Would a one party state be bettter than current system?

[renard_ruse]

Would a one party state possibly be better for America than the current dominant party with token opposition we increasingly have now?

Right now, the Democrats and their army of loudmouths on the internet and elsewhere don't need to compromise anymore with anyone who disagrees with the "party line" of the day. The reason is because they don't need to make any accomdation within their own party for any viewpoints which deviate from the "party line." Of course, our system didn't use to be like this, we used to have two umbrella parties with a range of views within them.

With the traditional post-colonial African one party state model (also was found at one time in Mexico and other countries as well), all views were subsumed within a single party. Within that party various factions competed, but with some level of mutual respect due to all supporting the party.

With Democrats now becoming an almost unchallenged dominant party, is having opposition parties even useful? Would it make sense instead for everyone to just join the Democrats rather than be a useful but ineffectual opposition with little influence, no hope of real power, and an easy target for current hatemongers and loudmouths in the liberal establishment?

 

[HAL_9000]

Who cares? Labels have always been and always will be meaningless.

Yet all politicians will always say whatever they think the most voters want to hear.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You don't think it's not already a one party system? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what an idiot.

You think L v R matters? come on...the elite aristocracy running the show hedges their bets, proof is in the GOP candidate. After Cain fucked up it was a knock down drag out fight between Santorum and Paul, wall street did not like the idea of a genuine conservative going in and shutting the welfare party down....

Enter Goldman Sachs....over night Santorum Drops and Paul get's eaten by his own and all you hear on FOX is how insanely dangerous his foreign policy is (can't stop the welfare machine can we!!!) with no explanation, it's dangerous and that's all you need to know. Then out of left field....a guy who wasn't even on the fucking radar and up until this point a bigger joke than Perry the RINO of all RINO's.....ROMMODOUCHE.

If you don't see ROMMODOUCHE for the lie that he is, you are just a tard.

If you don't feel disenfranchised by not only the GOP but the US gov and the US news media you are either soulless, brainless or both. That goes for the left too....it can has and most likely will happen again to you as well.

The entire system has become a fraudulent joke and everyone knows it...you know how I know? Look how many people vote...deep down they know their vote doesn't make 2 squirts of rat shit worth of diff.

 

[garbage can]

Would a one party state possibly be better for America than the current dominant party with token opposition we increasingly have now?

But didn't Stalin, Pol Pot and Mousy tongue have a 1 party system?

 

[patient1]

Chicago is a one-party government, but I wouldn't want to be subject to it.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

it all depends.

 

[HAL_9000]

Chicago is a one-party government, but I wouldn't want to be subject to it.

Chicago has the fattest horn section, ever.

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLiuMkGCOC4

 

[eyer]

Would a one party state be bettter than current system?

The future holds only 2 possibilities of politics (the art of governance) for the People:

1. Tyranny

2. Self-government

If you can recall the liberating effect Luther's independent revelation had on, up-to-then, the all-controlling Church...

...that is exactly what's happening today in the good ol USA, secularly.

And just like the Church putting out its word against the rebel Luther's independent reading of The Word in the form of criminal charges and death sentences authorized by the Pope Leo X...

...the tyrannical government of the USSA has designated literal constitutionalists and even small, limited, and responsible government advocates as prime suspects for "domestic terrorists" today, all authorized by his lowness, Barry Soetoro II.

The age of Lessons in Individual Liberty has begun...

...read the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America and everything you can about the founders who signed it to learn why they signed it even under threat of death from their own government; ditto in re: to the Constitution for the United States of America and the framers who affixed their signatures to it.

The Church of Satan had no chance against a growing literate public turbocharged by the invention of the printing press...

...just as the Church of Statism has no chance against a People who reassign individual liberty its natural place atop the list of all things political.

 

[patient1]

Chicago has the fattest horn section, ever.

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLiuMkGCOC4

You got a point there...

Here's a counterpoint

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTJeT2i9QU

 

[thirty]

You think China is better than US?

 

[blobfish]

I like the idea of an American one party system. I say we call it "Apple Juche".

 

[hogjack]

Democracy SUCKS.

Monarchies RULE!

 

[knot_sweet]

I was under the impression that a one party state was commonly referred to as a dictatorship or a totalitarian government.

If you seriously believe that would be better than your current system, you need more help than this board can reasonably provide.

If a government didn't spend all it's time arguing with itself and had time to interfere with us normal folk, there's no telling the damage that would be done.

Let them bicker amongst themselves whilst the rest of us get on with actual productive working lives.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Would a one party state possibly be better for America than the current dominant party with token opposition we increasingly have now?

Right now, the Democrats and their army of loudmouths on the internet and elsewhere don't need to compromise anymore with anyone who disagrees with the "party line" of the day. The reason is because they don't need to make any accomdation within their own party for any viewpoints which deviate from the "party line." Of course, our system didn't use to be like this, we used to have two umbrella parties with a range of views within them.

With the traditional post-colonial African one party state model (also was found at one time in Mexico and other countries as well), all views were subsumed within a single party. Within that party various factions competed, but with some level of mutual respect due to all supporting the party.

With Democrats now becoming an almost unchallenged dominant party, is having opposition parties even useful? Would it make sense instead for everyone to just join the Democrats rather than be a useful but ineffectual opposition with little influence, no hope of real power, and an easy target for current hatemongers and loudmouths in the liberal establishment?

Number is irrelevant as the dominant party usually crushes competitors.

For all intents and purposes the US is a one party state. There is no diversity in the government, all of them are wealthy elites. And as a monolithic class they work to enhance their welfare in opposition to yours. You dont matter. The struggle is tween the Haves NOT tween the Haves & Have Nots.