Who Here Has Had Enough of the Two Party System?

Is it time to ditch the two party system?

  • Yes. The two-party pissing match is destroying the country.

  • No. The two party system is good for America.

  • It's different when my side does it!


Results are only viewable after voting.
Clearly the jackals have descended and the two-party propagandists are doing their thing. We'll probably need to carry on this discussion elsewhere, for those who are actually interested.

Thanks to everyone who participated honestly.
 
Last edited:
My experience is that the ends of the spectrum are just fine with this crap, and will defend it.

Which pretty much explains the problem.

We'll see.

:popcorn:
The system is always yapping about democracy and the going off and murdering a few million people for "democracy.
Democracy was invented in ancient Greece. It was supposed to give the peons a voice in things. But, the Rich people hired the best speakers (Solons), and con artists to sway the "public" into voting for what the Rich people wanted.
That is the way it is in USA, too.
 
Well, that's the question I'm asking here. Would you like to change it?
Not necessarily. It wouldn't bother me if voters began to vote for third parties enough that a third party candidate stood a chance to win. But I always vote for one of the two current major parties, the GOP. So, I don't give much thought to different systems.
 
We actually do have multiple parties in the sense that both parties are made up of factions.

True, plus there is the Tea Party, the Green Party, the Constitutionalist Party, and others. Usually, several parties are on every ballot, just that the two main ones dominate.

Look at Ross Perot: when he ran, he was like a third party. People loved him, but instead of winning, he just took enough votes from the likely winner (otherwise) and allowed the other party to win instead.
 
True, plus there is the Tea Party, the Green Party, the Constitutionalist Party, and others. Usually, several parties are on every ballot, just that the two main ones dominate.

Look at Ross Perot: when he ran, he was like a third party. People loved him, but instead of winning, he just took enough votes from the likely winner (otherwise) and allowed the other party to win instead.
Right. That's because of the spoiler effect, built-in to plurality voting. And the two party ***** oppose every effort to correct that. They like it just the way it is.
 
Right. That's because of the spoiler effect, built-in to plurality voting. And the two party ***** oppose every effort to correct that. They like it just the way it is.
Yep. We do. If you start new parties, good luck. Even Elon Musk changed his mind, and he is really smart.
 
The US has a gang problem. Two rival gangs, roam the streets, fighting over turf. They try to intimidate the citizens, bullying, threatening and scaring people into supporting their "side".

Just say "no".
 
The US has a gang problem. Two rival gangs, roam the streets, fighting over turf. They try to intimidate the citizens, bullying, threatening and scaring people into support their "side".
Democrats in cities use those tactics, like when that young man wore a Trump hat, and was harassed.
 
The US has a gang problem. Two rival gangs, roam the streets, fighting over turf. They try to intimidate the citizens, bullying, threatening and scaring people into supporting their "side".

Just say "no".

I see it differently. It's not two rival gangs. The problem is, the major parties were hijacked years ago and they're controlled by the same people.

I've posted this clip a million times, but I'll post it again... G. Edward Griffin here is speaking about what Carroll Quigley revealed in his book Tragedy and Hope.

 
I see it differently. It's not two rival gangs. The problem is, the major parties were hijacked years ago and they're controlled by the same people.
And that's different from gangs how exactly?
 
Because it's actually one gang. 2 wings of the same bird.
Again, I'm not so sure that's different than the gangs. Who's selling them guns these days? The CIA, the FBI? ICE?
 
Again, I'm not so sure that's different than the gangs. Who's selling them guns these days? The CIA, the FBI? ICE?

Oh, I was talking about the Ds and the Rs. If you're talking about actual street gangs, then I guess I misunderstood your earlier post. If so, sorry, carry on. :lol:
 
15th post
Oh, I was talking about the Ds and the Rs. If you're talking about actual street gangs, then I guess I misunderstood your earlier post. If so, sorry, carry on. :lol:
I'm making a comparison. The point is, why would anyone support either side? Why would anyone dick around trying to decide which gang is less evil?
 
I'm making a comparison. The point is, why would anyone support either side? Why would anyone dick around trying to decide which gang is less evil?

I absolutely agree with you! I've always been opposed to the LO2E mindset, because that is precisely how the powers-that-be want us to think. Why, because if we play that game, they win either way. That's what people don't get. They do such a good job pretending to be enemies, that most people fall for it. It's more like WWE wrestling, in reality.
 
There are more than 2 parties here now.


A third party needs to get a candidate that can draw the people. And don't start that both parties are the same bullshit because the Democrats have NEVER pulled what Republicans have. And it is the right who continues pushing the both sides narrative that so many people have chosen to believe.

We're in this mess because of white fragility, bigotry, and stupidity.

In 2000, we had the chance to elect a president who would have continued policies that would have created a surplus. Instead, a plurality voted for a candidate who set record deficits because the prior president had an affair.

In 2016, we had the chance to elect a president who would have continued policies that were paying down the debt, set record economic growth, and whose husband, who would have been her top advisor, implemented policies that had this nation facing projected budget surpluses. Instead, we elected a racist because part of the nation had a problem with a black president, and an even bigger problem with that black president actually using his authority as president.

Last year, we had the choice to elect a president who was going to continue policies that created the best economy in the world, set records for low employment, and reduced crime in this country. Instead, people voted for an overt racist because he race pimped immigration after sabotaging a stringent immigration bill supported by the border patrol while believing that a person who had more pubic policy experience than that Republican, even after he had been president, because they believed false propaganda about her strength and qualifications.

So now we are here, and some people dare believe that it is because the left strongly opposed bigotry, so a certain part of the population got angry, that's a ridiculous belief that says we must tolerate bigotry and be held hostage to bigots.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
-Joseph Goebbels

We have heard a narrative over and over now for several decades from only one side. The anti-government right wing. The problem is not the two-party system. It is us.
 
Last edited:
The problem is not the two-party system. It is us.
I agree. The problem is you. But the poll results are encouraging. They align with poll after poll showing that most voters think both parties suck. Maybe we can get our shit together and kick them (you) to the curb.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom