One Party Rule: Good or Bad Thing?

[shintao]

In spite of republicans having had all three branches tied up under Bush, the 6 years sent out some clear signals of retard characteristics, the waging of wars for profits, corporatism, borrow & spending, cutting social programs. But we did survive under what can only be called a dictatorship. ALL OF THAT ASIDE~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question is, why is one party rule a bad thing if that is what the American voter decides they want it? And I am assuming one party having complete control of Congress, complete control of the Supreme Court, and complete control of the Presidency.

It seems to me, even when one party has control, among those in majority are members who would prevent going over the edge on issues, even if there was only 2 Democrats in congress.

Thoughts

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Our founder's system works. They didn't envision the corruption that we're seeing today.

 

[uscitizen]

The corruption many are just seeing today has been going on of 2-3 decades.

 

[shintao]

Our founder's system works. They didn't envision the corruption that we're seeing today.

It can't be corruption if the voters send congress all republicans except for two seats, one Democrat in the house, and one Democrat in the senate. They did envison 2 partys at least, but not the enshrinement of one party control by the voters.

 

[whitehall]

'RULE' is always a bad thing. That's why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution. Maybe today's pop-culture educated left doesn't understand the difference between "rule" and govern. I never heard a single criticism that democrats "ruled" the US when they had total majority and a socialist president. Maybe the Tea Party should "rule" the education system and then we would have Americans who understood and appreciated the incredible form of government that makes the US the greatest democracy in the world.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not 8 years. 6 years.

 

[shintao]

'RULE' is always a bad thing. That's why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution. Maybe today's pop-culture educated left doesn't understand the difference between "rule" and govern. I never heard a single criticism that democrats "ruled" the US when they had total majority and a socialist president. Maybe the Tea Party should "rule" the education system and then we would have Americans who understood and appreciated the incredible form of government that makes the US the greatest democracy in the world.

Hmmm, maybe you don't understand what I am asking about here? I am not critiquing dude, just asking for thoughts. It is not a question of left knowing what rule is. Try again.

 

[shintao]

Not 8 years. 6 years.

Yeah, right, 6. And not total control like I am saying. Now go for the question. Good or bad.

My question is, why is one party rule a bad thing if that is what the American voter decides they want it?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not 8 years. 6 years.

Yeah, right, 6. And not total control like I am saying. Now go for the question. Good or bad.

Depends on the long view or short view.

 

[shintao]

Not 8 years. 6 years.

Yeah, right, 6. And not total control like I am saying. Now go for the question. Good or bad.

Depends on the long view or short view.

A term is 4 years, so in the short view. I don't see people getting terribly upset over 1 party rule if it is a legitimate vote that would deliver it. I am finding it hard to say it is a bad thing, if it is done according to the Constitution and American voters.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yeah, right, 6. And not total control like I am saying. Now go for the question. Good or bad.

Depends on the long view or short view.

A term is 4 years, so in the short view. I don't see people getting terribly upset over 1 party rule if it is a legitimate vote that would deliver it. I am finding it hard to say it is a bad thing, if it is done according to the Constitution and American voters.

Short view, it's a bad thing. Look at Bush and the Republican congress.

Long view, it's good thing. Because it reminds people exactly what kind of shenanigans 1 party could get up to in the short time they are in complete power.

 

[uscitizen]

Lobbyist infulence and a culture of accepted corruption exists in congress in a bipartisan mode so having a congress balanced by parties does not have much impact for the last few decades.

We have pretty much reached a functional one party system once you examine the actions and ignore the rhetoric.

 

[shintao]

Depends on the long view or short view.

A term is 4 years, so in the short view. I don't see people getting terribly upset over 1 party rule if it is a legitimate vote that would deliver it. I am finding it hard to say it is a bad thing, if it is done according to the Constitution and American voters.

Short view, it's a bad thing. Look at Bush and the Republican congress.

Long view, it's good thing. Because it reminds people exactly what kind of shenanigans 1 party could get up to in the short time they are in complete power.

Seems voters are short minded, so if it was 8 years, they probably already forgot, as long as it isn't major, like a BJ. Well anything really. We forget about smog, and losing worker deductions, or giving up the right to sue under Work comp.m etc. Would government smooth out and operate more efficiently under one rule? Health Care could have been great if it wasn't politically diced up. The Afghan war could have been over in 6 months or less. The 2nd restored. Abortion issue solved.

 

[whitehall]

'RULE' is always a bad thing. That's why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution. Maybe today's pop-culture educated left doesn't understand the difference between "rule" and govern. I never heard a single criticism that democrats "ruled" the US when they had total majority and a socialist president. Maybe the Tea Party should "rule" the education system and then we would have Americans who understood and appreciated the incredible form of government that makes the US the greatest democracy in the world.

Hmmm, maybe you don't understand what I am asking about here? I am not critiquing dude, just asking for thoughts. It is not a question of left knowing what rule is. Try again.

Maybe you still don't understand the context of your own question. A political party can't 'RULE", it can only govern with the consent of the people.

 

[uscitizen]

'RULE' is always a bad thing. That's why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution. Maybe today's pop-culture educated left doesn't understand the difference between "rule" and govern. I never heard a single criticism that democrats "ruled" the US when they had total majority and a socialist president. Maybe the Tea Party should "rule" the education system and then we would have Americans who understood and appreciated the incredible form of government that makes the US the greatest democracy in the world.

Hmmm, maybe you don't understand what I am asking about here? I am not critiquing dude, just asking for thoughts. It is not a question of left knowing what rule is. Try again.

Maybe you still don't understand the context of your own question. A political party can't 'RULE", it can only govern with the consent of the people.

Keep on believing that. It is what they want you to believe.

 

[rikules]

Our founder's system works. They didn't envision the corruption that we're seeing today.

I don't believe that "our founders system" was based ona a "party system"

'not 1 party
nor 2
nore multi parties


not all that long ago (1920's, or even later) ballots had NUMEROUS parties and candidates

NOT just 2 parties


just like the big 3 automakers gobbled up all the smaller car makers the 2 big parties gobbled up the smaller ones

that was BAD


I oppse ALL parties

and wish that ALL candidates were INDEPENDENT (or parties)


joining a party corrupts the candidate

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Our founder's system works. They didn't envision the corruption that we're seeing today.

I don't believe that "our founders system" was based ona a "party system"

'not 1 party
nor 2
nore multi parties


not all that long ago (1920's, or even later) ballots had NUMEROUS parties and candidates

NOT just 2 parties


just like the big 3 automakers gobbled up all the smaller car makers the 2 big parties gobbled up the smaller ones

that was BAD


I oppse ALL parties

and wish that ALL candidates were INDEPENDENT (or parties)


joining a party corrupts the candidate

Can't really disagree with you. The founders knew of the inherent dangers of a party system.