An End to the 2-Party System?

Which part is false? The fact that it isn't very long? Well, if you're used to reading the side of cereal boxes, I guess it would seem long to you. The part fact that "any high school graduate should be able to read the whole thing within an hour"? No, that's actually one of the educational standards in the state I grew up in. Most of us completed it easily.

and non sequitur.

Click to expand...

Not at all. He seemed shocked that I had read it in 35 minutes. I responded that it isn't surprising that someone could read it in 35 minutes, because it isn't that long, and a high school senior would be able to do it within an hour. For an adult with two masters degrees, 35 minutes is not shocking at all.

Perhaps you need to look up the phrase "non sequitur." I don't think it means what you think it means.

Not knowing how long it takes to read something is not evidence one has not read it.

Click to expand...

Umm, yes, it kinda is.

If you read something, you know how long it took you to read it. Unless you have a specific mental disorder that prevents you from having a sense of time. (There are people who don't notice time passing -- victims of strokes, or people with TBIs, for example, but this is extremely rare.)

Climbing a tree gives you an idea of how long it takes to climb a tree.

Driving to the store gives you an idea of how long it takes to drive to the store.

I can't believe I have to explain this. Are you really that stupid, or are you just looking for an excuse to argue, and you can't find one unless you make stuff up?

My point wasn't to accuse you of not reading it. My point was to say that it isn't at all surprising that a person, in general, might be able to read it in 35 minutes.

Let's review.

I had said:
You responded:
The italics, bolding, and crazy emoji imply that you couldn't believe it. For some reason, you thought it was impossible for someone to re-read the document in 35 minutes.

In fairness, I did not peruse it thoroughly, contemplating each sentence. I skimmed it, since I've read it many times before, watching for specific words and phrases. It took me about 5-10 minutes. And yes, I am a speed-reader. So I don't expect everyone to be able to read as fast as I do. But it is not a long document, and it doesn't take long to read, even if you take your time about it.

My point in bringing that up is to point out that so many people have NOT read it, and have no clue what it is or what, exactly, it says. It is a very short read. It's surprising how few people have taken the time to read it once, let alone several times. That is a crying shame.

If you've read it many times, you should not be surprised that it took me only 35 minutes to read it. So either you were being facetious about your surprise, or you mis-spoke, or you're not being honest about something. Whatever it is, it really doesn't warrant the amount of e-space it's already received, and I couldn't care less, but the lengths some people go to to pick a fight about absolutely anything, even when it's easily disproved, is beyond me.

You have serious comprehension problems.

I'll tell you what: I'll give you a clue!

I have read some books multiple times, but could not
tell you how long it took to read any of those books.

So claiming that not knowing how long it takes to read something is evidence that that something has not been read is patently false, and a logical fallacy to boot. Not sorry to burst your delusional bubble.

I actually like this post because the two party system doesn't offer representation to everyone. It's antiquated and I think the public is past the point of tolerance.

(I'm not voting in your poll because there are more options than the ones provided and my answer isn't listed.)

In a perfect system all people would receive representation. We cannot have a free society without equal and fair representation for all; even unpopular ideas and opinions deserve a fair shake.

Our current two party system is barely hanging on by a thread and I doubt they would give up power easily, hence their resistance to actually resolving corruption.

In American governments nepotism is rampant. Families burrow in and form dynasties that last generations. Being on positions of power they create rules for themselves that give them the greatest survival advantages.

Really there just needs to be a reset. We need to see incentive that attracts the best political talent without creating a power vacuum for more extremists fill.

It'll all never really be perfect because of the human element with the sinful nature fully intact, but representation for all is a good start.

Trump has the momentum to form his own political party. His voting base is huge and quite frankly they don't want anyone else. Next party: Trumpicans?

You need a clue.

If you can't remember what you read, I'm not the one with comprehension problems.

I would love to hear your idea(s) for what values, specifically, you think a party should have. I've mentioned this in other threads.

I am not really political, but, as with most everyone, I do have opinions .

My idea of the most perfect Political Party:

Christian based values
Honesty and Integrity in Campaigns and Service (if elected)
Belief in Financial Responsibility
Belief in a Helping Hand Up for those who honestly need such
Belief in National Security
Belief that Multi Million Dollar Corporations do not deserve more representation than those at or below the Poverty Level
Belief in Secure Borders while still exhibiting Open Arms to those seeking to legally become Citizens of our Nation
Belief in the Constitution as our Nations Legal/Social Foundation
Belief in Equal Opportunity with serious efforts to end prejudice at all levels of our Society/Government

(probably more, if I worked at it)

The reason I am not really political is because there never will be a Political Party that meets these beliefs in my opinion. I do not believe in choosing the "lesser of two evils" simply because there is no other choice. I am not aware of any situation in Scripture where Jesus did such or taught us to do such.

Someone please tell HM that reading the constitution in 35 mins. isn't the same as understanding it and putting it in to practice. Because if you did, you wouldn't put Dems into office.

179 nations agreed to United Nations Agenda 21 in 1992 which the United Nations wants a global government by 2030.

The only way a global government can happen is if all people are compatible with each other economically which they will have to collapse the economy on purpose which the stimulus checks is a pattern for basic income.

Take away all division between people rich and poor, police and citizen, and social status.

They will have to have a balance between communism and democracy, and a balance between atheism and spirituality which is the new age movement which they interpret the Bible according to the occult and evolution, and believe people are still evolving to be spiritual, and Jesus is not Lord and Savior, but a good teacher and love, and evolved to be an ascended master, and believe in no personal God, but honor the God of forces, or the power of nature as their higher power the evolutionary process, and the New Age Christ is the final teacher.

President Donald Trump played the bad guy on purpose to cause fighting between Republican and Democrat because he wants a balance between them in the long run.

Black lives matter was pushing a socialist, Democrat, liberal agenda, which the founders claim to be trained Marxists, and to start Agenda 21 by wanting equality and defund the police.

This made the Republicans mad as they stocked up on guns and ammunition thinking there might be a civil war.

Donald Trump wants to start a new party called the Patriot Party so he did not want to be re-elected but was playing the role that he did want to be re-elected.

Donald Trump was playing a role the whole time, and playing the bad guy on purpose for the agenda of disbanding Republican and Democrat and having a balance between them that will be compatible with the global government to come.

This new party is what could cause the Republicans and Democrats to get along as both Republicans and Democrats will join this new party and when the ball gets rolling they will get along more and both parties joining more.

People are fed up with Republican and Democrat fighting and they might be coming in droves by both parties that could lead to the disbanding of Republican and Democrat and stop the fighting.

Then Donald Trump will look like the good guy, and favored by the people, and the way it is done is by allowing the people to make the decision to join so they will not know it was a plan all along.

Donald Trump knew what he was doing and had to play the bad guy, and cause fighting between Republican and Democrat so that he can form a new party and join them together.

He was playing a role and used the presidency to carry out his plan for he wants a global government and he knows what must be done to cause it to happen.

I believe that government is probably necessary to regulate the raving masses, but I'm well behaved and don't need a lot of rules to deter me from stealing, killing, and destroying. I'm just a good guy.

So for me I would be good with either anarchy or a Christian theocracy. I admit this wouldn't work well in a country as diverse as the US but it would work well for me.

I'm also not a fan of big governments that just want more and more our money. We're taxed just enough to be kept from getting a leg up over the fence.

One of the weaknesses of our economic system is that is creates winners, losers, different classes, and inevitably inequality. Now that large conglomerates have filled every niche market, there's no way to compete with them except for by inventing something new: better start praying for a miracle.

The system is over played and maxed out. I don't know what a better option is except redistribution of wealth and a reset. I'm not in favor of socialism either. I like the idea that people can sink or swim based on their own merit.

I like a lot of this.

Here are a few concerns I have, though.

But who gets to decide which Christian-based values?
The Catholic Church (which is the largest Christian Church in the world, and in the U.S., with a membership of over 68 million)?
If you think the Catholics are "not Christian," then perhaps the Protestants are more your speed? Mainliners have a US membership of over 35 million -- the next largest group -- with more than half of them Democrats, accepting equal rights for gays, being pro-choice, and opposing school vouchers. The point here isn't that one person is "wrong" and another "right," but that one person's idea of "Christian based values" isn't necessarily what another's person's idea is, and they all use Scripture to arrive at their opinions. Who gets to decide which interpretation of Scripture is correct?

I am 100% with you on this one.

To my knowledge, both parties talk about this, but neither one has actually done anything about it.

Here's another one that is nebulous. Who gets to decide what is "financially responsible"?

A great example of this is school lunches.

In many school districts, children from low-income families receive free breakfasts and lunches at school. For many years in my city, children who were not from low-income families had to either send one from home with their child, or pay for the school lunch, and either have their child eat breakfast at home or pay for the one provided at school. However, a few years back, a consultant pointed out that the amount of money the school district was spending on accounting for the non-low-income students -- accountants to figure out which students qualified and which didn't, cashiers to count which students were not entitled to free food, systems to notify parents when funds were low, etc. -- the cost of this system was far more than the cost would have been simply to prepare food for all the kids, even the ones who weren't "low income." It was actually cheaper just to feed all the kids, and not worry about which kids "deserved" free meals and which kids should pay for it. So now all kids get free breakfasts and lunches at school, whether they are poor or not. This is "financial responsibility." Sure, some kids still bring a lunch from home, and eat breakfast at home. But the option is there for kids whether they "need" it or not, and the school is saving money because of it. Therefore, taxpayers are saving money!

I could go down the list and show how almost every Republican fiscal policy is actually the most financially IRRESPONSIBLE position. Republicans are notorious for being "penny wise and pound foolish." They don't want to give "free health care" to poor people, so instead poor people can't afford to go to the doctor, and wait until conditions are critical, and end up in the hospital, where they cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day, when, had they just gone to the doctor, they could easily have been treated for a fraction of that. The liberal concept of socialized medicine isn't (just) about being a bleeding heart and wanting to help poor people; it's actually more fiscally responsible.

Education. The environment. Unemployment. Almost every issue actually can be made better by throwing money at it. In most cases, the money comes back tenfold or better. This is fiscal responsibility.

Again, 100%

And how would this be done? Who provides the "helping hand up"? Is this mandated, or will people magically become more charitable, just because you say so? It's a lovely sentiment, but if it were as simple as, "Just help poor people out," don't you think we'd be doing it already?

I'm not sure I can get behind this one, not knowing the details.

If "national security" means we arm to the teeth, decrease our acceptance of immigrants and refugees, close embassies around the world, etc., then I'm not with you. These are the sorts of things that are often touted as "tough on security," but they actually make us less secure, not more. Increasing diversity has been shown to increase diplomacy and international relations. That is the right direction for national, and international security.

Also, a lot of people think of "national security" as being "security against external threats." As we learned on January 6 this year, the threat from within our own borders is far worse. Programs to control internal threats, route out domestic terrorism and clamp down on hate groups would go further towards national security than the highest border wall you can build.

1,000,000% agree!!!!

Both parties have a bad record on this. The Democrats are slightly better than the Republicans, but only slightly.

Ah, you've gone into more detail of the "national security" bit. I appreciate that.

Fact: All Americans are descendants of immigrants; the only question is how far back do you want to go? Even indigenous people immigrated, thousands of years ago. A majority of white Americans are descended from people who came between 1880 and 1920. Some came before.

Fact: Under the current immigration laws (based on the Immigration Act of 1924, and amended only a little since then), MOST of those people would NOT be allowed in.

If your ancestors came to this country before 1924, the chances are VERY high that you would not be ALIVE if the current immigration laws were in place when your ancestors came. Yet, you think it's okay to place those same restrictions on others, denying them the very thing that has given you life?

There is nothing "legal" or "moral" about that.

It's not okay to say "we need to enforce the law" when the law is, at its core, immoral. We must CHANGE the law, and until the law is changed, we must refuse to enforce it.

If there were a law to shoot Christians on sight, you would agree that we should REFUSE TO ENFORCE the law, right?

Again, I 100% concur. However, this contradicts your first desire for "Christian-based values." The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. If you think laws should be based on Christianity, then you don't think that non-Christians should have the same rights. So you're going to need to pick one or the other, because you can't have both.

Personally, I don't think our laws should be based on Christianity. Our laws should be based on what's best for the people. Often, that happens to coincide with Christianity, and when it does, that's awesome. But if it doesn't, then the law of the land needs to concern itself with the people, not with religion.

Another 1000% from me on this. Again, easier said than done, but if we can just get everyone to agree that this is even a problem, that's half the battle. I appreciate that you agree this is still a problem. I think too many people say that there isn't any more racism, or sexism, or whateverism, that white people are the "endangered people" now, and I appreciate seeing you're not one of them.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

HB

I dont know if the US wants to change their system, but in nz we voted for MMP in a referendum. This was back in 1993.

I dont know what other countries have but Im sure theres plenty of others that have proportional representation as well.

link to how it works in nz...
https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/what-is-the-mmp-voting-system/

Two party system has become a misnomer. We have a choice between socialism lite and socialism max. Our constitutional republic has deteriorated into democratic socialism and will continue to deteriorate into socialism if left unchecked. Socialism enforced at gunpoint is communism which is the end goal of the one world government types.

Keep your seat belt fastened and your tray in the upright position it's going to get bumpy from here on out.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

EVERY govt is social in some way, shape and form. Even under a monarchy, it was social. Why, because no man is an island unto himself.

If you just dont want to be governed, then you do what 'The wizard' of christchurch does, run away overseas, live on a boat, throw away your birth certificate, drivers licence and identifying documents and not pay any taxes. lol

"Government" is simply defined as the system by which society rules itself. Anarchy is a system of government. Saying you're "anti-government" is like saying you're "anti-air." Sorry, no. You may be against certain types of government. You may be against governments having too much power, and/or against the particular government you're in right now. You can't be "anti-government."

I have worked in local govt. (of a city, with a mayor)
It is interesting as loval govt is different in many respects to centralised, national govt. But in some ways its the same. However there is less party politics as people dont tend to form parties but stand as independents, in a smaller govt, and its a bit more united in its goals.

when there are extreme 2 parties who dont get along, and have totally different ideas of the way the country ought to be governed, then you are looking at a civil war situation. As christians, you dont actually want that, we are in a peacemaking role.

in nz the nation has been politically divided before and came close to an all out war around 1981 when people were either for or against the springbok rugby tour, It was actually to do with another countries racism, South Africa.

apparently that was an awful time for the nation. over a game of rugby lol

there were riots etc

Probably read it using the speed reading method.

This post is highly effective in explaining your thought processes. Or perhaps process.