WHY is no one focusing on the need to do away with the 2-party system?!, page 2

Surely Ron Paul and Alex Jones being in the Illuminati card game gives credence to my information linking Ron Paul to Freemasonry and Alex Jones to Disney/Monarch/Zionism?



[img]http://images.piratenews.org...[/img]


redpillfactory.com

Guys, unless I am completely off in my views on this (please feel free to point out my errors, with facts not opinions please), if we are NOT up for changing our constitution and the Republic our founding fathers gave us, we HAVE to stop talking about the popular vote as far as presidents are concerned! Our Republic was NEVER meant to be a democracy! EVER!



The founding fathers abhorred democracy/mob rule, and they explicitly said so on many different occasions. The whole original system was set up to completely avoid mob rule. In the case of the presidency the electoral college is the way they guaranteed the mob would not rule. Only a handful of highly qualified men (hopefully) per state would cast their vote for the president and whoever came in second was the vice-president PERIOD. So it was with Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc... why do you think the constitutionally aware RP posse concentrated all their efforts on electing delegates that were RP supporters. Because EVERY delegate is meant to vote their conscious. This debate of bound or unbound delegates is a modern fallacy. I am not quite sure when the fakery started but unless, again, we want to change what our founding fathers gave us, we have to stop calling the US a democracy. IT IS NOT (kinda makes everyone that buys into the tagline that we have been spreading democracy to the world via our intervention policies and wars completely and utterly foolish). We would have the candidates from all parties (Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Tea-Party, Occupy etc...) get same air time and have the same amount of public funding and REAL debates so that the people know exactly who they are on where they stand and the delegates who are elected can make their decision and justify their decision to the people of their state. If they get it wrong next time or choose to go against the popular sentiment of their state they may not be a delegate next time. Then the people would HAVE to concentrate in electing the RIGHT people for Congress and the Senate (again, another way the founding fathers set to stop mob rule, a few men from each state will be making and voting on laws, policies and measures). And since the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary were meant to have equal power and serve as a check and balance to each other they guarantee no mob rule and they guarantee not one group will take over everything (at least in theory). Of course nowadays we exult the Executive above all others, The House and Senate are a mess because we have been indoctrinated to only care about the presidential vote and the Judiciary has been delegated a role of subserviency and back-up to the Executive. Now, we have all the lobbyists tie the noose around everyone involved in all 3 branches and we have the worst nightmare of the founding fathers. A small group who controls everything, not to mention a private "central bank" aka The FED, which for the exception of Hamilton, was the biggest no no for most of our founding fathers, so much so that Jefferson famously prophesied:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

This is why we need more parties to truly and fully be a part of the process both for the executive and the legislative, which then trickles to the Judiciary.

reply to post by betheflow

---

I've thought for a while now that the formation of a third party is very close at hand. The more centrist Republicans and Democrats are about to run into each other in the hallways of congress and realize they have more in common than they thought, and common disgust with the ridiculous extremes is going to get 'em to talking. They will come up with a new name and bada bing it's a three party system. But for how long? Eventually one of the extremes will wither and fall away. and, which one this will be, will determine the new center. don't forget to root for you side.

Politics is the moderator of human interaction. Our living together is a difficult, but unavoidable reality. How this moderation is conducted is responsible for a great deal of our living experience, and is of no small consequence.

It disturbs me sometimes when I see the shrillness of debate in the arena of politics. It is as though we have taken leave of our rationality and instead have turned to tantrums while standing on a mountain of righteousness. This is not only wrongheaded and foolhardy, but more importantly, It doesn't work.

reply to post by betheflow

---

I think the reason both parties stay around is that their ideals are actually good, at least so it seems for the GOP.

reply to post by betheflow

---

The issue is not that the people aren't starting to see the two party system is an illusion...

Many are starting to wake to that fact, and your very post is evidence of that.

The real issue is, people see the illusion for what it is but cannot see the ever needed solution to the problem.

When you are raised your entire life knowing your only choices for polititians you can vote for are the ones rammed down our throats by the b.s. political mouthpeice that is our media...how is one to see any other solutions but to keep on voting for the same puppets every 4 years.

The people of this country, and this world for that matter are ready and desperately hoping for change...it was that very platform that allowed the obama puppet to be put in office.

The people however, cannot see what that change needs to be. They need to realize the change is going to come from the people, not the corporate owned politicians our gracious government ellects for us.
Www

I have a very easy and quick solution to all our problems, but it takes everyone to make it happen:

Our media is the mouthpeice of the monster...if we shut them up, then we shut them down.

Every major media outlet has user generated comments and posting areas for feedback on every story they put out. All we need to do is call b.s. when we see something that shouldn't be happening.

How many times do you watch the news, and say to yourself "something about that doesn't sound right" or "are they really reporting on this when more important issues are at hand"?

Every time we see that happening we should be flooding the medias websites with comments calling them out!

Just think how many people post on just this site alone...if just a fraction responded the media would have no chice but to respond.

It would be either respond to the people, or the sheer amount of comments will shut their site down "literally"!

If we call them out and show we aren't going to back down...they'll run with their tails between their legs like the dogs they are.

Originally posted by betheflow
Guys, unless I am completely off in my views on this (please feel free to point out my errors, with facts not opinions please), if we are NOT up for changing our constitution and the Republic our founding fathers gave us, we HAVE to stop talking about the popular vote as far as presidents are concerned! Our Republic was NEVER meant to be a democracy! EVER!

YouTube Link

The founding fathers abhorred democracy/mob rule, and they explicitly said so on many different occasions. The whole original system was set up to completely avoid mob rule. In the case of the presidency the electoral college is the way they guaranteed the mob would not rule. Only a handful of highly qualified men (hopefully) per state would cast their vote for the president and whoever came in second was the vice-president PERIOD. So it was with Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc... why do you think the constitutionally aware RP posse concentrated all their efforts on electing delegates that were RP supporters. Because EVERY delegate is meant to vote their conscious. This debate of bound or unbound delegates is a modern fallacy. I am not quite sure when the fakery started but unless, again, we want to change what our founding fathers gave us, we have to stop calling the US a democracy. IT IS NOT (kinda makes everyone that buys into the tagline that we have been spreading democracy to the world via our intervention policies and wars completely and utterly foolish). We would have the candidates from all parties (Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Tea-Party, Occupy etc...) get same air time and have the same amount of public funding and REAL debates so that the people know exactly who they are on where they stand and the delegates who are elected can make their decision and justify their decision to the people of their state. If they get it wrong next time or choose to go against the popular sentiment of their state they may not be a delegate next time. Then the people would HAVE to concentrate in electing the RIGHT people for Congress and the Senate (again, another way the founding fathers set to stop mob rule, a few men from each state will be making and voting on laws, policies and measures). And since the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary were meant to have equal power and serve as a check and balance to each other they guarantee no mob rule and they guarantee not one group will take over everything (at least in theory). Of course nowadays we exult the Executive above all others, The House and Senate are a mess because we have been indoctrinated to only care about the presidential vote and the Judiciary has been delegated a role of subserviency and back-up to the Executive. Now, we have all the lobbyists tie the noose around everyone involved in all 3 branches and we have the worst nightmare of the founding fathers. A small group who controls everything, not to mention a private "central bank" aka The FED, which for the exception of Hamilton, was the biggest no no for most of our founding fathers, so much so that Jefferson famously prophesied:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Well said....the founding fathers DID want the will of the people to be done though. They set up a system that, theoretically, would collect the will of the people and transmit it up through the various stations of governance and end with the electoral vote being cast by a delegate who, in the spirit of true service, would , as you said, vote their concience. the problem is that politicians are now ILLEGALLY beholden to someone other than the people...the corporations and the banking establishment et al....and they will never go away. they will have to be forcibly removed, and they know it too...and every inch closer the people get to realizing that prompts them to prepare for just that. i think we have been seeing that lately more clearly than ever. what im afraid of is that they think that a big war would shift the attention of the people away from domestic troubles enough to buy them time to re establish their grip...

reply to post by betheflow

---

The rich wont save the rest of men. That is the fact.
Inheritance does not only mean inheritance of posesions but also inheritance of class position from ones family, possibly also inheritance of their state of mind in which one is raised.

Take a look back at the sixties in your countryes south parts; havent there been an open segregation of afro-americans, open exploitation of their working hands and open devidance between blacks and whites? This was happening less than seventy years ago. Remember, many of the rich that were a motor to this crime have transfered their moral and ethical standards along with posesions of wealth and of course their political positions to their sons and daughters.

But what does all this chatter has to do with the constructs of our political systems. In short everything.

I hope you will not argue my stand that people had been always ruled by economical upper classes.
Reality is that s.c. political systems are the way to insure the devidance between the small upper class and the masses of lower classes with inserting the so called public service class (politicians - law makers, police, army, legal services, bureaucracy, scolars, medicine workers, believers institutions, etc.) in the middle to act one as a shock absorbers, the others as a force providers. So in one phrase to hand out sticks and carrots. This class is what we should call the middle class.

As I seee it, politics has been presented as a career, a job actually, that only refers to individuals that had been chosen to do this job. Insert here the voting of many people who are willing to participate in choosing the presented candidates, people that agree to actually take the blame if their chosen candidate is a fault and also agree that the voting that they attend once in a while is their only political action that they can participate in, are allowed to and are willing to do.

The rest is easy. Once you have persuaded people that the difference in moral, ethical and religious stands that their representative politician/party holds is enough to support him, you can throw in as many parties as you like.

Believe me, I come from the country where there are many parties even in parliament. What it comes to is they form a coalition which covers more that 50% of the seats and then devide the ministries accordingaly. And here we go again; coalition on one side, opposition on the other - two party.

The real point here isnt the need to do away with the 2 party system.

The real need is to see things as they are. The real need is to identify and address to the real problems that are affecting our societies. The real need is to end the devidance amongst people.

What if one day no one came to vote?

Ron Paul Won (Great Read) - Huffington Post
  Posted 13 days ago with 127 member flags

Texas GOP Mutiny - SC, VA, LA and Others May Join
  Posted 15 days ago with 83 member flags

*VID* Proof Romney and RNC is a sham causing potential Republican civil war.
  Posted 11 days ago with 77 member flags

FOX News and Others Take Ryan to the Woodshed for "Blatant Lies." ...Seriously, FOX News.
  Posted 12 days ago with 65 member flags

A Common Man\'s Guide to the Federal Budget.
  Posted 3 days ago with 51 member flags

Why the GOP Is Scared of Ron Paul and 4 Reasons He Might Still Get the 2012 Republican Nomination
  Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags

Former RNC Chairman, Michael Steele criticizes Romney/RNC for the treatment of Ron Paul.
  Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags

*VID* Ron Paul delegates speak out from RNC.
  Posted 8 days ago with 39 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: