Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
Whatever They Omit Is Where It's AtHoly shit, I wish it could. And the process could include debates first, with two or three more parties, so that people could have a real choice.Why Can't This be done
All the zealots could obediently clump back together into their little tribes, but the rest of us might be able to dilute the power they have now, if people could be offered real alternatives.
Pipe dream. A nice pipe dream, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
.
That debate process though was commandeered away from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to a construction called the Commission on Presidential Debates, a subsidiary of The Duopoly, which colludes on those debates to negotiate on gotcha questions as well as what's in the Duopoly's mutual interest, any threat of competition from outside the Duopoly. That hostile takeover was just a couple of decades ago, within recent memory.
It's one more way The Duopoly acts as what a single political party eventually always devolves to --- a catalyst for its own self-perpetuation and nothing more.
Wags Wearing WigsThe Constitution was intended to limit the power and scope of the Federal government a Liberal view of the Constitution is what gave us today's government.The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not VotesBecause it would be unconstitutional.Why Can't This be done
The Constitution is what created this bossy and bickering oligarchy.
BossbotsBoy, are you confused!Communism Is State Capitalism, Capitalism Is Communism for the RichYou can abolish the parties but the same people will still be there.
Which is what they need to do.
For example, the term socialist fell out of favor so they changed to liberals. Then liberals fell out of favor and they became Progressive. I have no idea what the next term will be but they need to think of one fast!
Never ceases to amaze how a message board that's supposed to be about politics draws flies from the black hole of Political Science Ignorance. SMH
Nothing was "changed to Liberals". Liberals were those who wrote the Constitution and set up this whole great experiment. We were here from the beginning; nothing needed to be 'renamed'.
"Progressives" were a socio-political movement having little or nothing to do with that, and they were here and gone roughly a hundred years ago.
Socialism was another economic-political influence contemporary with Progressives which outlasted them and remains an ingredient of governmental structure to various degrees including e.g. the fire department that douses your house when it ignites, for the common good.
--- None of which have anything to do with political parties. All of the above have been associated with either Duopoly party and with no party at all.
A political party, after all, doesn't function as a repository for a philosophy. It's simply a machine to consolidate power. That's it. And it will do that using whatever ideological approach works for that time and place.
Political parties: political ideologies. Know the difference.
You are correct, consolidating power is the key.
It is all about collectivism and power. It just so happens that the elements of socialism are the most beneficial to accomplish this task.
Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the revenue and the owners collect it.
Lob a Blob of Gob, SlobBoy, are you confused!Communism Is State Capitalism, Capitalism Is Communism for the RichWhich is what they need to do.
For example, the term socialist fell out of favor so they changed to liberals. Then liberals fell out of favor and they became Progressive. I have no idea what the next term will be but they need to think of one fast!
Never ceases to amaze how a message board that's supposed to be about politics draws flies from the black hole of Political Science Ignorance. SMH
Nothing was "changed to Liberals". Liberals were those who wrote the Constitution and set up this whole great experiment. We were here from the beginning; nothing needed to be 'renamed'.
"Progressives" were a socio-political movement having little or nothing to do with that, and they were here and gone roughly a hundred years ago.
Socialism was another economic-political influence contemporary with Progressives which outlasted them and remains an ingredient of governmental structure to various degrees including e.g. the fire department that douses your house when it ignites, for the common good.
--- None of which have anything to do with political parties. All of the above have been associated with either Duopoly party and with no party at all.
A political party, after all, doesn't function as a repository for a philosophy. It's simply a machine to consolidate power. That's it. And it will do that using whatever ideological approach works for that time and place.
Political parties: political ideologies. Know the difference.
You are correct, consolidating power is the key.
It is all about collectivism and power. It just so happens that the elements of socialism are the most beneficial to accomplish this task.
Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the revenue and the owners collect it.
He is a product of public schooling.
BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOUBecause you would literally need to start a bloody revolution, dragging everyone from both parties out into the street and butchering them there. And that would be quite illegal, I'm afraid.
Duped by the DuopolyIf it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.
After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.
Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.
How is a political party "private" when its goal is to take over the government?
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
Exposing Your Pathetic Grasping Attempt to Find Infallible Father FiguresYour Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
No one has ever suggested that there IS a "freedom to bribe". Again, hyperbole and melodrama aside, "bribery" has a very specific definition, and the normal, everyday operations of political parties dmeet it. to go fuck yourself
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.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?
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.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.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?
That's the same thing as being in a party.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.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.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?
It's much more nuanced than that, but i largely agree. The real ideological battle going on right now is not right vs. left, it's authoritarian vs. libertarian. Anyone who thinks government should be "solving problems" or stepping aside and letting people actually solve problems.The Republican Party is just the more moderate branch of the bat shit crazy extreme Left Democrat Party.
We need to have a "Big Government Welfare Party" and a "Small Government Personal Responsibility Party".
That is the two divisions in this country.
Why Can't This be done
When Rex Tillerson did business with Russia against US sanctions, he just got fined.Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
