Eh... I actually like Mitt Romney and think he would do fine. That being said, I can't really disagree with your final statement there. The two party system sucks.
President Obama does it again!
- Thread starter Hermskii
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I like the two party system. All this crap we're seeing in Europe with 5 parties, and unity governments, and will they be able to form a coalition? It's a complete mess. America's two party system is part of what makes it successful. It's the perfect check. It's why some of the more stupid ideas (like socialism) haven't taken root over here like they have in Europe.
I don't think that has anything to do with the party systems, I think it has to do with how our governments are set up. The Constitution doesn't expressly set up the party system, but it allows for a fluid transfer of power. As I understand it, European countries have more rigid transfers of power that require (especially in parliamentary systems) a dissolution of the government. Again, probably nothing to do with the party system.
I think that it is such a mess because of the quick turnover of different parties/ideologies. The US only had a handful of other dominant parties (Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, and the like), and we have been quite stable with ideology (regardless of what the current two parties say).
Last edited:
bank bailouts (Republican administration)?
that's socialism.
auto bailouts (Democratic administration)?
that's socialism.
publicly maintained roads?
that's socialism.
social security?
that's socialism.
food stamps and workers comp?
that's socialism.
medicaid and CHIP (children's medicaid)?
that's socialism.
subsidized housing?
that's socialism.
Federal pell grants?
that's socialism.
pretty much all veteran's benefits?
that's socialism.
pretty much all active-duty subsidies?
that's socialism.
pretty much all Congressional benefits?
that's socialism.
public schools?
that's socialism.
public parks and libraries?
that's socialism.
police and fire departments?
that's socialism.
garbage collection?
that's socialism.
public transportation?
that's socialism.
but you're right.
it's a good thing these stupid ideas never took root here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave where we proudly recognize the stark contrasts between liberty and communism.
now excuse me while I go eat my apple pie and masturbate to pictures of Jesus Christ.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
lol
D)
Socialism is reliance on the state. Every country needs some socialism but some countries overdo it. You guys in the US are lucky as you're not plagued with it like we are.
D)Socialism is reliance on the state. Every country needs some socialism but some countries overdo it. You guys in the US are lucky as you're not plagued with it like we are.
lol
Socialism is reliance on the state. Every country needs some socialism but some countries overdo it. You guys in the US are lucky as you're not plagued with it like we are.
Well, we overdo it with equating money with free speech. Now (thanks to a piss-poor decision from the SCOTUS), unlimited amounts of money can float around without knowing who (person or people-corporation) it came from.
I also challenge this assumption. Why does it matter that there's lots of money involved in political campaigns? Why does it matter that we don't necessarily know who donates to the groups? Do you really have so little faith in the democratic process to think that it only functions well when government exercises tight control over it? More money just means that we're subjected to the election advertisements more. This means awareness, and a better educated electorate. There's so much money floating around now that it really doesn't even matter who spent more. Even fringe candidates like Newt Gingrich are able to get their message out effectively.
I damn well have the right to know who the money comes from if it is to elect someone to public office. In private elections or ad campaigns, I really don't care much, but if it is going toward elected public officials who's decision directly affects my life, I'd like to know. I'd want to know because whoever donates to the candidate is who (like stockholders of corporations) the elected candidate will primarily cater to. And the kicker is that there will be no way to prove that there is a conflict of interest. If we really wanted transparency in the public sphere, we would like to know who donates.
I take offense when you question my faith in the democratic process. The democratic process works well when there is a level playing field, where everyone has equal say and equal transparency. Not when the field is flooded with money where you have no clue where it even came from. I have faith in the democratic process, but this faith and the process is undermined with things like the Citizens United ruling.
About the increase in advertisements: It is true with more money there is more exposure. But you are assuming this extra exposure is all good. It does mean awarness, but it most certainly does not mean a better educated electorate. Smear campaigns will increase, facts will be twisted, positions distorted. The only 'truth' would be like in 1984, whatever is written and said and not what happened. Think about the internet. The internet is a cheap and easy place to publish information, but a great amount of the information is garbage and has negative value. The same thing will happen (read: is happening) when the money floodgates open.
oh I like how TWD totally ignores that stupid point he made about socialism and changes the subject.
that's some high-level Mormon mental agility if I ever saw it...
or are you just looking for any excuse to support the fellow Joseph Smith cock sucker?
seriously.
I didn't used to think you were this dense. but you're changing my mind with record pace.
are you retarded?
no one has to tell the truth in political ads.
the FCC and FDA will slaughter the makers of Cheeze-Wiz if they lie about their canned and pressurized fake cheese spray. but there is NO governing body on behalf of political ads.
more ads does NOT equal better education or awareness.
that's such an absurd and ignorant statement to make.
that's some high-level Mormon mental agility if I ever saw it...
do you honestly - seriously, literally - not understand why Citizens United was a terrible decision?
or are you just looking for any excuse to support the fellow Joseph Smith cock sucker?
seriously.
I didn't used to think you were this dense. but you're changing my mind with record pace.
true.
so fucking false.
are you retarded?
no one has to tell the truth in political ads.
the FCC and FDA will slaughter the makers of Cheeze-Wiz if they lie about their canned and pressurized fake cheese spray. but there is NO governing body on behalf of political ads.
more ads does NOT equal better education or awareness.
that's such an absurd and ignorant statement to make.
yea... terrible decision if you want the FEC to have the power to ban books and have the power to decide what corporations are the "press". Does anyone even realize what that case was really about? Anyone care to actually look into it and stop regurgitating the "money is speech" tripe? sigh...
I can't wait for you to enlighten us....
...you know, as opposed to dropping by just to say nothing.
Yes, money means more awareness, and more awareness GREATLY increases the chances for election, meaning that it is less about which candidate is better, but is which candidate is pleasing the corporations with the biggest pockets. Meaning, essentially, that our elections are being bought. Or are you unaware that the most donations go to the people with the most ability to financially affect a corporate interest?
This seems like a pretty pointless discussion, but I will say ^ this and Obama still got elected?
you know as well as anyone that 2008 was not a typical election.
no amount of money in the universe could have saved John McCain from Sarah Palin.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
It does seem to me that the American elections are not free to everyone.. They seem to be only for the very wealthy (and well connected).
I read this as buying your way into power with Bush being a prime example.
Maybe a cap on the amount of money spent on campaigning would help (is there one already?).
BTW my fav was Regan. Not sure why.
I read this as buying your way into power with Bush being a prime example.
Maybe a cap on the amount of money spent on campaigning would help (is there one already?).
BTW my fav was Regan. Not sure why.
Last edited:
I think my point was that Obama's campaign raked in millions of dollars from rich sponsors as well
Sounds pretty typical to me.