Abolish both parties and start afresh

[leftwinger]

Why Can't This be done

Party is just a name. You need a physical purge.

Agreed. Look what Jeff Flake did masquerading as a conervative R. 100% phony DemWitted loon. Many more like him.

Need rules on how they must work, if elected. A contract with American voters who work to pay their worthless rear ends.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

Party is just a name. You need a physical purge.

Agreed. Look what Jeff Flake did masquerading as a conervative R. 100% phony DemWitted loon. Many more like him.

Need rules on how they must work, if elected. A contract with American voters who work to pay their worthless rear ends.

Are you a citizen of AridZona?

 

[Pogo]

Government can’t ‘abolish’ political parties but there’s nothing stopping private citizens from refusing to support both major parties and refusing to vote for their candidates.

The two major parties are a problem the people alone created, and only the people can solve that problem they created.

Not the people alone -- the Electrical Collage had a hand in it. Certainly guarantees perpetual Duopoly.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

Because it would be unconstitutional.

Where does the Constitution guarantee the 'right to political parties'?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Government can’t ‘abolish’ political parties but there’s nothing stopping private citizens from refusing to support both major parties and refusing to vote for their candidates.

The two major parties are a problem the people alone created, and only the people can solve that problem they created.

Not the people alone -- the Electrical Collage had a hand in it. Certainly guarantees perpetual Duopoly.

If you want majority rule let's talk abortion, traditional marriage, and who can be served by a business.

 

[Pogo]

Government can’t ‘abolish’ political parties but there’s nothing stopping private citizens from refusing to support both major parties and refusing to vote for their candidates.

The two major parties are a problem the people alone created, and only the people can solve that problem they created.

Not the people alone -- the Electrical Collage had a hand in it. Certainly guarantees perpetual Duopoly.

If you want majority rule let's talk abortion, traditional marriage, and who can be served by a business.

Feel free to start a thread on any of that but it ain't the topic here.

 

[Slade3200]

The first amendment protects much of the actions that our political parties and superpacs take. I’d love to find a way to get rid of party politics. Maybe we start by reforming our congress and campaign system. Get ride of the “minority and majority leaders” get rid of those little d’s and r’s next to people’s names. Actually make voters listen and pay attention to ideas and voting records instead of voting for a letter.

 

[Votto]

You 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!

 

[edward37]

You 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!

WAIT!! there is good news
h by Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump is “scared to death” that the 2020 Presidential election will be decided by Americans, an aide to Trump has confirmed.

The aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Trump is panicking over a doomsday scenario in which Americans, sidelined during the 2016 election, play a dominant role in influencing the 2020 contest.

“It sounds paranoid, but, as we speak, representatives of the United States are already plotting to remove him from office in 2020,” the aide said. “They are determined to replace him with someone who takes a move favorable view toward their country.”


The aide said that the Americans, frustrated by Trump’s open hostility to the United States since taking office, will “stop at nothing” to achieve their ultimate goal: installing an agent of the U.S. in the Oval Office.

“It’s pretty clear what the Americans are up to,” the aide said. “They want a puppet who will do the bidding of the United States of America.”

While Trump has reportedly ordered his staff to do everything in its power to prevent Americans from meddling in the 2020 election, the prospect of U.S. nationals deciding the next Presidential race has clearly left the White House rattled.

“Americans are going to use voter registration, social media, and anything else at their disposal to hand the election to someone who will advance their interests,” he said. “That’s what keeps Trump up at night.”

 

[Slade3200]

You 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!

Brilliant attempt to conflate socialist, liberals and progressives but not even close to true. Each of those have their own distinct ideology with many differences.

 

[Votto]

You 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!

Brilliant attempt to conflate socialist, liberals and progressives but not even close to true. Each of those have their own distinct ideology with many differences.

Nope, no differences

 

[Pogo]

You 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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Government can’t ‘abolish’ political parties but there’s nothing stopping private citizens from refusing to support both major parties and refusing to vote for their candidates.

The two major parties are a problem the people alone created, and only the people can solve that problem they created.

Not the people alone -- the Electrical Collage had a hand in it. Certainly guarantees perpetual Duopoly.

If you want majority rule let's talk abortion, traditional marriage, and who can be served by a business.

Feel free to start a thread on any of that but it ain't the topic here.

Neither is the electoral system, shitforbrains.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You 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.

Learn the difference between a liberal and a leftist, dumbass.

 

[Defiant1]

How about getting the government out of political parties?
Political parties are private organizations and the government has no business telling them how to operate.
There shouldn't be primary elections.
Parties should have the right to choose their own nominees.
Parties should also have the right to vet their members. If you want to join a party you apply to the party.

Just think of the money taxpayers would save.

 

[Votto]

You 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.

 

[Pogo]

You 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.

Learn the difference between a liberal and a leftist, dumbass.

Good question. The way I like to lay it out is, a Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and leaves it at that. A leftist believes "therefore we need affirmative action laws to force that to be true". The leftist or rightist is the activist, and both oppose Liberalism.

 

[Votto]

You 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.

Learn the difference between a liberal and a leftist, dumbass.

Good question. The way I like to lay it out is, a Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and leaves it at that. A leftist believes "therefore we need affirmative action laws to force that to be true". The leftist or rightist is the activist, and both oppose Liberalism.

The term liberal has been bastardized.

It used to be that a liberal defied authoritarianism, but the Modern Liberal is all about it, all for our own "good".

 

[Pogo]

How about getting the government out of political parties?
Political parties are private organizations and the government has no business telling them how to operate.
There shouldn't be primary elections.
Parties should have the right to choose their own nominees.
Parties should also have the right to vet their members. If you want to join a party you apply to the party.

Just think of the money taxpayers would save.

Nobody requires primary elections. They're just a puppet show to amuse the masses and make them think they have a voice. Ultimately a political party can and will nominate whoever it wants to nominate, regardless of what happens in any primaries.

Like the Republicans did in 1912, but didn't have the balls to do in 2016.

 

[Pogo]

You 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.

Learn the difference between a liberal and a leftist, dumbass.

Good question. The way I like to lay it out is, a Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and leaves it at that. A leftist believes "therefore we need affirmative action laws to force that to be true". The leftist or rightist is the activist, and both oppose Liberalism.

The term liberal has been bastardized.

It used to be that a liberal defied authoritarianism, but the Modern Liberal is all about it, all for our own "good".

"Liberal" has never meant "authoritarian", ever. They're polar opposites.