Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Two Party System - Is 1 choice a choice?

(Democrat, Republican, or American?)

I've been wanting to talk about America's two party system for a long time but the right inspiration never hit me, until i saw this video:

My response in youtube to the vid:

You can't be a democrat the way he mentioned it; he acts like being a democrat is a birth right.

You CHOOSE To be a democrat, or a republican, that's a choice that is REINFORCED by your beliefs.

This man's beliefs CONTRADICT his political affiliation, so him being a democrat is useless.

Again your political affiliation is not a birth right, it's a choice made by inherent beliefs you hold on certain issues.

This man's beliefs contradict his affiliation.


Loyalty not ideals:

The man in the above video is what worries me about the two party system. It seems like people in America have some sense of loyalty when voting, as if their beliefs mean nothing.

He threatened to vote against Barack Obama if Hillary wasn't on the ticket....

Don't get me wrong, there will be a whole new post about Barack Obama and why no true liberal should vote for him, or how Hillary is a better candidate than him.

But if your beliefs are liberal and you go to vote, how in the world can you vote for John McCain?

Why does Hillary being on the presidential ticket even matter?

You would rather have someone with completely different ideals than you win power, just because Barack didn't make Hillary his running mate?

What logic is there to that?


A man is claiming to run the government 100% differently than your ideology and you want him in power to ruin your government?

Please read this post if you haven't yet, it speaks about how you're responsible for your government's actions:

Electing McCain and letting him destroy your government essentially makes you responsible, and any other countries he attacks while in power, also makes you responsible for the innocent deaths.

State of our Current affairs:

Currently Americans do not vote on ideals.

They do not vote for character, they do not vote for ideals, they do not vote based on honesty, they do not vote for the real reasons that matter.

They vote for party lines.

The excuse they use is:

"This party has the only real chance of winning, if i vote for any other party it will be a waste of my vote. Also if i don't vote for this party the other party will win and i definitely don't agree with them."

So many people believe this doctrine that they refuse to vote for "third parties" and essentially pick one of the two main parties currently in power in America.

Even worse if a third party candidate like Ralph Nader takes millions of votes in the Election, and a republican wins, like in 2000, the third party candidate is blamed for the loss of the Democrats.

Even today Ralph Nader is believed by many Americans to have lost Gore the presidency, when in reality it was the Supreme court and their controversial decisions that gave Bush the win.(And possibly Bush's Brother Jeb Bush who sepressed the black vote in Florida)

Effects of Not Voting for third party candidates:

You have 2 ideologies that conflict with one another, and choose the least conflicting one.

But what do you do if the least conflicting one is only a little more conflicting than the other one?

You basically have no vote, you have lost your vote, because the majority of your ideals are lost.

One party conflicts with 60% of your ideals, the other conflicts with 75% of your ideals... but it's either one or the other.

That and the stigma of voting for a third party.... you're looked down on for voting for a third party.


So what do we do?

If we want to preserve freedom and we want to vote on our ideologies and beliefs, than we need to stop voting for parties that conflict with our core beliefs.

We need to remove the stigma that voting for third parties is bad.

We need to break the link between third parties and the top two parties and show their true differences and why we can't vote for the top two.


Consequences if we don't:

We lose our freedom, we've been losing it, and we lose our vote (the thing that guarantees us freedom).

Examples of lost freedom:

The democrats promised us an end to the Iraq war, both parties promised no spying on Americans or wiretapping, they both promise us healthcare for all of America, and nothing happens.

1) Iraq war: 1 party vowing to end the war if they are elected into power, so they are, and in 2006 they get a definite majority in the congress.

Then they refuse to de-fund the war, as they promised.

2) FISA bill: A recent bill was proposed that gave immunity to companies that helped the bush administration record our phone calls without warrants. Basically warrant less wiretapping of domestic calls.

At first the democrats were up in arms about this, then later after a secret meeting with republicans, they changed their stance, even Barack Obama, and voted for the Fisa bill giving Telecommunications company's complete immunity over taking away our civil liberties.

3) Both parties pledge Universal Healthcare, neither delivers. The only candidates planning to deliver are kicked out (John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton).


Both parties seem to be playing a game of who can manipulate the American people more.

If you read the above points, you see that the parties do not keep their word, and in fact are manipulating us.

To say one thing, and do another, is textbook Hypocrisy.

It has gotten to the point where it is popular to consider the two top parties , one party, forever manipulating America for their best interests.


The two presidential candidates proof of Manipulation:

John McCain:

1) Sponsored and wrote a Bill on Immigration that was pro Immigrant.

Later on in a debate he says he does not support that bill and would vote against it.

2) Torture: If you listened to him argue with Mitt Romney over torture in the debates, you might be shocked to learn he has changed his stance.

As someone who has been tortured, he now has changed his stance on torture, something the majority of Americans haven't changed their stance on.

He claimed at first:

“One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us,”


The senate passed a bill that would ban torture.
What was McCain's vote.... he voted against the bill.

In February, McCain was a crucial swing vote in a bill pending in the Senate to explicitly ban the CIA from employing torture in the form of waterboarding. When given the opportunity to vote against torture and take a moral stand, McCain chose to appease his pro-torture base.

So he voted for torture.

Now there's some straight talk for ya.

Quote source:


Don't worry though, once the bill passed the house and the senate it was vetoed by Daddy Bush.

3) He was originally against the Bush tax cuts that gave the top 1 10th of 1 percent of Americans billions of dollars, but now he is for them.

When the cuts were first proposed in 2001, McCain joined Democrats in voting against them. At the time, he said the tax breaks didn't do enough for the middle class, and because of a need for increased defense spending.

In 2003, the phased-in cuts of 2001 were accelerated but McCain again voted no, saying taxes shouldn't be cut in time of war. But in 2006, when the cuts were extended, McCain voted yes because he said opposing the extension of cuts already in place would amount to a tax increase.

Quote source:


The rest of McCains manipulations, if you have time to read them:

Another longer list:

It highlights 60 some stance changes with sources.

Barack Obama:

1) On the new Fisa bill he said:

"It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."


Yet last October he declared:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."


Btw, further Support for Hillary being a better president:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted no -- a surprise considering her typically hawkish stances on national security issues. "


It seems though that Barack will not honor his word, and will not filibuster the fisa bill.

2) Israel: Barack obama was very pro Palestinian as a senator of Illinois. This is not a surprise because he ran on this during his senate campaign and it was a very popular issue in Illinois.

He has now changed his stance, and is for a 2 state solution in the middle east.

To show the power of his new stance I only need offer this:

"In between these two sections of Mr Obama's itinerary, he meets the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in his office in the Muqata in Ramallah. In other words, of the 36 hours Mr Obama has devoted to this visit, he will spend around 45 minutes talking to Palestinian spokesmen."


Also, consider Jerusalem now a part of Israel, according to Obama:

1) He mentions Jerusalem is to be the undivided Capital of Israel:

2) He mentions again, on his own Channel this time, that "I believe that it's not an acceptable option for Jerusalem to be severed from Israel, along the lines of the 1967 borders; that is not going to be an option."

According to internation Law though, Israel cannot claim Jerusalem as it's capital:

United Nations resolution 476:

3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;


And many other resolutions:
Resolution 252, 267, 270, 298, 476, 478, and many others; some i can't list because they were vetoed by the U.S.


3) Ending the embargo with cuba:

Barack Obama: "As president, I'll maintain the embargo it's an important inducement for change because we know that Castro's death will not guarantee freedom." (Beth Reinhard, "It's Got A Good Beat And You Can Dance To It," The Miami Herald's "Naked Politics" Blog, 8/25/07)

Then he said:

Barack Obama: "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1/20/04)


Read the 17 total flip flops, couldn't write them all here:

Another longer list:


I mentioned the 2 presumptive nominees so people couldn't say that manipulation of the two top parties was in the past.

Manipulation is happening now as we speak, by both top party members, and it will continue, this isn't an old issue, it won't change, it will continue until we start electing 3rd party candidates.

True Representation:

A free country will never be free without proper representation.

We lack that.

We have no true representation anymore, we have people who manipulate us, and make us hear what we want to hear.

We will be responsible for the acts these manipulators make and the innocent lives they take.

We need true representation.

Until we stop being scared to vote for third party candidates that truly represent us, we will not undo the chains that bind us.

And Iraq will be a whisper compared to the future damage our manipulators make.

Sum it all up:

When you're only given 1 choice, you're in a dictatorship.

So for those of you who say you have to vote Democrat or the Republicans win, I have one reply, "Then Freedom is lost".

A democratic country always has more than one choice, keep that in mind when you go to the polls and tell yourself you must vote democrat or republican.

A single choice is no choice at all.


Top picture made by me, all rights reserved.

No comments:

Click Daily to Feed the Hungry