Is the two-party political system destroying the United States? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the two-party political system destroying the United States?
in Politics

By rodgomezrodgomez 3 Pts
It is time to seriously allow the formation of a viable independent party in this country. Voting strictly along party lines has made bipartisanship deliberations and resolutions a thing of the past. 
Zombieguy1987AlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    It's not the system that's destroying the United States, it's greed. It's capitalism without restraint due to the ability of the richest capitalists to buy their own laws, purchase their own tax rates and pay for their own narratives (propaganda). An oligarchy is on the way if it isn't stopped. The government will be run by the richest, most powerful oligarch and the rest will cooperate because they can arrange whatever they want to increase their wealth and control, because that's what the "big guy" wants too. The Russian stab at democracy never got a foothold, never controlled the crime, the crime bosses are now the oligarchs. It happened there FAST! It took the destruction of the unions and they, themselves were partially to blame. Then, the SCOTUS, in all their wisdom(?) dropped Citizens United on U.S.!  That allowed the investing in both parties (greed, again), causing U.S. to speed toward that oligarchy almost as fast as the Russians …. and with THEIR help ….. we are where we are today …. which is where we WERE when Teddy R. took over! (Where's Teddy when we need him??)
    A third party won't help, though I have no objection to any number of parties. The only thing that will help is to take BIG money OUT of the government. Get the capitalists that we need, to put their money into the COUNTRY, not the MEMBERS of the two parties! Keep the government OF, BY and FOR THE PEOPLE, not THE FEW, as it is in Russia. 
    If the 60 (more to come), corporations that pay NO taxes, paid their fair share of taxes, as well as those that only pay what they can't seem to get away from, we could HAVE affordable health care. If some (like the drug czars), would charge a reasonable profit rather than a "greedy", get rich quick profit, the whole economy would "get better". If the people are taxed more than they can afford, while capitalists are charged much LESS than they can afford, they will continue to reward their leaders with more money (As, I believe, it was Meghan McCain who said: "more than Jesus Christ would be worth!), and there will be more power at the top. Money = Power. This is NOT a "good economy", when, almost everyone has a job but they can't make ends meet, can't "put some away"! ANYONE who says this IS a good economy probably was born after we had the last one … or is being brainwashed. (OR, of course, they are the top 10% or so of the country :-)

    It's NOT the two party system that's ruining U.S., it's the greed that is ruining the two party system! (AND, our democracy).
  • @AlofRI

    I sometime wonder if the 2 party system is not in part responsible for the binary thinking, the Us vs Them / black & white / all or nothing mentality... If it's not in part responsible for the current polarization in politics... I wonder if this binary structure doesn't promote polarization and pushing everyone further to the left or the right, leaving virtually no place for centrism... 

    The GOP was a third party in 1854, it took only 6 years to get the presidency with Lincoln so there is precedent...  
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    Maybe, Plaffelvohfen. However, the two party system was going fine until Gingrich and Armey started the "Contract With America". They divided the country and it's never gotten back together. This is my 15th President, it was different before the 90's. They worked things out. Now, with the hatred they started, and the internet infiltrated by foreign propaganda that feeds the hatred, I don't know if any  party system can work. I'm kind of glad I saw it when it did.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    Maybe, Plaffelvohfen. However, the two party system was going fine until Gingrich and Armey started the "Contract With America". They divided the country and it's never gotten back together. This is my 15th President, it was different before the 90's. They worked things out. Now, with the hatred they started, and the internet infiltrated by foreign propaganda that feeds the hatred, I don't know if any  party system can work. I'm kind of glad I saw it when it did.
    Where were you during the Reagan years, when Dems questioned Reagan's sanity saying he wanted to start a nuclear war, said he wanted to gut medicare, tax cuts for the rich (sound familiar?), force the elderly to eat dog food, etc., etc.  He was another candidate that wasn't approved by the establishment, and thus wasn't supposed to win.
  • AlofRI said:
    Maybe, Plaffelvohfen. However, the two party system was going fine until Gingrich and Armey started the "Contract With America". They divided the country and it's never gotten back together. This is my 15th President, it was different before the 90's. They worked things out. Now, with the hatred they started, and the internet infiltrated by foreign propaganda that feeds the hatred, I don't know if any  party system can work. I'm kind of glad I saw it when it did.
    True.. But I think it's not a failure of system, but a failure of men... We never learn, do we? 
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • IANVSIANVS 23 Pts
    The binary argument is useless but bipartisanship isn’t. The two points of view are necessary. The idea that either is incorrect is an illusion. Just imagine if either party took over completely. Doesn’t matter which one you side with either one would collapse the government if left to run everything. Without checks and balances on Republicans there’d be an eventual French Revolution and if it was a 100% Democratic government.... not good either. The consequences too numerous to list

    There always needs to be back pressure toward any system to keep it from spiraling out of control. The reason dems and reps exist in bipartisan “harmony” (their duration together not their respect for each other) is due to the way they compliment each other in the sense of keeping that spiral in check. What one party lacks the other has in abundance and where one party falls short the other excels. Not perfectly, but better than a single party or any other existing party as a permanent replacement to either of the two
    AlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    @CYDdharta : I was there when Reagan's sanity was questioned. When he cut taxes, then, later, raised them 11 times to compensate for the insanity. Well, that's a harsh word, but somewhat realistic. 
    I was there when he started the "Star Wars" program that could  have easily started that nuclear war, had the Soviet Union had the financial resources to follow through. Luckily, their New leader was far more compatible to world peace than those before. I STILL consider the tax cuts for the rich and gutting of SS and Medicare to be insane, and it WOULD have led to the elderly eating dog food. Still, Reagan was open to negotiation with the Speaker of the House, and, as in previous years, they worked things out. He was NOT "another candidate that wasn't approved by the establishment". He was very popular with BOTH sides, even ME. I disagreed with him often, but he never lost my respect, or the respect of the country. 
    He broke some serious rules, an argument could be made that they were "impeachable". Nobody would have done it BECAUSE he was respected and nobody considered him as traitorous. Today, the division that came from the Gingrich era has the country unable to compromise, and unwilling, due to the lack of respect of (and for), the current occupier of the White House. HE is combining the "insanities" of the 80's AND the 90's, along with a lack of respect, to endanger the country (and the world), in different ways. There seems to be little question about sanity … if you love democracy. It has "left the building."
    CYDdharta
  • In answer to the question, no. A two party system is not responsible for destroying anything. What I will say is that I think parties in general are illogical because there are different beliefs and layers in each party because everyone is different. Some are more extreme to one side or another. As for me, I just want people who will honestly represent the best interest of the people of this country by listening to the people of this country and I don't care what anyone calls themselves. 
     Our government officials are a joke when it comes to doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. They should not be driven by party rules, personal opinions or personal dislikes. They should not be arguing people. They should be arguing issues that are important to us. Instead they waste millions of dollars attacking and defending each other and nothing is getting done at all. They think that we are ignorant, bless our hearts, and that we will just understand that they know what is best. Some of us are but many of us aren't. 
     I was a softball coach for years and I always told my teams that they are welcome to dislike each other and argue outside of the field but while they were supposed to be working together, there job was to work together for the whole team. That is what we need to be telling the bickering government representatives now. I don't care who you like or who you don't. I don't care who should have been President and who should not have. That ship sailed. Their job is to put their personal issues aside while they are together and focus solely on the best interests of this country and the people in it. Period. Debate and solve issues, not people. 
  • We can do better
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1792 Pts
    I believe the concept of a "political party" itself damages politics in all countries significantly. In my view, every individual should run for a public office independently, and judged solely on their own merit and not based on their affiliation.

    Every more or less significant party is going to consist of thousands, often millions, members. There is no way to genuinely support what the party stands for, since it stands for thousands or millions things, many of which are mutually contradictory.

    I do not have any problem with a political party as a private organisation in itself, but I do not think that a party should be a legitimate political entity. I am not interested in Republicans or Democrats, I am interested in individuals with certain views. And no party can represent the views of all of its members property, unless that party consists of either one or zero members.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    @CYDdharta : I was there when Reagan's sanity was questioned. When he cut taxes, then, later, raised them 11 times to compensate for the insanity. Well, that's a harsh word, but somewhat realistic. 
    I was there when he started the "Star Wars" program that could  have easily started that nuclear war, had the Soviet Union had the financial resources to follow through. Luckily, their New leader was far more compatible to world peace than those before. I STILL consider the tax cuts for the rich and gutting of SS and Medicare to be insane, and it WOULD have led to the elderly eating dog food. Still, Reagan was open to negotiation with the Speaker of the House, and, as in previous years, they worked things out. He was NOT "another candidate that wasn't approved by the establishment". He was very popular with BOTH sides, even ME. I disagreed with him often, but he never lost my respect, or the respect of the country. 
    He broke some serious rules, an argument could be made that they were "impeachable". Nobody would have done it BECAUSE he was respected and nobody considered him as traitorous. Today, the division that came from the Gingrich era has the country unable to compromise, and unwilling, due to the lack of respect of (and for), the current occupier of the White House. HE is combining the "insanities" of the 80's AND the 90's, along with a lack of respect, to endanger the country (and the world), in different ways. There seems to be little question about sanity … if you love democracy. It has "left the building."

    Reagan never, NEVER, raised taxes to the point they were at when he was elected, nor should he have.

    Saying that the ""Star Wars" program that could  have easily started that nuclear war" is idiotic.  It's no different than saying that NOT starting the "Star Wars" program that could  have easily started that nuclear war.  Reagan WAS just another candidate that wasn't approved by the establishment, so few of them are elected.

    Trump is open to negotiation with the Speaker of the House, he'd be more than happy to negotiate with the House majority leader and/or Senate minority leader, but they REFUSE to deal with him.  Who can fault them for not wanting to negotiate with the guy who literally wrote "The Art of the Deal"?  But regardless, it isn't Trump who refuses to compromise.  So please do explain how a wheeler and dealer Republican  who was elected two years ago is responsible for two decades of Dem antagonism.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    rodgomez said:
    It is time to seriously allow the formation of a viable independent party in this country. Voting strictly along party lines has made bipartisanship deliberations and resolutions a thing of the past. 
    The United State is Republic for which we stand or not. There is a liberty taken on a freedom of expression in top billing...………..
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    The issue is not just taxation. The issue of the republic is when raising tax's to cover National debt. A debt that has been acquired in a general fund on Federal Reserve Note legal for all debt foreign and domestic, the united state of payee may not find out if the debt is legal till after payment has been taken.  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch