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 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 100

Thread: Is partisan politics too partisan?

  1. #41
    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
    I have a feeling you and I are going to disagree about a few things but I do sincerely appreciate the sense of humor.
    Disagreement is inevitable. It's only harmful to society when you lose your sense of charity and respect for people. A collective sense of humor about how ridiculous things have become may be the biggest chance we have of saving this ****ed up country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    I am hoping to match my enemies' goals.................They've shown me no mercy and I have decided to show them the same.....................
    Let me know how that works out for you.

  2. #42
    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
    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.

    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?


    Maybe because the Middle Eastern book of farout fairytales is true afterall ? Right. That's sounds "scientific".........................

  3. #43
    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
    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.
    No, the two party system isn't mandated, but think of it as putting two people in a room with a gun loaded with one bullet. Tell them you're locking them in for 30 days. You don't have to mandate murder, but I guarantee that when you come back thirty days later, there will be a skeleton with a bullet hole in it's skull.

    As far as non-voters goes, there certainly are a lot of people who are turned off by the political system, but I don't think you could get them to vote for the same candidate. They have just as much diversity in their opinions as the people who do vote.

    And you can jigger with how states allocate electors as much as you want, but in the end the game is won by one player. Therefore, it makes sense to get 50% +1. That creates the dynamic that practically guarantees two (major) parties.

    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?
    I guess this is where we have vastly different conceptions of human nature. I don't think people are nearly as rational as you seem to think they are. IMO, people's opinions and views are informed by their emotions at least as much as by reason. That being the case, there will always be people who take advantage of that fact by using emotion laden appeals, making a totally rational and unemotional discussion impossible.
    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..

  4. #44
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Apparently you forgot to add the poll. I have no doubt that today partisan discourse is indeed framed in a way as to prevent solutions. I also agree, that some issues are used to distract the voters from other issues that can be more harmful to this nation that the hot button issue being discussed.

    I think you only have to look at the senate. Both Reid and McConnell are too busy being partisan Republicans and Democrats than being an American. Both in my opinion put their party way above country. This leaves me longing to the days of a Mansfield and Dirksen, a George Mitchell and Bob Dole or even Daschle and Lott. All of the a fore mentioned could work together for the good of the country. They could give and take, compromise to get things done. Sure all of them could dig in their heels depending on the issue, but for the most part, each would concede some to get some.

    It seems all too often with Reid and McConnell, they want it all, all of the time. The my way or the highway. If Reid is for something McConnell is automatically against it and vice versa. I swear, at times it seems both of these two gentlemen would rather see this country go down in flames than to give one inch.

    End of Soapbox.
    Politics has become all about the base, so it's not nearly as important what one does, as long as it pleases the base and and/or hurts the other side. Virtually nothing positive can happen, so pleasing the base has really devolved into thwarting the other side.

    Compromise is weakness, moderation is treason, practicality is evil.

    The fringe was called the fringe for a reason, they existed on the margins, now the fringe rules, but as you would expect, they do it very, very badly, leaving plenty of room for special interests to get their non-partisan thievery done while everyone is duking it out over partisan nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not believe any amount of people committing suicide with firearms justifies requiring firearm sellers to preach to customers about suicide regardless if it would or wouldn't save those who commit suicide.

  5. #45
    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
    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
    This is the perfect example of why people need to keep their sense of humor. Over a hundred million people in this country think pro wrestling is fake, and partisan politics is legit. If I couldn't laugh at that, I would almost certainly flip my **** on a level that Nicholas Cage would be like, "Dayum! That dude's crazy."

  6. #46
    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
    Maybe because the Middle Eastern book of farout fairytales is true afterall ? Right. That's sounds "scientific".........................
    Science is about forming a hypothesis, testing it in a controlled environment, and evaluating the results to either invalidate or justify the hypothesis. Having 50 experiments running with multiple controls and multiple test variables sounds pretty ****ing scientific to me.

    But what do I know? I've only finished my electrical engineering degree this semester.

  7. #47
    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
    This is the perfect example of why people need to keep their sense of humor. Over a hundred million people in this country think pro wrestling is fake, and partisan politics is legit. If I couldn't laugh at that, I would almost certainly flip my **** on a level that Nicholas Cage would be like, "Dayum! That dude's crazy."


    There is something seriously wrong with the people here............................................

  8. #48
    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 guess this is where we have vastly different conceptions of human nature. I don't think people are nearly as rational as you seem to think they are. IMO, people's opinions and views are informed by their emotions at least as much as by reason. That being the case, there will always be people who take advantage of that fact by using emotion laden appeals, making a totally rational and unemotional discussion impossible.
    Do you consider yourself to be rational?

  9. #49
    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
    Do you consider yourself to be rational?


    I can understand people hating me.............When they tell me their invisible friend hates me too is when I knew they had a very bad problem...............................

  10. #50
    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 CaptinSarcastic View Post
    Politics has become all about the base, so it's not nearly as important what one does, as long as it pleases the base and and/or hurts the other side. Virtually nothing positive can happen, so pleasing the base has really devolved into thwarting the other side.

    Compromise is weakness, moderation is treason, practicality is evil.

    The fringe was called the fringe for a reason, they existed on the margins, now the fringe rules, but as you would expect, they do it very, very badly, leaving plenty of room for special interests to get their non-partisan thievery done while everyone is duking it out over partisan nonsense.
    That may have been true before, but now there are more people that don't vote than people that do. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people have lost faith in the civil discourse and the party system's ability to direct it in a positive way. So few people gravitate strongly towards either party today, that if another party emerged that could get even half of those voters, they would annihilate both parties.

    The only reason that doesn't happen, in my opinion, is because the mass media is controlled by the same corporate interests who control the political parties. They turn every grass roots movement into a partisan wedge issue (even though the people in those movements are rarely partisan), and they keep us convinced that a vote for a third party is a vote for the "enemy".

    In reality, a vote for either one of the parties is a vote for the enemy.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •