It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The two party system is for sheep! Follow me.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
We are not bound to vote for either Republicans or Democrats. However, for years we have been herded through the corral. We are left with two options. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're not.

I happen to be a conservative. But are all good conservatives always Republicans? of course not.

The majority of Americans need to break this train of thought that they have to vote for one of the two. You do NOT!

We can break this cycle. Just like we can cripple the IRS. If politicians refuse to repeal certain laws that WE find offensive, we can repeal these laws for them..

I have my own easy answers to these challenges (they require unity, so we might get snagged up on that one), but right now, curiosity tells me to find out what others have in mind.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I agree and as the great george W stated, the two party system will ruin america.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by caucazoid69
 





We can break this cycle.


The propaganda has been fed to us for so long that I think it's nigh impossible to break this cycle. The average person actually thinks that Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck(just to name a few) are telling them the truth. My Mom ain't stupid but she's so brainwashed she cannot live without her damned talk-radio nonsense, listening to these asses day and night. Me, I get disgusted and want to break the radio after only a few moments listening to these scum. A slow, painful and horrible death is much too good for people like them who have helped ruin this country.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
You cant break the cycle at the moment or anytime soon.
You can perhaps convince a few people to vote for a 3rd party, but the vast majority are sold on the 2 party system, because every sponsor and contributor feeds to one or both sides

Sponsors and contributors own America, not any party.

so ya, you can try to put together a great 3rd party candidate, and they will get no airtime, advertising, etc...meanwhile the 2 party system will embed themselves into most everyones brains as the only two that are running...signs, television, radio, etc... a literal swarm of mind control messages telling people how they will feel about things, what jingoistic 2-3 words they must chant during election season, etc...

there is no hope, there will not be change...ever...just deal with it.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I must admit that I hate that we only have two parties. Its a bore really. I think we should reach back into the past and bring the most pimp-daddy party ever back into the now. C'mon people you know who I am talking about! Dunt dunt dunt daaaa. The Whigs! They held it down like stakes on a tent.


edit on 9-9-2010 by kenny71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
So Far, I hear whining and not one solution. Don't be offended! But this is what I suspect will be the norm for this thread. I want to hear real, viable solutions. Put your thinking caps on folks, it starts right here (figuratively speaking).

I refuse to just "Deal with it", that is the attitude that got us where we're at presently... Step up.. Give ONE solution. Our future as "Americans" depends on how committed we are today.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by caucazoid69
 


"The two party system is for sheep! Follow me."

That statement strikes me as very amusing. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like an oxymoron to me. I share your allegiance to conservatism, but I'm not seeing any compelling reason to follow you. I also agree that RINO Republicans are not distinguishable from Democrats. However, look at third party candidacies and see what they can do. In 2000 Ralph Nader handed the victory to Bush. His numbers in both New Hampshire and Florida were greater than the difference between Gore and Bush and polls showed that Nader voters, had he not been running, would have voted for Gore.

So good luck to you, but I don't think you've given anyone a reason to follow you, at least so far. And no, I'm not interested in 'providing a solution.' You said to 'follow' you, so the onus is upon you to tell us all why we should. Surely you are not asking us to provide the answer why we should follow you.




edit on 9/9/2010 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I am not necessarily the "me" in "follow me". It is an oxymoron, you're very observant. I chuckled when I thought of that in my mind because this is what we (voting Americans) do. All we know how to do is follow, like an apple dangling on a long stick in front of a horse. So, do not follow "me". I would probably run you right off a cliff anyhow. But the intention of my thread was to provoke some thought, and so far, I'm very discouraged.

My ideas (which I have not disclosed) are not mine. I just happen to believe wholeheartedly that they would be 100% effective. They have been presented numerous times by many people over decades. Most people are afraid to try new things and do not see the big picture and this is why I want to hear what others have up their sleeves. What are some other plans to abolish the ever rigged two party system.

I do appreciate your response. You obviously have your own mind. Thank you.


edit on 9-9-2010 by caucazoid69 because: (no reason given)




edit on 9-9-2010 by caucazoid69 because: typos- oops



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
OK. I guess I was taking you too literally. My mistake.

2nd line.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Of course it's for sheep, and of course some will think it can be corrected and some won't.

There are two basic truths about the modern American political landscape that you must overcome before anything can work (barring major upheaval, which doesn't sound appetizing to me personally).

1) There are two things you don't talk about in polite circles: Religion and Politics; unless you are on TV or radio, and then you infuse everything into these categories, working as a defacto arm of one of the Big Two parties. This has created a retarded (literal use) political dialog in this nation that has created bumper sticker debates on the street level, a general lack of knowledge as to facts, and fabricated political ideology being shucked around by the majority.

2) Voting for a third party is a wasted vote: This is a bald-faced lie, nothing more. If voting FOR the candidate that best represents my views rather than voting against a perceived "worse" evil, then I'll be wasting all my remaining votes in perpetuity.

Unless our culture changes, we can do nothing as it's terribly hard to parse the media complex we have currently. 24 hour news on tv and radio, rife with partisan hacks creates a political white noise so real voices are drops in the ocean, quickly forgotten.

People want solutions, but I've yet to see much, especially when you add in the ballot access laws and rules governing the Presidential debates.

Peace
KJ



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


The fault is mine. I have a very bad habit of writing too vague. AND, I'm at work, so I have to make them quick..



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Nobody ( I hope) wants civil unrest, but you are correct on your points.. So the question is, knowing how hard it will be to get people on board, what do we do and how do we get there, peacefully?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
The basic problem as I see it in this country today is that we don't really know where we want to go or, if we do, how to get there. We are split. Without advocating either side now, we have one group of people who believes socialism is the answer. These people are for greater government, less capitalism, and an even distribution of wealth. To them, this is "fair" as it accentuates collective equality of achievement--not just equality of opportunity. The other group wants governemnt out of our lives as much as possible, wants the freedom to live without others telling them what to do and wants a strict interpretation of the constitution. They think THAT is "fair" as it accentuates individual rights.

I'm sure everyone here can argue one side or another. To me, that's not the point. The point is: Where do we go from here? I'm not talking about one "side" winning over the other to enforce their point of view, but I wonder if any compromise is even possible. Personally, I see "evils" on both sides of the equation.

I suspect we can all kind of agree that we all want a certain 'prosperity' (I use the term loosely) to our lives. We want enough food and shelter and we want to 'pursue happiness.' If only we could agree on the proper way to do that, but at every turn we get argument. One side says the best way to do this is to leave businesses unregulated enough so they can set about creating the prosperity everyone wants. The other side feels government must step in to ensure prosperity is provided for all, e.g. health care.

In terms of saving the planet we have one group that says Global Warming is upon us and we're all gonna die unless we return to the carbon footprint of 1850. The other side says the science backing this up is dismal if not outright fraudulent if you'll just look at the data before it is manipulated. We ought to be worrying about another Ice Age.

In other words, we can't even agree on what is factual and what is not. So if you are even going to ask, "How can we change the system?" that begs the question. What do you want to change the system to?

Do you want to change to a three party system? Look at Great Britain and tell me how that is better. Do you want to change to a multi-party system? Look at Italy and tell me how that is better. Do you want to change to a dictatorship? Look at Uruguay and Cuba and tell me how that is better. Even Castro says it doesn't work. Do you want to split into a bunch of little countries? How do you do that?

I'm sorry, but all this kind of reminds me of my dog. (That's him to the left there, Moses.) Moses always wants to lead. He insists being first down the stairs. When I'm in motion he wants to be first, but he's not sure where I'm going, so he keeps looking backwards at me to see which way he should lead me. Of course he gets underfoot when he hesitates and it's a terrible mess of scrambled feet. He wants to lead but he doesn't know where to go.

He's a great dog, though.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by caucazoid69
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Nobody ( I hope) wants civil unrest, but you are correct on your points.. So the question is, knowing how hard it will be to get people on board, what do we do and how do we get there, peacefully?


I believe I've run the gamut in terms of political stages, having been around ATS since 2003 and politically active since 2001. Not that I am any great sage or anything, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say you can't.

Peace is like a vacation, if you didn't have to work, sit in traffic, mull over bills, and generally struggle, a vacation would be like every other day with a different location. We desire peace and peaceful change because we are too tolerant to stick our necks out and take what is already ours.

Keep in mind, the government doesn't play nice and it doesn't play fair. Why would you?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Keep in mind, the government doesn't play nice and it doesn't play fair. Why would you?

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one - Friedrich Nietzsche.

The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution show us that even those with the most good and noble intentions (end tyranny and oppression? Who wouldn't want that?) often become that which they were fighting against.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


If one thing is for certain in today's America, it is, as you mentioned,that we are heavily divided (split), and it would be extraordinarily difficult to get the majority of voters to agree on anything. In my humble opinion, this is directly related to our narrowed selection of candidates, courtesy of the two party system. I am not necessarily interested in doing away with anything. What I am interested in is changing the thought process surrounding the supposed obligation to vote for either the Democratic and Republican parties, with the notion that (as mentioned in a previous post) voting for a third party is a wasted vote.

This is by far the biggest challenge, that I see, in politics.. Changing politicians is a piece of cake. Changing the minds of millions of people who have been brainwashed for decades is an entirely different dilemma. How is it that we can gather on this website and on this thread, and be totally aware of what has happened to us, yet, Americans in general are completely oblivious? This is the mystery. Root cause analysis is key to figuring this out. It was also mentioned, I believe, that the change or transformation we need cannot be done overnight. Agreed. However, I am somewhat optimistic and suspect that if we (voters) played our hand right, we could accomplish this in a four (4) year period. #1- we need group dedication to hammering out the "Root Cause". No single person could effectively figure this out.. We need a solid general consensus. #2- Once we have "figured it out", we need group dedication on an even larger scale to get the wheels turning (similar to effectively implementing jury nullification). This stage has to be targeted at 30% or more, Left and Right sides of the center line, the "split". It cannot be extreme, but slightly more than moderate. A platform has to be designed that will allow folks to be willing to compromise (there isn't any room for compromise the way it is structured now). I do not think it is impossible, for a small movement is underway right now, although it is more center to right.. so there is no compromise offered to more slightly liberal thinking voters.

I think collectively, even-tempered, logical Americans can make "it" right...

Please feel free to attack. But please, be gentle.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I have always thought that US politics is hobbled by the "two party" system. The US need the birth of another party which could temper and influence the black and white politics that we all see.

Regards



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The solution is (theoretically) simple:
Fire Congress, then let the people vote on their own laws.

Anyone object?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by caucazoid69
 


Absolutely agree 155555000000%! This train of thought is running the country into the ground..the Rep and Dem are just two major parties...you are not bound to vote for JUST these two.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy


The solution is (theoretically) simple:
Fire Congress, then let the people vote on their own laws.

Anyone object?



It is a shame that we need to resort to mass congressional terminations. It would be much less damaging if we found a common candidate who came from nowhere, who's only agenda is that of the peoples agenda and the direction WE see fit to head to. Nothing more, nothing less. The sooner we (moderate conservatives and moderate liberals) can join together, the sooner this country can get back on the track towards prosperity and honor. Plain and simple.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join