• 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!

Bipartisan Politics: Does it Hurt America?

Bipartisan Politics: Does it Hurt America?

  • YES! It hurts America!

    Votes: 19 65.5%

  • No! It adds information!

    Votes: 6 20.7%

  • Meh..... it really does nothing.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • OTHER / I Dont Know

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Total voters
    29
Goobieman said:
This is, of course, silly - more parties doesn't mean less influence from "special interests" - it just means they spread their influence differently.So long as people have the right to group together to get what they want from their congresspeople, there will always be special interest groups - and, as political free speech is a basic tenet of American society, that right will never go away. If you have an issue with a particular special interest group gaining, IYHO, too much influence over people in congress, the corrsct response is NOT to try to limit that group thru legislation or to change the rules for that group, but to get beehind a group (or create yur own group) in an effort to counter that influence.
Click to expand...

If special interest groups pursue avenues different form the two "major" political parties, then their power is distributed, and somewhat diluted. And to counter another special interest group with one of your own is ludicrous; you'd end up just wasting resources trying to buy politicians and whatnot, rather then spending money on more reliable projects.
 
ricksfolly said:
Obama Should to pull all the troops now, but he's afraid it will show weakness and doom the Democrats, but if he really did it on his own, against all media, military and political pressure, that would show real courage and, eventually, overwhelming support.

Do it, Obama. Order it NOW... Just like Truman 58 years ago

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Why the hell would we want that? We'd end up with Afghanistan returning to the (rabid) dogs, and we'd be fighting a defensive war against radicals on our home turf. And our populace would suffer the consequences of that war. Much better to keep them at arm's length, like a boxer against a puncher.
 
repeter said:
If special interest groups pursue avenues different form the two "major" political parties, then their power is distributed, and somewhat diluted.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. It is not necessary that there will be less influence even if for no other reason that the 'diluted' influence will be over smaller parties.

And to counter another special interest group with one of your own is ludicrous; you'd end up just wasting resources trying to buy politicians and whatnot, rather then spending money on more reliable projects.
Click to expand...
Given the rights that we have in this country, there's no other way - "its too hard to compete wit them" isnt a valid argument for restricting their right to free speech.
 
Goobieman said:
Maybe. Maybe not. It is not necessary that there will be less influence even if for no other reason that the 'diluted' influence will be over smaller parties.


Given the rights that we have in this country, there's no other way - "its too hard to compete wit them" isnt a valid argument for restricting their right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Not that its too hard to compete with special interest groups, its the inefficiency of it. Corroboration would be much more efficient, and that would lead (from where I see this situation) to more political parties. And the amount of money spent by lobbyists groups is also quite inefficient, IMO, and if we could limit the amount of funds in a federal election, that would also cut down on the inefficiencies, and while that'd need to be done in conjunction with an increase in political parties, its a different subject.
 
repeter said:
Not that its too hard to compete with special interest groups, its the inefficiency of it.
Click to expand...
How is doing what they do inefficient?
 
Goobieman said:
How is doing what they do inefficient?
Click to expand...

I dislike the amount of money special interest groups invest in getting a few congressmen (re)elected, and how so many political campaigns fight tooth and nail to have the most money to throw into campaigning. Just the use of that money in politics seems wasteful, and I'd rather see it used to pursue more useful avenues, like R & D projects.
 
repeter said:
I dislike the amount of money special interest groups invest in getting a few congressmen (re)elected, and how so many political campaigns fight tooth and nail to have the most money to throw into campaigning. Just the use of that money in politics seems wasteful, and I'd rather see it used to pursue more useful avenues, like R & D projects.
Click to expand...
You do know that the money spent on campaigning is not wasted, right?
 
As long as each side is playing by the rules (US Constitution and or State Constitutions) and is truly looking out for America then bipartisanship can be helpful.
 
Phoenix said:
Bipartisan simply means two parties. And yes it hurts our country. We need 6-7 parties. No two parties can represent any individual well. In our current system a person has to pick their favorite issue and go with it even if they have to compromise on another. Ebony recently ran an article that claimed a majority of blacks agree with conservative issues, however they cling to the democrats because that party is seen as the strongest on civil rights of minorities.
With this current system a person has to either support gay rights or pro life because the two parties are on opposite sides of those issues. A multiple party system would allow an individual to support a candidate with a pro life pro gay agenda.
Fear (and some bipartisan flim flam)prevents the multiple party system from happening. People become petrified their favorite issue will lose if the don't vote for the D or R. Friends of the Bi-partisans claim you are wasting your vote or voting for the other side to keep folks in check. So don't hold your breathe that anything except the 2 party system is coming soon.
Click to expand...

6 or 7 party's is one way to look at it. Another is, we as a country of people and voters are too wishy-washy. We need to pick a side - either R or D and stick with it - the problem with this is neither party, were they to gain majority, would listen to the other party's ideas. Bi-partisan views only work when there's a clear majority of one party AND that majority doesn't dismiss the other party as irrelevant. Right now, neither party in a majority would have the ability to listen and take the good idea's of the minority. The reason is our system is sick...

Our system isn't based on civil service or betterment of people or our society - it's based on raising money. At the most basic level - that must be cut out like the cancer it is for anything to improve. Without it, this is all nonsensical rhetoric like "hope and change". Think about it - when a new Senator or House member wins office this November - the first few meetings they have are with lobbyists (and this is both party's folks) and their National Committee members give the new Congresspeople their marching orders for 2011: Raise money for the party. Tell me that's not ****ed up.
 
A true Multi Party system only is feasible IF you basically get a Leftist New Party up Against a new Hard Conservative Party roughly at the same time. Then both Republican's and Democrats lose from both ends.

Things like Perot (92) and (96) clearly hurt the GOP more than Bill Clinton. It cost Bush Sr. several States in 1992 and Dole a few in 1996. Nader with a meager entry in 2000 cost Gore Florida and the Election.

Further back in time - John Anderson in 1980 gave Reagan both N.Y. and Massachusetts .

A solid 4 Party race might actually be refreshing, but Democrats have a better track record of "Circling the Wagons"
 
Ned Racine said:
A true Multi Party system only is feasible IF you basically get a Leftist New Party up Against a new Hard Conservative Party roughly at the same time. Then both Republican's and Democrats lose from both ends.
Click to expand...

This exists already the hard left party is the Greens and the hard right one is the Constitution Party and I guess if you follow the left-right dictum the Libertarians are in the middle
 
Does Bipartisan Politics hurt America?

Does kicking me in the balls mean I'll fall over?

Could switching to Geiko really save you 15% or more on car insurance?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Does Bipartisan Politics hurt America?

Does kicking me in the balls mean I'll fall over?

Could switching to Geiko really save you 15% or more on car insurance?
Click to expand...

are you guys confusing partisan with bipartisan? how do bipartisan politics HURT?
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
are you guys confusing partisan with bipartisan? how do bipartsian politics HURT?
Click to expand...

homer-doh.jpg
 
Le Marteau said:
Either have one party or three -- when you split a country down the middle, things get nasty.

No more explanation is needed.
Click to expand...

that's not the definition of bipartisan.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
This exists already the hard left party is the Greens and the hard right one is the Constitution Party and I guess if you follow the left-right dictum the Libertarians are in the middle
Click to expand...



No , the Libertarians are perpetual losers and seldom do they hurt the GOP. What I suggest (if possible) is that the Greens and an outfit like the Constitution Party really gather solid support and take sizeable portions of the overall Vote. Now we are not Legislative Only Government with Premier, Prime Minister or mixed Cabinet portfolio's BUT technically there is nothing wrtong with an outright deal to form a Legislative Majority IF that deal is 100% out in front of the people - with an understandable valid explanation as to WHY it came about.
 
Ned Racine said:
No , the Libertarians are perpetual losers and seldom do they hurt the GOP.
Click to expand...

Maybe thats because the GOP embraces statism for only different reasons than the Democrats and care to explain the massive gains that either the Greens or the Constitution party has made?
 
I was unaware they were making such advancement. I'd like to hear more , and it just might be a positive sign.
 
repeter said:
I know it isn't wasted, but its not the best use for the money is what I'm trying to get at.
Click to expand...
You mean its not the best use for the money - in your opinion.
How do you suppose you'd get those many millions of dollars out of campaigning and into R+D?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom