• 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!

Extremist Politics - Chicken Or The Egg?

Do Politicians Make Americans Extremists or Do Americans Make Politicians Extremists?

  • Americans make politicians extremists

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • Politicians make Americans extremists

    Votes: 8 40.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Great man theory, or the idea that all of history is the result of visionatlry individuals moving their society forward, is simply not an accurate view of reality. Leaders are ultimately the product of their times, and in a representative government like ours, this is only more accurate; someone born into their position has a luxury of eccentricity that elected officials lack.

Trump did not create his followers, nor did Hillary make the DNC susceptible to corruption. They both took advantage of structures and cultural undertones that are largely our own creation, as do all politicians. We have made the bed we currently lie in, and as long as we blame the tip of the iceberg for our titanic issues of partisanship, we won't make any progress towards un-****ing our nation.
 
There is no alternative, Politicians make People pissed off and extremists... You get Dumb ignorant people like Nancy Pelosi who knows nothing about guns, telling us what we need and do not need?


Thats like when I have a truck open I am diagnosing the circuit boards, doing voltage reading, testing scr's , diodes, etc. and some retard walks up and gives me his thoughts on whats wrong. Then they stare in some zombified state awaiting a reply as if they solved the cause and effect of the universe...

Once working on an all electric Forklift a guy asked if I was changing the spark plugs? This I fear is what we have in some fields in congress!
 
Just wondering

Wow, this is one hell of a thought provoking poll. I keep thinking about it, and wondering what the answer is. I think I decided that we make them extremists. They're always in self preservation mode (and donation collecting mode), which makes them cease to be rational beings, and makes them blow whichever way the wind and money tells them to.
 
Wow, this is one hell of a thought provoking poll. I keep thinking about it, and wondering what the answer is. I think I decided that we make them extremists. They're always in self preservation mode (and donation collecting mode), which makes them cease to be rational beings, and makes them blow whichever way the wind and money tells them to.

Honestly, I haven't voted yet myself because I'm not so sure. However, I am leaning to your train of thought.
 
Politicians represent the people who vote for them and who contribute monetarily to their campaigns. Politicians take stances they determine gives them the best chance of winning the most votes possible. They say and promise what the people within their target voting block wants to hear.

The two party system has become extremely polarized because the people of this country are polarized concerning the issues of the day. It's science versus religion in large part. Two major world views in direct conflict. Self determination versus the better common good.

We couldn't be much farther apart, and our politicians merely reflect that difference.
 
It is to the politicians advantage to have extremist supporters.

Both parties stoke their base, and they are essentially using the public like chess pieces (all pawns, of course)

I imagine at the end of the day, they all meet at the local country club, and laugh at how easy it is to manipulate us.
 
There is no alternative, Politicians make People pissed off and extremists... You get Dumb ignorant people like Nancy Pelosi who knows nothing about guns, telling us what we need and do not need?


Thats like when I have a truck open I am diagnosing the circuit boards, doing voltage reading, testing scr's , diodes, etc. and some retard walks up and gives me his thoughts on whats wrong. Then they stare in some zombified state awaiting a reply as if they solved the cause and effect of the universe...

Once working on an all electric Forklift a guy asked if I was changing the spark plugs? This I fear is what we have in some fields in congress!


Go to 1:28 or so.....
 
There is no alternative, Politicians make People pissed off and extremists... You get Dumb ignorant people like Nancy Pelosi who knows nothing about guns, telling us what we need and do not need?


Thats like when I have a truck open I am diagnosing the circuit boards, doing voltage reading, testing scr's , diodes, etc. and some retard walks up and gives me his thoughts on whats wrong. Then they stare in some zombified state awaiting a reply as if they solved the cause and effect of the universe...

Once working on an all electric Forklift a guy asked if I was changing the spark plugs? This I fear is what we have in some fields in congress!

It seems so odd that people with security details have talked down to us for years about how we dont need or have the right to protect ourselves as a people.

Nancy Pelosi’s high-security shoe-shopping trip

Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope'
 
Politicians know they only have to appeal to the extremes because the people in the middle have no choice but to follow one of the two available choices. So they always go extreme in their views to appeal to the fanatical fringes and the rest of us are screwed.
 
Politicians know they only have to appeal to the extremes because the people in the middle have no choice but to follow one of the two available choices. So they always go extreme in their views to appeal to the fanatical fringes and the rest of us are screwed.

Which is one reason that I am for opening up all Party Primaries to all voters, especially though voters not affiliated directly with any Party. That would push especially the two main Parties to having to consider those in the middle when campaigning as their Party's Candidate.
 
Which is one reason that I am for opening up all Party Primaries to all voters, especially though voters not affiliated directly with any Party. That would push especially the two main Parties to having to consider those in the middle when campaigning as their Party's Candidate.

Which really doesn't matter because third parties have virtually no chance whatsoever of winning the general election, regardless of the primaries. Besides, there aren't any worthwhile third parties out there IMO, they're all virtually identical to either the Republicans or Democrats on the vast majority of issues, with one or two that they blow completely out of proportion. If you're a one-issue voter, maybe that appeals to you, but for most of us who care about a broad spectrum of issues, third parties are pointless.
 
Which really doesn't matter because third parties have virtually no chance whatsoever of winning the general election, regardless of the primaries. Besides, there aren't any worthwhile third parties out there IMO, they're all virtually identical to either the Republicans or Democrats on the vast majority of issues, with one or two that they blow completely out of proportion. If you're a one-issue voter, maybe that appeals to you, but for most of us who care about a broad spectrum of issues, third parties are pointless.

Which is why it would end up forcing the two major Parties to become concerned about those who do not identify as with any Party. Independent voters (those who don't identify as any Party) are more likely to choose a more moderate candidate than Party members, especially when it comes to the two major Parties. Third Parties would not benefit with such a system, but they also would not change as much except maybe to attract the more extreme, one issue or just a few issues voters from the major Parties.
 
Which is why it would end up forcing the two major Parties to become concerned about those who do not identify as with any Party. Independent voters (those who don't identify as any Party) are more likely to choose a more moderate candidate than Party members, especially when it comes to the two major Parties. Third Parties would not benefit with such a system, but they also would not change as much except maybe to attract the more extreme, one issue or just a few issues voters from the major Parties.

No it wouldn't, unless you want to stop the major parties from running at all, which simply won't happen. They have the money, they have the built-in loyalty and they have the influence to get elected where no third party does, or likely ever will. The vast majority of self-identified independent voters still vote for one of the major parties in the end. They know that keeping the lesser of the two evils out of office is more important than making an ultimately impotent political statement.
 
No it wouldn't, unless you want to stop the major parties from running at all, which simply won't happen. They have the money, they have the built-in loyalty and they have the influence to get elected where no third party does, or likely ever will. The vast majority of self-identified independent voters still vote for one of the major parties in the end. They know that keeping the lesser of the two evils out of office is more important than making an ultimately impotent political statement.

I'm not talking about influencing through Third Parties at all, so I don't understand why you keep bringing them up. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of opening up all Primaries to anyone, including those outside your own Party. What this would do is force the candidates in the Major Parties to have to consider that those voting for a candidate to represent their Party are not just those within their Party. It could even be limited to each voter can vote in any Primary, but only one Primary. This could reduce the likelihood that a large group from the opposing Party would vote for a "bad" candidate from that Party just to rig the elections.

Open Primary is what I am advocating. It has nothing to do with promoting Third Parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States

There are considered some Constitutional issues with such laws. They are said to violate Freedom of Association. In reality, since you can designate yourself as a member of either Party, this doesn't make much sense. You are not approved as a member of a political Party in the US. You simply designate yourself as such via voter registration. You are in no way required to participate in any Party events, nor even vote for any member of your chosen Party. So in the laws being that way, it is not right to say that those in a particular Party are choosing who to associate with, since they are not. People are simply choosing a designation of a Party for themselves.
 
Which is one reason that I am for opening up all Party Primaries to all voters, especially though voters not affiliated directly with any Party. That would push especially the two main Parties to having to consider those in the middle when campaigning as their Party's Candidate.

I think that the primaries should be ran and paid for by the political parties and not the gov't.
 
I think that the primaries should be ran and paid for by the political parties and not the gov't.

I can see the advantage of having public funding for political parties. It helps to ensure that those who cannot afford to run for office are given at least a little bit of extra help. At the same time, if they are given that help by the government, then it only advances the fairness case for Open Primaries (at the very least where unaffiliated voters can vote in at least one Primary, if limited to just one).
 
I'm not talking about influencing through Third Parties at all, so I don't understand why you keep bringing them up. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of opening up all Primaries to anyone, including those outside your own Party. What this would do is force the candidates in the Major Parties to have to consider that those voting for a candidate to represent their Party are not just those within their Party. It could even be limited to each voter can vote in any Primary, but only one Primary. This could reduce the likelihood that a large group from the opposing Party would vote for a "bad" candidate from that Party just to rig the elections.

Hey, I'm in an open primary state, I can vote for anyone I want from any party I want. But it doesn't seem to be getting us better candidates, even in the major two, because the whole political system is inherently broken. Good people don't run. Good people can't win. It's the nature of the system.
 
Hey, I'm in an open primary state, I can vote for anyone I want from any party I want. But it doesn't seem to be getting us better candidates, even in the major two, because the whole political system is inherently broken. Good people don't run. Good people can't win. It's the nature of the system.

There is evidence that both McCain and Romney each got nominated mainly because of open primary states, and each are considered much more moderate candidates than many others we have seen run in the Republican Party. It won't be a cure-all for the system. It likely would only be a small improvement. But it could help, especially if implemented everywhere instead of just a few states.
 
There is evidence that both McCain and Romney each got nominated mainly because of open primary states, and each are considered much more moderate candidates than many others we have seen run in the Republican Party. It won't be a cure-all for the system. It likely would only be a small improvement. But it could help, especially if implemented everywhere instead of just a few states.

And McCain and Romney are both crap. They are career political liars. I want better than what we have in Washington D.C.
 
And McCain and Romney are both crap. They are career political liars. I want better than what we have in Washington D.C.

That's a different argument altogether. Very few "good" people/candidates even want to become politicians. If they aren't on a ballot anywhere, then it would be hard to get them elected. You could potentially push for a writein effort, but that would take far more effort than we have ever seen anyone make towards even going outside the Two Parties, especially if talking about getting someone to Washington. At the same time, it would be difficult to actually know how legal it would be to writein someone who did not actually express any desire to do the job to begin with (some states don't even have writein as an option). (And I realize that was a tangent.)

So it just isn't that easy when it comes to politics. Who knows though? If insanity really is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then it seems to me it would be a good idea to change the way we elect our leaders. It is not a good idea though to make huge changes, so this just seems like something that could pave the way to better options.
 
Great man theory, or the idea that all of history is the result of visionatlry individuals moving their society forward, is simply not an accurate view of reality. Leaders are ultimately the product of their times, and in a representative government like ours, this is only more accurate; someone born into their position has a luxury of eccentricity that elected officials lack.

Trump did not create his followers, nor did Hillary make the DNC susceptible to corruption. They both took advantage of structures and cultural undertones that are largely our own creation, as do all politicians. We have made the bed we currently lie in, and as long as we blame the tip of the iceberg for our titanic issues of partisanship, we won't make any progress towards un-****ing our nation.

It began I believe early in the 20th Century when then President Teddy Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head with a concept that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically disallow rather than the Founders' principle that the central government could do only that which the Constitution designated that it could do. That began the snowball rolling to increase the size, scope, and power of the federal government. That snowball has been increasing in mass and velocity ever since.

Then social/cultural restraints were further snapped with the cultural revolution of the 1960's. The young people who dropped out, zoned out, tuned out and rejected all the traditional values of their parents then would come into their own and spawn and mentor those most like them in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. And gradually they would increase and would come to dominate the media, education, scientific institutions--anywhere they could exert the greatest influence over society--and establish the role of the federal government to have the power to fix all that was wrong in our society and the world

It didn't take long then for those in government to use all that extra power to increase their own personal power, influence, and wealth and promote those like minded so that Washington became an unimpenetrable stronghold of a permanent political class that existed solely for its own benefit. The only thing separating the left from the right was the constituencies each represented and therefore influenced the kinds of bones that got thrown to them to keep them quiet and compliant.

And all that combined to pit right against left, black against white, idealism against practical/common sense, victim against self reliant, until all of society is compartmentalized and extreme in their convictions, views, ideology and unwilling to combine forces which makes it far easier for those in power to manage and control.
 
IMO, it's the advent of extreme media outlets and personalities (Hi Limbaugh!) and gerrymandering are the root cause. Now anyone who is half sane gets primaried, and you get candidates like WitchGirl and Roy Moore. Those 2 lost, but you get the picture.
 
That's a different argument altogether. Very few "good" people/candidates even want to become politicians. If they aren't on a ballot anywhere, then it would be hard to get them elected. You could potentially push for a writein effort, but that would take far more effort than we have ever seen anyone make towards even going outside the Two Parties, especially if talking about getting someone to Washington. At the same time, it would be difficult to actually know how legal it would be to writein someone who did not actually express any desire to do the job to begin with (some states don't even have writein as an option). (And I realize that was a tangent.)

So it just isn't that easy when it comes to politics. Who knows though? If insanity really is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then it seems to me it would be a good idea to change the way we elect our leaders. It is not a good idea though to make huge changes, so this just seems like something that could pave the way to better options.

The problem is, politicians need the political machine more than they need the voters. They know the majority of voters are idiots. They just need to kiss babies and kiss asses to get votes, say the things that the people want to hear, whether there's any way to give it to them or not. If you notice, Trump didn't push religion until after the primaries, then he went full religious retard to get the far-right support he needed. The machine didn't matter until he needed their influence to get the full vote. We're just never going to get better politicians until we get better people. We get the stupidity we deserve and I, for one, am sick of it.
 
The problem is, politicians need the political machine more than they need the voters. They know the majority of voters are idiots. They just need to kiss babies and kiss asses to get votes, say the things that the people want to hear, whether there's any way to give it to them or not. If you notice, Trump didn't push religion until after the primaries, then he went full religious retard to get the far-right support he needed. The machine didn't matter until he needed their influence to get the full vote. We're just never going to get better politicians until we get better people. We get the stupidity we deserve and I, for one, am sick of it.

Trump really is a political anomaly though. He never struck anyone as really a religious person. Now, even in office, he is playing up that very persona, likely so he can try to maintain at least those votes next election. It all even looks fake, despite him maintaining that particular post for so long. I imagine if he does lose the election in 2020 (as he very well should), then we won't see this "highly Christian conservative" side of Trump ever again. I am still absolutely convinced that the man only ran for President at all because his ego is that big he just wanted to be able to say he did it. The fact that he won the election shows a broken system to all and he is playing it for everything he is worth.

Most people are sick of it, but the plain reality is that it is very hard to change it unless someone actually trustworthy and in the middle steps up to try to change things. The likelihood of that occurring is very small.
 
Back
Top Bottom