Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 127
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    We've been needing viable third parties for decades now. The problem is almost all of them think it starts with the Presidency. It has to start with local governments and work it's way up to the top. I really believe it's the only way to break the two party system we have now.
    You are probably 100% correct.

    However, even before it starts at the local level, a way must be found to get $$$$ out of the system.

    One of my biggest complaints is that you should not be allowed to donate $$$ to someone you cannot vote for. Eliminating this alone would go a long way to simple changes in the system.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You are probably 100% correct.

    However, even before it starts at the local level, a way must be found to get $$$$ out of the system.

    One of my biggest complaints is that you should not be allowed to donate $$$ to someone you cannot vote for. Eliminating this alone would go a long way to simple changes in the system.
    Oh, I agree. Let me generalize you if I may based on your posts I believe I have seen.

    You are an independent small businessman. You have a net worth in the low seven figures. You make less than $200K a year. The best you could hope for without outside money is a small local election.

    You represent well over 50% of the population (meaning you are middle class at the top end and potentially lower middle as a floor). You and the over 50% worth less than you from a dollar sense have no shot at politics. Zero.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Oh, I agree. Let me generalize you if I may based on your posts I believe I have seen.

    You are an independent small businessman. You have a net worth in the low seven figures. You make less than $200K a year. The best you could hope for without outside money is a small local election.

    You represent well over 50% of the population (meaning you are middle class at the top end and potentially lower middle as a floor). You and the over 50% worth less than you from a dollar sense have no shot at politics. Zero.
    And don't forget, as so many have pointed out, I am also old.

    Oh, and I eat supper.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    And don't forget, as so many have pointed out, I am also old.

    Oh, and I eat supper.
    Me too. My 4 PM supper is awesome. I'm gone before anyone else shows up so I can yell at folks to get off my lawn
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,932
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    We've been needing viable third parties for decades now. The problem is almost all of them think it starts with the Presidency. It has to start with local governments and work it's way up to the top. I really believe it's the only way to break the two party system we have now.
    While no doubt well intentioned, this is a fairly limited assessment — though a very common one and often typifies the understanding of persons who themselves are not involved in third party work on the local level. Speaking as one who has had that kind of third-party experience, I can say that a grassroots organozation is very important but suffers the same obstacles that we suffer on a statewide and national level. The way the system was designed at the outset insured that it would allow for only two viable parties at any given time and place (in political science, it is called Duverger’s Law), and the successful local initiatives, such as they are, occur largely when one of the two main parties has a negligable presence.

    Still, the national exposure (even in a rigged system as ours is) is essential for the kind of broad exposure necessary for the current political landscape.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    While no doubt well intentioned, this is a fairly limited assessment — though a very common one and often typifies the understanding of persons who themselves are not involved in third party work on the local level. Speaking as one who has had that kind of third-party experience, I can say that a grassroots organozation is very important but suffers the same obstacles that we suffer on a statewide and national level. The way the system was designed at the outset insured that it would allow for only two viable parties at any given time and place (in political science, it is called Duverger’s Law), and the successful local initiatives, such as they are, occur largely when one of the two main parties has a negligable presence.

    Still, the national exposure (even in a rigged system as ours is) is essential for the kind of broad exposure necessary for the current political landscape.
    Or when the two main parties send universally horrible candidates forward.

    Frankly it's much more likely we can get one of the 2 parties to change to be what we want than getting a 3rd party in any major position of power. Ranked choice voting could have a significant impact making that more possible though. Then people could vote for the person they like best AND vote for the person they think is most likely to win and not "waste their vote".

    So far we are:
    - solving housing
    - solving poverty
    - solving policing
    - solving money in politics
    - solving election processes
    - solving the 2 party system

    Health care anyone?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    While no doubt well intentioned, this is a fairly limited assessment — though a very common one and often typifies the understanding of persons who themselves are not involved in third party work on the local level. Speaking as one who has had that kind of third-party experience, I can say that a grassroots organozation is very important but suffers the same obstacles that we suffer on a statewide and national level. The way the system was designed at the outset insured that it would allow for only two viable parties at any given time and place (in political science, it is called Duverger’s Law), and the successful local initiatives, such as they are, occur largely when one of the two main parties has a negligable presence.

    Still, the national exposure (even in a rigged system as ours is) is essential for the kind of broad exposure necessary for the current political landscape.
    I have no polisci classes in my background.

    But I think the issue to the two party system is found in the issues.

    In the beginning of the US, there was two choices, love England or leave England. That was it. America was founded. A decade-ish later and Washington was elected President. Still no parties or one could say there was one political party.

    As issues appeared so did a divide into parties. Most issues that get decided are not issues with multiple choices (what should I have for breakfast) they are more two point issues (buttered or dry toast). This creates the dichotomy we have today.

    For any rise of a party one of the existing, if not both, must not be in favor enough to allow the competition of a third party. That starts at the bottom. I've been a voting member of third party candidates at the localest of local levels. In my small area it seems to be viable. Can it be that way nationally on the local level and then grow from there? I think so. I do not think going National will work. The closest we got was Ross Perot IIRC and that was pretty much a dud. Just a way to make sure that Bush was not re-elected.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    I have no polisci classes in my background.

    But I think the issue to the two party system is found in the issues.

    In the beginning of the US, there was two choices, love England or leave England. That was it. America was founded. A decade-ish later and Washington was elected President. Still no parties or one could say there was one political party.

    As issues appeared so did a divide into parties. Most issues that get decided are not issues with multiple choices (what should I have for breakfast) they are more two point issues (buttered or dry toast). This creates the dichotomy we have today.

    For any rise of a party one of the existing, if not both, must not be in favor enough to allow the competition of a third party. That starts at the bottom. I've been a voting member of third party candidates at the localest of local levels. In my small area it seems to be viable. Can it be that way nationally on the local level and then grow from there? I think so. I do not think going National will work. The closest we got was Ross Perot IIRC and that was pretty much a dud. Just a way to make sure that Bush was not re-elected.
    All these ideas are just great but how do you combat the fact that most of the voters know very little about who and what they are voting for. Most of the voters have no idea ss to how the government works at the federal level, state level, local level.

    People vote on identity politics, for whatever party they always vote for, for who looks the best, who has the best looking family. Or they vote on social issues that have no bearing on the operation of the country: abortion/no abortion, guns/no guns, legalize or don't legalize marijuana. They have no informed opinion on real issues.

    Pick ten people off that street and ask them:
    how does a law get enacted
    what is a filibuster
    what is a veto and how do you overcome it
    what are term limits
    how may judges are on the SC
    name more than 5 presidents
    who their senators are
    yada, yada, yada

    And all these people have votes.
    The crack mama with seven kids has as much to say at the polls as the richest man in the world (and the dems will somehow get her to vote and get her vote counted).

    There are trillions of dollars at stake and we are electing people that have an impact of the entire planet …… all placed in the hands of the American electorate. Not very comforting.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    17,590
    Society has gotten continually more tribal over the years. Yet we're surprised that our politicians have, too. It's no coincidence. So did society cause the divide with politicians or did politicians cause the divide in society?

    If this thing called democracy is really going to work for ALL people, this **** has to stop....period.
    People (read you, me, politicians, everybody) need to get away from the constant push to get their way and understand that being the LOUDEST VOICE doesn't make one the right one for the majority of us.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    All these ideas are just great but how do you combat the fact that most of the voters know very little about who and what they are voting for. Most of the voters have no idea ss to how the government works at the federal level, state level, local level.

    People vote on identity politics, for whatever party they always vote for, for who looks the best, who has the best looking family. Or they vote on social issues that have no bearing on the operation of the country: abortion/no abortion, guns/no guns, legalize or don't legalize marijuana. They have no informed opinion on real issues.

    Pick ten people off that street and ask them:
    how does a law get enacted
    what is a filibuster
    what is a veto and how do you overcome it
    what are term limits
    how may judges are on the SC
    name more than 5 presidents
    who their senators are
    yada, yada, yada

    And all these people have votes.
    The crack mama with seven kids has as much to say at the polls as the richest man in the world (and the dems will somehow get her to vote and get her vote counted).

    There are trillions of dollars at stake and we are electing people that have an impact of the entire planet …… all placed in the hands of the American electorate. Not very comforting.
    Pick any topic and this is true. I'd say it's called being human.

    I do not agree that social issues do not have a bearing on the country. That doesn't mean all do, but many you listed certainly do.

    Finally, if you want a good Republic you cannot place qualifications like money made, number of kids, job in life to be the barrier for voting rights.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Society has gotten continually more tribal over the years. Yet we're surprised that our politicians have, too. It's no coincidence. So did society cause the divide with politicians or did politicians cause the divide in society?

    If this thing called democracy is really going to work for ALL people, this **** has to stop....period.
    People (read you, me, politicians, everybody) need to get away from the constant push to get their way and understand that being the LOUDEST VOICE doesn't make one the right one for the majority of us.
    Term limits and remove the $$$$ would pretty much solve the problem.

    Case in point……the Texas idiots that "fled the state" will now be supported in their expanses by over half a mil being gathered by Beto. And this is all because ………"whah, whah, whah we lost the majority." So these people doing it and being financially supported sets a precedent and will lead to more of the same. Paying to support these people amounts to a bribe to not do your job. It is really the same as a bribe to vote one way. Stuff like this needs to go.

    Case in point (I'm not supposed to talk about the anointed squad so forgive me)…members of the "Squad"supposedly raised far more $$$ from outside their districts than from their constituents. This is flat out wrong.

    Until we get rid of the money, I don't have much hope.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Term limits and remove the $$$$ would pretty much solve the problem.

    Case in point……the Texas idiots that "fled the state" will now be supported in their expanses by over half a mil being gathered by Beto. And this is all because ………"whah, whah, whah we lost the majority." So these people doing it and being financially supported sets a precedent and will lead to more of the same. Paying to support these people amounts to a bribe to not do your job. It is really the same as a bribe to vote one way. Stuff like this needs to go.

    Case in point (I'm not supposed to talk about the anointed squad so forgive me)members of the "Squad"supposedly raised far more $$$ from outside their districts than from their constituents. This is flat out wrong.

    Until we get rid of the money, I don't have much hope.
    As did Green and Boebert. Yet you didn’t mention them here. Wonder why? And before you say “I comment on what’s in the news”, Green is in the news for going on a money tour this very moment with Gaetz. Yet despite being in the news for doing the very thing you’re saying is wrong, you chose to use the squad as your example. Again, wonder why?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    As did Green and Boebert. Yet you didn’t mention them here. Wonder why? And before you say “I comment on what’s in the news”, Green is in the news for going on a money tour this very moment with Gaetz. Yet despite being in the news for doing the very thing you’re saying is wrong, you chose to use the squad as your example. Again, wonder why?
    If Green and Boebert were in the news for the very same thing then……

    1 I did not see it

    and

    2. They were wrong and I would have commented on it if I had seen it.

    No matter who does this, they are wrpong. Are you getting this???

    Obsessed much???

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    If Green and Boebert were in the news for the very same thing then……

    1 I did not see it

    and

    2. They were wrong and I would have commented on it if I had seen it.

    No matter who does this, they are wrpong. Are you getting this???

    Obsessed much???
    Not as obsessed as you are with the squad.

    You need the virtual equivalent of a restraining order based on your obsession with them. It’s downright creepy.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    75,102
    OK, question for anyone: defend our military budget. Why does the DOD need to be the largest employer in the world? Who is going to invade us? When's the last time a country attacked us on our soil? Just take a stab at justifying it.

    OK. Thank you for your submission!

    Now, assuming you've gotten through that without face-planting, tell me why you wouldn't be OK with taking say...33% of our defense budget and making a spending that money and taking those jobs and putting it to work somewhere else. A worthwhile jobs program. No new money is spent. No jobs are lost. Just an equal transfer of funding and jobs from the military to something like...the Green New Deal. Something that demands a lot of jobs, costs a lot of money, but would actually help out the average American.

    Walk me through why the status quo now, and all the money we pour into the military to lose forever wars and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians is better than literally doing anything else with that tremendous amount of financial power.

    And ask yourself why Biden and Co. just keep adding more and more to our defense budget, and why you continue to support a Democratic party that has shown no true aversion to American imperialism nor a willingness to be serious about combatting climate change.
    HELLO

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •