A nation at odds stagnates then dies. Each side will have small victories, and with those, walks back all the progress the other side made. In the end you spend Trillions in public funds every year to do pretty much nothing.
The desires of US Citizens cannot possibly be served by one rule. There are too many variations in people's needs, experiences, morals, cultures, and lifestyles to facilitate granular definitions for good and bad by law. In that sense, diversity is not a strength, it's a burden.
It becomes a burden where mutually exclusive ideals must be enabled and enforced by law for, and against, all people. You just can't do that in a nation which collects all people but offers no direction or encompassing belief or goal under which they can unify. Interestingly, though, you can find community and unification within the states.
Each state must have its sovereignty returned for decisions which are regionally impactful, but federally enforced. This enables bastions of certain beliefs to be served, with the benefit of being able to move to another state for greener pastures, rather than another nation. Allowing red states and blue states to thrive by their own right, results in fewer cases of imposing beliefs and standards.
In this, each side can accomplish what they wish to accomplish for themselves and their own people, while being able to collaborate on truly bipartisan issues. I imagine, then, that political mobility within the states would introduce and enable hybridized alternative parties, given that small groups are more-likely to be trusted within their own regions. Currently, a vote in your state has broader implications for the way people live across the nation from you. If Florida voters don't have to contend with California voters to maintain their security, and vice versa, representation would certainly be more fulfilling.
If we where being honest about it politicians on both sides would be wearing NASCAR style jackets with the logos of the banks, businesses and wall street firms that are financing their campaigns and forming the pac's doing the same. Our government became completely corrupt generations ago and there isn't such thing as a political party. It's just two sides of the political isle playing good cop and bad cop.
But it would take a large group of everyday citizens to push all the corruption out of our government. That is why politics and the media support it is focused on being as divisive as possible. If you keep a larger percentage of any countries population divided, distracted and fighting against one another a government pretty much gets the ability to do whatever they want. The same goes for the people who can afford to buy of politicians in it.
It’s better when they both get their heads out of their backsides and start thinking about everyone again. Those people are all dying out.
Opinion
10Opinion
Democracy is where you care about the results, political war is where you only care about power.
Today we 'vote' in elections to wage a political civil war. A war that is quickly deteriorating into an ever more high stakes and bitter conflict.
The rules of that system as such break down more and more as each side tries to secure their own hold on power.
In all the conflict we each of us increasingly find ourselves mere solders fighting and working for our factions and less and less served by them.
Goverment is at best a necessary evil not merely due to its nature as the fire of Force. But the habit of said fire to get out of control and turn into war that consumes all.
I voted A, but only up to the point where a party in the minority gets to impose their will on the majority, rather than simply moderating it by withholding votes until the individual legislator is satisfied, not the party leader.
Threatening not to raise the debt ceiling to extort concessions from the majority, for example, is beyond the pale. That whole thing should go the way of the dodo. Democrats would never seriously threaten the same; they respect the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, so it's a right-wing ratchet.
I'll save time and just say - "What Oigit said!!!" Spot on. The only difference I see currently is that one party is somewhat more willing to throw crumbs at the poor, while the other side wants to vacuum them up and keep everything in house. The real people who run things remain behind the curtain, and we never, ever see them. All we get is the illusion and the distraction. That said though, there are preferred illusions and some better choices than others.
An adversarial system prevents one part from slowly growing large enough to effectively institute the one-party rule.
Fighting over dumb stuff is the price we pay to insure against that happening.
Unfortunately, fallen man is unable to live peacefully. See Putin and all of history as it is one killing of one another after another 🤷🏻♂️
Neither. It's all a spectacle as both give an equal tiny shit. Both have backers and lobbies they need to please before the public.
I believe they’re both controlled by the rich and companies, so I don’t believe they’re really fighting against eachother
I like that they fight. The more they fight each other, the less they are screwing us. When they agree I get worried.
you can't have a country without shared norms. one side eventually has to impose new social norms.
the social norms of the democrats just don't work
It's all about what we need in the country
Support term limits in house and Senate
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
