America without political parties.

Having no political parties is a attractive fantasy but absolutely unreal. Like minded people will always group together and vote in unison wether they have a name or not. America vote stupidly massively and regretfully. As usual.
FYI - I have NO political party, and I'm real, think real, and act real. It's NOT fantasy. I'm NOT the only one that has no political party. There are many of us, but we're greatly outnumbered by the stupid damn idiots that have a political party. Thus the sad shameful state of this once great nation.
 
Having no political parties is a attractive fantasy but absolutely unreal. Like minded people will always group together and vote in unison wether they have a name or not. America vote stupidly massively and regretfully. As usual.
There's nothing wrong with like-minded people getting together. The problem comes when money enters the picture to corrupt the system. Remove the temptation and let them talk away.
 
Well then, please explain the Lobbyists' control of the U.S. Congress. Explain the corruption associated with government no-bid contracts such as Halliburton and GE. Explain the giving away of tax dollars to corrupt foreign governments. Explain the supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists. Explain the building of mosques on foreign soil. Explain the care and support of illegal immigrants. How would campaign finance reform change government corruption? Government corruption is embedded to the extent that the only real solution is to never ever vote for, nor re-elect, a professional politician, and set service to a "one-term" term limit.
So you ARE telling me who I can vote for. Makes your earlier response seem somewhat disingenuous. All those things are easily explained. They were all in some way desired by special interests. Take away their ability to fund elections and it takes away a lot of their power. Nothing's perfect, but if that's what you're looking for, you don't understand human nature. Nothing's going to change it, but you can introduce stumbling blocks.
Me, nor anyone else, can, or should, tell you who to vote for. That is your choice, as it should be. It's one of the few freedoms that hasn't been taken away. Vote for anyone that you feel merits your vote. Exercise your right to vote. It would be stupid of me, or anyone else, to tell you who to vote for.
 
I don't see how Republicans/Democrats are benefiting the United States and I also don't see how having propaganda media networks pandering to either side (msnbc,cnn,fox news) helps to truly inform the public of the real issues facing the country.
Our political process is a circus with one side saying yes the other saying no just because the other said yes, and then opposite when it is appropriate.

This isn't government. It's a game at the expense of the American people, their tax dollars, and insulting to our intelligence.
It's time to stop it now...
So describe what you'd like to see. How do we elect office-holders?
.
Locally, without the help of any national organizations.....A US Congress person is simply a person in a congressional district......You win the election, you get to go to the US Congress......

No party and certainly no national agenda....You win or lose on the strength of your values and arguments on issues that are important to YOUR constituents....Not to any party's platform.
 
Money isn't the problem, corrupt politicians are the problem. the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is with term limits, get them out before they do too much damage. That way also cuts out the money, they have to keep buying new politicians, and the fact that there would be no more entrenched politicians would mean more normal people would run for office and have a chance of winning. Now, with guys who have been in office 20 years, you need a freaking crow bar to get them out of their seats.Money isn't the problem, and allowing people to give money to the people they want to represent them is free speech.
What corrupts politicians, if not money? Even if they don't use it to their own benefit, it skews how they think because they constantly have to worry about what their big contributors want, NOT what the people want.
 
Me, nor anyone else, can, or should, tell you who to vote for. That is your choice, as it should be. It's one of the few freedoms that hasn't been taken away. Vote for anyone that you feel merits your vote. Exercise your right to vote. It would be stupid of me, or anyone else, to tell you who to vote for.
But that's what anyone who calls for term limits is doing. I prefer money limits.
 
Having no political parties is a attractive fantasy but absolutely unreal. Like minded people will always group together and vote in unison wether they have a name or not. America vote stupidly massively and regretfully. As usual.
There's nothing wrong with like-minded people getting together. The problem comes when money enters the picture to corrupt the system. Remove the temptation and let them talk away.


Yes....and exactly how do you spread the word about your beleifs and your candidate without money......you guys, do you think past stage 1 when you post....money will always be there no matter what you do to try to stop it. Politicians will always have their hands out no matter what limits you try to impose, and the more limits the more powerful you make the guy already in office. The guy in office has the advantage of tax payer paid for offices, staff, access to the community, travel, vehicles, electronics, access to the media and the ability to call local town halls on tax payer expense, which gets his face and name out into the community, and the guy in office has access to the media in that he can plant stories very easily about any and all opponents and can grant access to the political process to journalists that the new guy can't do, and the guy in office will already have a substantial campaign war chest full of money from his past elections, and he will have a list of donors from past elections as well that he can tap on a minutes notice.

And with all of those advantages for the guy in office, paid for by you and me........what does the new guy have....

The new guy...has none of that, and you guys want to handicap him even more by limiting how much money people can give him. That is why new people have such a hard time taking on corrupt, incumbent politicians. They need money for everything, travel, posters, events, staff, buildings for headquarters, he needs to generate donors, get media coverage


And all of that takes money that they don't have....

And you want to limit the new guys chances even more...

Please...think this through before you post....

Why do you think the guys in office want campaign donation limits.........?
 
The first step would be to end Citizens United, and get the big money out of politics. As long as it's legal for the rich to buy elections, they will do it and control the politicians they paid for.


That is stupid. Money isn't the problem, corrupt politicians are the problem. the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is with term limits, get them out before they do too much damage. That way also cuts out the money, they have to keep buying new politicians, and the fact that there would be no more entrenched politicians would mean more normal people would run for office and have a chance of winning. Now, with guys who have been in office 20 years, you need a freaking crow bar to get them out of their seats.

Money isn't the problem, and allowing people to give money to the people they want to represent them is free speech.

Are you really that dumb?
 
The first step would be to end Citizens United, and get the big money out of politics. As long as it's legal for the rich to buy elections, they will do it and control the politicians they paid for.


That is stupid. Money isn't the problem, corrupt politicians are the problem. the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is with term limits, get them out before they do too much damage. That way also cuts out the money, they have to keep buying new politicians, and the fact that there would be no more entrenched politicians would mean more normal people would run for office and have a chance of winning. Now, with guys who have been in office 20 years, you need a freaking crow bar to get them out of their seats.

Money isn't the problem, and allowing people to give money to the people they want to represent them is free speech.

Are you really that dumb?


Allow me to translate...

Begin translation for left wing stupid post:

He posted the truth about money in politics, and made me look like an idiot. True, being a lefty I am used to being an idiot, but his actually showing that I am an idiot is really embarrassing. I know, I will just say "Are you really that dumb." That will get lots of silly giggles from the other lefties on the site and make me look pretty smart.

End translation.
 
many Americans (most people in my very humble opinion), are drooling idiots. hell, most politicians are drooling idiots.
they can't be bothered to understand the mechanism of government. all they look for are catchy one-line phrases that turn them on - so they align themselves with whatever party sells its image to them more effectively.
Here is the result!!!
 
The first step would be to end Citizens United, and get the big money out of politics. As long as it's legal for the rich to buy elections, they will do it and control the politicians they paid for.


That is stupid. Money isn't the problem, corrupt politicians are the problem. the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is with term limits, get them out before they do too much damage. That way also cuts out the money, they have to keep buying new politicians, and the fact that there would be no more entrenched politicians would mean more normal people would run for office and have a chance of winning. Now, with guys who have been in office 20 years, you need a freaking crow bar to get them out of their seats.

Money isn't the problem, and allowing people to give money to the people they want to represent them is free speech.

Are you really that dumb?


Allow me to translate...

Begin translation for left wing stupid post:

He posted the truth about money in politics, and made me look like an idiot. True, being a lefty I am used to being an idiot, but his actually showing that I am an idiot is really embarrassing. I know, I will just say "Are you really that dumb." That will get lots of silly giggles from the other lefties on the site and make me look pretty smart.

End translation.

So you think unlimited money in politics which converts election day to political garage sale day isn't a problem? I ask again......Are you really that dumb?
 
The first step would be to end Citizens United, and get the big money out of politics. As long as it's legal for the rich to buy elections, they will do it and control the politicians they paid for.


That is stupid. Money isn't the problem, corrupt politicians are the problem. the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is with term limits, get them out before they do too much damage. That way also cuts out the money, they have to keep buying new politicians, and the fact that there would be no more entrenched politicians would mean more normal people would run for office and have a chance of winning. Now, with guys who have been in office 20 years, you need a freaking crow bar to get them out of their seats.

Money isn't the problem, and allowing people to give money to the people they want to represent them is free speech.

Are you really that dumb?


Allow me to translate...

Begin translation for left wing stupid post:

He posted the truth about money in politics, and made me look like an idiot. True, being a lefty I am used to being an idiot, but his actually showing that I am an idiot is really embarrassing. I know, I will just say "Are you really that dumb." That will get lots of silly giggles from the other lefties on the site and make me look pretty smart.

End translation.

So you think unlimited money in politics which converts election day to political garage sale day isn't a problem? I ask again......Are you really that dumb?


No, it isn't, as long as every individual can donate freely. What causes corruption is 20-30 year seat holders. If you limit donations, you just make it more likely the incumbent, with all of the advantages of the office, will just be re-elected since a normal person can't gather the money to fight them for the seat.

Moron.

Let's see...

The Incumbent in any election has these things paid for by the tax payer the entire term of their election:

1-office staff
2-office supplies
3-transportation (cars and planes)
4-town hall meetings and other community outreach
5-instant access to the movers and shakers in the business community
6-a well funded war chest from past elections
7-an already estalished relationship with the press and other media
8-the ability to grant favors for political support
9-name recognition
10-an office in the capitol, and an office in his district
11-experience running for office
12-political connections who will help him run for office
13-the backing of the power and financial resources of his political party

And against all of those thins we already pay for, Joe Six Pack, has to get enough money to pay for all of those things right from the start ...and you want to say they can only get so much in donations......

That is why politicians like campaign donation limits...it gives them all of the advantage......
 
I do not think that political parties should be recognized in the election process. However, I recognize that there will always be political parties. People are going to group together for a common goal no matter what. Unfortunately we have only two and useless.
 

Forum List

Back
Top