Abolish both parties and start afresh

[Pogo]

`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

 

[S.J.]

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

Boom! Suck on it, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah actually I had in mind a link to back up your actual claim there, Sherlock -- not a random link to a random thread.

The funny thing is you can't UNsay what you said, and anyone can read it. Sucks for you, huh loser? BAM!

 

[Pogo]

He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

Boom! Suck on it, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah actually I had in mind a link to back up your actual claim there, Sherlock -- not a random link to a random thread.

The funny thing is you can't UNsay what you said, and anyone can read it. Sucks for you, huh loser? BAM!

They sure can. That's why I invited you to link it, already knowing it doesn't exist.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[S.J.]

Well, he IS a disingenuous lying hack but let's face it, he's not exactly a genius. I mean, he thinks Bush Sr. killed JFK. lol

Link?

No, exactly. You lose again.

Boom! Suck on it, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah actually I had in mind a link to back up your actual claim there, Sherlock -- not a random link to a random thread.

The funny thing is you can't UNsay what you said, and anyone can read it. Sucks for you, huh loser? BAM!

They sure can. That's why I invited you to link it, already knowing it doesn't exist.

Thanks for confirming.

Already did, but since you're too upset to notice, I'll link it for you again, loser.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Doubling the Duopoly

You're advocating the same worship of those who placed themselves on top. Selfist against Statist. There is no difference between begging the plutocrats to solve our problems and appealing to the government. The one thing both the twin tyrannies fear is if we organize and through the power of numbers, crush the Right or Left Wing elitists. Your Masters preach "rugged individualism" to suckers so that we will be picked off one by one. They want us to stand alone asking for a raise: Man Against Millionaire. Quit pulling our leg with this fake alternative.

There is no perfect solution, or perfect system. No one is claiming that. If they are, then they're stupid.

Considering that, i'd prefer people be in control of their own destiny, as much as possible, in a system that forces people to provide value to others in order to enrich themselves. That's what capitalism is.
What kind of society do they have left to live in then? At some point, it's enough for people to just use their strength in numbers to kill the super rich. Those super rich don't get so through brute force because they don't/shouldn't have governmental forces at their disposal. They get rich because they're smart and charismatic, able to work with/influence people to work together to enrich each other and themselves.

The more people are free to do what they want, the more checks there are on the super rich. If they're super rich for providing a superior good or service, then they'll have to continue to do so or someone else will come along and do it better. People are welcome to provide value to that company/person with their labor and/or intellect or put that intellect to work for themselves in competing.

In an imperfect world, setting things up for people to have the most autonomy and opportunity to make their lives what they want them to be is a vastly superior option to subjugating them in service to a government that decides what they can and can't have based on an arbitrary opinion of what's best for them.

We Don't Owe a Living to Those Who Own the World

Typical college-indoctrinated answer, dishonestly pretending that I'm claiming I have the perfect solution. That spin makes you feel safe to advocate sticking with the status quo rather than changing it to what your Masters tell you to say is an unrealistic utopia. Then you go to the ridiculous extreme by claiming that Capitalists are kept honest by the fact that they can't get away with poisoning or starving people.

The fact that the plutocrats get or give inheritance proves that they rely on luck, unearned privileges, or cheating. Then you pretend that the power of money is not brute force; only your fake alternative, the GUBMINT! exercises that.

Just like a car key, capital is necessary but not worth very much. The employees are the engine and the fuel, not the parasite who puts up the money. To use another term that bootlickers preach only applies to their government boogeymen, the investor only throws money at a problem and doesn't contribute to its growth. You've been brainwashed by the power of the plutocrats' expensive but profitable mind control.

Your third one-sided accusation is the fantasy that the rich do not restrict our opportunities. Their attitude of "My Way or the Highway" proves that their way is the low way.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

`
Political parties give simple minded people a place to roost. It also provides them with the illusion of choice.
`
`

`​

Those Who Push the Constitution Are Enemies of the 99%

The richlovers' Constitution is even more of an illusion. That is what established a tiny group of political butchers, each "representing" almost a million voters. We must overthrow this system and establish one that puts all important issues on national referendums.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

???
First Amendment:
The right of the people to peacefully assemble...

There's a reason that's there. What you're asking for is the ultimate tyranny, where the government jails and fines any group they deem to be a "political party," and would be used primary to crush dissent, while the government sycophants would be conveniently ignored and never recognized as a "political party."

Seriously, HOW do you plan to abolish them? The only way you can do this is send ARMED police officers to peaceful assemblies, gatherings and/or modern online organizations (clearnet or darknet) and arrest and imprison and/or fine all people involved in that organization.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

Likewise, a political party's goal is to advance their agenda. And just as there are people in political parties who are all about simply being there forever, there ARE people in non-profits who are also all about keeping the gravy train rolling.

Also, when I refer to "non-profits" in this conversation, I'm not really referring to charitable organizations, like the ASPCA and Humane Society, so much as non-profits that are more comparable to political parties, such as PBS, or the NRA, or the NAACP, or virtually any group funded by George Soros. Their primary goals are 1) to achieve an agenda, and 2) to continue to exist, so that they can continue to achieve agendas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

`
Political parties give simple minded people a place to roost. It also provides them with the illusion of choice.
`
`

`​

Those Who Push the Constitution Are Enemies of the 99%

The richlovers' Constitution is even more of an illusion. That is what established a tiny group of political butchers, each "representing" almost a million voters. We must overthrow this system and establish one that puts all important issues on national referendums.

Good luck finding any sizeable group of people who won't laugh at you on this.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

Nope.

First of all just because Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie plan about political intrigue which has far less to do with actual political machinations than it has to do with jerking off his own ratings, doesn't mean it's actually happening in the world, k? Got a link to document it happening? No I guess you don't.

Second, McCain didn't need phantom votes -- he came in already way ahead of the field, he eclipsed his nearest competitor by ten times in that primary, after which Romney withdrew.. He had no other serious challengers for the rest of his campaign save Ron Paul, and obviously he had about as much chance against his own party machine as Bernie Sanders did with the Democrats. The Duopoly doesn't tolerate outliers.

Thirdly, sitting Repub POTUS Bush was already on his way to historically low approval numbers, meaning whoever either party nominated, the Republican was going to launch with a built-in disadvantage, even before the economic plummet happened that fall.

And fourthly --- If I lived in a state that required party registration in order to vote in its primaries and wanted to engage such an influence ----- what's to stop me from registering as a (in this case) Republican to do just that? In fact what other reason is there to register a political party affiliation at all?

So no Cupcake, this is where your cloak-n-dagger theory stabs itself in the cloak.


And btw since part of this thread is about the effect of the WTA system in the Electical College and another part of it is about primaries, it's worth noting that, as they're set up, several states use the same mindless WTA system for their primaries as well, Florida and Ohio to name two. It's what won Florida for McCain and forced Rudy Giuliani to bow out.

The Dominance of Irrelevance

Mentioning the WTA makes you smarter than the On-Air HeirHeads, those drooling Diploma Dumbos who, though looked up to by passive couch potatoes, always miss the point. Dividing electoral votes down to a tenth of a percentage, Bush's infinitesimal margin in Florida would have had no effect on the outcome. If our educational institutions weren't as fraudulent as the media, some true intellectual could do a thesis on who would have won each Presidential Election based on awarding the votes in a rational way. Oh yeah, forget the dysfunctional Constitution's decree that it must be thrown into the House of "Representatives"; a simple runoff is the only solution we should allow.

And only Low-IQ Constitution worshippers would point out that each state already has the right to split its vote. We, the people, must make that mandatory, telling the Constitutionazis to quit ruling over free men. Take their filthy republic and stuff it in their spittling mouths. We don't need Amendments to their moldy document, which only empowers the 1%, the same ilk that wrote the original.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think the republicans and democrats should finally get together to form their end-game totalitarian party.

If They Own a Man's Work, They Own That Man

The private-sector totalitarians are a silent partner, making it a tripoly. Critics who exclusively concentrate on the government are pathetic sissyboy traitors who think of the rich as their benevolent father figures.

 

[S.J.]

As a baby step in making the parties more representative of the people, primaries should be open to all unaffiliated voters, as well. What we call "Independents." I know that's done in some states, but it should be in all. Our candidates might have been different in 2016, who knows?

No, bad idea. Open primaries are not good. In 2008, Democrats were crossing over to vote for McCain because he was the weakest candidate. Republicans can't do that because the primaries in the Dem party are rigged and they will nominate whoever they want, regardless of what the voters want. Super delegates gave them Hillary even though Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Does not follow.

Number one I believe it's up to the state which party you can vote in, not the party. Number two, my state is such an 'open' state, meaning an unaffiliated voter may vote in either party's primary (but not both). Therefore I use it to support whoever the strongest candidate is in whichever party needs the support. For example there was no point in voting for incumbent O'bama in 2012 so I voted in the Republican primary. In 2016 I voted in the Democratic one, as the Republicans had already soiled their shoes with Rump and the Democratic primary was rigged, hence needed whatever counterbalance to that rigging I could provide.

Why the fuck would I go vote for a weaker candidate, in either case? Think about it. Isn't the menu on both sides already weak enough without diluting it even further?
I mean only Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie idea like that, but he's one of those dichotomy-addicted Eliminationist single-party salivating morons;

Anyway, again nominations are ultimately up to that party organization. They're not required to hold any primaries at all, nor are they required to nominate whoever wins them. That's all puppet show.

What I said was not that complicated, yet you still managed to completely misunderstand it. Now pay attention. In 2008, California had open primaries. Democrats were using it to vote for McCain in the Republican primary. Why? To make it easier for the Democratic nominee to beat him. They didn't care if it was Hillary or Obama, they wanted the opponent to be McCain because he was the easiest one to beat. Get it, moron?

Nope.

First of all just because Lush Rimjob comes up with a cockamamie plan about political intrigue which has far less to do with actual political machinations than it has to do with jerking off his own ratings, doesn't mean it's actually happening in the world, k? Got a link to document it happening? No I guess you don't.

Second, McCain didn't need phantom votes -- he came in already way ahead of the field, he eclipsed his nearest competitor by ten times in that primary, after which Romney withdrew.. He had no other serious challengers for the rest of his campaign save Ron Paul, and obviously he had about as much chance against his own party machine as Bernie Sanders did with the Democrats. The Duopoly doesn't tolerate outliers.

Thirdly, sitting Repub POTUS Bush was already on his way to historically low approval numbers, meaning whoever either party nominated, the Republican was going to launch with a built-in disadvantage, even before the economic plummet happened that fall.

And fourthly --- If I lived in a state that required party registration in order to vote in its primaries and wanted to engage such an influence ----- what's to stop me from registering as a (in this case) Republican to do just that? In fact what other reason is there to register a political party affiliation at all?

So no Cupcake, this is where your cloak-n-dagger theory stabs itself in the cloak.


And btw since part of this thread is about the effect of the WTA system in the Electical College and another part of it is about primaries, it's worth noting that, as they're set up, several states use the same mindless WTA system for their primaries as well, Florida and Ohio to name two. It's what won Florida for McCain and forced Rudy Giuliani to bow out.

The Dominance of Irrelevance

Mentioning the WTA makes you smarter than the On-Air HeirHeads, those drooling Diploma Dumbos who, though looked up to by passive couch potatoes, always miss the point. Dividing electoral votes down to a tenth of a percentage, Bush's infinitesimal margin in Florida would have had no effect on the outcome. If our educational institutions weren't as fraudulent as the media, some true intellectual could do a thesis on who would have won each Presidential Election based on awarding the votes in a rational way. Oh yeah, forget the dysfunctional Constitution's decree that it must be thrown into the House of "Representatives"; a simple runoff is the only solution we should allow.

And only Low-IQ Constitution worshippers would point out that each state already has the right to split its vote. We, the people, must make that mandatory, telling the Constitutionazis to quit ruling over free men. Take their filthy republic and stuff it in their spittling mouths. We don't need Amendments to their moldy document, which only empowers the 1%, the same ilk that wrote the original.

You should find another country to live in since you obviously don't appreciate this one.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, they aren't, not in the legal sense. Their goal is not to turn a profit and pass the money on to shareholders; it is to collect money to spend on advancing an agenda and to gain political power.

Taking in money is not the same as being "for-profit".

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

The Nobility With No Ability Hates the Talented

You unconsciously and embarrassingly used the right word when you called them "noble ideals." All those self-empowering fantasies are cooked up by spoiled and sheltered richkids, you know, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Castro.

Commies are the sons of greedy Capitalists. Where do you think the Left's snobbery comes from? "My Daddy's rich; that makes me your superior."

 

[Pogo]

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

Likewise, a political party's goal is to advance their agenda. And just as there are people in political parties who are all about simply being there forever, there ARE people in non-profits who are also all about keeping the gravy train rolling.

Sure there are. No question. But those people in the nonprofit are by that very definition not behind the organization's ideals, or at most they're behind them secondarily to their own personal self-interest, while those people in an entrenched political party working on self-perpetuation are doing exactly the organization's work. I'm drawing a distinction here between people who may be only out to stuff their own face, and organizations being so.

When I picked a period of twenty years to charter a political party that's based on how long I expect any organization whose operation involves acquiring power based on some quasi-noble ideal can hold that idealism before it degrades into self-perpetuation and Power for its Own Sake. That period it takes to lose the Fire in the Belly, at which point the only answer to looking around and querying "why are we here" is "to gain yet another office, yet another majority, and to stop 'them'", none of which are positive ideals.

Twenty years is negotiable, a stab in the dark, but the dynamic is plainly evident.

Also, when I refer to "non-profits" in this conversation, I'm not really referring to charitable organizations, like the ASPCA and Humane Society, so much as non-profits that are more comparable to political parties, such as PBS, or the NRA, or the NAACP, or virtually any group funded by George Soros. Their primary goals are 1) to achieve an agenda, and 2) to continue to exist, so that they can continue to achieve agendas.

I'll take PBS out of that list as it's the one most familiar, or better yet, I'll shift that to NPR if that's a fair substitution. NPR is without question a bloated and way-too-big for its ideals organization. It features by now loads of superfluous jobs that wouldn't need to exist but for the obsession with growth-for-its-own-sake.

Yet its goals of providing a public broadcast service that cannot be done commercially, addresses for better or worse an ongoing and permanent need. And its goal of providing a comprehensive daily broadcast news service not only is so essential that it can't be competed with commercially but it requires a large and deeply-funded structure -- so while it certainly has excesses, while it certainly tries to do too much in other areas just because it can, while some of the same ancillary goals can be and are met by smaller more decentralized sources, the main entity still does meet its goals of public broadcasting to the degree that if it vanished it would leave a major and disruptive vacuum.

That's simply not true of a political party that has long ago abandoned or ignored whatever idealism it started with and is now just there to grab more power and/or prevent that power from going to the 'other side'. And the fact that the term "other side" is expressed in the singular, part of a hopeless dichotomy, is the wages of this sin.

So if that's a fair comparison, the goal of an NPR is to provide a public service as comprehensively as possible -- rather than to dominate the airwaves to the exclusion of anything else... . whereas the goal of an entrenched political party (EPP) IS to dominate its environment. In either organization there may and do exist people who sincerely believe in broadcast ideals or political ideals, but one organization is out to make that happen while the other is just out for its own power.

 

[Pogo]

I can see how the definition fits in a broad sense --- they're not for financial profit, but once they gain a foothold they're inevitably about self-perpetuation über alles -- whether it synchs with any ideology they purport to stand for or not. Acquisition of power becomes the Prime Directive.

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

The Nobility With No Ability Hates the Talented

You unconsciously and embarrassingly used the right word when you called them "noble ideals." All those self-empowering fantasies are cooked up by spoiled and sheltered richkids, you know, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Castro.

Commies are the sons of greedy Capitalists. Where do you think the Left's snobbery comes from? "My Daddy's rich; that makes me your superior."

I have never "embarrassingly used the right word". I said what I meant. But speaking of "embarrassing", are you under the illusion that anyone's actually reading these inane red-herring canardial tangents of yours?

This thread is about the Duopoly political party system.. It has zero to do with "commies" or "Castro". K?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

???
First Amendment:
The right of the people to peacefully assemble...

There's a reason that's there. What you're asking for is the ultimate tyranny, where the government jails and fines any group they deem to be a "political party," and would be used primary to crush dissent, while the government sycophants would be conveniently ignored and never recognized as a "political party."

Seriously, HOW do you plan to abolish them? The only way you can do this is send ARMED police officers to peaceful assemblies, gatherings and/or modern online organizations (clearnet or darknet) and arrest and imprison and/or fine all people involved in that organization.

Out of Spite, SCROTUS Turned the Screechers Loose on Us

A protest is not a peaceful assembly; it is criminal trespassing.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Can you name me any non-profits that AREN'T about continuing their own existence?

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

The Nobility With No Ability Hates the Talented

You unconsciously and embarrassingly used the right word when you called them "noble ideals." All those self-empowering fantasies are cooked up by spoiled and sheltered richkids, you know, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Castro.

Commies are the sons of greedy Capitalists. Where do you think the Left's snobbery comes from? "My Daddy's rich; that makes me your superior."

This thread is about the Duopoly political party system.. It has zero to do with "commies" or "Castro". K?

The Ideal Noble Dangles From the Pitchfork He Is Skewered On

A thread is not a tightrope.

 

[Pogo]

I mean, as an end in and of itself.

A business wants to make money (profit) and of course wants to continue doing it, but the main goal is the profit. In an entrenched political party the main goal is staying entrenched.

Well, that's certainly the main goal of most of the politicians, and probably many of the people in party leadership. But I'd say a lot of the people in either party, all up and down the ranks, actually do genuinely want to advance their agenda.

Those would be the idealists. And more power to 'em whenever their hearts are in the right place.

But those are people, not 'the organization'. Various people in an entrenched political party may indeed have noble ideals (which, again, they can and do pursue within or without a political party) but the party itself i.e. the organization, is only out to amass power to itself and keep it. If the organization actually held ideals, those ideals would hold their place over the generations. That they instead shift with the winds of opportunity even to the point of reversing direction, demonstrates what the organization's goal is and is not. Amassing power, for its own sake, is always the constant.

And again, most non-profit organizations ALSO have self-perpetuation as their goal.

I don't agree. A typical non-profit's goal is to rescue animals, or it's to teach people to read (etc) --- not to continue to exist forever simply for the sake of existing forever. That's just greed.

The Nobility With No Ability Hates the Talented

You unconsciously and embarrassingly used the right word when you called them "noble ideals." All those self-empowering fantasies are cooked up by spoiled and sheltered richkids, you know, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Castro.

Commies are the sons of greedy Capitalists. Where do you think the Left's snobbery comes from? "My Daddy's rich; that makes me your superior."

This thread is about the Duopoly political party system.. It has zero to do with "commies" or "Castro". K?

The Ideal Noble Dangles From the Pitchfork He Is Skewered On

A thread is not a tightrope.

So you're a rhetorical anarchist, is that it?

That's cute and all, but it won't work on a message board. All you've got here is inane noise. And a self-absorbed attitude I might add.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why Can't This be done

Why should this be done? That would basically just be rebranding because the same people running the two current parties would just start two new parties and we'd be in exactly the same position.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why Can't This be done

Why should this be done? That would basically just be rebranding because the same people running the two current parties would just start two new parties and we'd be in exactly the same position.

Dueling Choirmasters

As usual, everybody has been misdirected from above to squabble about irrelevancies. A rational and realistic debate would be about the exclusive power the elitist Constitution gives to those elected to office that makes them deviate so far from the will of the people, common experience outside the Beltway, and common sense. The Constitution is glorified by pathetic losers who desperately need to feel they are representing a Higher Power.

Parties are only a symptom of an anti-democratic structure; this ignorant and arrogant form of getting power over the American people must be replaced by national referendums on all important issues. Even at city level, the capital treason of Sanctuary was never voted on by us, the people, and is therefore nullified.