What Will It Take to Bust the Paradigm

a reply to: JinMI

Is there a way to ever change this? How?

Revisit superpacs, they're a cancer on our system.

Clean up lobbyism.

Lastly, this one will be unpopular.

Take away the party system completely. Candidates will have to lay out and explain their full platform instead of it being assumed because of the letter next to their name. They wouldn't have a vast group of people to defend them if the renege, just a whole bunch of angry constituents.

Edit: Above needs to be done organically by demand of the people.

a reply to: JinMI


the equality of power must be stripped from either entity...and a Supreme Top Dog/ Caesar/ Supreme Leader must Emerge and take charge...s will roll to accomplish this power grab


anything less will only draw out the misery
(refresh yourself with the Albert Pike prediction of WW 3 & how it will unfold)

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Take away the party system completely.

Hallelujah.....someone else gets it!

Party politics has outlived its fit for purpose.

And give the electorate the power of recall; your local representative not doing what he / she said they would, call them back for re-election.
Politicians would then be far more accountable to the electorate.

a reply to: Freeborn

Thanks, I know some will take that proposition on an attack on freedom, I see it as a revolution to bolster freedom.

I understand why parties existed, and like you said, they have outlived their purpose.

In a day of instant communication, there is no reason to lump people into two lines that lead to the same place with minute differences.

Most people see it as sport though, they just get excited about their team winning on both sides.

The points they are so willing to argue tooth and nail are just as quickly cast aside if it comes time to save face once one of their politicians flip flop.

originally posted by: Grambler
But should we not vote until the corruption is ended?

I'm not here to tell you what to do, if you want to vote for either party knock yourself out, just dont expect the status quo to change.

I could be wrong, but I thought I saw you give praise to tulsi gabbard, a Democrat who I really like

Wasn't me.

originally posted by: JinMI
Red vs Blue

'publican v Dems

We know there are more parties. We know that it's largely about money. Is there a way to ever change this? How?

Nukes.
Aliens.
Zombies.
Giant meteors.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It is impossible to end the parties.

Its why in every system I know of politicians idenitfy a party they are in.

Even if outlawed somehow, whats to stop candidates from naming their ideology and lumping together with others.

Now what we can do is stop voting based on party, and instead look at each individuals platform.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh so you are saying you hate Gabbard!!!!!

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It is impossible to end the parties.

Its why in every system I know of politicians idenitfy a party they are in.

Even if outlawed somehow, whats to stop candidates from naming their ideology and lumping together with others.

Now what we can do is stop voting based on party, and instead look at each individuals platform.

Outlawing it at a legal level would just make it more popular, I made sure to edit it needs to be done organically at the will of citizens.

I've always been an independent, I've only voted for one president with an R or a D next to their name, but find myself doing it on lower level positions here and there... But still not all too often.

And lets be real, one Republicans platform doesn't differ too much from another.

Even more sadly, I can say the same when comparing across the isle.

Of course, we have anomalies like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. How'd the parties treat them?

Gabbard has a nice ass.

But what would she do for taxes, 2nd Amendment, free speech, illegal aliens, Trade deals. . . . ?

a reply to: Grambler

What is the solution then if voting for perceived outsider like trump is just backing the establishment? 

The answer is to empower the people!!!

As long as we have to depend on others -- especially government critters -- we will be at their mercy.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm sure I've given some members the wrong impression of my stance on Cortez.

She's many things, and in an ideal situation, lights on or off, I could see her and I getting along.

She could really mess all that up real fast by talking though.

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh so you are saying you hate Gabbard!!!!!

Yeah, I'd like to insert a pitchfork tine into her left eye socket.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm sure I've given some members the wrong impression of my stance on Cortez.

She's many things, and in an ideal situation, lights on or off, I could see her and I getting along.

She could really mess all that up real fast by talking though.

Two words.


Ball Gag.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Or the leather binding from one of Karl Marx's books.

I like to give people options.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh so you are saying you hate Gabbard!!!!!

Yeah, I'd like to insert a pitchfork tine into her left eye socket.

I think someone has a crush!!

a reply to: Grambler On the ballot, if I did not like either choice, I put my name as a write in. I know I'll do a good job. I have an alibi and good cover story for any questionable event.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well yes the parties treated those two like crao.

But it also shows that those two werent establishment people despite being from the two parties.

I agree with you thaat we should aall vote for individuals and not parties.

But I dont think we are any where close to somehow ending political parties.

Is there one system in any developed country you can think of that doesnt have political parties?

It seems that grouping with people you share ideas with and naming that group is organic.

a reply to: Grambler

It seems that grouping with people you share ideas with and naming that group is organic.

Yes, that would essentially be a new party.

But I think America would do better if we celebrated our differences rather than trying to quite them.

Essentially we could make parties irrelevant.

Last cycle showed there is a possibility to do so.

If it was Sanders vs Trump, it would have been two candidates just using those parties as vehicles. Should this become the trend, whats the point of the parties to begin with?

If we addressed the money in politics, the parties would follow suit... It's the only reason they're still standing.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I too would like to see money addressed in politics.

ALthough I think that it is near impossible to solve.

Look at how the clinton foundation was able to get around it.

Now things like go fund me could set up anonymous donations to just about anyone.

Not to mention that "services" could be offered instead of money.

Whats more benficial to a politician, 1 million dollars from a businessman, or near constant positive coverage from cnn or fox, or the nyt?

Can we really outlaw that amount of coverage?

The way to combat this problem isnt to say make the oney illegal, its to make politicians that accept this money or services accountable.

But for that we need real journlism, which is a joke at this point.

But if enough people could wake up and understand "Hey, turns out the senators pushing for this war all took money from defense contractors wanting this war" and actually hold politicians criminally responsible when they sell votes, I think we would be in a much better place.