• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bipartisanship is a joke

Is bipartisanship a worthwhile goal?

  • Bipartisanship is a worthy goal, and works well in practice.

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Bipartisanship is a worthy goal, but it doesn't work in practice.

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Bipartisanship is not a worthwhile goal.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
Falvlun

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Claiming to be bipartisan, and giving ample proof of it, seems to be a prerequisite to being elected in American politics.

I say it's baloney.

If an elected leader actually attempts to practice bipartisanship, he only gets lambasted by his side for not staying true to his principles or campaign promises, and gets attacked by the other side for not being bipartisan enough.

And claiming an initiative is not "bipartisan enough" seems to me to denote just about any piece of legislation that doesn't give the opposing side everything they want, and/or making sure you took out everything that they don't want.

If, heaven help us, a bipartisan bill does pass, it seems to simply be a watered down and ineffectual version of what it was trying to accomplish. (See health care debate.)

Do you think bipartisanship is a worthwhile effort? Do you believe it ever actually works in practice, or is it just pretty sounding in theory? Does it get lauded in other countries... and does it fail just as dismally?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yes. That's why you only vote Democrat. For life.
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
I am not sure how this whole "bipartisan" bill works, but I do know that it refers to the two-party system, which is crap. There should be more than two parties. There HAS to be more than two in any real republic. No, America is not a "democracy," and it is not a republic, it is a corporate fascism. But that's another story.

Anyone who votes either republican or democrat is either uninformed, demoralized to the point of believing that they have to choose "the lesser of two evils," or they are one of the ones the party benefits (that is, the big businesses and corporations). The republicans and democrats are really just two arms of big business. Both have had their share of conspiracies, neither genuinely care about the people as anything other than a vote, both are funded by big corporations which they repay while they are in office.

So, I vote other.
 
Darkness

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
TheAmazingLoser said:
No, America is not a "democracy," and it is not a republic, it is a corporate fascism. But that's another story. Anyone who votes either republican or democrat is either uninformed, demoralized to the point of believing that they have to choose "the lesser of two evils," or they are one of the ones the party benefits (that is, the big businesses and corporations). The republicans and democrats are really just two arms of big business. Both have had their share of conspiracies, neither genuinely care about the people as anything other than a vote, both are funded by big corporations which they repay while they are in office.
Click to expand...

Wait! Let me get my tin-foil hat! :D
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
The problem is that bipartisanship doesn't work in the game of tug-of-war.

I DO, however, think that bipartisanship can work, in practice. Case in point: California (the state where I live). It took a 100% deficit to do it, but eventually both Republican (no new taxes) and Democrat (no government cuts) lawmakers emerged shaking hands. Is it going to take an atomic bomb for lawmakers to be bipartisan? Probably. But it's a worthy goal. Obama is doing an excellent job, in my opinion, in showing a desire for bipartisanship. But the townhalls are showing that the majority of our country is addicted to whatever drugs are in their respective political feeding troughs, and bipartisanship gives them relapses.

Do we hate each other, or are we merely convinced that the other side hates us?
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Wait! Let me get my tin-foil hat!
Click to expand...
The ignorance shown by this comment is amazing.

I have read plenty of good threads on ATS, and I have seen the things that the people are posting. Many are intelligent people, and if you actually do a little research and think a bit, you'll find that much of what they say is true. I disagree with some of them on some things, but to blatantly stereotype all of them as loonies shows how right they are when they say that the majority of the population is ignorant and unaware. Where did the whole "tin-foil hat" thing come from anyway? Not even the craziest conspiracy theorists I've seen talk about wearing tin-foil hats, I've only seen the tin-foil hat stereotype come from the people who make fun of conspiracy theorists.

If you want, you can take this up with all the "tin-foil hat-wearers" at ATS, and see how long you last in a debate with people who think for themselves instead of believing everything they're told.

But this rant is getting off topic. Continue on the bipartisanship discussion.
 
TheKnight

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
I don't understand why we even need to have political parties? Why not have politicians (who are just people anyways) run for office and support the political views that they support without having a party. The world of political views is too complex for parties.

If I were running for office, I would have no party. I refuse to reinforce the ridiculous party system that is wholly and totally unnecessary
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
I don't understand why we even need to have political parties? Why not have politicians (who are just people anyways) run for office and support the political views that they support without having a party. The world of political views is too complex for parties.
Click to expand...
George Washington would have agreed with you. I do too, but unfortunately, I fear that if we take away politcal parties, the first person who decides to break the rules and create a party is going to take over the country =/.
If I were running for office, I would have no party. I refuse to reinforce the ridiculous party system that is wholly and totally unnecessary
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, you're required to have a party to run as president (or whatever office). America sucks like that. :(
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
How on Earth does having a political party help you take over the country?
Click to expand...
It gives people a herd to follow. It also lives longer than the person that started it. For some reason, Americans have an easier time obeying the command "Follow the big party" than "Follow the intelligent leader." Delivering bandwagon propaganda and organizing events (you know, events like the town hall meetings) is much easier when you create a label for people.
 
TheKnight

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
TheAmazingLoser said:
It gives people a herd to follow. It also lives longer than the person that started it. For some reason, Americans have an easier time obeying the command "Follow the big party" than "Follow the intelligent leader." Delivering bandwagon propaganda and organizing events (you know, events like the town hall meetings) is much easier when you create a label for people.
Click to expand...
I guess. I think it's stupid.
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Falvlun said:
Claiming to be bipartisan, and giving ample proof of it, seems to be a prerequisite to being elected in American politics.

I say it's baloney.

If an elected leader actually attempts to practice bipartisanship, he only gets lambasted by his side for not staying true to his principles or campaign promises, and gets attacked by the other side for not being bipartisan enough.

And claiming an initiative is not "bipartisan enough" seems to me to denote just about any piece of legislation that doesn't give the opposing side everything they want, and/or making sure you took out everything that they don't want.

If, heaven help us, a bipartisan bill does pass, it seems to simply be a watered down and ineffectual version of what it was trying to accomplish. (See health care debate.)

Do you think bipartisanship is a worthwhile effort? Do you believe it ever actually works in practice, or is it just pretty sounding in theory? Does it get lauded in other countries... and does it fail just as dismally?
Click to expand...
To me the greatest tragedy of the US history is its citizens taking politics any more serious than a game of monopoly, or other simple minded game. If it is possible to get worse than that it might be, there is a large part of society that knowingly stay ignorant and enjoy it over accepting the truth.
 
Falvlun

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
So, I've been thinking about the option that I voted for (Bipartisanship is a worthy goal but it doesn't work in practice) and I think it might be a little senseless.

If something doesn't actually work, then why should you put effort into attaining it?

TheAmazingLoser said:
Anyone who votes either republican or democrat is either uninformed, demoralized to the point of believing that they have to choose "the lesser of two evils," or they are one of the ones the party benefits (that is, the big businesses and corporations).
Click to expand...
I think this is a little unfair. What if you are someone who actually does believe in the general principles or efforts of a specific party? Remember, there can be a lot of variation in either party, but there are general concepts that tie the party together. If you ascribe to those general philosophies, then why would it be uninformed to vote for them?

itwillend said:
To me the greatest tragedy of the US history is its citizens taking politics any more serious than a game of monopoly, or other simple minded game. If it is possible to get worse than that it might be, there is a large part of society that knowingly stay ignorant and enjoy it over accepting the truth.
Click to expand...
huh? Isn't politics serious? Do you think we should take government, and the policies it makes, as a joke?
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
What if you are someone who actually does believe in the general principles or efforts of a specific party? Remember, there can be a lot of variation in either party, but there are general concepts that tie the party together. If you ascribe to those general philosophies, then why would it be uninformed to vote for them?
Click to expand...
Because they don't do what they say they do.
Do you honestly believe that the republicans are for small government, for instance? Just take a look at Bush, and you'll have your answer. Or do you believe that the democrats truly feel sorry for the minority races (and aren't just using them as political tools to get votes)? (Sorry I couldn't think of a better democrat example, I was less than 10 years old the last time a democrat was in power, and there's not many online articles on Clinton, so I'm not real sure what they've been doing)

If one genuinely believed in the republican ideals of small government and free market, you would vote Libertarian. If you genuinely believed in universal healthcare and redistribution of wealth, you would vote communist. And I'm sure there's lots of obscure parties that I don't know about that cater to those in between. There's a party for everyone (if not, make one! Or is that even possible?).
huh? Isn't politics serious? Do you think we should take government, and the policies it makes, as a joke?
Click to expand...
Agreed, that was not one of itwillend's most intelligent comments =/.
 
Darkness

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
TheAmazingLoser said:
I have read plenty of good threads on ATS, and I have seen the things that the people are posting. Many are intelligent people, and if you actually do a little research and think a bit, you'll find that much of what they say is true. I disagree with some of them on some things, but to blatantly stereotype all of them as loonies shows how right they are when they say that the majority of the population is ignorant and unaware.
Click to expand...

I used to be a conspiracy theorist, following people like Alex Jones and Jack Blood. However, I wised up and found out that they base their believes on lies and half-truths.
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
I used to be a conspiracy theorist, following people like Alex Jones and Jack Blood. However, I wised up and found out that they base their believes on lies and half-truths.
Click to expand...
I've heard of Alex Jones, but not Jack Blood. I haven't listened to either. The people of ATS get their conspiracy theories straight from the government legislature and the news sources themselves. Take this thread, for example: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet, page 1
I don't see Alex Jones or Jack Blood anywhere on it. =/
 
Darkness

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
TheAmazingLoser said:
I've heard of Alex Jones, but not Jack Blood. I haven't listened to either. The people of ATS get their conspiracy theories straight from the government legislature and the news sources themselves. Take this thread, for example: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet, page 1
I don't see Alex Jones or Jack Blood anywhere on it. =/
Click to expand...

I have heard of Above Top Secret before. They are the ones who were spreading lies about the Health Care Reform Bill, by using snippets and then taking them out of context. As this article does not provide a link to the proposal, I cannot make a judgement on it. In the event of a true Cyber-security emergency, it may make sense for the Government to temporarily assume control. The Military, under the command of the Congress, can declare martial law and assume control of a city, state or the nation. Traditionally, the role of declaring Martial Law was delegated to the President, until safety measures were put in place. So, again, I would need to see the context of this bill and by what method the Government could seize control of a cyber network. Contrary to Conspiracy Theorist's beliefs, everything the Government does is not bad or evil.
 
T-Dawg

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
They are the ones who were spreading lies about the Health Care Reform Bill, by using snippets and then taking them out of context.
Click to expand...
I have not heard of this. I think I may have seen a couple death pannel threads, but nothing more. Most of the members (or at least, the ones I pay attention to) don't believe the lies about the healthcare reform bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top