Dan and George's Republican thread
- Thread starter ThunderRd
- Start date
That is up to our two resident pundits
Creating 'Democrat' and 'Republican' threads was done with tongue firmly in cheek. I can smile about it now, but I will admit I was uncharacteristically hot at the time.
I can create a single one like 'Politics for our Pundits' or something like that if you like, let me know.
I can create a single one like 'Politics for our Pundits' or something like that if you like, let me know.
Is this click bait for me? Seriously? I refuse to respond. Peace is maintained.
Daerandin
Well-Known Member
This is obviously some US thing, having only two parties. In our national parliament ('Storting' from the old norse Ting), we currently have 9 different political parties. The number of parties in Norway is a whole lot more than I know. I feel in a sharing mood right now so I will share a bit of personal info. Keep in mind that I do not wish to start any kind of political discussion here, I simply wish to share my own standing.
I am actually a registered member of a political party in Norway, and this party is represented on parliament as well. I am a member of a party called "Rødt", which literally translates to "Red". It is a merger of two former parties: "Workers Communist Party" and "Red Electoral Alliance". I have been a registered member of this party for many years now, and they are somewhat big in my home city with a significant representation in the city council.
I am actually a registered member of a political party in Norway, and this party is represented on parliament as well. I am a member of a party called "Rødt", which literally translates to "Red". It is a merger of two former parties: "Workers Communist Party" and "Red Electoral Alliance". I have been a registered member of this party for many years now, and they are somewhat big in my home city with a significant representation in the city council.
Oh, we have heaps of parties - there are at least twenty that are recognized on ballots; the problem is only two of them actually have a realistic chance of winning most of the time.
Your non response is duly noted!
Daerandin
Well-Known Member
I see, and I suppose it is practically impossible for other parties to have a real chance. I obviously don't know how it is there, but I am going to make a guess that it is kind of a collective perception that you really only have two options. Changing this would probably be nearly impossible if it has become the accepted norm.
It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect advertising might play a large part in this. The two big parties probably sit on the big money, so they can afford a huge advertising campaign. If most people are exposed to mostly ads from only two parties, they will probably only consider those two. Political advertising used to be completely forbidden in Norway, but after a ruling in the EU, we had to allow some political ads.
Currently, political ads are banned on regular TV (which hardly anyone watch anymore), but it is allowed on any other form of media. Thankfully, as a nation, we still view political ads largely negatively, so we only have political ads a couple of months before elections. Usually these ads are in the form of pamphlets in your mailbox. I have heard that political ads are being served on social media as well, but since I don't frequent social media I wouldn't know. Besides I always use adblock.
On a personal level, I strongly support the notion that we need multiple parties. Even further, I believe governments should always consist of more than one party. This is a good way to ensure that more than one view is represented in any ruling matter. The last time we had a single party government in Norway was 2001, since then it has always been coalition governments.
Thank you for joining in and reminding us that there are more than one way to skin a cat.
We have but two as you know, but we are only rarely satisfied with either.
Biden gives me hope. despite all that has gone before, I still have hope.":O}
Daerandin
Well-Known Member
Our systems of government are probably a bit different I would assume. I admit that I don't know much about how the government works in the US. We don't have a president in Norway, the head of state is the King. By our constitution, it is the King that ratifies any new law. In reality, the King has no real power, even though he is actually above the law by our constitution.
We only vote for "Stortinget" (the parliament), and it is there that laws are made. Government is, according to our Constitution, appointed by the King. In reality this does not happen. Instead, the largest group on the parliament will form the government. For example, lets say that three parties: Socialist Left, Labour party, and Center party, agree to work together. All three combined have the majority on parliament. Members from those parties can then be voted in (by parliament) as ministers in the new government. Formally, the King will "appoint" the new ministers. Ministers in government can't have positions on parliament. If anyone voted into parliament is put on the government, then someone else from the same party will take their spot in parliament.
I would assume that this is common for most monarchies.
We only vote for "Stortinget" (the parliament), and it is there that laws are made. Government is, according to our Constitution, appointed by the King. In reality this does not happen. Instead, the largest group on the parliament will form the government. For example, lets say that three parties: Socialist Left, Labour party, and Center party, agree to work together. All three combined have the majority on parliament. Members from those parties can then be voted in (by parliament) as ministers in the new government. Formally, the King will "appoint" the new ministers. Ministers in government can't have positions on parliament. If anyone voted into parliament is put on the government, then someone else from the same party will take their spot in parliament.
I would assume that this is common for most monarchies.
I'm sure I don't have a good understanding of how things may change for the better.
It's said that the grass is always greener in a place you don't live. Norway looks rather sane with its many political parties. We supposedly have two parties, but I think there is only one party. It does what it's told by the few people that have real power in this land. The Money Party.
The Money Party is insane. Riches so large that the holders have no grip on the reality shared by most of us. They dictate everything. The Republicans seem to say "Hooray" to this and prove that they care not one whit for the poor. The Democrats supposedly act as a brake on this juggernaut but this brake has been worn down to nothing by the corruption that riches bring to the table---and the Democrats acceptance of "whatever you say, my rich Master." Because it's always followed by the "ka-ching" of their cash registers. But assuredly not any improvement in OUR well being.
We as a people want 90% of things changed that lock us into hell. The Masters will NEVER listen, and they prove less responsive to what WE want every day.
We are in very poor hands. And the great majority of us are becoming poorer and less powerful by the minute.
We are the number one nation in the destruction of our natural world. We insist that all the other nations follow our example. Sadly, I think it's all over for all life as we thought we knew it. At least in the USA. Maybe the world will tell the Americans to shut up and go away. I think they already do, but our Great Nation is deaf to all that isn't American. And all that "IS" American is The Money Party.
But otherwise life is great.
It's said that the grass is always greener in a place you don't live. Norway looks rather sane with its many political parties. We supposedly have two parties, but I think there is only one party. It does what it's told by the few people that have real power in this land. The Money Party.
The Money Party is insane. Riches so large that the holders have no grip on the reality shared by most of us. They dictate everything. The Republicans seem to say "Hooray" to this and prove that they care not one whit for the poor. The Democrats supposedly act as a brake on this juggernaut but this brake has been worn down to nothing by the corruption that riches bring to the table---and the Democrats acceptance of "whatever you say, my rich Master." Because it's always followed by the "ka-ching" of their cash registers. But assuredly not any improvement in OUR well being.
We as a people want 90% of things changed that lock us into hell. The Masters will NEVER listen, and they prove less responsive to what WE want every day.
We are in very poor hands. And the great majority of us are becoming poorer and less powerful by the minute.
We are the number one nation in the destruction of our natural world. We insist that all the other nations follow our example. Sadly, I think it's all over for all life as we thought we knew it. At least in the USA. Maybe the world will tell the Americans to shut up and go away. I think they already do, but our Great Nation is deaf to all that isn't American. And all that "IS" American is The Money Party.
But otherwise life is great.
That's pretty much spot on. Those two parties have the biggest budgets for campaign funds as well, so that makes it extremely difficult for other parties to win stuff.
It does happen, sometimes, in local seats, state legislatures, etc, but rarely in the national elections. Occasionally there is an 'independent' candidate for something important, sometimes funded by personal money or grants. Ross Perot comes to mind, he was a billionaire who ran for president [with his own money] and formed his own party called the 'Reform Party' in the '90s. He did this twice, in 1992 and '96; he disturbed the two-party balance in the process, making for an interesting result in those elections. Many people at the time theorized that it was his intention to do this.
[BTW, he was a very interesting guy, regardless of how you feel about his politics, do a read on him to learn more]
"The fault lies not with our stars, but within ourselves."
I think that nations that are made up of a single people, a single language and share the same religious beliefs will always have an easier time establishing unity.
but like everything else it has it's draw backs.
Germany was completely blind to where Hitler was taking them.
Rather than having a moral code that could embrace "The other"
They were led to believe that German unity was morality.
To be German was to be good. Who could be German.was not about politics, but rather it was about exclusion. 5th gen. German Jews Were not German, they were other.
America is in grave peril White nationalists are trying to redefine America
as the providence of the "White race".
Is why we have a great deal of trouble trying to see the difference between Nationalist and Nazi.
I've harped upon this before, so forgive me if you've grown tried of hearing this from me.
But color is simply the dumbest, lest insightful and most unloving way to judge a man or woman.
No one would choose a dog, fish or bird by color alone.
But we judge each other, welcome or reject each other all to often by color.
Science tells us we are not divided by race as there is only one race, the human race.
and we humans are not defined by color., Rather we are defined by who we love and by the sacrifices we are willing to make for those we love.
It is good to have unity, but only when love for our fellow man is the uniting force
And this is made easier when a nation is made up of a single people..
Yet America like so many other countries will only ever find greatness
in "the others"we make our own.
To become Great unity must support diversity..
oh my, how I do go on! LOL
I think that nations that are made up of a single people, a single language and share the same religious beliefs will always have an easier time establishing unity.
but like everything else it has it's draw backs.
Germany was completely blind to where Hitler was taking them.
Rather than having a moral code that could embrace "The other"
They were led to believe that German unity was morality.
To be German was to be good. Who could be German.was not about politics, but rather it was about exclusion. 5th gen. German Jews Were not German, they were other.
America is in grave peril White nationalists are trying to redefine America
as the providence of the "White race".
Is why we have a great deal of trouble trying to see the difference between Nationalist and Nazi.
I've harped upon this before, so forgive me if you've grown tried of hearing this from me.
But color is simply the dumbest, lest insightful and most unloving way to judge a man or woman.
No one would choose a dog, fish or bird by color alone.
But we judge each other, welcome or reject each other all to often by color.
Science tells us we are not divided by race as there is only one race, the human race.
and we humans are not defined by color., Rather we are defined by who we love and by the sacrifices we are willing to make for those we love.
It is good to have unity, but only when love for our fellow man is the uniting force
And this is made easier when a nation is made up of a single people..
Yet America like so many other countries will only ever find greatness
in "the others"we make our own.
To become Great unity must support diversity..
oh my, how I do go on! LOL
I tend to agree with you...
I have learned that wealthy people who own companies and huge investments seem to run our world. They sell their companies and investments to the highest bidder and the workers have to deal with the aftermath... lay-offs, pay-cuts, rising-housing-costs, rent, video card prices... ha ha
Regardless of my vote or party interests, the wealthy seem to do what they want without much consideration of the middle/lower classes who barely "break even" in our economy.