[maxxxxx]

Exactly. Unfortunately Americans have been trained to believe that one party is right and the other is wrong. The concept that maybe both are wrong or support the same thing is foreign to them.

Same with surveillance: It's either Bush's fault or Obama's fault. They don't see the steady progression over the years independently of who is in power.

[sykh]

It’s sort of the divide and conquer strategy. Pit groups against each other whilst the looting occurs. While people fight over who is the true snowflake and that kind of stuff all sorts of shitty policies get enacted. Things didn’t just suddenly get unbearable because <person of opposite party> just got elected. If one thinks this then the problem was already there and one's lack of awareness of it is the real problem.

[TangoTrotFox]

It's also convenient for maintaining a grip on power and something I'm certain both parties have internally considered. Think about the most recent election. How many people voted for Hillary thinking, "I think this person truly and accurately represents my views and beliefs." And similarly for Trump? By contrast how many voted for one or the other thinking, "This person is trash... but, my god, the alternative is just completely unacceptable!"

The same sort of attitude ensures that third parties will never be considered. When people are driven to literally fear the 'opposition' winning, it means that the powers that be have effectively sealed their grip on power tight. Also even notice the media's focus on "electability." It's all rhetoric designed to get people to note vote for the candidate they want in power, but to 'strategically vote' and in the process completely undermine their own self interest.

Pair this with some institutional issues like ballot access and we have a system where the establishment has all but guaranteed their perpetual success.

[mhneu]

Yes America would probably be better off with more than two parties. First you need to ditch the first past the post system.

[maxxxxx]

This Chomsky vote comes to mind: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” .

[bodi]

> It’s sort of the divide and conquer strategy.

Since we're discussing nothing short of the US government acting as an enemy to the citizens it is supposed to serve, I would suppose the next few prudent questions are:

1) What is the entity deploying this divide and conquer strategy?

2) Is this entity monolithic? Cellular? Organized or random?

3) What does this entity stand to gain and is it good for all?

[sykh]

Since we're discussing nothing short of the US government acting as an enemy to the citizens it is supposed to serve....

Your premise is incorrect. The "sort of" part of my statement is important. There are lots of forces at play that cause this. I see it as sort of an emergent phenomenon and not the design of some clever genius or powerful organization.

[bodi]

> sort of divide and conquer

Your assertion is not strong enough and your self referential call out to authority is suspect or at the least misplaced.

It is absolutely divide and conquer and it absolutely is an organized effort.

My assertions were posed as questions only to guide the light.

Anyone with eyes to see will know this. The problem is most of those eyes lack the courage and faith to speak.

[sykh]

I didn’t make any self referential call out to authority. I provided no authority whatsoever. I posited beliefs and spoke in such terms. I just stated how I see things. As I said, I believe the problems are emergent phenomena. Of course I could be wrong. It could be an organized effort as you say. It seems reasonable that it would become organized even if the origin isn’t.