Is partisan politics too partisan?

Bonzai said:

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...............................

Click to expand...

My invisible friend's opinions are his business, and I'll thank you to respect his privacy.

Bonzai said:

I am hoping to match my enemies' goals.................They've shown me no mercy and I have decided to show them the same.....................

Click to expand...

You've decided that since your enemy wants to destroy this country, you're going to do your level best to destroy this country, too?

Welcome to being part of the problem.

Bonzai said:

You still think the US is a functional country..............2wave..........................Hi......................

Click to expand...

Howdy Bonz - wife made me go to bed last night. Divide and conquer might have always been part of politics, but I don't remember much of that going on when I first became interested in politics back in the mid 50's Today it is at a all time high. Candidates and parties target certain segments of society and then go after them with both barrels blazing to make them hate the other party or candidate. It is no longer to get someone to vote for you because you are the better candidate with the best ideas and solutions, it is to get them to vote against the other other candidate or party. No one, candidates, parties strive anymore to get people that are for you, they strive to get people to be against the other candidate/party, they do not care if anyone like you or your party, just that you dislike the other party/candidate more. Thus we have the situation this country is in today. A great divide where members of the opposing party want nothing to do with each other and would rather destroy than mend.

CaptinSarcastic said:

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.

Click to expand...

yes, I agree. America gets lost in shuffle of pleasing the base. Political party and ideology has become far more important than country for most of our elected leaders today. But it is these two parties that write the election laws and they do it as a mutual protection act. They have a monopoly on our election system and they will not let that go. In the end, most independent voters end up voting for the least worst candidate, which still leads for a bad winner.

Since Perot ran independents have risen from 30% to 40% of the electorate. (Gallup). I had hope the rise would make a difference. It hasn't as those who have left the two major parties were the more moderate and willing to compromise folks leaving both parties all the more ideological and less willing to work together for the good of the country. So as the two major parties lose members or those who identify or associate with them, they become more intransigence and more extreme, left and right.

The problem is independents are so diverse there is no uniting them to challenge the two major parties. Besides, even if you could unite most of them into another party, with the election laws today, they probably couldn't get on the ballot as both Republicans and Democrats would unite to keep them off and if they did, corporations, Wall Street, the special interests and lobbyist, the huge money donors would give the new party any money to run their campaign anyway. They are in bed with the two major parties and they like it that way.

Perotista said:

Howdy Bonz - wife made me go to bed last night. Divide and conquer might have always been part of politics, but I don't remember much of that going on when I first became interested in politics back in the mid 50's Today it is at a all time high. Candidates and parties target certain segments of society and then go after them with both barrels blazing to make them hate the other party or candidate. It is no longer to get someone to vote for you because you are the better candidate with the best ideas and solutions, it is to get them to vote against the other other candidate or party. No one, candidates, parties strive anymore to get people that are for you, they strive to get people to be against the other candidate/party, they do not care if anyone like you or your party, just that you dislike the other party/candidate more. Thus we have the situation this country is in today. A great divide where members of the opposing party want nothing to do with each other and would rather destroy than mend.

Click to expand...

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: I shudder to imagine what it might take to get our politicians working together again, and I'm quite serious about that! Whatever it turns out to be, I can almost guarantee that it won't be fun and games for most people! :shock:

Are you rethinking your move?...your recent posts almost sound like your wife is a little reluctant to leave family right now...

SocialEngineer said:

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."

Click to expand...

I gotta admit, that was funny

But partisan politics is legit. Individuals don't get presidents elected and legislation passed. It takes majorities to do that.

Those presidents and legislators put policies and laws in place that affect all of us. You don't get more legit than that

SocialEngineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

In science, the hypothesis has a clear meaning. If we have 50 different states passing 50 different laws, what hypothesis is proven?

SocialEngineer said:

Do you consider yourself to be rational?

Click to expand...

I consider myself to be human, and just as subject to the same foibles as the rest of humanity.

Do you consider yourself to be completely emotionless?

SocialEngineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is not true, and voter turnout has been increasing

sangha said:

I gotta admit, that was funny

But partisan politics is legit. Individuals don't get presidents elected and legislation passed. It takes majorities to do that.

Click to expand...

You're right. It takes a team effort to run the partisan propaganda machine and the mass media.

Those presidents and legislators put policies and laws in place that affect all of us. You don't get more legit than that

Click to expand...

And pro wrestlers get hurt all the time. That doesn't mean that their adversaries intended to hurt them, and it doesn't mean that our politicians changed the laws with the collective interests of our society in mind.

sangha said:

In science, the hypothesis has a clear meaning. If we have 50 different states passing 50 different laws, what hypothesis is proven?

Click to expand...

No hypothesis is "proven" in science. Science can only invalidate a hypothesis or justify it. There's no such thing as scientific "proof". There are only working theories. The laws of physics are simply working theories that have been justified consistently enough to be universally adopted as a means of quantifying phenomena, and even those "laws" are subject to being struck down at a moment's notice when science discovers something new.

Science justifies and disproves all hypotheses without respect to their origins. That is the inherent value of the scientific method. It can disprove a false religious doctrine, or justify a religious doctrine that holds up to objective scrutiny on its merits.

SocialEngineer said:

You're right. It takes a team effort to run the partisan propaganda machine and the mass media.

And pro wrestlers get hurt all the time. That doesn't mean that their adversaries intended to hurt them, and it doesn't mean that our politicians changed the laws with the collective interests of our society in mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, they get hurt but not because their opponent is trying to hurt them. It's just an inherent risk relating to the nature of their work

And there is no legal requirement for politicians to keep the collective interests of society in mind. It's up to the people to ensure that they do.

We get the government that we deserve

polgara said:

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: I shudder to imagine what it might take to get our politicians working together again, and I'm quite serious about that! Whatever it turns out to be, I can almost guarantee that it won't be fun and games for most people! :shock:

Are you rethinking your move?...your recent posts almost sound like your wife is a little reluctant to leave family right now...

Click to expand...

I am not rethinking the move, the wife is. Perhaps a challenge from a viable third party candidate. More what looks like a viable third party that can win some house and senate seats. During Perot's run, the two parties more or less came together to ensure he wouldn't win and then adopted quite a lot of his ideas and worked together to get some passed so his supporters would come back to the two major parties. They succeeded. Perhaps another outside threat like Perot, only with more of a grass roots party, a bottom up instead of a top down.

But independents are so diverse and all over the political scale it would be pretty had to get them unified enough for a viable third party. That is unless the two major parties really get them ticked off by all their shenanigans. As it is, when independents get ticked off, they vote for the opposite party. Get ticked off at the Republicans, they vote Democratic like they did in 2006, 2008 and 2012. If independents get ticked off at Democrats, they vote Republicans, 1994 and 2010 are examples. Perhaps one of these days they will come to realize it makes no difference who is in charge and start to coalesce around a new party. I doubt that though.

I am doing yard work after 4 days of rain down here, so i will be in here for a little bit and then back outside for awhile. Today is my come and go day.

SocialEngineer said:

No hypothesis is "proven" in science. Science can only invalidate a hypothesis or justify it. There's no such thing as scientific "proof". There are only working theories. The laws of physics are simply working theories that have been justified consistently enough to be universally adopted as a means of quantifying phenomena, and even those "laws" are subject to being struck down at a moment's notice when science discovers something new.

Science justifies and disproves all hypotheses without respect to their origins. That is the inherent value of the scientific method. It can disprove a false religious doctrine, or justify a religious doctrine that holds up to objective scrutiny on its merits.

Click to expand...

You're being a bit pedantic here. But if it helps, I'll agree - it validates or invalidates a hypothesis. That doesn't change my point which your post fails to respond to

If 50 states pass 50 different laws relating to an issue (say abortion), what specific hypothesis is validated or invalidated?

sangha said:

I consider myself to be human, and just as subject to the same foibles as the rest of humanity.

Do you consider yourself to be completely emotionless?

Click to expand...

Not at all, but I do consider myself capable of making a rational decision based on all available information. I consider my own emotions, and I put in a good faith effort to consider the emotions of others and weigh them against my own. I place a high priority on that, which I think makes me more effective at coming to equitable solutions to problems, but I don't think that my ability to do so is anything particularly special, other than the fact that it not as common as I think it should be in the civil discourse.

sangha said:

Yes, they get hurt but not because their opponent is trying to hurt them. It's just an inherent risk relating to the nature of their work

And there is no legal requirement for politicians to keep the collective interests of society in mind. It's up to the people to ensure that they do.

We get the government that we deserve

Click to expand...

Unless the civil discourse is derailed by agitators for the purpose of disenfranchising the populace by the same interests who use their economic influence to influence public policy. Then we get the government AND civil discourse that those interests want us to have, even though we most likely deserve much more.

SocialEngineer said:

Not at all, but I do consider myself capable of making a rational decision based on all available information. I consider my own emotions, and I put in a good faith effort to consider the emotions of others and weigh them against my own. I place a high priority on that, which I think makes me more effective at coming to equitable solutions to problems, but I don't think that my ability to do so is anything particularly special, other than the fact that it not as common as I think it should be in the civil discourse.

Click to expand...

Research indicates that we are all less rational than we think we are. They even have a name for the effect

Dunning

When it comes to keeping our emotions out of our decision making processes, we are all incompetent.

SocialEngineer said:

Unless the civil discourse is derailed by agitators for the purpose of disenfranchising the populace by the same interests who use their economic influence to influence public policy. Then we get the government AND civil discourse that those interests want us to have, even though we most likely deserve much more.

Click to expand...

Disenfranchisement is an entirely different issue, and it requires laws to be passed. These laws are subject to judicial review, and recent attempts at disenfranchisement have failed due to such review. (note: I'm assuming that by "disenfranchisement" you are referring to efforts to make it impossible for some people to vote)

I am not going to deny that it is impossible for our political system to be corrupted to such an extent. Even the Framers acknowledged the possibility. However, the people and their own self-interests are supposed to be a sufficient counter-weight to this possibility and, so far, has been proven to be effective. Reason would suggest that, absent a compelling reason to think otherwise, the system will continue to function at its' current level.

Personally, I don't believe partisan politics divides people so much as it tends to clarify the ideological divide that exists in the country and puts serious issues in stark terms that help provide clear choice. Too often, bipartisanship is simply a tool to effect bad public policy.

In a system of government such as the US has, partisanship isn't nearly as important as it is in a system of government like Canada's where members of a party are virtually trained seals who raise their flippers when the leader tells them to. In the US, you're far more likely to have rogues who vote with the other side on particular issues, which leads me to think that if government simply stuck to the important things that people want them to deal with, you'd find far more agreement/consensus.

One last point I'd make is that American media have a vested interest in government not working, in conflict in congress and between congress and the President - it sells their nightly news and their cable talking head variety hours. Politicians who buy into that conflict get promoted/exposed on these network shows and establish a profile that helps get them re-elected.

sangha said:

You're being a bit pedantic here. But if it helps, I'll agree - it validates or invalidates a hypothesis. That doesn't change my point which your post fails to respond to

If 50 states pass 50 different laws relating to an issue (say abortion), what specific hypothesis is validated or invalidated?

Click to expand...

In the instance you cite, 50 different hypothesis would be tested at once. The experiment would fail to produce a valid result because there would be no control to observe.

But I didn't say that all 50 states should each pass a different law, did I. When I cited gay marriage as a valid example of the scientific method, I cited the fact that a number of states have legalized gay marriage (representing the experiments), while the majority of states have not (representing the control). Citing imaginary and unlikely scenarios as instances that invalidate my point only serves to derail otherwise productive discussion. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and I appreciate your contribution.

CanadaJohn said:

Personally, I don't believe partisan politics divides people so much as it tends to clarify the ideological divide that exists in the country and puts serious issues in stark terms that help provide clear choice. Too often, bipartisanship is simply a tool to effect bad public policy.

In a system of government such as the US has, partisanship isn't nearly as important as it is in a system of government like Canada's where members of a party are virtually trained seals who raise their flippers when the leader tells them to. In the US, you're far more likely to have rogues who vote with the other side on particular issues, which leads me to think that if government simply stuck to the important things that people want them to deal with, you'd find far more agreement/consensus.

One last point I'd make is that American media have a vested interest in government not working, in conflict in congress and between congress and the President - it sells their nightly news and their cable talking head variety hours. Politicians who buy into that conflict get promoted/exposed on these network shows and establish a profile that helps get them re-elected.

Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts. At the same time, I believe your second point is the reason for the first, rather than the first existing in a vacuum. Bipartisanship in congress is often a smoke screen for passing bad laws, but bipartisanship amongst the populace against the corruption in government is vitally important. If the Tea Parties and OWS movement realized that they were on the same side in the fight against government corruption, the entire partisan noise machine would collapse under the weight of its own bull****.

SocialEngineer said:

In the instance you cite, 50 different hypothesis would be tested at once. The experiment would fail to produce a valid result because there would be no control to observe.

But I didn't say that all 50 states should each pass a different law, did I. When I cited gay marriage as a valid example of the scientific method, I cited the fact that a number of states have legalized gay marriage (representing the experiments), while the majority of states have not (representing the control). Citing imaginary and unlikely scenarios as instances that invalidate my point only serves to derail otherwise productive discussion. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and I appreciate your contribution.

Click to expand...

I'm still not understanding exactly what is being validated. Some states will have laws allowing SSM, and others will have laws forbidding it. Aside from showing that states can choose whether or not to allow SSMs, which is something we already know, what is being validated?

sangha said:

Disenfranchisement is an entirely different issue, and it requires laws to be passed. These laws are subject to judicial review, and recent attempts at disenfranchisement have failed due to such review. (note: I'm assuming that by "disenfranchisement" you are referring to efforts to make it impossible for some people to vote)

I am not going to deny that it is impossible for our political system to be corrupted to such an extent. Even the Framers acknowledged the possibility. However, the people and their own self-interests are supposed to be a sufficient counter-weight to this possibility and, so far, has been proven to be effective. Reason would suggest that, absent a compelling reason to think otherwise, the system will continue to function at its' current level.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If you can make a person's vote meaningless, then you disenfranchise them as much as passing a Constitutional amendment barring them from voting. Our current two party system gives voters nothing more than a choice between red and blue flavors of feces, and the political discourse is dominated by agents of that system. That system serves the special interests that own it, not the collective interests of the people.

sangha said:

I'm still not understanding exactly what is being validated. Some states will have laws allowing SSM, and others will have laws forbidding it. Aside from showing that states can choose whether or not to allow SSMs, which is something we already know, what is being validated?

Click to expand...

The hypothesis that accepting homosexuality will cause society to collapse, and the counter-hypothesis that homosexuality presents no real threat to society. If the societies in SSM states collapse at a higher rate than states without SSM, that hypothesis is validated scientifically (unless other unrelated factors can't be eliminated in consideration).

Of course, social science is not as rigorous as the hard sciences like physics, because it's virtually impossible to test a single variable with all other conditions remaining constant. A single experiment can support multiple hypotheses, and rejecting a hypothesis completely is much harder. That limits the usefulness of the scientific method, but it is still useful nonetheless.

SocialEngineer said:

I disagree. If you can make a person's vote meaningless, then you disenfranchise them as much as passing a Constitutional amendment barring them from voting. Our current two party system gives voters nothing more than a choice between red and blue flavors of feces, and the political discourse is dominated by agents of that system. That system serves the special interests that own it, not the collective interests of the people.

Click to expand...

People have more than two choices. There are a number of political parties in this country as well as candidates running independently (see Ross Perot's run for the presidency). While you (and I) may not be happy with the choices, that doesn't render our votes meaningless. Saying that this is the equivalent of a constitutional amendment is just hyperbole.

And I'd like to point that though I agree with you that moneyed interests do have a strong and unwelcome influence on the system, the fact is that those interests are not in full agreement with each other. For example, look at what's going on with a proposed bill that will allow states to collect sales taxes on Internet sales. On one side, there are behemoths like Wal Mart and Amazon. On the other, is another set of moneyed interests (ex eBay)