This is incredibly simple!

[Whiplash]

That's six minutes of my life I'll never get back. And to think I could've been watching Fallout trailers instead...

Hehe, I gave up when the big masonic pyramid eye thing dropped down. That was more than enough of Jones' gravely voice I could handle, and the simplistic ideas behind the entire thing were already more than evident.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You mean like in that thingy called Democracy???

Do you understand how a democracy works? A democracy gives power to the majority only, not the minority. That's why we have things like a constitution, to limit the power of democracy and thus giving the minority parties more say.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

you have that backward, the people polarized first and thats why 2 parties became dominant

its not a 2 party "system" as theres nothing that says there can only be 2 major parties and nothing that prevent smaller parties from running candidates

the problem is many americans dont vote for who they want to vote for, they vote for who they think will win, they feel as if voting for a losing candidate is a "wasted" vote, so instead they waste their votes trying to guess who their neighbor voted for

although i wonder how can claim its not democracy when its the people who always vote for the 2 parties? im not sure who said it first but the masses are asses

LOL!

you do realize we don't have a two party system right? There's no limit to how many parties we can have. The problem is that when you have more than two parties, the votes get divided up and ensures a party of a victory. The old divide and conquer. The only way to avoid this is by endorsing two popular parties.

If we had 3 parties and the 3rd party was closer to the democratic party, then the Republicans would win every time. If the 3rd party was similar to the Republican party, then the Democratic party would win every time.

I know you thik you are smart and are unaware that you don't understand these issues, but does this make sense now? Someone who gets their info on how money is created form Ron Paul might have a hard time understanding reality.

 

[332nd]

LOL!

you do realize we don't have a two party system right? There's no limit to how many parties we can have. The problem is that when you have more than two parties, the votes get divided up and ensures a party of a victory. The old divide and conquer. The only way to avoid this is by endorsing two popular parties.

If we had 3 parties and the 3rd party was closer to the democratic party, then the Republicans would win every time. If the 3rd party was similar to the Republican party, then the Democratic party would win every time.

I know you thik you are smart and are unaware that you don't understand these issues, but does this make sense now? Someone who gets their info on how money is created form Ron Paul might have a hard time understanding reality.

... I think you quoted the wrong person in your response.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

LOL!

you do realize we don't have a two party system right? There's no limit to how many parties we can have.

Doh! Ya don't say! Sure in theory there can be an unlimited number of parties, but in practice it's a two party system.

The problem is that when you have more than two parties, the votes get divided up and ensures a party of a victory. The old divide and conquer. The only way to avoid this is by endorsing two popular parties.

If we had 3 parties and the 3rd party was closer to the democratic party, then the Republicans would win every time. If the 3rd party was similar to the Republican party, then the Democratic party would win every time.

I know you thik you are smart and are unaware that you don't understand these issues, but does this make sense now? Someone who gets their info on how money is created form Ron Paul might have a hard time understanding reality.

Oh dear. You let yourself down in your last paragraph. I'm well aware of how money is created thanks.

And your little example fails in that it cites only one combination of parties as a reason to avoid anything other than the current 2 party system.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Doh! Ya don't say! Sure in theory there can be an unlimited number of parties, but in practice it's a two party system.

and in a democracy, whos fault is that?

so what do you propose? a mandatory state-funded 3rd party? the forcible dissolution of the 2 existing parties? because neither of those seem very democratic either

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

and in a democracy, whos fault is that?

It's no one's 'fault' as such . And I wouldn't call a 'system' that allows the public to choose between two heavily vetted candidates a democracy. The people of Iran get to vote between a bunch of heavily vetted candidates and at least they get a choice of more than just two.

so what do you propose? a mandatory state-funded 3rd party? the forcible dissolution of the 2 existing parties? because neither of those seem very democratic either

You ask me what I propose and then offer two alternatives you can criticise? What's that all about?

I would propose neither of those suggestions. And to be honest I offer no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean the current system is the best.

People aren't naturally divided into 2 camps and as such a 2 party system doesn't offer a proper choice.

As a suggestion why not discard the party system altogether and elect people as individuals? This might help avoid the 'toeing of the party line' when they vote on legislation.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's no one's 'fault' as such . And I wouldn't call a 'system' that allows the public to choose between two heavily vetted candidates a democracy. The people of Iran get to vote between a bunch of heavily vetted candidates and at least they get a choice of more than just two.

you have a choice between more than 2, i recall 6 candidates on my presidential ballot in 2004, however the only ones ever elected are from the 2 dominant parties, so i ask again, whos fault is that?

ill give you the answer, its the voters

You ask me what I propose and then offer two alternatives you can criticise? What's that all about?

because ive thought about it for years, those seem to be the only ways to do it

I would propose neither of those suggestions. And to be honest I offer no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean the current system is the best.

but if you cant offer an alternative complaining is worthless, its like me saying it would be nice if i had a million dollars, without a plan to actually get a million dollars its nothing more than idle daydreaming (this is the same point i tried to get across in the zeitgeist addendum thread, to no avail)

People aren't naturally divided into 2 camps and as such a 2 party system doesn't offer a proper choice.

as a rule no, they arent divided into 2, although thats how it turned out in the US, but once again, its not a 2 party "system" as there are other parties

As a suggestion why not discard the party system altogether and elect people as individuals? This might help avoid the 'toeing of the party line' when they vote on legislation.

well wouldnt that fall under forcible dissolution of the parties? there are independent candidates already, but they dont get elected much (which brings me back to the qustion of whos fault that is)

people naturally form groups with like-minded individuals, so unless we make laws to outlaw all political parties they will always exist



it seems that you claim to want a democracy, but only if the masses agree with you, thats kindof bad foundation for democracy

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

but if you cant offer an alternative complaining is worthless

not true.

There's nothing wrong in recognising faults with a system even if you don't, as yet, have a solution.

as a rule no, they arent divided into 2, although thats how it turned out in the US, but once again, its not a 2 party "system" as there are other parties

In practise it's a 2 party system.

well wouldnt that fall under forcible dissolution of the parties?

Forcible dissolution of all parties, not just the 2.

people naturally form groups with like-minded individuals, so unless we make laws to outlaw all political parties they will always exist

Of course, but there's nothing undemocratic about abolishing a party system if such a move is democratically agreed.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

not true.

There's nothing wrong in recognising faults with a system even if you don't, as yet, have a solution.

you can recognize all the faults you want, without a solution its still worthless

In practise it's a 2 party system.

because thats what the voters have made it into, sometimes democracy does things you dont agree with

if the majority decided they dont like either dominant party they are free to elect a third party candidate

Forcible dissolution of all parties, not just the 2.

the concept is the same

Of course, but there's nothing undemocratic about abolishing a party system if such a move is democratically agreed.

and what if its decided democratically to abolish all but 1 party, is that still a democracy?

what if its democratically decided to allow 1 person to rule by decree for the rest of his life? is that still democracy?

theres a fine line between what can be decided by a vote and whats considered a modern democracy

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

you can recognize all the faults you want, without a solution its still worthless

Recognising faults is not worthless. Faults have to be recognised before a solution is sought.

because thats what the voters have made it into, sometimes democracy does things you dont agree with

if the majority decided they dont like either dominant party they are free to elect a third party candidate

So why do most people gravitate to either of the two parties?

and what if its decided democratically to abolish all but 1 party, is that still a democracy?

what if its democratically decided to allow 1 person to rule by decree for the rest of his life? is that still democracy?

theres a fine line between what can be decided by a vote and whats considered a modern democracy

What if 75% of the population voted to legalise murder?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Recognising faults is not worthless. Faults have to be recognised before a solution is sought.

so what are you doing to seek a solution? arguing with random forumgoers seems counterproductive

So why do most people gravitate to either of the two parties?

i dont know, perhaps the problem is a lack of informed voters? although that would a problem with the people, not the system

What if 75% of the population voted to legalise murder?

does this mean you understand my point?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

so what are you doing to seek a solution? arguing with random forumgoers seems counterproductive

Defaulting to that old forum chestnut eh?

Actually discussing issues with random forum goers does help people to understand a lot more about each other. And while we may not agree with each other at least we get to see what goes on in the grass roots of humanity. Befuire the internet forum such access was all but impossible.
What are you on the forum for?

i dont know, perhaps the problem is a lack of informed voters? although that would a problem with the people, not the system

Well I would hazard a guess that most people gravitate towards either of the two parties because they were born into an environment where "that's what people do". A bit like why most people become Muslims in Iran and most people become Catholics in South America

does this mean you understand my point?

It means citing a bunch of "What if it was democratically decided to ....." is no argument against one specific suggestion

 

[Thunder]

Republicans= anti-abortion
Democracts= pro-chpice

Republicans= less govt spending for social programs
Demorats= more govt spending for social programs

Repiublicans= less or no gun control
Democrats= more reasonable gun control

Republican= no national healthcare
Democrats- yes national healthcare

Republicans= more wars whenever we see fit
democrats= less wars, unless the world agrees with us

Um.....the policy differences between Democrats and Republicans add up to trillions of dollars in different spending priorities, and huge differences in freedom and foreign policy.

but just listen to Alex Jones. they are all really just the same.

=)

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Defaulting to that old forum chestnut eh?

Actually discussing issues with random forum goers does help people to understand a lot more about each other. And while we may not agree with each other at least we get to see what goes on in the grass roots of humanity. Befuire the internet forum such access was all but impossible.
What are you on the forum for?

it comes back to what i said in the zeitgeist thread, it seems to me you hope to convince others that a problem exists so they will think of a solution and you dont have to

Well I would hazard a guess that most people gravitate towards either of the two parties because they were born into an environment where "that's what people do". A bit like why most people become Muslims in Iran and most people become Catholics in South America

so perhaps rather than a drastic change in the political structure a little more voter education would prove to have the same result

and thats actually something you can do on forums

It means citing a bunch of "What if it was democratically decided to ....." is no argument against one specific suggestion

my point was that the US (and any modern democracy for that matter) is not a true democracy, and was never intended to be, the constitution has many things in it to prevent whats known as "tyranny of the majority" such as preventing like-minded people from pooling resources and working together towards common goals (IE political parties)

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

it comes back to what i said in the zeitgeist thread, it seems to me you hope to convince others that a problem exists so they will think of a solution and you dont have to

That'a ridiculous assertion of which you have no evidence of

so perhaps rather than a drastic change in the political structure a little more voter education would prove to have the same result

and thats actually something you can do on forums

If there was a proper voter education then I think we would see drastic changes. Including perhaps an abolishment of parties and the introduction of independent candidates.

But on education you hit the crux of the matter I think. Where do the majority of the voters source their education? The media. Who controls the media?

Most people are discouraged from making a proper decision because the media filters information based upon whether it's advantageous or disadvantageous to the people who control the media. And there's also the argument that this filtering also extends to the education system.

Look at Zeitgeist:Addendum as an example. It properly describes the creation of money, using a Federal Reserve document, and yet because this knowledge has successfully been kept out of the mainstream there are many that are finding it very difficult to accept. It's easier for them to simply write it off as propaganda and CT

my point was that the US (and any modern democracy for that matter) is not a true democracy, and was never intended to be, the constitution has many things in it to prevent whats known as "tyranny of the majority" such as preventing like-minded people from pooling resources and working together towards common goals (IE political parties)

.... and I agree there should be constitutional regulations to prevent damaging behaviour. Even if the majority are coerced into agreeing to them.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That'a ridiculous assertion of which you have no evidence of

im statin ghow you appear to me (and likely to others) i was unaware opinions required evidence

If there was a proper voter education then I think we would see drastic changes. Including perhaps an abolishment of parties and the introduction of independent candidates.

there are independent candidates, and if voters are educated there would be no need to abolish parties, you could allow people to make their own decisions if they want to vote for a party-backed candidate or an independent, you know, all democratic-like

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

im statin ghow you appear to me (and likely to others) i was unaware opinions required evidence

I thought evidence was the central core of credibility here? Anyone stating an opinion that 911 is an inside job is immediately asked for evidence.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I thought evidence was the central core of credibility here? Anyone stating an opinion that 911 is an inside job is immediately asked for evidence.

thats because 911 being an inside job is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact

how you appear to me is a matter of my opinion of you


an inability to recognize the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact seems to be a common flaw among many conspiracy theorists

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

thats because 911 being an inside job is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact

Don't be ridiculous. There's no proof either way. Unless you count some admission by one guy.

how you appear to me is a matter of my opinion of you

Well you're entitled to your opinion

an inability to recognize the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact seems to be a common flaw among many conspiracy theorists

Ah one of those associative implications. Another tacky forum tactic. There's a lot of that around here isn't there? A bit like the argument that anyone who criticises the Zionist Movement or the actions of Israel must be an Anti-Semite because well, Anti-Semites use those arguments as well don't they. Thankfully the moderators have acted on one offensive purveyor of such hate today.