I get democracy, actually fully embrace it upon the principle of it.. I get having options to choose from in an electoral cycle. They are the fundamentals of what this country born to be.. land of democracy and freedom.

One can understand fundamental differences in visions upon the principles in which a state or a nation should be governed. We can debate how much or how little a government should influence or rule a society and to what extent. Each citizen of this nation seems to vary a bit here or there on those simple questions, so with this thread I hope to steer clear of that, at least in the outset.

My query here is why do we allow a two party system to dictate policy, candidates and the basic cash flow of this society?

Couple basic thoughts:

* Is it by design to keep the citizens of this country divided?

By setting it up as a simple fence, one party against the other; we the people never truly can align for the betterment of the country. Both parties in the end, really only serve on common primary goal; to keep themselves in power. Sure, once upon a time there were actual interests of the people at hand as a primary goal. But today's system is keep the party in control so they can dictate the flow of the cash; both in governmental operation but just as importantly in campaign funding through favorable passage of laws, acts and policy.

* Do the Parties really have defined party lines anymore?

The lines between Left and Right used to have more definition, today, it seems like one cobbled mess just to appeal to the masses to gain votes. Once elected, there really is little in terms of distinction between the parties. It really comes down to whom is funding more and what their views upon regulation is.

* Why should we the people of this nation continue to allow this drain upon the society as a whole continue?

From local coffee shops to the steps of state and federal buildings you have citizens fighting each other over what really? Convoluted party lines? Are the parties really just feeding our competitive fires between each other in hopes that we really never look at the big picture, stop and say enough?

Each electoral cycles sees billions spent in election campaigns to keep the mega corporations achieving record profits while the backbone of the country is eroding at a varying pace. We are seeing greater and greater divides between the haves and the have not's and not all can be explained away by lack of effort or sweat equity.

I am not a Union man, I think the unions have eroded over the years to just another profit generator for those in control of said union. But the fundamental principles of a union, those I can agree with. But that would be my vision of a backbone of a government instead of a opponent or in some cases a partner with it.

The more I internally ask the questions, the more I think why the hell do we continue to accept it. Why do we chose to embrace one corrupt party over another? Can it really be because we are too timid to challenge either for a better option?

Or have they truly won.. they have divided a nation for their own self preserving good?

---

Many of the founding fathers would embrace a two-party system with a divided country specifically because public opinion rarely makes for good policy. By having a country of divided people, we're much less likely to see massive damage done in a short time period.

That being said, our current parties are a joke and adding one or two more major parties wouldn't hurt.

Personally, I think people just aren't educated enough and involved enough in politics to see past the rhetoric. Just try to have a political discussion with a random stranger live or on the internet, and see just how closed-minded and worked up most people are. PackersHome is certainly the most rational place I've had political discussions on, but that's not to say that there still aren't people that are particularly extreme and more interested in blaming a specific person or party than talking about the actual issues (which neither party is doing a good job of fixing) and how to fix them in the real world, not just an ideal world.

Is it true that Presidential candidates can't spend their money to fund their campaign, but rather money donated? This seems like a major conflict of interest to me. Big Corp A donates millions to your campaign because you'll give them tax relief, ... obviously its not that cut and dry, but the principle stands.

It seems very slanted to me. The campaigns should be fined for saying something negative about the other party. They should each have 30 second commercials back to back of their opponent and spend equal amounts for their campaign. Who has the damn time to research both of them equally to find out the truths? It's annoying how everything seems to have a slant or an agenda.

---

Agreed in the historical nature of it and fundamental design.. but like any other facet of society it is going to evolve and being human nature start to be driven by greed.

And we over the centuries have allowed that to morph into the party dung we have today.

The founding fathers had a mechanism in place, amendments, to allow for change in the constitution due to growth and need. I firmly believe they thought we the people would be able to keep the candidates in check.. we have failed to do so.

---

Why have we let them?

I blame public education, sucky parenting, and higher ed.

I can't speak to the generation before mine, but we now have three generations working on four (boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, Gen whatever today's primary/secondary school kids are called) who have had shit education about civic responsibility, the nature of the American Experiment (Madison, Jefferson, federalists AND anti-federalists, Tocqueville, the Stamp Act and the tea party, Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke).

And the people teaching the teachers -- they are equally ignorant. What passes for "intellectual" conversation in my lifetime? Sarah Palin, Cornell West, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, NPR, and FoxNews/CNN talking know-nothings.

Anyone who has even basic training in rhetoric and logic should be able to identify and ignore empty or contradictory speech. Yet we're all captive of Madison Avenue. We saw Reagan as the Great Communicator (when he was nothing more than a B-movie actor speaking to our prejudices, and we think Obama a great orator when he hasn't said anything but babble since he hit the national stage. (Ted Kennedy gave a better speech and one with more content than the one everyone salivated over at that Democratic convention where BO "burst on the scene."

That's why I have a hard time being optimistic about this country.

The Founders were far from perfect -- some still believed in slavery, and far too many were federalist types, and by today's standards Sam Adams and Tom Paine might be labelled terrorists. (Today's Tea Party gets jeers, sneers, and put-downs as "dangerous," but they would be altar boys and flower girls next to people like Adams and Paine.) But at least those founders were well-educated and seriously literate.

And they were so regardless of their background. Paine, for example, was educated as apprentice to a corset maker and was a failed merchant. Yet his Common Sense (which gets mentioned in virtually every high school American history course but which neither the high school students nor their teachers nor their teachers' teachers have ever read) is better written and is more thoughtful/logical/well-argued than 90 percent of the writing by PhD's in economics, political science, and economic/political philosophy or by 99% of the editorialists of the New York Times or by 99.9% of the morons who opine on Fox and CNN.

I hang out here in "Random Babble" because you all give me hope that there are still thoughtful and careful thinkers out there in America. But, and I hate to say this, even though we of Packers Home regularly have conversations that quality-wise are probably two standard deviations above the national average, we aren't in the Founders' league.

So why do the Two Empty-of-Thinking Parties have so much power, Shawn?

Because we're a nation made up of three-plus generations of ignoramuses ignorant even of the extent of our ignorance.

---

That really would have little to no impact, unless you say that private organizations that run ads should be held to the same standards, which I think would be a major attack on free speech. I hate the constant negative ads just as much as the next guy, but forcefully removing the negative only gives us different problems and makes it a lot easier for sleazy candidates to hide from the public. Just like any other form of speech we don't want to hear, we're capable of ignoring it (not that it isn't still annoying but it helps).

Overall, you're in the same boat as the vast majority of Americans: Too busy working and in many cases taking care of a family to do your own research regarding candidates. So, we rely on slanted and obviously biased media, and political ads to tell us who the candidates are and what they stand for. And this gives us a terrible idea of who they are and what they stand for, and what they will do when they get in office.

There's no real easy fix to that, all I can really recommend to people with limited time is to expose themselves to a varied media selection. Get your news from CNN and Fox on TV or on the internet, listen to talk radio, read a liberal newspaper. You'll get slanted political bullshit and selective memory from their "journalism", but at least you'll get it from both sides. And if both sides agree on something, chances are it's true.

Brutally honest.. I don't want to vote this cycle. I literally want to do things, with recent law changes, that would get me arrested. lol. But honestly is there a candidate worth voting for? If so.. please advise why?

I feel like a fish looking out to the world from behind the glass trapped within my own contains.

I don't see how, without radical change, that we take control of this country back.

Neither of the Party options present a solution in my eyes.. they are options though. Yahoo it is a democracy.

To be fair.. I have only read two thirds of Ryan's plan.. maybe the answer is in the other third and will somehow magically cancel out the other two thirds. [palm]

---

The thing with plans is ... do they ever get fully implemented?

---

Wade - so please advise how we change that?

Internet kill switch, bans on peaceful protests. The withering of our constitutional rights by both parties over the past couple of decades.

Lesser of the two evils approach has failed.. neither is interested in the betterment of this country as a primary objective.

Have become slaves to the two parties?

---

I would HATE to be the President who flips the internet kill switch. I almost guarantee they will not be re-elected. Has there ever been something similar done before?

The internet fuels THOUSANDS of businesses ... wow ... just the thought of the uproar is borderline frightening.

---