BibleForums Christian Message Board
General Category => In General => Topic started by: Sojourner on February 14, 2026, 04:35:05 PM
-
The main problem with modern US politics today is that voters identify with one of the two major parties, despite clear shortcomings and failed leadership. And when politics fuses with one's identity, political disagreement feels personal, fueling further division. The irony is, frustration with the failures of the parties is misdirected and channeled into anger at voters who differ.
Both parties are too focused on their respective agendas and too combative with one another to work together toward the common goal of serving the best interest of the American people--particularly the middle class. Despite the great number of those dissatisfied with both parties, primaries quickly filter out and negate independent candidates.
Even when the public is fed up, the system continues to channel them back into the same two choices, time and time again. Perhaps one day enough voters will tire of the ineffective leadership, broken institutions and tone deaf unresponsive parties, and unite together to send Washington a message by electing a qualified independent. At least one can hope.
-
Jesus will come back before that happens
Tonight would be good
-
The main problem with modern US politics today is that voters identify with one of the two major parties, despite clear shortcomings and failed leadership.
Try being Jewish. Rejected by prominent members of both parties. Politically homeless.
-
Yeah, It's probably a bridge too far. It's just exasperating to see voters stubbornly continue to put their trust in two parties that will never do right by the people. Realistically, neither Americans nor the rest of the world will be reliably governed until the Lord rules.
-
The main problem with modern US politics today is that voters identify with one of the two major parties, despite clear shortcomings and failed leadership.
Try being Jewish. Rejected by prominent members of both parties. Politically homeless.
I know. At least when the planet finally comes under divine rule, righteousness, peace and justice will prevail--which will bring a swift end to antisemitism.
-
We definitely need a third party, even if only to avoid the situation where everything is about the lesser of two evils at any given time. With a strong third party the only way any party gets an outright majority is if they have a lot of appeal, and even a splinter can be enough to deny either party the influence to dictate.
Sadly there's probably a better chance of me being elected President than the status quo voting to change itself.
-
I know. At least when the planet finally comes under divine rule, righteousness, peace and justice will prevail--which will bring a swift end to antisemitism.
American Jews may decide that there's no future here and depart for Israel. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but America will be worse off for it.
-
We definitely need a third party
I'm small government conservative, so in principle I'd support the Libertarian party.
Unfortunately it's filled with crazy people like "Vermin Supreme", who wears a boot on his head. It also, like the two major parties, has problems with Jews.
-
We definitely need a third party
I'm small government conservative, so in principle I'd support the Libertarian party.
Unfortunately it's filled with crazy people like "Vermin Supreme", who wears a boot on his head. It also, like the two major parties, has problems with Jews.
How can a libertarian have a problem with someone peacefully practising their religion, whatever the religion?
-
I also favor a multiplicity of parties at least as a sort of checks and balances against the entrenched partisan establishment. Each side, left & right, wields too much traditional power, imo.
The left, ie, invariably interprets equality, which is good, as something to spend money on etc... Entrenched, costly programs, that seem to never go away.
I personally will not hold to any party or political ideal, but look to support candidates or policies of either side if they show promise, without throwing in with whatever party affiliation - an affiliation I have come to hate.
I hold to the Constitution, which never compels me to choose left or right as ideals, very often paraded as emblems of true "patriotism."
Cows come and go but the bull goes on forever.
-
As I alluded to earlier, both parties have been appropriated by extremists with opposing agendas, and both are filled with people who hold to an "us vs them" mentality, and use their office to enrich themselves. The same corrupt people are elected time and again, and become entrenched and powerful. Strict term limits are badly needed, but those who would have to pass necessary legislation are not about to shoot themselves in the foot.
While a vanishing species, I believe there are still a few idealistic folks here and there who value the Constitution and believe public service should transcend political affiliation and serve the best interests of all Americans. Unfortunately, the dynamics of politics is like a strong river current, in which you either go with the flow or get out.
-
How can a libertarian have a problem with someone peacefully practising their religion, whatever the religion?
They claim to not have a problem with Jews, they're just showing their commitment to free speech. By posting slurs and tropes about Jews.
-
How can a libertarian have a problem with someone peacefully practising their religion, whatever the religion?
They claim to not have a problem with Jews, they're just showing their commitment to free speech. By posting slurs and tropes about Jews.
I've never understood antisemitism. Despite making up an infinitesimal segment of the population, Jews are among the most gifted and influential people on earth, having been awarded a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes. Given their many contributions, the world is a better place because of Jews, and most people who hate them cannot offer a valid reason--other than their being Jewish. It's really incomprehensible.
-
I've never understood antisemitism.
The more one reads about it, the more incomprehensible it becomes. I have previously posted theological explanations for it, which I believe to be true. Then recently I came across Sartre's completely secular rationale for it which also makes sense. In his words, people think that "all or part of his own misfortunes and those of his country to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, ... proposes to remedy this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights, by keeping them out of certain economic and social activities, by expelling them from the country, by exterminating all of them ...."
He tells a story about how a classmate of his failed an exam while a Jewish student passed. The classmate said this was impossible, there was no way that a Jew could understand French poetry better than himself, a native Frenchman. This even though he admitted that he had not studied for the exam.
It's basically people giving up responsibility for their own failures by blaming the Jew.
It is, unfortunately, becoming politically mainstream in this country.
-
Sadly, Jews being the despised scapegoat is a reality, both historically and in the present. But, one day....
-
And then I just saw this observation on X, formerly known as "Twitter"
Much of 19th, 20th century antisemitism, including Hitler's genocidal version, depended on the idea that as a "stateless people" Jews could not be loyal citizens of the nations they inhabited, but instead sought to undermine them and their "ethnic unity". Contemporary antisemitism, on the other hand, is largely driven by the fact that the Jews *have* a state. "Can't win" is the phrase that springs to mind.
-
I see the US Commission on Civil Rights is investigating the rise in antisemitism across the country. Not much "investigating" can do to hinder the trend without changes to the law, but at least it's getting some attention.
-
Anyway, the byplay between the parties isn't what's wrong with the country. It's a symptom of what's wrong. Loss of civility, seeing the Other Side as not merely wrong but also misguided and evil, the inability to trust in systems to function, the politicization of anything and everything...
Creating another party isn't going to fix any of this. Because what's wrong isn't even political. It's cultural.
-
Noticing on a daily basis lately a clear obfuscation and in most cases a deliberate misapplication of terms.
"Pro-Palestinian," for one example, often denotes an unspoken sympathy with the Hamas attacks on Israel which led to the current and urgent process of the Jewish nation defending itself. The idea, of course, is to place responsibiliy for war-time conditions in Gaza on Israel rather than the relentless threat of a lurking and obviously deadly Hamas.
In most of the instances I witness, the real gist of the sentiment is for the Palestinians to destroy or enfeeble the nation of Israel.
-
ASIDE: Oh, and recover approximately $139 Billion invalid tariff taxes? Good luck, America!
-
ASIDE: Oh, and recover approximately $139 Billion invalid tariff taxes? Good luck, America!
Donald is pump and dumping the entire country. You'll never see it, or anything else you pay with the newest 15% global tariffs (tax and spend? No, tax and defraud!). But hey, with that $10 billion he's transferring to himself as supreme leader of the so-called "Board of Peace", and the Dow Jones over 50k, it's all gravy. Just imagine what the Epstein files we didn't see say about him.
I would have never thought it'd be safer for me to travel to China, than the US.
-
I see the US Commission on Civil Rights is investigating the rise in antisemitism across the country. Not much "investigating" can do to hinder the trend without changes to the law, but at least it's getting some attention.
They are investigating antisemitic crimes, which are actionable.
-
ASIDE: Oh, and recover approximately $139 Billion invalid tariff taxes? Good luck, America!
Businesses are claiming that they deserve the refund. But that doesn't make sense to me, businesses don't pay tariffs, or taxes for that matter. They just pass the added costs on to the consumer.
-
Donald is pump and dumping the entire country.
As a small government conservative, I was never in favor of the tariffs and did not believe that the president had the authority to enact them. I'm glad the Supremes shut it down, because a president AOC would gladly put a 10,000% tariff on Israel.
I would have never thought it'd be safer for me to travel to China, than the US.
It's not. This is part of that overheated rhetoric I mentioned earlier. Trump can be a bad president, and in some ways he is, without the US becoming more dangerous that China.
-
As a small government conservative, I was never in favor of the tariffs and did not believe that the president had the authority to enact them. I'm glad the Supremes shut it down, because a president AOC would gladly put a 10,000% tariff on Israel.
Trump's 15% global tariffs as a response to the ruling seems to more-or-less shrug off the Supreme Court. What power does the Supreme Court?
It's not. This is part of that overheated rhetoric I mentioned earlier. Trump can be a bad president, and in some ways he is, without the US becoming more dangerous that China.
Unfortunately, it is.
-
Trump's 15% global tariffs as a response to the ruling seems to more-or-less shrug off the Supreme Court.
Yes. It certainly is.
What power does the Supreme Court?
What do you think they should do? Arrest him? They only have the power to rule on the case in front of them.
Unfortunately, it is.
:o
-
Not much of a Supreme Court if it's reduced to offering ignorable legal opinions.
Unfortunately, it is.
Problem for me (to say nothing of the media rhetoric):
https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/united-states#laws
Not problem for me:
https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/china#laws
-
ASIDE: Oh, and recover approximately $139 Billion invalid tariff taxes? Good luck, America!
Businesses are claiming that they deserve the refund. But that doesn't make sense to me, businesses don't pay tariffs, or taxes for that matter. They just pass the added costs on to the consumer.
Americans will eat the tax.
-
Problem for me (to say nothing of the media rhetoric):
I work in immigration law. No problem for you.
Not problem for me:
LOL, sure. Whatever you say.
-
Americans will eat the tax.
Or businesses will get the refund and NOT pass the savings on to the consumer.
-
At any rate, I cannot remember a time when the political spectrum was so dominated by loose canons, on both sides. No need to elaborate, I don't think.
Truly is a new age.
Edit: cannons (sp)
-
LOL, sure. Whatever you say.
As someone who has already been harassed by CBP, I'm afraid your "I know better" fails to account for "here's what's been experienced".
-
As someone who has already been harassed by CBP, I'm afraid your "I know better" fails to account for "here's what's been experienced".
I'm sorry that you had a hard time. But that's anecdotal, with a sample size of one. In my experience with immigration law, the people who have problems usually (usually!) created said problems themselves.
We have one client who entered the country illegally. Rather than detain her, they gave her an ankle bracelet with GPS tracking and a court date. Potentially fixable. Well, she decided, all on her own, to remove the ankle bracelet. I have no idea what motivated her to do this. Now she's in detention and facing a very expedited court date with a very upset judge.
-
I'm sorry that you had a hard time. But that's anecdotal, with a sample size of one.
That tends to happen when one is talking about themselves. :)
-
That tends to happen when one is talking about themselves. :)
When you're "the one"
"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back."
-Heraclitus
-
Dunno. Feels like the world regressed at least 50 years over the last 10 or so. Or perhaps progress was a not-so elaborate ruse to begin with.
Now to define progress. Dunno.
-
The book of Judges Part Deux….
Everyone does what is right in their own eyes
Didn’t work very well the first time, withered
-
The main problem with modern US politics today is that voters identify with one of the two major parties, despite clear shortcomings and failed leadership. And when politics fuses with one's identity, political disagreement feels personal, fueling further division. The irony is, frustration with the failures of the parties is misdirected and channeled into anger at voters who differ.
Both parties are too focused on their respective agendas and too combative with one another to work together toward the common goal of serving the best interest of the American people--particularly the middle class. Despite the great number of those dissatisfied with both parties, primaries quickly filter out and negate independent candidates.
Even when the public is fed up, the system continues to channel them back into the same two choices, time and time again. Perhaps one day enough voters will tire of the ineffective leadership, broken institutions and tone deaf unresponsive parties, and unite together to send Washington a message by electing a qualified independent. At least one can hope.
How many voters (or percent) do you need for a third party ?
-
Ross Perot came closest in recent history back in the 2nd Bush Sr election
He siphoned off enough votes to give Clinton a fairly easy victory over the Republican incumbent
In order to raise enough money and to get on the ballot in all 50 states, a third party needs at least 35% of the electorate
Under our Electoral College system, a three way split would send the election to the House of Representatives
-
Wow, 35%, that is impossible.
Here, for one seat in parliament only 0.67% is needed.
Currently we have 15 parties, splintered power, not recommended.
-
I only throw out the third party idea because both the Republican and Democrat parties have failed the American people, and it might be time to try a fresh approach. Yet, realistically, a third party faces nearly insurmountable constraints in bucking the baked-in two-party system which people are hard-wired to abide by. More often than not, a third party succeeds only in siphoning off just enough votes to impact the outcome of a close race. The reality is, American voters will continue dislike the choice of candidates and resort to picking the lesser of two evils. And continue to hate people who differ with them politically, just because.
-
Here, for one seat in parliament only 0.67% is needed.
That's the difference between a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.
-
Yabutt,
Section 122 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to temporarily impose tariffs in response to “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” not trade deficits.
The United States does not have a balance-of-payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.
So, the new tarrif regime must be deemed illegal.
Hurry up, lawsuit!
-
Yabutt,
Section 122 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to temporarily impose tariffs in response to “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” not trade deficits.
The United States does not have a balance-of-payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.
So, the new tarrif regime must be deemed illegal.
Hurry up, lawsuit!
Do you pray for President Trump as much as you appear to hate him?
This forum becomes increasingly political, tribal, and distasteful.
When did we lose our heart for discussing Biblical issues?