5 ms·

Well, here the 2 party system is like choosing between Coca Cola and Pepsi. Not very different from what happens with Communist countries.

hn4Trump 11y ago
Cool, so would ya mind voting for Trump since he is the same as Hilary anyway? ok, thx!
- tracker1 11y ago
  I don't know that I see one as concretely worse than the other though. I don't like either of them.
capote 11y ago
I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you bring up "Communist countries," my grandfather lived in Communist Romania. He was beaten to death in jail over the course of two months on charges of possessing foreign currency [0]. My parents grew up with almost no food to eat, most of the time being tracked by the secret police, everywhere, black car following them home, informants at every corner, in every place they visited. A modern "Communist country" is North Korea. You can do some research on your own regarding that. Yes, modern Russia and China aren't that bad. But comparing their single-party system (in which the party literally controls everything, and on many occasions silences dissent by "disappearing" people (read: killing them) ) with the United States, is in fact, just plain silly. Whoever pointed out that this is a bad way to argue is wrong. It is simply silly. Having the choice in two parties, where mostly anyone can, in theory, run, this is infinitely more free than a single-party state. People can make themselves known, they can speak what they want (look at Bernie), they can come out of nowhere without being carefully monitored and selected by a single party. Having the choice encourages politicians to at least somewhat work with the people's interest at heart, rather than just the interest of the party. Your Coca Cola and Pepsi comparison is very myopic. If you cannot tell the difference between the two parties, especially at a time like this, you have no place discussing politics in any forum. Quick summary: one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values. There are many more things to them; the differences are tremendous. Read their Wikipedia pages, and those of their candidates. Stop with these comparisons, guys. I know the state of affairs isn't great here, I know our media isn't focusing on the right things and we have huge problems with the NSA and privacy matters. But be grateful for what we have, and appreciate that you live in a country where you will not be killed by the government for speaking too loud. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu
- jack9 11y ago
  > one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values Stop drinking the soda. Those are the most colorful agendas which often result in 1 or 2 grand policy gestures to point at. In practice, the majority of the time is spent bolstering the businesses of donors. To whit, this is EXACTLY what communist countries produce, once they get the populace under control after a few purges.

hn4Trump 11y ago

Cool, so would ya mind voting for Trump since he is the same as Hilary anyway? ok, thx!

tracker1 11y ago
I don't know that I see one as concretely worse than the other though. I don't like either of them.

capote 11y ago

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you bring up "Communist countries," my grandfather lived in Communist Romania. He was beaten to death in jail over the course of two months on charges of possessing foreign currency [0]. My parents grew up with almost no food to eat, most of the time being tracked by the secret police, everywhere, black car following them home, informants at every corner, in every place they visited. A modern "Communist country" is North Korea. You can do some research on your own regarding that. Yes, modern Russia and China aren't that bad. But comparing their single-party system (in which the party literally controls everything, and on many occasions silences dissent by "disappearing" people (read: killing them) ) with the United States, is in fact, just plain silly. Whoever pointed out that this is a bad way to argue is wrong. It is simply silly. Having the choice in two parties, where mostly anyone can, in theory, run, this is infinitely more free than a single-party state. People can make themselves known, they can speak what they want (look at Bernie), they can come out of nowhere without being carefully monitored and selected by a single party. Having the choice encourages politicians to at least somewhat work with the people's interest at heart, rather than just the interest of the party. Your Coca Cola and Pepsi comparison is very myopic. If you cannot tell the difference between the two parties, especially at a time like this, you have no place discussing politics in any forum. Quick summary: one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values. There are many more things to them; the differences are tremendous. Read their Wikipedia pages, and those of their candidates. Stop with these comparisons, guys. I know the state of affairs isn't great here, I know our media isn't focusing on the right things and we have huge problems with the NSA and privacy matters. But be grateful for what we have, and appreciate that you live in a country where you will not be killed by the government for speaking too loud. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu

jack9 11y ago
> one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values Stop drinking the soda. Those are the most colorful agendas which often result in 1 or 2 grand policy gestures to point at. In practice, the majority of the time is spent bolstering the businesses of donors. To whit, this is EXACTLY what communist countries produce, once they get the populace under control after a few purges.