's valuable to society if all the approaches are allowed to be tried and tested on their merits. If one approach provides better overall results than another, there's no rule that says the state with the inferior approach can't voluntarily adopt another approach after seeing how well it works.

    Gay marriage is a pretty good example. With states allowed to adopt the policy on its merits, other states may see that it's not a bad idea after all. Maybe the societies in those states collapse in a heap instead, proving the arguments of the religious right. Who knows until society is allowed to try those things and validate them on their merits, and why try something on the whole country at once when half the people think it's a crappy idea?

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •