Abolish both parties and start afresh

[S.J.]

Liberals were those who wrote the Constitution and set up this whole great experiment.

Sure, that's why they were against the right to keep and bear arms. No, wait...

 

[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.

Nope, no differences

Bask in ingnorance if you must. Your choice

 

[Baron]

So-called 'democracy' is a lie, because the real power belongs to a couple of freemasons and banksters, parties and politicians of any color are their puppets.
Only Theocracy or Christian Fundamentalist State founded on the Holy Bible can save Christian White Civilization

 

[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.

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.

So you could describe the concept of political parties as "political socialism"?

I guess, but then you're conflating a political term with an economic one. "Political collectivism" would work better, or in practice, "political groupthink".

 

[Pogo]

So-called 'democracy' is a lie, because the real power belongs to a couple of freemasons and banksters, parties and politicians of any color are their puppets.
Only Theocracy or Christian Fundamentalist State founded on the Holy Bible can save Christian White Civilization

That's exactly what we threw off by creating this country.

No thanks, not going back to Divine Right of Kings and shit.

 

[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

Bask in ingnorance if you must. Your choice

The whole political spectrum is a lie.

You have communists on the left side and the Nazi party on the right.

In reality, both regimes were collectivist carbon copies of each other.

The minor difference being, Hitler pulled the strings of corporations. They had no real freedom to speak of even though still private in name.

So the Nazi model was superior in that, they allowed the professional business men run industry and not a bunch of idiot bureaucrats

Now if you are to get all exited about this minor difference then hats off to ya!

 

[Baron]

So-called 'democracy' is a lie, because the real power belongs to a couple of freemasons and banksters, parties and politicians of any color are their puppets.
Only Theocracy or Christian Fundamentalist State founded on the Holy Bible can save Christian White Civilization

That's exactly what we threw off by creating this country.

No thanks, not going back to Divine Right of Kings and shit.

Than Muslims will kill you.

You have no other choice:

Either Fundamentalist Christianity or Caliphate.
Say thanks to insane lefts and zionists

 

[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.

So you could describe the concept of political parties as "political socialism"?

I guess, but then you're conflating a political term with an economic one. "Political collectivism" would work better, or in practice, "political groupthink".

Collectivism has but one goal, try to attract as much support as possible to crush all opposition.

The odd thing is, it all falls about without opposition, so if they are in full control it behooves them to create an illusion of opposition, which is what I think we have now in both parties.

 

[Marion Morrison]

There's a few liberals on USMB, the rest are leftist shills.

Pogo is a leftist shill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The people of the states whom the Electors represent; the people alone are ultimately responsible for the good - or bad - government they get.

 

[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.

Nope, no differences

Bask in ingnorance if you must. Your choice

The whole political spectrum is a lie.

You have communists on the left side and the Nazi party on the right.

In reality, both regimes were collectivist carbon copies of each other.

The minor difference being, Hitler pulled the strings of corporations. They had no real freedom to speak of even though still private in name.

So the Nazi model was superior in that, they allowed the professional business men run industry and not a bunch of idiot bureaucrats

Now if you are to get all exited about this minor difference then hats off to ya!

You’re right, both spectrums have become convoluted by contradictions between their political ideologies and social ideologies.

The Left wants larger government but also more personal freedom with many social issues. The Right wants smaller government but more government control over many social issues. Catch 22

 

[candycorn]

Why Can't This be done

Getting rid of political parties is a bad idea. The reason is as basic as the fact that there are strengths in numbers. The problem is not the parties in particular. The problem is that the government has been bent to the will of the parties in very clear ways and in ways that are not so clear. The committee system that we have in Congress is just one example. Committees are made up to reflect the majority party in each house. So if the party leadership doesn’t like a proposed bill that could likely pass on a straight up or down vote, the committee the bill is assigned too kills it. The scheduling of bills for consideration is strictly a party mechanism. Obama didn’t need to veto many bills because Harry Reid basically killed them before they’d reach his desk.

 

[Pogo]

So-called 'democracy' is a lie, because the real power belongs to a couple of freemasons and banksters, parties and politicians of any color are their puppets.
Only Theocracy or Christian Fundamentalist State founded on the Holy Bible can save Christian White Civilization

That's exactly what we threw off by creating this country.

No thanks, not going back to Divine Right of Kings and shit.

Than Muslims will kill you.

You have no other choice:

Either Fundamentalist Christianity or Caliphate.
Say thanks to insane lefts and zionists

I can say with absolute certainty that no Muslims have ever killed me.
And they've had ample chance.

For that matter the only environments I've ever been in that could be considered dangerous were when that danger derived from the IRA. Yet even then nobody came up with the ludicrous statement that "Catholics will kill you"

Apparently when one is given to psychotic fantasies such as the Holey Babble, one's psychosis is not limited to the religious.

 

[Slade3200]

Why Can't This be done

Getting rid of political parties is a bad idea. The reason is as basic as the fact that there are strengths in numbers. The problem is not the parties in particular. The problem is that the government has been bent to the will of the parties in very clear ways and in ways that are not so clear. The committee system that we have in Congress is just one example. Committees are made up to reflect the majority party in each house. So if the party leadership doesn’t like a proposed bill that could likely pass on a straight up or down vote, the committee the bill is assigned too kills it. The scheduling of bills for consideration is strictly a party mechanism. Obama didn’t need to veto many bills because Harry Reid basically killed them before they’d reach his desk.

I dont understand why you see that as a good thing. Why doesn’t congress operate on a rotational basis where each congressman has a turn m to submit their proposed bill for a straight up vote? This way they get to represent their agenda openly and the others get to show their support or non support publicly.

 

[Votto]

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

Bask in ingnorance if you must. Your choice

The whole political spectrum is a lie.

You have communists on the left side and the Nazi party on the right.

In reality, both regimes were collectivist carbon copies of each other.

The minor difference being, Hitler pulled the strings of corporations. They had no real freedom to speak of even though still private in name.

So the Nazi model was superior in that, they allowed the professional business men run industry and not a bunch of idiot bureaucrats

Now if you are to get all exited about this minor difference then hats off to ya!

You’re right, both spectrums have become convoluted by contradictions between their political ideologies and social ideologies.

The Left wants larger government but also more personal freedom with many social issues. The Right wants smaller government but more government control over many social issues. Catch 22

No, I would say that those are lies as well.

The Left does not want more personal freedom, unless it means taking drugs and buying whores.

The Right does not really want big government. Did you see the last omnibus bill?

LMAO!

 

[Slade3200]

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

Bask in ingnorance if you must. Your choice

The whole political spectrum is a lie.

You have communists on the left side and the Nazi party on the right.

In reality, both regimes were collectivist carbon copies of each other.

The minor difference being, Hitler pulled the strings of corporations. They had no real freedom to speak of even though still private in name.

So the Nazi model was superior in that, they allowed the professional business men run industry and not a bunch of idiot bureaucrats

Now if you are to get all exited about this minor difference then hats off to ya!

You’re right, both spectrums have become convoluted by contradictions between their political ideologies and social ideologies.

The Left wants larger government but also more personal freedom with many social issues. The Right wants smaller government but more government control over many social issues. Catch 22

No, I would say that those are lies as well.

The Left does not want more personal freedom, unless it means taking drugs and buying whores.

The Right does not really want big government. Did you see the last omnibus bill?

LMAO!

The Left doesn’t want the government telling people who they can marry or how they identify themselves. Agree with LGBT issues or not it is very much a personal freedom cause and a major one that the Left stands for.

True todays Republicans seem to have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility, i was referring moreso to ideological differences and conflicts

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The founders would have exiled both of our parties....or hanged them.

 

[CowboyTed]

Write lads (and ladies),

Every few months this topic comes up and every few months I answer it the same ways... There is a simple reason you have two parties... One Man One Vote (or First past the post voting).... It is antiquated, dumped by the first world (except UK) decades ago...

There is alternative other voting styles but Run off, Alternative vote... Here is a few videos...






I am proposing Single Vote Transfer Proportional Representation....

Single Vote Transfer - That is bit allows the voter to vote 1,2,3,4... down the line in order of preference... If your candidate is knocked out then your vote goes to the next candidate left in the race...

Proportional Representation - multiseat districts, this is normally from 3-5 seats..

There is far more complications I can explain if interested but what results is usually more parties but with higher ethos in what they believe.. There is less one big tent but multiple smaller ones will to negotiate for much as they can get in a program of government...

 

[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.

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.

I'm not talking just about President. All races, all the way down to dog catcher.

 

[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.

I'm not talking just about President. All races, all the way down to dog catcher.

There are primaries for dog catcher?

The point remains, political parties already DO have the right to choose their own nominees. Nobody's bound by "primaries" and nobody's required to hold them. They can rig the primaries for a preselected outcome (like the Democrats did in 2016) and they can hold primaries and ignore the results (like the Republicans did in 1912). "Primaries" is an illusion, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.