The two-party paradigm is designed to convince people that one party is good, and right, while the other party is bad and wrong.
If the public can be divided into two opposing camps, both fully convinced that their party is "right", it allows for total manipulation of not only the government but even the very thought processes of the public.
For example. Most people now agree that invading Vietnam and killing millions of people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia was a very very bad (evil) thing for the US to do.
Even at the time there was a lot of opposition to the war in the US. Yet neither of the two parties ever opposed the war or did anything to stop it (at least not for a long long long time).
The CIA started the war under Eisenhower (republican). The CIA broadened the war under Kennedy (democrat). The Democratic party embraced the war and vastly enlarged it under LBJ. The Republican party under Nixon did everything possible to prolong the war and expanded into other countries with genocidal results.
Which party was right? Neither!!! The right thing would have been to stop the war and punish those who created it.
It amazes me that people still think that rejection of Obama means support of the Republicans.
Neither party is good. Neither party is looking out for the interests of the people. Instead they cooperate and take turns robbing the people.
Wars and invasions are a great way to rob the people and channel the money into industrialist/banker pockets. And the fatcats are always generous to politicians who make them rich, regardless of which party they are from.
That's how it really works. The idea that the parties or their candidates are trying to "fix" things is incredibly naive.
In truth they are doing their best to see to it that things never get fixed.
A government that functions well gives power to the people. A dysfunctional government gives power to itself. Greedy people in government prefer the latter.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Which US party genuinely wants to make things better for the people.(Vote Below)
If the public can be divided into two opposing camps, both fully convinced that their party is "right", it allows for total manipulation of not only the government but even the very thought processes of the public.
For example. Most people now agree that invading Vietnam and killing millions of people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia was a very very bad (evil) thing for the US to do.
Even at the time there was a lot of opposition to the war in the US. Yet neither of the two parties ever opposed the war or did anything to stop it (at least not for a long long long time).
The CIA started the war under Eisenhower (republican).
The CIA broadened the war under Kennedy (democrat).
The Democratic party embraced the war and vastly enlarged it under LBJ.
The Republican party under Nixon did everything possible to prolong the war and expanded into other countries with genocidal results.
Which party was right? Neither!!!
The right thing would have been to stop the war and punish those who created it.
It amazes me that people still think that rejection of Obama means support of the Republicans.
Neither party is good.
Neither party is looking out for the interests of the people.
Instead they cooperate and take turns robbing the people.
Wars and invasions are a great way to rob the people and channel the money into industrialist/banker pockets. And the fatcats are always generous to politicians who make them rich, regardless of which party they are from.
That's how it really works.
The idea that the parties or their candidates are trying to "fix" things is incredibly naive.
In truth they are doing their best to see to it that things never get fixed.
A government that functions well gives power to the people.
A dysfunctional government gives power to itself.
Greedy people in government prefer the latter.