Let's look at Republican successes

Well I think you are going on the logical assumption that people in a party actually follow their party ideals, and I would guess that is true in your country.

So what happens if a candidate does not follow the set standards and ideals of the party they are supposed to represent? Are they held accountable by or to anyone for it there?

Here, in the USA it’s a joke. Look at Ron Paul for example, I believe he became a “Libertarian”, which is basically a smaller party of people who believe the regular Republican party has gone wayward and want to get back to the roots of their old ways.

But here’s the Kicker, because they are such a small percentage of what has now become the “Republican” Party, running as a separate party holds all most no power for them, and so Ron Paul is now running on a Republican ticket, even though a lot of his ideas are not favorable with the majority of Republicans.

Now recently I remember talking to someone who claimed most of the things he believed in were NOT constant with the Republican party, and yet he plans to vote as a “Republican” just so he can vote for Ron Paul.

Transparency and logic is worthless with that kind of confusion. Both the voter and the candidate are working with a party they don’t like just to get a chance to be in control, while the party they do not like is using them both to stay in power without giving them what they want. If the parties do not hold the candidate accountable for what they stand for, why have a party at all?

The worst part is in some states here, if you choose to vote as a specific party, you are stuck with all your votes going to all the people you specified as your party of choice, wither you agree with them or not, but as an Independent or opposite party, you don’t get to vote in the party primary elections where the top running candidate is chosen for a specific party, so you are locked out of that part of the process.

Now take THAT existing system and add more party options to it. Do you think it would help then?
I don’t.

Any issue, no matter what it is, you are going to have 2 choices to make, “yes” or “no”, and our country is pretty divided on every issue. The two parties have existed as such mainly because that is how it falls. One party represents “yes”, and the other Party represents “ no”. Another party would represent what? “Maybe”? That wouldn’t really help much.

Right now, the divide in party lines is mostly on the Republican grounds, it’s broken up between old school Republicans, Tea Party movement, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and random leftovers that just don’t like Democrats. All of that represents less than half of the country.

Democrats on the other hand have always been more random to begin with because that is their nature. They range from blue dog conservative types to socialists and everything in between, none of which would be any better represented by a smaller party. They all simply represent the opposite of what the other side wants, and with the exception of monetary influence, have nothing in common with Republican standards of this era.

The Republicans are trying to keep their party together as a single party because the smaller the party, the less chance it has for survival against the Democrats. The Democrats are their greatest fear, and that is what keeps them united as a party. They know they do not represent the majority of the people in any smaller group, and in a democracy, that is what it’s all about, the majorities’ will.

 

Let's look at American sucesses. We save New Zealand from the Japanese during WWII. Ingrate. We're glad you are thousands of miles away.

 

With your seven rowing boats and three unmanned gliders.

Every New Zealander already knows that!

 

That's two in one week!

 

I think the subject of why you had to use NZ as a base from which to recover your Pacific empire has been thrashed to death on numerous other threads.

This thread is not about your defeats in WW2.

 

Do some research on ANZAC.

 

I wasn't referring to NZ but the poster's US WWII ignorant claim that the country would not have survived without US involvement.

 

they are responsible for letting corporations hold onto trillions in cash because most businesses vote republican so right now they are sabotaging job growth until the president leaves office

 

Republican successes?

Well, when the Republican party was briefly a progressive party, like with Teddy Roosevelt, or when there were a few PROGRESSIVES in the Republican party during the Civil Rights Era, while most CONSERVATIVES were SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE WHITE BAPTIST CHRISTIANS like BILLY GRAHAM!, in the OLD Democrat Party, while WILLIAM F.BUCKLEY and General Walker, of the John Birch Society, were TOTAL segregationists., and dispised JFK. After LBJ, the Democratic party became Liberal, while the Reagan Republican party at first being centrist, became the Heritage Club, Conservative party under George HW Bush, who Reagan dispised., and which destroyed whatever idealism was left in the "big tent" philosophy of Reagan.

 

When was this?

 

Let's compare to Democrat successes.....

9.1% unemployment for the longest stretch in history despite wasting $840 Billion dollars to fix it, 16.2% Underemployment (where the stimulus jobs went), $4 trillion dollars in new debt in less than 3 years, Foreclosures continue unabated by Obama's efforts to stop it, gasoline hovering around $4 dollars a gallon and food prices skyrocketing.......Obama and the Democrats said they had a plan to fix it, epic fail. What do you think is going to happen? HINT: House of Representatives 2010.

 

Couple of weeks ago now.

 

Link..............

 

What makes you think that's a good idea?

Ordinary people are ... ordinary because they haven't achieved. Money talks in politics because they represent thousands of created jobs. So what you want to do is take power away from people who have achieved success and the ability to influence policy -- people who by the acts they did to EARN success and the things that they had to learn to get that success -- and hand it to people who can barely figure out what foot to put before the other. It sounds good on paper, BUT what happens historically is that the little guys do what they do in their own private lives -- get everything they can today and act shocked when the unexpected happens and they can't deal with it.

I'd rather not. The current system may be skewed towards the top half of the income brackets, but I think the country would be much worse off if you let uneducated unsuccessful people call the shots in a very large very complex economy.

 

I second this:

 

errr...I have just one question for this "learned" person...

ARE YOU INSANE?


Those uneducated people are so because of your country's FAILURE to educate them!
Most "rich" don't EARN their wealth...they are BORN WITH IT!
ESPECIALLY those who's wealth is big enough to actually direct US politics...just ask David Rockefeller.

And T-Baggers complain that they are portrayed as idiots...man read your own posts!

 

I do not know why,other than that Looney Tunes are still funny cartoons at my age, to put a Bugs Bunny post back to the top of the pile for a moment.

 

However, there is alway at least one person who hates Bugs Bunny.

 

This thread is dumb...

There are no political parties...

Just false competition...

Its only to keep the slaves thinking they are getting what they want...

In the end, only a few people will stand behind the curtain...

The rest of humanity, will either be slaves, or dead...

You people need to wake up.

 

Correct. Your political system is just a corporate food fest.

 

Can we get a link for the monkey comment? Or no?