United States Two Party System.

riley540

I have had this thought a few times and talked about it with my girlfriend a bit. What if we got rid of the two parties and people just ran for office as individuals. As in, 2012, it was just Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, not democrat vs republican. I feel as if political people have to sacrifice personal opinion to please the party they belong to, often causing the distrust I feel with most politicians. I share views with both parties, and consider myself an iduvidual, not a democrat or republican.

What do you all think? Imagine if next election it was Sally vs Sam, and they brought forth their own ideas and opinions without Party influence!

Just a thought I figured could create a fun discussion

unsung

Too much money involved, the system is completely corrupt. Best option would be dissolution.

brianlux

riley540 said:

I have had this thought a few times and talked about it with my girlfriend a bit. What if we got rid of the two parties and people just ran for office as individuals. As in, 2012, it was just Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, not democrat vs republican. I feel as if political people have to sacrifice personal opinion to please the party they belong to, often causing the distrust I feel with most politicians. I share views with both parties, and consider myself an iduvidual, not a democrat or republican.

What do you all think? Imagine if next election it was Sally vs Sam, and they brought forth their own ideas and opinions without Party influence!

Just a thought I figured could create a fun discussion

So basically a zero party system? Interesting. I think this bears considering.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

riley540

brianlux said:

riley540 said:

I have had this thought a few times and talked about it with my girlfriend a bit. What if we got rid of the two parties and people just ran for office as individuals. As in, 2012, it was just Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, not democrat vs republican. I feel as if political people have to sacrifice personal opinion to please the party they belong to, often causing the distrust I feel with most politicians. I share views with both parties, and consider myself an iduvidual, not a democrat or republican.

What do you all think? Imagine if next election it was Sally vs Sam, and they brought forth their own ideas and opinions without Party influence!

Just a thought I figured could create a fun discussion

So basically a zero party system? Interesting. I think this bears considering.

A zero party system. That's my thought. It sounds good in my head, but am looking for opposition to better my opinion

Go Beavers

riley540 said:

brianlux said:

riley540 said:

I have had this thought a few times and talked about it with my girlfriend a bit. What if we got rid of the two parties and people just ran for office as individuals. As in, 2012, it was just Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, not democrat vs republican. I feel as if political people have to sacrifice personal opinion to please the party they belong to, often causing the distrust I feel with most politicians. I share views with both parties, and consider myself an iduvidual, not a democrat or republican.

What do you all think? Imagine if next election it was Sally vs Sam, and they brought forth their own ideas and opinions without Party influence!

Just a thought I figured could create a fun discussion

So basically a zero party system? Interesting. I think this bears considering.

A zero party system. That's my thought. It sounds good in my head, but am looking for opposition to better my opinion

We're always grouping things together, though. It's a natural function of our brain. People would label them even if they came in without one.

hedonist

Ah yes, the labeling. Runs rampant and stamped and almost forced, all over the damned place, here included. I don't think it's natural in some aspects, though maybe when it suits some.

Unfortunately, that seems to divide instead of...

...well, instead of the glorious potential of coming together - even if in a small way? Even if in a more important way? So much screaming that few are actually heard, listened to.

I like the individual aspect of this idea. No force to align with a group.

(the fact they're even called "parties" is odd in itself, to me)

To be yourself is all that you can do.

Fuckin' a, Cornell!

Vote, speak out, for yourself and your beliefs.

Guess that's why, when made to choose (so much for freedom of choice, eh?), I went with Independent. And I don't even know what that means anymore.

brianlux

Yeah, I agree, Hedo, I'm not sure labels or divisiveness is working.

It seems true, Go Beaver, that we want to group things together, yet often the group becomes inflexible and almost always leads to Group A against group B against Group C, etc. All parties (even Libertarians) run the same way: label, set of codes, check mate.

Plus, our media and entertainment brainwash us into believing we should be a type. Like, pick a type, any type and stick too. I'd rather sample a lot of things and become myself. Being an individual makes for a richer life experience and also makes it easier to be generous and want the same good things for others. My brother once told me, "You're cool, I'm cool. Cool." Right on, Bro.

Go Beavers

brianlux said:

Yeah, I agree, Hedo, I'm not sure labels or divisiveness is working.

It seems true, Go Beaver, that we want to group things together, yet often the group becomes inflexible and almost always leads to Group A against group B against Group C, etc. All parties (even Libertarians) run the same way: label, set of codes, check mate.

Plus, our media and entertainment brainwash us into believing we should be a type. Like, pick a type, any type and stick too. I'd rather sample a lot of things and become myself. Being an individual makes for a richer life experience and also makes it easier to be generous and want the same good things for others. My brother once told me, "You're cool, I'm cool. Cool." Right on, Bro.

True. Our culture then exploits that brain function to break things down into lowest common denominator stuff. And since media is about consumption, that presentation is how things get sold and makes people tune in. Fear based, us vs. them polarization is what sells and can get you a core group of followers to sustain you. It will also sell goods. In our point of evolution, we all can learn from recognizing and acknowledging that our brain is grouping things automatically (with prejudices, assumptions, etc) and then take the next step to loosen and break down that assumption to take in new information.

riley540

Reading all this reminds me... we are all animals... on a rock, hurdling through emptiness... kinda weird. Makes problems seem less significant

brianlux

riley540 said:

Reading all this reminds me... we are all animals... on a rock, hurdling through emptiness... kinda weird. Makes problems seem less significant

A friend of mine and I once wrote a song that kind of sucked but it had this good line:

"We're spinning though space at a thousand miles an hour/ It's a wonder we don't fly off like a meteor shower.

Kind of stolen from Neil Young.

I did not quite my day job!

HughFreakingDillon

In a perfect world this is how politics would operate. But as unsung said, too much money involved to reverse it now. Federal politics is a rich man's game at the expense of the poor. This obviously this isn't achievable without a massive upheaval of the system (see:impossible), but I recently was forced to watch a star trek movie and in it some people from our century were transported to the 24th century, and Picard explained to them that there is no currency in that present, humanity became enlightened enough to realize wed be better off if it was just a collective good instaed of a capitalist competition (like an ant colony or bee hive). If only that were possible. The world will end before that happens.

oftenreading

HughFreakingDillon said:

In a perfect world this is how politics would operate. But as unsung said, too much money involved to reverse it now. Federal politics is a rich man's game at the expense of the poor. This obviously this isn't achievable without a massive upheaval of the system (see:impossible), but I recently was forced to watch a star trek movie and in it some people from our century were transported to the 24th century, and Picard explained to them that there is no currency in that present, humanity became enlightened enough to realize wed be better off if it was just a collective good instaed of a capitalist competition (like an ant colony or bee hive). If only that were possible. The world will end before that happens.

I think we see examples every day even on here where people argue vehemently against valuing the common good over personal gain. They dress it up in terms like "independence" but it's essentially selfishness. And some cultures prize that much more than others.

riley540

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

In a perfect world this is how politics would operate. But as unsung said, too much money involved to reverse it now. Federal politics is a rich man's game at the expense of the poor. This obviously this isn't achievable without a massive upheaval of the system (see:impossible), but I recently was forced to watch a star trek movie and in it some people from our century were transported to the 24th century, and Picard explained to them that there is no currency in that present, humanity became enlightened enough to realize wed be better off if it was just a collective good instaed of a capitalist competition (like an ant colony or bee hive). If only that were possible. The world will end before that happens.

I think we see examples every day even on here where people argue vehemently against valuing the common good over personal gain. They dress it up in terms like "independence" but it's essentially selfishness. And some cultures prize that much more than others.

I just believe humans and any animal have the natural right to be how they want to be. Weather they choose to be selfish or charitable is their decision. There's squirrels that hoard nuts and those who share.

HughFreakingDillon

riley540 said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

In a perfect world this is how politics would operate. But as unsung said, too much money involved to reverse it now. Federal politics is a rich man's game at the expense of the poor. This obviously this isn't achievable without a massive upheaval of the system (see:impossible), but I recently was forced to watch a star trek movie and in it some people from our century were transported to the 24th century, and Picard explained to them that there is no currency in that present, humanity became enlightened enough to realize wed be better off if it was just a collective good instaed of a capitalist competition (like an ant colony or bee hive). If only that were possible. The world will end before that happens.

I think we see examples every day even on here where people argue vehemently against valuing the common good over personal gain. They dress it up in terms like "independence" but it's essentially selfishness. And some cultures prize that much more than others.

I just believe humans and any animal have the natural right to be how they want to be. Weather they choose to be selfish or charitable is their decision. There's squirrels that hoard nuts and those who share.

Yes, of course there are animals that fit both categories. That is their survival instinct. But we have the ability, on some level, to objectively modify our survival instincts. At least those of us who know we dont need a 50 foot yacht do, anyway.

Godfather.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

yes he did.

brianlux

Ah yes, weirdness in the animal kingdom.

unsung

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

People say that as if it is a bad thing.

CM189191

unsung said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

People say that as if it is a bad thing.

If nothing else, it's unpresidented
1 President had never served in elected public office, the military, or government before becoming president: Donald Trump. Trump was a real estate developer, television personality and businessman who served as chairman of the Trump Organization.

joseph33

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

He also stated in an interview back in 1998,that if he did decide to ever run for the oval office,he would run as a republican. Because they would be stupid enough to vote for him. Look it up.

brianlux

unsung said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

People say that as if it is a bad thing.

Absolutely not. In fact, if I ever have open heart surgery I'm hoping it will be performed by an accountant. That would be a hoot!

riley540

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

rgambs

riley540 said:

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

I disagree entirely. When the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
We already outspend the next 8 largest militaries combined, we don't need to outspend the entire planet, no thanks.

Go Beavers

The military already has a too strong of presence in the White House.

mfc2006

rgambs said:

riley540 said:

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

I disagree entirely. When the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
We already outspend the next 8 largest militaries combined, we don't need to outspend the entire planet, no thanks.

well said.

riley540

rgambs said:

riley540 said:

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

I disagree entirely. When the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
We already outspend the next 8 largest militaries combined, we don't need to outspend the entire planet, no thanks.

I want to clarify my stance. I believe we should cut the military in half and agree that we over spend entirely on it. But it is a part of the job. And I like people to have experience for the job. Same reason I feel like the candidate should have economic and healthcare knowledge/experience. Not defending the military spending we do

rgambs

riley540 said:

rgambs said:

riley540 said:

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

I disagree entirely. When the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
We already outspend the next 8 largest militaries combined, we don't need to outspend the entire planet, no thanks.

I want to clarify my stance. I believe we should cut the military in half and agree that we over spend entirely on it. But it is a part of the job. And I like people to have experience for the job. Same reason I feel like the candidate should have economic and healthcare knowledge/experience. Not defending the military spending we do

That's the problem though, it's such a big job there is no chance a candidate can have all the experience necessary. There's a reason most are lawyers, it's because understanding the law is huge.
A POTUS needs to be a leader who is surrounded by trusted experts.

HughFreakingDillon

joseph33 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

He also stated in an interview back in 1998,that if he did decide to ever run for the oval office,he would run as a republican. Because they would be stupid enough to vote for him. Look it up.

that's actually a fake quote that I also believed until I did more research.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Your current President ran as himself with no political experience and won.

People say that as if it is a bad thing.

it wouldn't be a bad thing.

if it was anyone else.

brianlux

riley540 said:

I think the president should be required to have some qualifications. One being military experience. I've never understood putting someone in charge of the military who has never served

Would you count experience with Peace Corps as an alternative?

"Instead of marching down the street with, ah, you know, M-16s and like that we might ah, march down the streets with electric guitars, yeah." -Jimi Hendrix

rssesq

we desperately need a party that exists in most European democracies but doesn't here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy#Political_viewpoints