• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which party do you think will ultimately wind up dominating the country?

AreaCode707

AreaCode707

Lifer
We're pretty 50/50 now, obviously, but the scale is going to have to tilt someday. Assuming we remain with only two major political parties in the US, which way do you think the scale will tip?

I'm a Republican but I think that the Democrats will have their way in the long run.
 
They will take turns in power.
Always have, always will.

If worse comes to worse for repubs, they will just change policy to be progressive, similar to Progressive Conservatives in Canada.
policy changes with the voters, but based on today's platforms, repubs are doomed for the future.(socially, environmentally, etc)

Both parties have a very important role to play.
 
Same here Stunt they both have their uses. The country being dominated by one or the other is counterproductive to democracy.
(I would like to see even more parties then dems and repubs "dominate" for 4 years or so every once in awhile myself.)
Anyone who thinks one is going to take over forever is full of their own partisan bs.
(unless one dominates and runs this country into the ground and there is no more US...fat chance.)
 
Well, if there is any truth to the electronic voting machine conspiracy, this answer could be much easier 😉
hehe
 
Fifty years from now, it's hard to even imagine the existance of a Dem and Repub party that is in likeness of today's parties.
 
I think that the political anarchists will continue to perpetuate the massive delusion of governmental authority.
 
damn you and you political anarchist stuff. I am checking some stuff out from the library about it...., so you think snowcrash isn't worth getting if your not into fiction?
SFPL has it but you say no good?

 
Dissipate, you are definately extreme libertarian...no government whatsoever.
You must realize to get the system you want --> no system, the one we currently have must full out fail...
Therefore when you vote, do you:
a) vote libertarian and hope the system continues towards anarchy
b) vote for the party you think will make the country fail
c) not vote and advocate through the internet

If b), who might that be 😉...i've seen you bash bush for neoconservatism and lack of fiscal responsibility, and i've seen your disgust with the dems over social spending and progressive mindset in terms of taxation and whatnot.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
I am an Independent and I hate all Politicians

Politician = flesh with no soul
Click to expand...
I like a lot of politicians, i find most are genuine and are trying hard to do the best they can for their people.
I find this far more evident in Canada where politicans have much less power and are scrutinized even within party lines.
A perfect example is our prime minister and newfoundland premier where they are both very successful business owners, willing to give it up for serving the country.
Our prime minister is actually worth more than Bush and Cheney combined.
Although there seems to be a lot of under the table deals in the US that are less evident here, again due to less gov't money and newly imposed regulations on contract bids and whatnot 🙂
 
The way things are going now, I don't see the democrats coming back any time soon. They might win the Presidency one of the years, but no way they are taking back congress or the senate any time soon. The majority Republicans hold is too strong to just take back in a few years, it took us a decade to build that majority. Assuming Bush has a successful 2nd term and the democrats run the usual contenders (Hillary,Dean,Lieberman), the Republicans will win by a bigger margin than this 2004 election. Hillary will not, I repeat, WILL NOT win in 2008. Not only do people hate her but we aren't ready for a woman President.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
The way things are going now, I don't see the democrats coming back any time soon. They might win the Presidency one of the years, but no way they are taking back congress or the senate any time soon. The majority Republicans hold is too strong to just take back in a few years, it took us a decade to build that majority. Assuming Bush has a successful 2nd term and the democrats run the usual contenders (Hillary,Dean,Lieberman), the Republicans will win by a bigger margin than this 2004 election. Hillary will not, I repeat, WILL NOT win in 2008. Not only do people hate her but we aren't ready for a woman President.
Click to expand...
So it took a decade to get a majority from the democrats...
hrm, so what you are saying is that it is completely feasible for the dems to take it back in 10 if they work real hard?
If you disagree with this statement, you'd be as ignorant as the dems 10 years ago who thought they were there to stay😛
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
The way things are going now, I don't see the democrats coming back any time soon. They might win the Presidency one of the years, but no way they are taking back congress or the senate any time soon. The majority Republicans hold is too strong to just take back in a few years, it took us a decade to build that majority. Assuming Bush has a successful 2nd term and the democrats run the usual contenders (Hillary,Dean,Lieberman), the Republicans will win by a bigger margin than this 2004 election. Hillary will not, I repeat, WILL NOT win in 2008. Not only do people hate her but we aren't ready for a woman President.
Click to expand...

Nobody was saying it would swing back in the Dems favor any time soon, we're talking eventually here. And as much as you might like it, the Republicans won't hold sway for too long any more than the Dems have (or the Repubs have in the past). It goes back and forth, nothing I've seen suggest current Republican domination is here to stay.

They have to be especially careful right now. They're on top, and everybody knows it. If they don't take advantage of it these next 4 years, they might be going down sooner than everybody thinks.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ntdz
The way things are going now, I don't see the democrats coming back any time soon. They might win the Presidency one of the years, but no way they are taking back congress or the senate any time soon. The majority Republicans hold is too strong to just take back in a few years, it took us a decade to build that majority. Assuming Bush has a successful 2nd term and the democrats run the usual contenders (Hillary,Dean,Lieberman), the Republicans will win by a bigger margin than this 2004 election. Hillary will not, I repeat, WILL NOT win in 2008. Not only do people hate her but we aren't ready for a woman President.
Click to expand...

Nobody was saying it would swing back in the Dems favor any time soon, we're talking eventually here. And as much as you might like it, the Republicans won't hold sway for too long any more than the Dems have (or the Repubs have in the past). It goes back and forth, nothing I've seen suggest current Republican domination is here to stay.

They have to be especially careful right now. They're on top, and everybody knows it. If they don't take advantage of it these next 4 years, they might be going down sooner than everybody thinks.
Click to expand...

of course it won't stay, I don't think it will. Democrats will eventually wrestle control back, but I just don't think it'll be in the near future.
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
damn you and you political anarchist stuff. I am checking some stuff out from the library about it...., so you think snowcrash isn't worth getting if your not into fiction?
SFPL has it but you say no good?
Click to expand...

No, I said I haven't read it. I was thinking about picking up the Diamond Age, by the same author, but I started reading De Jasay's Against Politics instead. I haven't read a fiction book for several years now. I think it is somewhat popular within libertarian/anarcho-capitalist circles though.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Dissipate, you are definately extreme libertarian...no government whatsoever.
You must realize to get the system you want --> no system, the one we currently have must full out fail...
Therefore when you vote, do you:
a) vote libertarian and hope the system continues towards anarchy
b) vote for the party you think will make the country fail
c) not vote and advocate through the internet

If b), who might that be 😉...i've seen you bash bush for neoconservatism and lack of fiscal responsibility, and i've seen your disgust with the dems over social spending and progressive mindset in terms of taxation and whatnot.
Click to expand...

For a short time I thought the best route was A. Then I thought, who was I kidding? How can I participate in a process in which I supposedly "transfer" to politicians authority that I do not have, no matter how "libertarian" their platform is? Even leaving that issue aside, voting is about the last thing an individual could do to change anything politically. A single vote is like putting a tiny grain of sand on a humungous scale (especially in the much ballyhooed presidential elections). Thinking that you have anything more than an astronomically small say in which way the scale tips is delusional. Now I just go with C, and of course I talk to friends and family about my views when the topics arise also.

See: Why Voting is Crap

The country is already starting to fail. Politicians started the process of destroying the country since elections started to be held over 200 years ago. Back then of course the government was a heck of a lot smaller, but the seeds had been planted for the mega-statism that everyone has grown to "accept" today.

I think the Democrat vs. Republican debate is one of the stupidest debates of all time. Not all too long ago when I thought there was actually some substance to this debate, I would still question whether the two parties were any different from each other. Now I realize they are just two different sects of a religious cult of voters.

In the end, anyone who believes that people have the same rights cannot possibly believe in "government," because "government" supposes some superhuman right to rule other people. When monarchies were in fashion, this right for the king to rule was believed to be a divine right bestowed to him by God. Now people believe politicians are granted a right to rule through a cult ritual we call voting and the king's divine right to rule was simply replaced with a new fiction called the "social contract." In time I think people will grow to realize that this is just as silly as believing in kings having divine authority. What I find interesting is that so-called intellectual political philosophy professors at universities across the country are still spouting authoritarian garbage, while rather pseudo-intellectual individuals have stumbled upon the truth. I guess it lends weight to the idea that you can be so smart you wind up being really stupid.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Nobody was saying it would swing back in the Dems favor any time soon, we're talking eventually here. And as much as you might like it, the Republicans won't hold sway for too long any more than the Dems have (or the Repubs have in the past). It goes back and forth, nothing I've seen suggest current Republican domination is here to stay.

They have to be especially careful right now. They're on top, and everybody knows it. If they don't take advantage of it these next 4 years, they might be going down sooner than everybody thinks.
Click to expand...

The only reason the Republicans won is because many Americans were more concerned about national security than the economy. Without the September 11 attacks, the Republicans would have lost because of their failure to deal with or to even acknowledge the nation's economic problems.

Let's see. Bush was the first president since Hoover to end up with a net loss of jobs under his administration while the population of working aged people increased dramatically (by as much as 6.4 million, possibly).

George Bush -- Lots of Excuses -- Massive job losses.

Of course, I dont think the Democrats are any better on the economics front. Neither party believes in pursuing Americans' rational economic selfish interest. If they did, they'd be pushing to cut immigration to a trickle and to abolish illegal immigration, as well as dealing with our international trade deficit and the problem of middle class Americans being displaced by foreign workers on H-1B and L-1 visas.

It's just a shame that Bush was re-elected. He should have lost as a matter of principle for his failure on the economy. In the future, Bush might be remembered as the president who presided over the beginning of the nation's transformation into a third world country.

 
Originally posted by: DissipateIn the end, anyone who believes that people have the same rights cannot possibly believe in "government," because "government" supposes some superhuman right to rule other people.
Click to expand...

You sound like a full-blown anarchist and not merely an advocate of capitalism (with a government to protect individuals against the initiation of physical force).

Who would regulate physical force under your system? Wouldn't the party with the ability to do that be the de facto government? The issue is not whether or not to have a government, but which one to have--warring gangs with a dictatorship of whoever happens to have control over an area at the moment--or a stable, just, elected government?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top