Abolish both parties and start afresh

[Wyatt earp]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.

I have been to busy pogo, and my phone doesn't say post numbers to post an opinion.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.

I have been to busy pogo, and my phone doesn't say post numbers to post an opinion.

OK -- the post quoted here (the one you just put up) is 121 so seven-up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.

I have been to busy pogo, and my phone doesn't say post numbers to post an opinion.

OK -- the post quoted here (the one you just put up) is 121 so seven-up.

Pogo I just worked 14 hours..dont feel like going back and researching it.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.

I have been to busy pogo, and my phone doesn't say post numbers to post an opinion.

OK -- the post quoted here (the one you just put up) is 121 so seven-up.

Pogo I just worked 14 hours..dont feel like going back and researching it.

FFS you took the time to make an uninformed post dincha?

Hell I ain't gonna repost it just because you can't afford a real device. You work 14 hours and all you have is a phone?

Your loss then. Just take my word for it, it was brilliant. Believe me. Greatest post that god ever created.

 

[John Shaw]

Because you would literally need to start a bloody revolution, dragging everyone from both parties out into the street and butchering them there. And that would be quite illegal, I'm afraid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am just drinking

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.

I have been to busy pogo, and my phone doesn't say post numbers to post an opinion.

OK -- the post quoted here (the one you just put up) is 121 so seven-up.

Pogo I just worked 14 hours..dont feel like going back and researching it.

FFS you took the time to make an uninformed post dincha?

Hell I ain't gonna repost it just because you can't afford a real device. You work 14 hours and all you have is a phone?

Your loss then. Just take my word for it, it was brilliant. Believe me. Greatest post that god ever created.

Why would I have anything except a smart phone using wifi? I balance my time

 

[Pogo]

I am just drinking

Quelle shockeur.

 

[koshergrl]

Because you would literally need to start a bloody revolution, dragging everyone from both parties out into the street and butchering them there. And that would be quite illegal, I'm afraid.

Our forefathers thought differently.

They maintained it was perfectly acceptable to execute those who seek to trample the inherent rights that all humans have from their Creator.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

The Declaration of Independence: Full text

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble in no way requires a political party.
Checkmate.

No one said it "required a political party". Political parties are, themselves, peaceable assemblies of people.

Perhaps before you declared "checkmate", you should have started playing chess.

Ah but peaceable assemblies of people are not necessarily political parties.

What a brilliant rebuttal . . . of something no one said.

The question was how the Constitution prohibits banning political parties --- not how the Constitution protects the right to assemble. That's two different things.

Shah mat.

And no, you at no point said, or even implied a question about the Constitution banning political parties. But that's okay. If I were you, I'd be trying to change sides of the argument, too.

 

[Pogo]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble in no way requires a political party.
Checkmate.

No one said it "required a political party". Political parties are, themselves, peaceable assemblies of people.

Perhaps before you declared "checkmate", you should have started playing chess.

Ah but peaceable assemblies of people are not necessarily political parties.

What a brilliant rebuttal . . . of something no one said.

The question was how the Constitution prohibits banning political parties --- not how the Constitution protects the right to assemble. That's two different things.

Shah mat.

And no, you at no point said, or even implied a question about the Constitution banning political parties. But that's okay. If I were you, I'd be trying to change sides of the argument, too.

Sigh. The memory is the second thing to go. Roll tape.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I mean, it's right above here in the nest.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why Can't This be done

It can. Well, you don't need to abolish the parties. You need to change the way people vote.

FPTP is a negative voting system. It means many people will vote for who they DON'T want to see getting into power.

PR is a better system, people will vote for the party that is closest to who they are, and there are CHOICES of which parties to vote for. Usually 6 different political standpoints or more.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Why Can't This be done

Because it would be unconstitutional.

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

The Constitution is what created this bossy and bickering oligarchy.

The Constitution was intended to limit the power and scope of the Federal government a Liberal view of the Constitution is what gave us today's government.

A Liberal view of the Constitution is what wrote it.

Bullshit. Liberal views want to limit Constitutional rights.

 

[easyt65]

Why Can't This be done

Aside from the fact that these are 'Parties'....in simplistic terms, 'Clubs', 'Frats' - things you join and can easily walk away from, who is going to step in and 'Abolish' them and based on what legal grounds? (Even though Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz provided the best legal arguments for abolishing the DNC: Rigging elections, debate cheating, election fraud, election law violations, campaign finance law violations, treason - illegal collusion with foreign spies and Russians....the DNC Chairwoman running a terrorist-connected Pakistani Spy Ring giving them illegal access to House classified info...twice - the 2nd time after they had been caught, banned from the House, and an espionage investigation had been started on them).

Had the DOJ really....ACTUALLY...upheld the Rule of Law equally without prejudice or bias, the Chairwoman of the DNC would have been indicted for Espionage / Treason; the DNC's Presidential Candidate would have been indicted for Espionage, Criminal Negligence, Illegal Handling/Destruction of Classified, Obstruction, 30,000 criminal counts of violating the FOIA and Federal Records Act, campaign finance law violations, election law violations, and potentially treason for colluding with foreign spies and Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.... The DNC would have been ROCKED by quite possibly a scandal and crimes they would never have recovered from....and that's not counting all the other Liberal criminals that would have gone to jail...and still might.

 

[skye]

Abolish both parties and start afresh



that's what President Donald Trump has done!

GOD BLESS HIM~

 

[bripat9643]

Why Can't This be done

Great. I'm all for it . . . . . . . . as long as the Democrats go first.

 

[Mac1958]

Why Can't This be done

Holy shit, I wish it could. And the process could include debates first, with two or three more parties, so that people could have a real choice.

All the zealots could obediently clump back together into their little tribes, but the rest of us might be able to dilute the power they have now, if people could be offered real alternatives.

Pipe dream. A nice pipe dream, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
.

An un-Constitutional pipe dream, thankfully.

More parties would be unconstitutional? That's new.

I know. People like you (on both ends, of course) like things just the way they are.
.

 

[candycorn]

Why Can't This be done

Because Congress is the only one capable to do this, and they won't ban themselves. And even if they do, the Supreme Court could rule against it. The President gets a veto, but it can be overturned by Congress.

Congress has nothing to do with the creation or destruction of political parties.

 

[keepitreal]

You can abolish the parties but the same people will still be there.

I took it as, get rid of every mother fucker
and elect a whole new governing body

They all need to go and the Union(we, the people)
needs to take back control of our employees!

We work for them, they don't work for us!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble in no way requires a political party.
Checkmate.

No one said it "required a political party". Political parties are, themselves, peaceable assemblies of people.

Perhaps before you declared "checkmate", you should have started playing chess.

Ah but peaceable assemblies of people are not necessarily political parties.

What a brilliant rebuttal . . . of something no one said.

The question was how the Constitution prohibits banning political parties --- not how the Constitution protects the right to assemble. That's two different things.

Shah mat.

And no, you at no point said, or even implied a question about the Constitution banning political parties. But that's okay. If I were you, I'd be trying to change sides of the argument, too.

Sigh. The memory is the second thing to go. Roll tape.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I mean, it's right above here in the nest.

Thanks, I know what I said. Problem is, quoting ME doesn't tell us a damned thing about what YOU said, dimwit. And that would be what's at question.

I wish I could say your English comprehension was going, but I'm pretty sure you never had it in the first place.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

Duped by the Duopoly

How is a political party "private" when its goal is to take over the government?