Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every issue is extremely complex and would take someone weeks to research and study. You can't simply turn on the TV and pick up a few sound bites and think you understand the issues.
Personally, I turn on the TV and see the Democrats expounding far left ideology and that's a major turn off for me. I also don't support pro-abortion candidates. That certainly doesn't make me "far right". As far as people's activities in the bedroom, what they do in the bedroom is their business but when they try to ram their viewpoints down the rest of our throats, then it's no longer in the bedroom, is it? If they kept their bedroom activities private then no one would care what they do, would they?
Yeah, they are kicking out the moderates in the Democratic party.
I watched the Republican party do that.
It might surprise you but when I was young there were liberal Republicans and moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans. It was like that since the days of Lincoln.
The common thread running through them all was a generally pro-business stance (as opposed to a generally pro-labor stance). I watched over the decades as the conservatives purged the liberals, then the moderates out of the Republican party. So that today many people mistakenly think that being an arch-conservative is the very definition of Republican, it never was before.
To illustrate the point: when the Democrats had their first debate for the presidential nomination for the 2016 election, there were five people on stage. Astonishingly, three were former Republicans.
The influx of so many former Republicans over the years, combined with the weakening of the Labor Unions, had the effect of moderating the Democratic party. They had their 'New Deal' liberal Democrats in the bag, so they repeatedly nominated more moderate candidates for the highest offices to appeal to the center. Many people would complain that there didn't seem to be much difference between the two parties, and in some ways they were justified in thinking that.
The New Deal Democrats are experiencing a resurgence now. That, I think, is a good thing. The parties need to differentiate, to give the voters clear choices.
.... I also don't support pro-abortion candidates. That certainly doesn't make me "far right". ...
That was me for almost two decades. I oppose abortion stridently. I think it is murder.
But the Republican party never represented me. They hurt my best interests in almost every other way. This last presidential election I decided I would not vote for any candidate that denied human influenced global warming and the threat it poses. I could not vote for a single Republican, I am done with them.
A few mentioned a new "moderate" party? LOL, no, it's called compromise. Why can't both sides just frig*in compromise? That's what individuals, families and communities do every day, compromise. You get some of what you want, I get some of what I want.
This isn't polarized. This is criminal or not......
Dems won the midterms by the largest margin since right after Nixon resigned and Watergate. An increasing number of Americans have noted that the Republican Party has zero standing on moral, ethical, constitutional and other questions.
Period.
Most would say this is a good thing. Of course, the Republicans don't like it so they spend billions trying to say "they are all bad" and "there are two sides".
To quote Woodrow Wilson, there ARE two sides - right and wrong.
Every issue is extremely complex and would take someone weeks to research and study. You can't simply turn on the TV and pick up a few sound bites and think you understand the issues.
I also don't support pro-abortion candidates.
First you say things are complex. Then you say you want to limit CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
Those two things don't match. You don't have to like the Constitution and settled Law, but you certainly should not critique a pol that stands up for basic and recent Constitutional rights.
This should have been settled with JFK who said the Laws of Man, not the laws of his Church (Catholic) would define his Presidency.
There is a difference between what you personally approve of and the laws which govern 320 million people. As you say, it is complex. For you to act as if a "pro-constitutional" pol is somehow not worthy of your vote is quite far out.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61
It's easy to tell why America is so polarized. It's either left or right but no middle. Like it's all or nothing. There are only two political parties. Does this work well in this day and age? Maybe there should be a moderate party. Has there ever been a call to reform? What would that look like?
It would look like the destruction of the entrenched two-party system that limits government to a black & white view of a Technicolor world. A system I believe is a bigger threat to the future of this country than any outside force.
It would look like the destruction of the entrenched two-party system that limits government to a black & white view of a Technicolor world. A system I believe is a bigger threat to the future of this country than any outside force.
The only other working model is the parliamentary system, which can accommodate multiple parties in a rational way.
It would mean changing the rules of congress, and even possibly changing how the president is chosen. We would need a constitutional amendment or two, and neither of the big two today would sponsor anything to make third and fourth parties more viable at the Federal level.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
The only other working model is the parliamentary system, which can accommodate multiple parties in a rational way.
It would mean changing the rules of congress, and even possibly changing how the president is chosen. We would need a constitutional amendment or two, and neither of the big two today would sponsor anything to make third and fourth parties more viable at the Federal level.
It's why I believe Trump blew a golden opportunity as he may well have been a third party candidate with a very realistic chance of upsetting the apple cart and smacking down both major parties.
As much as I dislike him I would have voted for him had he run third party, I dislike the entrenched two party system a whole bunch more.
Neither party represents me... They have both lost their way.
In this cycle though, Republicans have shown time and time again that they'll fall in line with Trump regardless of what is best for their constituents. I have a problem with that....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
