• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is partisan politics too partisan?

Do you believe that partisan politics divides people unnecessarily?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

SocialEngineer

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
44
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you believe that the partisan discourse divides people more than it should?

Vote yes if you believe that the partisan discourse is framed in a way that prevents solutions to conflicts that could be resolved if they were approached differently, or if you feel that politics is used more to distract people from the real problems than to solve problems.

Vote no if you think that the issues are framed in a way that promotes solutions and encourages mutual understanding and respect, or if you feel that the partisan discourse tries too hard to get people to agree on the issues.
 
Do you believe that the partisan discourse divides people more than it should?

Vote yes if you believe that the partisan discourse is framed in a way that prevents solutions to conflicts that could be resolved if they were approached differently, or if you feel that politics is used more to distract people from the real problems than to solve problems.

Vote no if you think that the issues are framed in a way that promotes solutions and encourages mutual understanding and respect, or if you feel that the partisan discourse tries too hard to get people to agree on the issues.

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.
 
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.




You still think the US is a functional country..............2wave..........................Hi......................
 
Partisan politics can be too divisive, obviously, but I also think differing points of view, and the willingness to stand up for what you believe are good things.
 
Last edited:
You still think the US is a functional country..............2wave..........................Hi......................

I still think that the US is a functional country. All that's required to get rid of the corruption is for people to stop buying into the partisan noise machine. There are plenty of places for rational souls to talk about solutions to problems. Every internet forum is viable as a platform so long as people see through the fog of corporatist tools and useful idiots that spam up the discourse and keep people from having a rational discussion. It would take a few election cycles to replace the Supreme court with people who will interpret the Constitution properly, but most of the problems can be cleared up pretty quickly, and none are beyond repair.

I think most people agree that equating money to "free speech" is generally a bad idea, for example. We all know that bribery is detrimental in government, and yet the partisan discourse tells us that the freedom to exchange money for political power is what the founders meant by "freedom of speech". Certainly people with money should not be forbidden from advocating for their opinions, any more than people without money should be. But money is not speech; it's economic power. Freedom to use economic power to influence government should not be protected on the same level as the freedom to petition the government or express opinions.
 
You still think the US is a functional country..............2wave..........................Hi......................

I know it's not cool any more to actually have affinity for this country but, while it's not perfect, I think it's still pretty awesome.
 
Do you believe that the partisan discourse divides people more than it should?

Vote yes if you believe that the partisan discourse is framed in a way that prevents solutions to conflicts that could be resolved if they were approached differently, or if you feel that politics is used more to distract people from the real problems than to solve problems.

Vote no if you think that the issues are framed in a way that promotes solutions and encourages mutual understanding and respect, or if you feel that the partisan discourse tries too hard to get people to agree on the issues.

I see horrible partisanship on this forum. Enough to make a person go slightly nutty. One of our posters uses something similar to this as his Avatar.

I think I know why:

 
Partisan politics can be too divisive, obviously, but I also think differing points of view, and the willingness to stand up for what you believe is a good thing.

Agreed. We should never let political correctness restrain us from expressing ourselves. The most important thing is to have the self discipline to advocate while simultaneously respecting the rights of others to disagree on the merits of their perspectives. The solutions come when those differing perspectives are shared and understood by both sides, and actions are taken that reflect the shared values and principles of all parties.
 
I see horrible partisanship on this forum. Enough to make a person go slightly nutty. One of our posters uses something similar to this as his Avatar.

I think I know why:



If I had a lot of money, and I wanted to disenfranchise people so that I could take control, I'd spend money encouraging people who are concerned about society to engage in the debate in a way that precluded the possibility of the issues being resolved.

Maybe I belong in the conspiracy theory section, but after some of my conversations here and on other forums, I think that some people are actually hired to come here and act like asshats so that reasonable people wont be able to have a conversation. I may be wrong, and those people could just be incredibly intolerant and disagreeable, but if they're not playing for the opposing team, they sure are scoring a lot of points for them.
 
I know it's not cool any more to actually have affinity for this country but, while it's not perfect, I think it's still pretty awesome.



I think it's still as cool as it ever was to have an affinity for this country. I'm just acknowledging that I've gotten the "word" that I'm not a "real" American, so why would I have an "affinity" for it ? Why won't people grow up and deal with the consequences of their own deeds and actions ?.................
 
I couldn't vote in the poll because there is no choice indicating that political discourse is not "framed", or if it is, it is not framed for the purposes listed in those two choices.

In a nation with 300+ million people, there is a wide diversity of opinion. If one finds the discourse limited, then I would suggest seeking wider for a greater variety of opinion and promoting novel ideas of ones own making.
 
I think it's still as cool as it ever was to have an affinity for this country. I'm just acknowledging that I've gotten the "word" that I'm not a "real" American, so why would I have an "affinity" for it ? Why won't people grow up and deal with the consequences of their own deeds and actions ?.................

There are 300 million people living in this country. If you let one quote, from one partisan political pundit, wreck your faith in this country as a whole, you probably have more in common with the secessionists than you realize.
 
I think it's still as cool as it ever was to have an affinity for this country. I'm just acknowledging that I've gotten the "word" that I'm not a "real" American, so why would I have an "affinity" for it ? Why won't people grow up and deal with the consequences of their own deeds and actions ?.................

Why would I care if you have affinity for this country or not?
 
If I had a lot of money, and I wanted to disenfranchise people so that I could take control, I'd spend money encouraging people who are concerned about society to engage in the debate in a way that precluded the possibility of the issues being resolved.

Maybe I belong in the conspiracy theory section, but after some of my conversations here and on other forums, I think that some people are actually hired to come here and act like asshats so that reasonable people wont be able to have a conversation. I may be wrong, and those people could just be incredibly intolerant and disagreeable, but if they're not playing for the opposing team, they sure are scoring a lot of points for them.

Okay, ya' got me. ;)
 
I couldn't vote in the poll because there is no choice indicating that political discourse is not "framed", or if it is, it is not framed for the purposes listed in those two choices.

In a nation with 300+ million people, there is a wide diversity of opinion. If one finds the discourse limited, then I would suggest seeking wider for a greater variety of opinion and promoting novel ideas of ones own making.

The poll is asking a question with a binary response. If you think the partisan discourse divides people unnecessarily, vote yes. If you do not think the partisan discourse divides people unnecessarily, vote no.

By your response, I would infer that you do not think the partisan discourse is unnecessarily divisive, since you assert that it is not controlled in any way, and therefore faithfully represents the opinions of the entire populace. I wouldn't dare to speak for you, but I'm guessing that you would vote "No", based on that inference.

Thank you for your contribution.
 
Why would I care if you have affinity for this country or not?




Ideally, maybe, you shouldn't. But then why would you have mentioned it in the first place ? You just want your cake and want to eat it too..........If you don't care about me, why in the world would you raise the idea of allegiance ? Most people who aren't wanted in a club don't , thereafter, show a concern for that club............................
 
Why would I care if you have affinity for this country or not?

Probably because the benchmark of a good government is having as many people who are happy with it as practical without turning it into a flaky populist hell hole.
 
Ideally, maybe, you shouldn't. But then why would you have mentioned it in the first place ? You just want your cake and want to eat it too..........If you don't care about me, why in the world would you raise the idea of allegiance ? Most people who aren't wanted in a club don't , thereafter, show a concern for that club............................

I didn't bring up allegience, I just disagreed with your implication that the US isn't functional. If you're dealing with feelings of rejection, well, I can't help you. Perhaps a support group.
 
I didn't bring up allegience, I just disagreed with your implication that the US isn't functional.

It's so dysfunctional it's funny......................Must suck for some people...................
 
Probably because the benchmark of a good government is having as many people who are happy with it as practical without turning it into a flaky populist hell hole.

You can't really change someone who's determined to be unhappy though.
 
It's so dysfunctional it's funny......................Must suck for some people...................

I've changed my mind. Clearly the civil discourse isn't unnecessarily divisive at all!
 
The poll is asking a question with a binary response. If you think the partisan discourse divides people unnecessarily, vote yes. If you do not think the partisan discourse divides people unnecessarily, vote no.

By your response, I would infer that you do not think the partisan discourse is unnecessarily divisive, since you assert that it is not controlled in any way, and therefore faithfully represents the opinions of the entire populace. I wouldn't dare to speak for you, but I'm guessing that you would vote "No", based on that inference.

Thank you for your contribution.

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.

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.
 
I've changed my mind. Clearly the civil discourse isn't unnecessarily divisive at all!



As it should be. We've had 30 years of the Right turning up the volume on their proclivities, I see no reason everyone shouldn't adopt the tactics of the aggressor....................
 
Back
Top Bottom