Democrat vs. Republican

[Trajk Logik]

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.

I would say that the voting system has become corrupt because of the two-party system. When every candidate is running for themselves and not a party it would be much more difficult for an individual to try and alter votes. Being part of a team, or party means that you will have almost half of the country willing to look the other way while your party conspires to cheat. The corruptness of the information stems from the media taking sides. Without any sides the media would have no sides to misinform or accuse of misinformation. Since we only have two sides, we can't trust either side to be objective and fight corruption even on their side. With many individuals, we would have a more objective system where different individuals coming from various sides to fight the corruption and holding everyone to the same standard.

A population no longer having a side to take means a more objective and equal standard that can be held for everyone.

[Trajk Logik]

The Democrats and Republicans are pushing the limits of their power when it is their turn at majority control which then establishes a precedent that the other party can use when the majority changes . They are working together to accumulate more power and we are being manipulated by them to continue voting for both parties because the fear they instill in their constituents for the other side and offer only their party as the solution. They have established a revolving door for themselves by ensuring that we only vote for either party by marketing one party as the savior for those "victimized" by the other.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I would say that the voting system has become corrupt because of the two-party system. When every candidate is running for themselves and not a party it would be much more difficult for an individual to try and alter votes. Being part of a team, or party means that you will have almost half of the country willing to look the other way while your party conspires to cheat. The corruptness of the information stems from the media taking sides. Without any sides the media would have no sides to misinform or accuse of misinformation. Since we only have two sides, we can't trust either side to be objective and fight corruption even on their side. With many individuals, we would have a more objective system where different individuals coming from various sides to fight the corruption and holding everyone to the same standard.

A population no longer having a side to take means a more objective and equal standard that can be held for everyone.

Unfortunately, that would also make policy decisions too diffuse and local to work at the state or national level. One person can make changes in one locality, provided he has an executive there; but maybe a town or small city is the largest entity that could work that way. Inevitably, you need some sort of coordination at the state and national level, for many reasons...the need for coordinated plans between localities, the need for the voters to be able to vote on policies affecting the state or nation, the need for there to be political "packages" for people to vote for at the national level, the need for things like national economics and national defense...and so on.

So some kind of party system seems inevitable. And there are problems with all of them. But the very least we can do is make sure it's one-citizen-one -vote, all-voters-ID'd, and all real votes count.

So it's the voting system itself that's in need of first reform, I would say.

[Immanuel Can]

The Democrats and Republicans are pushing the limits of their power when it is their turn at majority control which then establishes a precedent that the other party can use when the majority changes . They are working together to accumulate more power and we are being manipulated by them to continue voting for both parties because the fear they instill in their constituents for the other side and offer only their party as the solution. They have established a revolving door for themselves by ensuring that we only vote for either party by marketing one party as the savior for those "victimized" by the other.

There's some truth to that, particularly in regard to the corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans. However, not all on each side are corrupt; and recently, outsiders who don't really play the game of their particular side have appeared within those parties. Maybe they can make a difference, if enough Americans back them. We'll see: they system's certainly stacked against them, from both sides. The politicians with their noses in the trough are many, and they certainly will fight to keep the status quo.

[Iwannaplato]

and fast-growth tyranny (by way of instant conversion to Socialism).

Or by way of conversion to Fascism.
Of you have countries that by US standards are socialist where it is not tyranny (at least not yet). There may well be right wing versions or were in the past. Not to say there aren't problems but for example the Scandanavian countries were really quite socialist by US standards but they were not tyrannies. Now the US/UK economic models have eaten away at their socialisms. I wouldn't call them socialist anymore, but many americans would. And the trend makes it likely that they will not look socialist at all in a couple of decades.

[Sculptor]

I am always amazed how Americans have swallowed the BS about "socialism".
I mean sucking up is one thing swallowing is on a whole different level.
Fact is that the right is more about tyranny and restriction of freedoms. Just look at civil rights; blocked at every step of the way by the right. The only right they seemed to want to preserve is the right to hang black people in trees.

Now we have a orchestrated attack on free thinking, from every think from religion, gay rights, trans, abortion, feminism. The right have been trying to shut down debate for decades on these issues..
PROJECT 2025
Now we seen the big plan.
Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
This includes new powers to fire and replace judges, and other government staff.

This includes sweeping powers to ban the use of words such as "woke", "equality", "trans", "abortion".- and to defund any institution whose leaders "THINK", yes think otherwise.
Yes folks its thought crime coming to you.

So well done all those morons who keep bashing on about the tsunami of woke thinking. You shall get the dictatorship you cultivated.

[Constantine]

None of that is true Sculptor. You know under the constitution words can't be banned.

[Sculptor]

None of that is true Sculptor. You know under the constitution words can't be banned.

Project 2025 is a constitution changing policy.

Don't say I did not warn you.
Get your head out of your arse.

[Constantine]

It's my ass, I'll stick whatever I want up it.

[phyllo]

None of that is true Sculptor. You know under the constitution words can't be banned.

Actually,it is true. (Not the thought crime part. )

The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil
society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms
sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion
(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi-
tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used
to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule,
agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

The full pdf document is more than 900 pages long but the general policy and promises are stated in the first 17 pages.

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

[Trajk Logik]

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.

I would say that the voting system has become corrupt because of the two-party system. When every candidate is running for themselves and not a party it would be much more difficult for an individual to try and alter votes. Being part of a team, or party means that you will have almost half of the country willing to look the other way while your party conspires to cheat. The corruptness of the information stems from the media taking sides. Without any sides the media would have no sides to misinform or accuse of misinformation. Since we only have two sides, we can't trust either side to be objective and fight corruption even on their side. With many individuals, we would have a more objective system where different individuals coming from various sides to fight the corruption and holding everyone to the same standard.

A population no longer having a side to take means a more objective and equal standard that can be held for everyone.

Unfortunately, that would also make policy decisions too diffuse and local to work at the state or national level. One person can make changes in one locality, provided he has an executive there; but maybe a town or small city is the largest entity that could work that way. Inevitably, you need some sort of coordination at the state and national level, for many reasons...the need for coordinated plans between localities, the need for the voters to be able to vote on policies affecting the state or nation, the need for there to be political "packages" for people to vote for at the national level, the need for things like national economics and national defense...and so on.

So some kind of party system seems inevitable. And there are problems with all of them. But the very least we can do is make sure it's one-citizen-one -vote, all-voters-ID'd, and all real votes count.

So it's the voting system itself that's in need of first reform, I would say.

I agree that the voting system needs reform, primarily in removing Ds and Rs from the ballot. We have local and state politicians running for national office all the time, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Just look at the legalization of marijuana, how it started in one state and is now growing across the country. The competition between localities and states should continue and let the best ideas get elevated to the national level, no political parties are needed for that.

[Peter Kropotkin]

the problem I have with this generalization of "democrat" vs Republican
is the fact that on both sides, there are wide ideological differences...
for example, the GOP... which GOP are you referring to...
the old-school small-time government.. low taxes GOP, or
are you referring to the culture wars GOP or are you referring to
the MAGA faction that just wants to burn everything down
or what is called ''California republican" who is socially liberal
and fiscally conservative...

we have fairly well defined groups within the GOP...
which group actually speaks for the GOP? as of right now,
the MAGA group that wants to burn down the world is leading
the GOP...but that could, hopefully will change...

as for the Dem's, we have several different groups within
the democratic party...

we have the social rights groups, we have various groups that
exists by certain terms, the black faction, the gays, the women,
the people of color... each of these groups exists within the democratic
party and have a voice...we have the push for economic equality group
within the dem's, the "so called" social warriors faction, and we have
the larger government group.. the democrats are a much larger party
and way more diverse than the GOP..... there was a joke about the
democratic party that was old when I was a kid, some 60 years ago...

I don't belong to an organized political party.. I'm a democrat....

which pretty much says it all....

so what way would be better to describe our current situation?

I believe this is better done by thinking about conservatives and liberals,
instead of democrat and Republican..

for I believe that we think about the parties
in old fashion way... that we join the party that
our parents belonged to or that we belong to
the party that exists around in my area...

but we should belong to the party that is affiliated to our
nature of being conservative or of being progressive..

the conservative nature is to slow walk any and all actions..
the liberal nature is to move much more quickly in taking
actions...liberals tend to see a problem and want to
work out a solution far more quickly than a conservative...
quite often a liberal will see a problem and want a fix
before a conservative even see a problem... see global warming
or police reform for examples of this..

to be called a democrat or a republican, used to mean something,
back 20 or 30 years ago, now it really doesn't mean anything...

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

Just look at the legalization of marijuana, how it started in one state and is now growing across the country.

A profound disaster for all involved, for many reasons. Anybody who knows the clearing time for marijuana from the human nervous system knows how devastating the proliferation of even that "mild" drug is bound to be socially, even without the dangers of lacing with various chemicals intended to "enhance" the high, which is certain to continue.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

[Immanuel Can]

...the MAGA faction that just wants to burn everything down

The only fires on the news are lit by the Democrats, obviously: Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, Atlanta, LA...away we go. All Democrat cities set on fire by Democrat supporters. That needs some explaining.

I don't belong to an organized political party.. I'm a democrat....

Then you're not a Marxist. Marxism is an organized political movement, and it and democracy are antithetical concepts.

I believe this is better done by thinking about conservatives and liberals,
instead of democrat and Republican..

That's what they call them in Canada. But it amounts to the same problem. Changing the nomenclature doesn't change the thinking.

the conservative nature is to slow walk any and all actions..
the liberal nature is to move much more quickly in taking
actions...

Jonathan Haidt (a Democrat) says we need both. He says the liability of conservatism is being too slow to change, and the liability of the liberal is reckless indifference to the past. He argues we need a perpetual tension between those impulses, to moderate the radicalism of the liberal spirit and to prevent inertia from the conservatives. I think he has a good point.

Either way, though, it won't help if we've got both parties not actually representing reform or preservation of current successes, but rather both colluding to get their noses into the public trough. That's the real problem.

[Immanuel Can]

and fast-growth tyranny (by way of instant conversion to Socialism).

Or by way of conversion to Fascism.

Same thing, esssentially.

Look at the alleged "Antifa" in North America: if you know the history of the Weimar period, these "blackshirts" behave in exactly the same ways as Hitler's "brownshirts." Exactly. They're racist, they're destructive, they're lawless, they're used to punish the existing system by megalomaniacs like Soros...

So don't buy their nonsense about being "antifascist": they are as Fascist as anybody can be...and yet they are the dedicated footsoldiers of the Left, not the Right. Make sense of that paradox, if you can.