Abolish both parties and start afresh

[koshergrl]

So what we have here is a threat about our party system, from a person who maintains we need to abolish it because our form of government needs to be toppled.

Let's go to war.

 

[Cecilie1200]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

 

[Pogo]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

 

[Windparadox]

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

`
It says on their tax returns they both are for profit.

 

[Pogo]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

Nope.

First of all just because Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie plan about political intrigue which has far less to do with actual political machinations than it has to do with jerking off his own ratings, doesn't mean it's actually happening in the world, k? Got a link to document it happening? No I guess you don't.

Second, McCain didn't need phantom votes -- he came in already way ahead of the field, he eclipsed his nearest competitor by ten times in that primary, after which Romney withdrew.. He had no other serious challengers for the rest of his campaign save Ron Paul, and obviously he had about as much chance against his own party machine as Bernie Sanders did with the Democrats. The Duopoly doesn't tolerate outliers.

Thirdly, sitting Repub POTUS Bush was already on his way to historically low approval numbers, meaning whoever either party nominated, the Republican was going to launch with a built-in disadvantage, even before the economic plummet happened that fall.

And fourthly --- If I lived in a state that required party registration in order to vote in its primaries and wanted to engage such an influence ----- what's to stop me from registering as a (in this case) Republican to do just that? In fact what other reason is there to register a political party affiliation at all?

So no Cupcake, this is where your cloak-n-dagger theory stabs itself in the cloak.


And btw since part of this thread is about the effect of the WTA system in the Electical College and another part of it is about primaries, it's worth noting that, as they're set up, several states use the same mindless WTA system for their primaries as well, Florida and Ohio to name two. It's what won Florida for McCain and forced Rudy Giuliani to bow out.

 

[S.J.]

Democrats Are Being Urged to Vote for Rubio to Stop Trump

 

[koshergrl]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

Nope.

First of all just because Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie plan about political intrigue which has far less to do with actual political machinations than it has to do with jerking off his own ratings, doesn't mean it's actually happening in the world, k? Got a link to document it happening? No I guess you don't.

Second, McCain didn't need phantom votes -- he came in already way ahead of the field, he eclipsed his nearest competitor by ten times in that primary, after which Romney withdrew.. He had no other serious challengers for the rest of his campaign save Ron Paul, and obviously he had about as much chance against his own party machine as Bernie Sanders did with the Democrats. The Duopoly doesn't tolerate outliers.

Thirdly, sitting Repub POTUS Bush was already on his way to historically low approval numbers, meaning whoever either party nominated, the Republican was going to launch with a built-in disadvantage, even before the economic plummet happened that fall.

And fourthly --- If I lived in a state that required party registration in order to vote in its primaries and wanted to engage such an influence ----- what's to stop me from registering as a (in this case) Republican to do just that? In fact what other reason is there to register a political party affiliation at all?

So no Cupcake, this is where your cloak-n-dagger theory stabs itself in the cloak.


And btw since part of this thread is about the effect of the WTA system in the Electical College and another part of it is about primaries, it's worth noting that, as they're set up, several states use the same mindless WTA system for their primaries as well, Florida and Ohio to name two. It's what won Florida for McCain and forced Rudy Giuliani to bow out.

You are so nuts.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats Are Being Urged to Vote for Rubio to Stop Trump

Soooooooo you actually don't know the difference between some talking head "urging" people to go do something -- which anyone anywhere can do at any time with zero effort ---

----- and those people actually going out and doing it?

Whelp --- I axed you for documentation that it was happening, and this is all you came up with.

You lose.

 

[Pogo]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

 

[OldLady]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

I heard the Dem party was "reviewing" the super delegate thing. Wonder if they ever did anything about it? Probably not. As a life long independent, I would like the opportunity to vote toward who is going to be the candidate.

That's the same thing as being in a party.

So am I not supposed to vote? I'm confused.

 

[Some Guy]

I think the republicans and democrats should finally get together to form their end-game totalitarian party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

 

[NightFox]

Abolish both parties and start afresh

Naw, those "D" and "R" uniforms the partisan drones wear come in quite handy.

"You see, we like our Nazis in uniform. That way you can spot 'em just like that but, You take off the uniform and ain't nobody gonna know you was a Nazi ." -- Lt. Aldo Raine, Inglourious basterds

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

`
It says on their tax returns they both are for profit.

You'd have to link me their tax returns for me to address that, but what I said still stands: they aren't about turning a profit and paying shareholders; they're about advancing an agenda.

 

[Pogo]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

 

[Cecilie1200]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

And if you can convince the "entrenched" that the best way to stay entrenched is to make that agenda happen, then it works out.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

 

[S.J.]

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

Boom! Suck on it, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

 

[S.J.]

Democrats Are Being Urged to Vote for Rubio to Stop Trump

Soooooooo you actually don't know the difference between some talking head "urging" people to go do something -- which anyone anywhere can do at any time with zero effort ---

----- and those people actually going out and doing it?

Whelp --- I axed you for documentation that it was happening, and this is all you came up with.

You lose.

Like all liberals, they do what they're told.

 

[S.J.]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

I heard the Dem party was "reviewing" the super delegate thing. Wonder if they ever did anything about it? Probably not. As a life long independent, I would like the opportunity to vote toward who is going to be the candidate.

That's the same thing as being in a party.

So am I not supposed to vote? I'm confused.

Not saying that at all. Do what you want, I'm just addressing what I see as the fallacy of your logic concerning this issue.

 

[Pogo]

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

Boom! Suck on it, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah actually I had in mind a link to back up your actual claim there, Sherlock -- not a random link to a random thread.