Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Oct '12 18:34
    Political parties need to be done away with, quite simply, because it blinds people. Parties create an "Us vs. Them" mentality. People can't just see a candidate for what they are; instead, what they see are their personal ideologies, running competing ideologies. No one sees Barack vs. Mitt: they see Liberal vs. Conservative.

    If there were no parties, so much more could get done. People wouldn't have to answer to their political party, are make "allies" with those thier "side". Politicians wouldn't vote against a president, simply because they don't want his/her party to gain ground.

    There should be no parties. Just individuals with ideas. I supported Ron Paul, but don't like Romney, so I support Obama. I vote for people, not parties.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Oct '12 18:43
    I think this is the primary reason why politics is so notoriously a hot-button topic. When you disaprove of a candidate, you're not just disaproving of that person; you're (deliberately or not) also insulting the beliefs of the party that person belongs to. This is why Republicans so vehemently defended Bush's terrible term as president; the fight for their beliefs were at stake. Fighting for Bush was a fight for conservatism.

    This is why parties need to go.
  3. 28 Oct '12 19:03
    How would you go about making political parties "go"? Political parties exist primarily because people instinctively like to belong to a group they can identify with.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Oct '12 19:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    How would you go about making political parties "go"? Political parties exist primarily because people instinctively like to belong to a group they can identify with.
    Making parties "go" would simply be a matter of people realizing this "instinct" subconciously affects how they vote, which isn't a good thing. Votes shouldn't be based on biases devoloped merely from belonging to a group; they should be based solely on the candidates in question, not their affiliation.
  5. 28 Oct '12 20:10
    Originally posted by vivify
    Making parties "go" would simply be a matter of people realizing this "instinct" subconciously affects how they vote, which isn't a good thing. Votes shouldn't be based on biases devoloped merely from belonging to a group; they should be based solely on the candidates in question, not their affiliation.
    The problem with that is that people are not going to realize it.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Oct '12 20:17
    That sucks.
  7. 28 Oct '12 21:38
    Originally posted by vivify
    Political parties need to be done away with, quite simply, because it blinds people. Parties create an "Us vs. Them" mentality. People can't just see a candidate for what they are; instead, what they see are their personal ideologies, running competing ideologies. No one sees Barack vs. Mitt: they see Liberal vs. Conservative.

    If there were no parties ...[text shortened]... Ron Paul, but don't like Romney, so I support Obama. I vote for people, not parties.
    Not gonna happen.

    I recognize your points but individual candidates with no party affiliation can be just as divisive. Further, keep in mind, that a party and their platform represent values and interests that may coincide with you and your family's interests. Moreover, candidates come and go, but the party remains. I suggest to people to choose one of the two major parties they most agree with and most matches their interests, and vote straight ticket, with the option to cross-over for a particular candidate of the other party if they desire.
  8. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    28 Oct '12 22:05
    Originally posted by vivify
    That sucks.
    Well...there we have it.
  9. 28 Oct '12 22:57
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Well...there we have it.
    Republicans seem pretty mental, I have to admit it.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Oct '12 23:17
    Originally posted by vivify
    Political parties need to be done away with, quite simply, because it blinds people. Parties create an "Us vs. Them" mentality. People can't just see a candidate for what they are; instead, what they see are their personal ideologies, running competing ideologies. No one sees Barack vs. Mitt: they see Liberal vs. Conservative.

    If there were no parties ...[text shortened]... Ron Paul, but don't like Romney, so I support Obama. I vote for people, not parties.
    I love statements like this. Even if this were a good idea, which it's not, it's completely impossible to implement. For as long as mankind has existed, we've organized ourselves into tribes. The day that stops is the day that the next to last human dies.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    28 Oct '12 23:46
    Originally posted by vivify
    Political parties need to be done away with, quite simply, because it blinds people. Parties create an "Us vs. Them" mentality. People can't just see a candidate for what they are; instead, what they see are their personal ideologies, running competing ideologies. No one sees Barack vs. Mitt: they see Liberal vs. Conservative.

    If there were no parties ...[text shortened]... Ron Paul, but don't like Romney, so I support Obama. I vote for people, not parties.
    I think a two-party system is almost as bad as a one-party system. But a multi-party system, where coalitions are formed and cooperation is more essential -- that seems more ideal.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    29 Oct '12 00:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I think a two-party system is almost as bad as a one-party system. But a multi-party system, where coalitions are formed and cooperation is more essential -- that seems more ideal.
    We already have that.

    The Republican coalition is comprised of fiscal conservatives, anti-tax folks, anti-abortion/pro-life, big corporate interests, pro-gun folks, pro-defense, and probably some white supremacists. There's really not too much crossover from one group to the next. I, for example, possessing an enlightened mind, am a fiscal conservative and a gun nut. I don't care about the other groups. But I find common cause with them (except for white supremacists - not cool under any circumstance. Those POS's can best serve America by tying a cinder block around their neck and jumping off the nearest bridge). For a single reason, which I'll get into in a minute.

    The Democrat coalition is comprised of redistributionists, anti-defense, pro-choice, gun control, big government interests, and the hyphenated American groups. Again - not too much crossover, but they make common cause.

    So we have coalitions. And I'm here to tell you, I don't like every part of the Republican party. I don't think that troglodytes like Todd Akin should be injecting themselves into a woman's health choices. We probably spend too much on defense, but that's a leftover from Europeans being unable or unwilling to protect themselves. We'll fix that.

    But I don't like the Democrat party either. They want to take the money I earn and create this impossible utopian society. You people don't understand human nature. We are what we are: a warlike species. Republican pro-lifers feel morally superior, Democrat everybodys feel morally superior. I'm a Republican because a) we at least pretend that we're about personal responsibility and accountability, and b) I feel like there's a larger ion of the Republican party that will keep its hands out of my pockets.
  13. 29 Oct '12 00:44
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I think a two-party system is almost as bad as a one-party system. But a multi-party system, where coalitions are formed and cooperation is more essential -- that seems more ideal.
    May be more feasible in a parliamentarian type of system.
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    29 Oct '12 03:31
    Originally posted by moon1969
    May be more feasible in a parliamentarian type of system.
    Yes, I think so too. It is the form of government I wish we had. It's the form of government we gave Germany after WWII, and if we thought it was good enough for the Germans then surely it's good enough for us.
  15. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    29 Oct '12 03:33
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    And I'm here to tell you, I don't like every part of the Republican party. I don't think that troglodytes like Todd Akin should be injecting themselves into a woman's health choices.
    Okay, so at least your left pinky knuckle clears the ground as you walk. That is something.