How is it that so many people are still Reublicans or Democrats?

notatallanti

Rookie
Feb 4, 2012
69
13
0
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.
 
Last edited:
Because they control everything. A guaranteed loss is not an alternative.
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

Because followers don't understand those who will not follow.
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

No doubt the two-party system has polarized the country. A parliamentary system would better represent a society's beliefs on a more refined level. The question is: are either of these government models ultimately more effective than the other?
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Not being a fan of parliaments and rather admiring the principles in the original American documents, the blame seems mostly to me to be the lack of voter action in monitoring the House pf Representatives.
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

Actually the Fact is Most Republicans I know at least, Are only Republicans because there isn't a better choice and they don't like Liberal Democrat Policies. It's not like they love the GOP or anything.

As soon as you find a way to Break the 2 Parties Strangle Hold not only on Power, but on the Process that could lead to Power for another Party, Let me know.
 
Because they control everything. A guaranteed loss is not an alternative.

Wouldn't it be losing anyway, using one's own vote for something or someone undesirable?

lesser of two evils. I tend to vote for supposed conservatives because I align myself to the right on many, but not all issues. Unfortunately sometimes you are voting for people that say they are republican but don't end up following conservative principals. It's the corruption of government. I find it really hard to believe there will ever be one person or one party that holds the same beliefs I do on every single issue. I think term limits would really help fix the problem but how can we ever accomplish that?
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

Why? So we can vote in primaries and help choose a nominee.
 
It's because there's a duopoly maintained by the way we finance elections. As long as we maintain the fiction that campaign contributions aren't bribes, the big donors will get their way and the rest of us get no more than lip service. They don't care which side wins, because they fund them both. If we want politicians to listen to us, we need to foot the bill through public financing.
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

Because followers don't understand those who will not follow.

or maybe because the alternatives are largely worse?

independents win when they are moderates

not when they're just the extremist wingers of one party or the other
 
Leftists will always vote in uniblock, and they are approaching 50%.

Butthurt conservatives need to work to change the Republican party from within, a la Tea Party for example, instead of the moronic calls for third party.
 
OK, sorry about the typo -'Republicans'

Anyone bright enough to realize the Democrats (or Republicans) have totally mismanaged should also realize the Republicans (or Democrats) have, also.

America has been hideously betrayed by them and their "two party system". They are in it for the power and are very good at getting and keeping it. Not very good at much else, however.

Yet, it seems so ingrained that if you do not support Humpty, you must support Dumpty. If you don't vote Democrat, you must vote Republican.

No wonder many don't vote at all, though in itself that is still a vote in the sense of expression of will.

It is better not to be responsible for approving a bad choice, even when faced by a worse. There is always an alternative.

Because followers don't understand those who will not follow.

or maybe because the alternatives are largely worse?

independents win when they are moderates

not when they're just the extremist wingers of one party or the other

That's because most Americans are moderate. They are not hacks - they do not vote 'party'. Pity that you still seem unable to grasp that... perhaps because you follow rather than walk your own path?
 
If Americans are moderates, why isn't there a Moderate Party that tries to get things done instead of two 'opposed' parties that do the same thing; i.e., argue with one another and do nothing?

I don't want to be argumentative, but I would like to provoke thought here. Why would anyone be a Republican or a Democrat when we see they have no real association with the foundations of the country?
 
Because it is either throw in with the big two and have a limited but effective voice in public policy or be a voice in the wilderness that has no say.

Why do you think Ron Paul is a Republican?

Do you think you would have ever heard of him if he was not?

Let's say 20% of the GOP breaks of to form a truly Independent Tea Party.

Could they win any national elections? Probably not.

Could the GOP win national elections? Not nearly as many a they do now, because the Tea Party would split their vote.

So the reality is, a third party negates the influence of the side that splits and empowers the opposing ideology.

It sucks, but those are the facts.
 
George Washington said it best, too bad we don't listen...
George Washington said:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
 
Take the last election, McCain vs. Obama. Polls showed McCain had no chance of winning. He's also a crazy shithead who would have plunged America into war with Iran and given the Democrats a super-majority in Congress, and after four years handed the office of president over to Obama or Hillary anyway.

Yet, 60 million people still voted for McCain.

A perfect opportunity for Republican voters to vote 3rd party. A protest vote. A vote for who you want, rather than for the lessor of two evils. Libertarian Party for the libertarians. Constitution Party for the Conservatives. And, several socialist parties for the socialists. But, no.

Why not? Most people have shit for brains... that includes everyone who voted for Obama and everyone who voted for McCain.
 

Forum List

Back
Top