Democrat vs. Republican

[Trajk Logik]

It is looking more like we are going to have a U.S presidential election in 2024 where both Democrat and Republican candidates will be in the midst of trials and impeachments. I just don't see how independent thinkers can watch this and ever hope to believe anything any politician from either party tells us. With one side denying any wrong-doing by their candidate while exaggerating the wrong-doing of the other candidate, how can we trust anything they say? When they are unwilling to see the wrongs on their side as much as the other, how can we ever hope for true justice for all?

Both parties are pitting us against each other, making their constituents victims of the actions of the other. They engage more in attacks on each other, and misrepresenting what the other says, rather than actually coming together and finding solutions to our problems. They will reject a proposal by the other side simply because it was proposed by the other side yet adopt the same proposal when proposed by their side.

The only way to get you to vote for them is to make you a victim of the other party's actions. They want us to focus on each other rather than on them - the real source of most of our problems. Their greed and selfishness makes them do anything to keep power. We cannot trust them to limit their own power. We need term limits on Congress, and possibly even the Supreme Court, but don't hold your breath on any of that happening when they get rich on maintaining their position.

The only solution that I can see is for more of us to simply not vote for either political party any more. The solution isn't a third party, but the abolishment of all political parties. This prevents the issue where a third party takes from one of the existing two thereby ensuring that the other one wins. Group-think will be eradicated and will encourage more voters to think for themselves instead of following the party line. We would have a greater variety of candidates running for office rather than those that have to do and say what their party says to receive the party's financial support.

George Washington foresaw the effect political parties have and was against their existence.

"Let me now warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. 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. In governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged."
-George Washington

"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for."
-George Washington

I'm seeing a growing number of Independents to where they now outnumber either of the two main political parties. If the trend continues we could see them outnumber them both combined in another decade. It is my hope that one day soon we will have a country free of group-think and the vitriol spewing out of our representatives mouths, where there are no more Ds and Rs next to candidates names on the ballot and where all politicians go back home after two terms.

What do you think?

[Impenitent]

Conotocaurius, aka town destroyer, was correct about the two party problem...

the variance of position on dozens of political issues seldom is inclusively settled within one party (eg socially liberal while fiscally conservative) ...

Perot made a good try...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Conotocaurius, aka town destroyer, was correct about the two party problem...

the variance of position on dozens of political issues seldom is inclusively settled within one party (eg socially liberal while fiscally conservative) ...

Perot made a good try...

-Imp

Three or four parties turn out not to be any better, and in some ways, worse.

For example, in Canada, they have three major parties and some minor ones. Right now, Canada's existing government is being supported by two parties, neither of which have a significant portion of the vote, but together have just a bit more than the most-popular party. The most-popular one, the one with the most votes, is left in opposition. The balance of power is in the hands of the corrupt third party, because without them, the coalition falls; but the ineptitude of that third party allows the second party to retain power anyway.

In Israel, they have a bunch of parties: 12, currently, but with at least two sub-divided. That would be 14. Nobody ever holds power without a coalition, and the coalition can dissolve at any minute. So it's very hard to maintain a singular political vision for long; and maybe only the threat from outside Israel allows the coalitions to function together at all. Given the aptitude for Jewish politics for fractious debate, it's a bit of a miracle Israel's political scene doesn't simply cripple the country.

As for the US, what they need more than anything right now is an uncorrupt voting system. It's all too clear that media, voting machines, regnant parties, law-enforcement bodies, big business interests, and members of the executive can and do conspire to favour particular political orientations, and to deny information and access to opponents. And it appears (speaking as an outsider) that Americans have an unfortunate tendency to take a death-lock on one political party and vote only for it, regardless of how venial, destructive, ideologically-driven and corrupt its policies actually become. Any American, it seems, can tell you whether they're an "R" or a "D," and that really doesn't swing much, it seems. The politicians therefore have little reason to fear the voters. So a more literate and politically observant, and less party-bound populace would really improve the political situation in the US if everything worked; but right now, it still would not fix the corruptness of the information and voting systems themselves.

Bottom line: there don't seem to be political solutions to the problems of modern politics.

[Wizard22]

I believe Democracy has run its course in Western Civilization and history.

As long as Fate is "voted" upon, the West will continue the long slide into depravity and ruin.

Power should not rest in a 51% majority rule.

[Iwannaplato]

I believe Democracy has run its course in Western Civilization and history.

As long as Fate is "voted" upon, the West will continue the long slide into depravity and ruin.

Power should not rest in a 51% majority rule.

Formally in the US it doesn't, given the three branches and the electoral college.
And then in practice the US is an oligarchy.

[Wizard22]

Formally in the US it doesn't, given the three branches and the electoral college.
And then in practice the US is an oligarchy.

Simply look at the recent Trump elections and now his political opponents attempting to imprison him.

The West's Legitimacy hangs by a thread.

[Iwannaplato]

Bottom line: there don't seem to be political solutions to the problems of modern politics.

I agree with your post in general. The only advantage in the current multiparty systems, I think, is more positions get airtime. In the US you get the occasional third party candidate, Nader Perot, and so for a short time you might hear something different in the range of ideas presented, but it soon disappears. In more complex party systems minority parties will get some new coverage regularly. Though I think this is fading, at least in Europe. You can sort of feel everyone heading for one of two boxes. The internet is replacing the minor party perspectives getting coverage, which sometimes is a good thing, sometimes not, though I tend to be pro access to diversity so I'm glad it's there. But the oligarchies are seeping into everything there also.

Oh, yes. One real problem with the two party system in the US is the parties have power. The Democrats undermined Bernie Sanders. I'm sure you're no fan of him, but the party rather than democrats chose HC. The more concentration of power, the less chance chronic problems will be changed.

[Iwannaplato]

Formally in the US it doesn't, given the three branches and the electoral college.
And then in practice the US is an oligarchy.

Simply look at the recent Trump elections and now his political opponents attempting to imprison him.

The West's Legitimacy hangs by a thread.

I can't really think in terms of 'the West's Legitimacy'. I don't think the government of the US has legitimacy as representative democracy or as a republic either. I've always hated Trump, but he has been treated illegally and immorally by the press and FBI and pressures on social media by the executive branch (via proxies) and more.

[Wizard22]

I can't really think in terms of 'the West's Legitimacy'. I don't think the government of the US has legitimacy as representative democracy or as a republic either. I've always hated Trump, but he has been treated illegally and immorally by the press and FBI and pressures on social media by the executive branch (via proxies) and more.

So what do you believe comes next?

[Iwannaplato]

I can't really think in terms of 'the West's Legitimacy'. I don't think the government of the US has legitimacy as representative democracy or as a republic either. I've always hated Trump, but he has been treated illegally and immorally by the press and FBI and pressures on social media by the executive branch (via proxies) and more.

So what do you believe comes next?

My head says disaster at a global level is inevitable and my gut says the outcome is unclear and perhaps even leans toward some better distribution of power is coming. I don't feel remotely competent to predict. I can see the moves towards total surveillance and near complete loss of privacy, which benefits the oligarchy - should they manage to not trigger WW3. And I see real disturbing trends around food production, even more concentration of media power and disinformation. IOW I smell (with my head ) an increasing trend towards open dystopia. And then there's my gut.

I love it when gut and head agree. Not the case right now.

[Wizard22]

My head says disaster at a global level is inevitable and my gut says the outcome is unclear and perhaps even leans toward some better distribution of power is coming. I don't feel remotely competent to predict. I can see the moves towards total surveillance and near complete loss of privacy, which benefits the oligarchy - should they manage to not trigger WW3. And I see real disturbing trends around food production, even more concentration of media power and disinformation. IOW I smell (with my head ) an increasing trend towards open dystopia. And then there's my gut.

I love it when gut and head agree. Not the case right now.

I fear that the US "Deep State" will attempt to have Trump assassinated as his next election win comes closer.

Only Trump can bring peace to the Ukraine conflict. Without him, I suspect WW3 is around the corner, with eventual mandatory drafts across the Western world. I hope I'm wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

My head says disaster at a global level is inevitable and my gut says the outcome is unclear and perhaps even leans toward some better distribution of power is coming. I don't feel remotely competent to predict. I can see the moves towards total surveillance and near complete loss of privacy, which benefits the oligarchy - should they manage to not trigger WW3. And I see real disturbing trends around food production, even more concentration of media power and disinformation. IOW I smell (with my head ) an increasing trend towards open dystopia. And then there's my gut.

I love it when gut and head agree. Not the case right now.

I fear that the US "Deep State" will attempt to have Trump assassinated as his next election win comes closer.

Only Trump can bring peace to the Ukraine conflict. Without him, I suspect WW3 is around the corner, with eventual mandatory drafts across the Western world. I hope I'm wrong.

There was a great moment early on in the war when Noam Chomsky - an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist, and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of politics of the United States - publically said that the only Western politician of note who was saying anything sensible about the war in the Ukraine was Trump. He noted that the Biden Admin was avoiding negotiation, diplomacy, and playing very risky games with Russia. Trump on the other hand had what Chomsky considered a less dangerous proposal focusing on diplomacy. And Chomsky got torn apart over this. No, you can't agree with Trump on anything, even if it is sensible. Kudos to Chomsky for being honest there. I mean, he must have known on some level how people were going to react.

One of the few things I liked about Trump was his disinterest in war. He also was against a trade treaty with Europe that was more or less Nafta but US Europe instead of US MexicoCanada. The left was silent on that one. Main democrats were not critical of that treaty.

Everything is binary these days. Either you are on Team Good and beautify and flawless or you are on Team Eviel, ugly stupid.

But I'm afraid I don't see Trump as a decent person or leader. I can't tell if he's an insider who is getting painted as an outsider to make people think he will be a savior for the right. Or if he's an outsider who all parts of the oligarchy, while they have much in common with him, don't want near a position of power.

But he is another oligarch. He just might not be one of the gang. So, he won't follow the playbook, especially around foreign policy.

[Constantine]

They just don't like Trump. And "they" programmed the public still watching TV to hate him, on a rabid scale, with little attachment to reality. They also coincidentally trained the public to hate TV.

As to Ukraine.... Biden set the war up for mechanized attrition. It takes 16 months to get pilots and air crews trained for a war, and Biden despite having a shitload of generals refused to allow a airforce. And they also allowed the the best Russian veterans to escape Kherson, where they were trapped. Instead they moved northeast to solidify the southern front where Ukraine has months later failed to penetrate the Russian defensive lines.

I'm convinced Biden wanted a attritional war all along. It's aimed less at men killing men and rather Ukraine destroying every last russian tank and fighter jet, but men killing men still happens. It is the least desirable path forward in this war. As to Trump being able to stop the war.... no. He couldn't stop it with Turkey and the Kurds, and both were allies. Ukraine knows the left has a irrational.... psychotic hatred of Trump. Think they will just pull strings to get Trump impeached by manufacturing whatever evidence needed. As a government fighting for their lives they can do it, push comes to shove.

And I'm certain the pentagon is damn well aware the war is being fought retarded. Can only be because Biden wants it this way. This particular way. This precise way.

[Immanuel Can]

One real problem with the two party system in the US is the parties have power. The Democrats undermined Bernie Sanders. I'm sure you're no fan of him, but the party rather than democrats chose HC. The more concentration of power, the less chance chronic problems will be changed.

Trump seems to have the same problem with what they call "Republican Rhinos," I guess. You're right: the parties are calling the shots, and both the parties...at least their dominant members...seem to have a stake in keeping the status quo the status quo, regardless of "renegade" candidates. But that's not how democracy, in theory, should work: it's more like Socialism, in which "the People's Party," whatever that happens to be, claims to speak and rule on behalf of "the people," while actually tyrannizing, bullying or milking all the actual people.

So it's an ugly scenario: it's like a lot of countries get the choice between slow-growth tyranny (fake democracy, with rich factions actually controlling everything in their own interests), and fast-growth tyranny (by way of instant conversion to Socialism). Not a pretty picture.

[Constantine]

Oh.... my OSINT friends just reported Ukraine just entered into the main phase of the offensive, all troops trained by the west just thrown in the last hour.

And they lack air superiority, Russia still has air defense and a intact air force. I'm not sure which front.... Ukraine was pushing hard last week across the river from Kherson- military bridges under artillery threat as well as drone/missile strikes, but it most likely is Zaporizhia. They have a few other fronts they could pop up in as well.

So if this goes badly.... and a excellent chance exists given how Russia's been holding out, Chomsky may get a negotiated settlement prior to the next election- and that's the surest guarantee for future war.