Political Parties Should Be Banned - (run as individuals instead)

14 posts / 0 new

Freedom of Assembly and Association, huh? I think it has done more harm to the United States than any other element. Why do I think this? It's because the Republicans and Democrats have a shared monopoly on the political system. It's because far too many lazy people blindly vote for someone just because he's a part of one party or the other. How many people vote for someone not knowing anything about him except that he belongs to a particular party? That's retarded.

It typically requires an enormous amount of money to win major political seats. It's no secret that these two parties have the most money and so it's next to impossible for anyone else to compete against them.

So much for a fair playing field. Who the hell designs a contest that isn't fair and balanced? What if the most intelligent and mentally fit person refuses to be a part of the Republican or Democrat party? Does he stand a chance? No. No, he doesn't. So America loses out.

I hope that the Internet will bring an end to this sickening system one day. The Internet is the only hope for America, but it could be too late before it can rescue us. This two-party system needs to be cracked.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 8:58 am

Comments

Your topic is all well and good

But we don't need to ban political parties. I understand your frustration with the 2 party system, but we can do 2 easy things that will make the playing field much, much more balanced. The first thing we can do is reform and make strict campaign finance reform laws and ban corporations from being people. The second thing and maybe easier is to have 3 or 4 parties, get 2 more parties into the debate and that will vastly equate the playing field. Because and Howard zinn documents this so well in his classic book, a people's history of the US, that corporations love the 2 party system because it is either or, but when you have 3 or 4 parties in the mix, it is much, much harder to control and buy everyone.

lleytian6's picture
lleytian6
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This bird has two wings.

There is no such thing as a 3-winged bird,

When the Republicans were beaten four times in a row by Roosevelt, the whiny little crybabies put term-limits on the Presidency but they really banned the ability of Americans to vote for whom they wanted. Banning is un-American.

The two-party system is as close to political perfection as you can get in a free country.

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm

I think the parliamentary system works better than what we have. Then people with diverging views have to find commonality, %g3y have to work with others to form coalitions to get things done. Have you ever sat in a two legged chair? And a bird with such differences in its wings , would be spinning around in the dust , on its side. Kind of like our nation. Only the cage is closing round the bird.

cloud thunder's picture
cloud thunder
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote kwikfix:

This bird has two wings.

Poor analogy. I can throw retarded analogies at you too. A horse has four legs and ours is crippled with only 2. Our country wallows around in the mud helpless like a two-legged horse.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 8:58 am
Quote Mr_Dean:
Quote kwikfix:

This bird has two wings.

Poor analogy. I can throw retarded analogies at you too.

My metaphor is brilliant. The "bird" refers to the American Eagle, thus, America itself and our political system. This bird has two wings.

Your analogy, on the other hand, is forced, strained, and pseudointellectual, because its derivation means nothing metaphorically.

Just as spectrum has two sides, left and right, this bird has two wings, left and right. Nice try, righty, but I win again...thus, you lose again.

http://www.costofwar.com/

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm

Kwixfix, you are incredibly ignorant

Of course, term limits should be in place. You mention FDR, well I can show you George W. Bush, tell me that Bush couldn't get re-elected to a third term, and I'll show how he illegally won his first 2.

Its close to political perfection, that is laughable on its face. With both parties bought out by corporations, it is ironic how it can be the best political system in a "free country." Only if your in favor of oligarchy and fascism then would you love our 2-party system. And yea, our 2 -party system has been treating the poor and average american like you and I so well. We only have the worst unemployment and deficit since the great depression. Did i mention the 2 wars?? Hows that working out for us

Your analogy is not only poor, but incredibly irrelevant. You base it on the fuckin american eagle. Again you choose to be considered a joke by comparing our political system to our national symbol. It would be lovely, but like what america preaches, it does not practice.

lleytian6's picture
lleytian6
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote kwikfix:

Just as spectrum has two sides, left and right, .....

Interesting.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have long held the view that we need to ban political parties along with changing our campaign finance laws, re-enacting term limits on congressional seats, and ending corporate personhood while changing the way lobbyists interact with our legislators. In my opinion, all of these things need to be done. I suppose we could get away without changing our 2 party system, but I would love to see these politicians stand for what they believe rather than towing a party line; likewise I would like our voters to be forced to learn what each candidate believes in which is fairly impossible in our current and corrupt 2 party system.

The bird analogy is weak and your refusal to admit as such is even weaker. I liked it when I read it, but it doesn't hold any water. And Mr_Dean is right, any animal can be used as an analogy to the perfect political system. And its just an analogy. Just because you made some silly quip equating a birds requirement to fly to the effectiveness of our political system doesn't mean that we shouldn't change our political system. Our system sucks and it needs to be revamped and I'm sure you can agree with that. Unfortunately our politicians and their corporate overlords are too busy making money and polarizing the voters to care about the future of the USA. The change we need will probably take alot more than posting ideas on sites like these. We need to start revolting against the system in my opinion. I don't know exactly what that means though and it scares me to say it, but I just don't see any other way to change the status quo. The changes will either be legislated (highly unlikely) or forced by the will of the people...

Barbazza's picture
Barbazza
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stwo:
Quote kwikfix:

Just as spectrum has two sides, left and right, .....

Interesting.

The truth is always intriguing and baffling to righties.

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm

As Walden Bello has noted..., a two party system is a way for the elites to take turns governing without any substantial change...under the illusion of choice.

We can vote for the Corporate candidate of Tweedle Dee...or the Corporate candidate of Tweedle Dum.

Had the Soviets set up a two party system, people could have voted for the communist candidate of Tweedle Dee or the communist candidate of Tweedle Dum. They'd have had a nice little "democracy" going...or at least a similar illusion of one..

A two party system is a way for the elites to take turns governing without any substantial change...under the illusion of choice. Substantial change is limited to such things as who can marry who. Part of the illusion of difference. Those who govern could care less about the outcome of such things. It effects nothing of real interest to them.

Prof. Wolin explains it pretty well in his book, "Democracy, Inc.".

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

One final question:

Which wing of the American left-wing/right-wing political system would be in charge of banning the left-wing/right-wing political system? The left-wing or the right-wing?

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm
Quote Barbazza:

I have long held the view that we need to ban political parties along with changing our campaign finance laws, re-enacting term limits on congressional seats, and ending corporate personhood while changing the way lobbyists interact with our legislators. In my opinion, all of these things need to be done. I suppose we could get away without changing our 2 party system, but I would love to see these politicians stand for what they believe rather than towing a party line; likewise I would like our voters to be forced to learn what each candidate believes in which is fairly impossible in our current and corrupt 2 party system.

The bird analogy is weak and your refusal to admit as such is even weaker. I liked it when I read it, but it doesn't hold any water. And Mr_Dean is right, any animal can be used as an analogy to the perfect political system. And its just an analogy. Just because you made some silly quip equating a birds requirement to fly to the effectiveness of our political system doesn't mean that we shouldn't change our political system. Our system sucks and it needs to be revamped and I'm sure you can agree with that. Unfortunately our politicians and their corporate overlords are too busy making money and polarizing the voters to care about the future of the USA. The change we need will probably take alot more than posting ideas on sites like these. We need to start revolting against the system in my opinion. I don't know exactly what that means though and it scares me to say it, but I just don't see any other way to change the status quo. The changes will either be legislated (highly unlikely) or forced by the will of the people...

My thoughts exactly

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 8:58 am
Quote kwikfix:

One final question:

Which wing of the American left-wing/right-wing political system would be in charge of banning the left-wing/right-wing political system? The left-wing or the right-wing?

My point exactly per my last post. Our elected officials won't willingly make the change. I personally believe America can only be saved by a (hopefully peaceful) revolution.

Voting in new politicians and hoping they make the necessary changes is not a realistic scenario in my opinion...

Barbazza's picture
Barbazza
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Keystone would be way worse than we thought!

We already know that the Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen. But, it turns out that the impact of that tar sands pipeline could be even worse than we thought. According to a new study by the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Keystone could add four times more carbon pollution to our atmosphere than the State Department originally estimated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system