You vote for what I want, I'll vote for what you want

I see American Congress today as a one party system because they both work together when voting for each others bills to ensure those bills pass. Whenever one party wants something the other doesn't want it to have a compromise is made and the bill passes. Then the other party wants something that the other party doesn't want a compromise is met again. So as you see we are being controlled by a one party system and therefore we are all subjects of a socialist regime but it is still called a democracy to appease the general public.

While it is true at times, but rarely, the parties can't compromise they just put it aside, if it isn't very important, and wait until a later date and incorporate it into another bill under a disguise. Since we the people never get to read any of the bills, which a communist party would do the same, we can't tell what's really going on within and bills that are passed. So the beat goes on, looks like 2 parties but still is only one. IMO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Socialism and Democracy are perfectly compatible. Anyway, this is called bi-partisanship and we need more of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then we need communism with this way of politics because there is no two party system any longer, it is a ruse. The reason there was two parties was because there ONCE was a difference between them but as I have said in my OP there isn't any longer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP is just stupid

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is no logic to calling what is described "socialist". Socialism is an economic system where the means of production is not in private hands.

You are describing compromise and as pointed out earlier that's generally a good thing but it isn't actually a thing that takes place often enough in politics these days.

 

It does take place only you and I can't see it being done. When was the last time you were allowed to read a bill that the Congress was going to pass? You never get the opportunity to read much of anything that Congress is working on unless they want you to see it. But even then Congress doesn't give you all the facts but only those they want you to know.

 

I have a feeling this would be more apt in the conspiracy theory section than here... do you have any actual, physical evidence to back these claims up?

 

You can read (I assume) the Congressional Record any time you want to.

 

I think you are using the term communism to describe something else entirely. And the parties these days have very extreme differences.

 

They might have differences but they both usually get what they want done. They just put it with other legisllation and push it through that way. We never ever get to read all of those bills they write so we nover know where the money is being allocated to goes. Nice little set up isn't it. They are clever weasles and shuffle faster than a Texas Ho down.

 

You can read all of the bills.

 

Where do I find them BEFORE they are voted on?

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/

 

That's one wording of the latest wingnut line called "both sides", developed by the rightwing think tanks to hide the direct connection between the past thirty five years of Republican Party actions and policies and the consequences of them now being inflicted on us all.

 

That's not very good for I need to know the name and or number of the bill I'm looking for and if I don't know which bill contains what legislation then how can I ever find it?

 

Do you realize that this makes no sense? I might as well asert we are "subjects of a capitalist regime but it is still called a democracy to appease the general public. The difference is that my transformation of the term "capitalist" is less of a stretch than your treatment of "socialist". Either way, it isn't exactly a useful approach.

And I think I would have more faith in the discussion of mutual backscratching if it was still mutual.

 

Congress does little for the small businesses or the middle class. They seem to help big businesses but leave everyone else to fend for themselves. And you call that capitalism?

 

Of course. Capitalism is organized around capital - big piles of capital.

The "leaving everyone else to fend for themselves" part is of course freedom, not necessarily capitalistic, but the catering to big piles of capital is right down the alley.

 

Some may want to glance at my October 2006 post on this here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-it-time-to-clean-house-and-senate-too.59233/
Or more on thread post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...ace-by-internet-direct-representation.108519/

 

In truth, I find myself wondering if that's a serious question.

More directly: By what definition is socialism a process for amassing tremendous and disproportionate assets in private possession?

The right-wing demonization of socialism seems nearly complete, as people now identify it as something entirely different. Indeed, this reflects the longstanding conservative projection; they accuse others of being what they are.

After years of posturing these United States as "capitalist", conservative powers now want to write that system off as "socialist". This is not surprising; American Christians rejected the Apostles when we stamped a religious motto on our coinage, and now we are to write off the sins of our society as the very thing we've been fighting tooth and nail for a century to destroy?

'Tis a tragic thought, given all the virtues we claim for "America".

 

It's not. It's a process for amassing tremendous and disproportionate power and wealth and placing in the hands of government officials.