Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exposing Your Pathetic Grasping Attempt to Find Infallible Father FiguresYour Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
No one has ever suggested that there IS a "freedom to bribe". Again, hyperbole and melodrama aside, "bribery" has a very specific definition, and the normal, everyday operations of political parties dmeet it. to go fuck yourself
Your new Netwit rhetorical trick is to call telling the truth, which is never told you by your obfuscating opinionating idols, "hyperbole." You've aced the assignment.
The regime's campaign-finance system is as bad as Mexico's outright bribery (mierda y mordida). You should get an Oscar for your makeup job of putting lipstick on a pig.
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?
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?Abolish the concept of parties.
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
"Right-Wing bootlicking fanatics" is what leftists think of people who uphold the Constitution.
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
"Right-Wing bootlicking fanatics" is what leftists think of people who uphold the Constitution.
Since "bootlicking" refers to a passive-authoritatian, i.e. those who crave some Daddy figure to give them orders on how to run their own lives which they obsequiously obey without a second thought, I think not. The Constitution abhors that sort of knuckledraggery
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.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?
Your Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
"Right-Wing bootlicking fanatics" is what leftists think of people who uphold the Constitution.
Since "bootlicking" refers to a passive-authoritatian, i.e. those who crave some Daddy figure to give them orders on how to run their own lives which they obsequiously obey without a second thought, I think not. The Constitution abhors that sort of knuckledraggery
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.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?
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.
Keep the same two parties but do not allow any current politician to participate in them.
The problem is the people not the parties
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?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.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?
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.
He understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.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?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.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?
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.
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. lolHe understands. He's a disingenuous, lying hack.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?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.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?
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.
Doubling the DuopolyIt's much more nuanced than that, but i largely agree. The real ideological battle going on right now is not right vs. left, it's authoritarian vs. libertarian. Anyone who thinks government should be "solving problems" or stepping aside and letting people actually solve problems.The Republican Party is just the more moderate branch of the bat shit crazy extreme Left Democrat Party.
We need to have a "Big Government Welfare Party" and a "Small Government Personal Responsibility Party".
That is the two divisions in this country.
There is no perfect solution, or perfect system. No one is claiming that. If they are, then they're stupid.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.
Foaming-at-the-Mouth Fundamentalist FanaticsYour Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyHow?
Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
"Right-Wing bootlicking fanatics" is what leftists think of people who uphold the Constitution.
Since "bootlicking" refers to a passive-authoritarian, i.e., those who crave some Daddy figure to give them orders on how to run their own lives which they obsequiously obey without a second thought, I think not. The Constitution abhors that sort of knuckledraggery
Any entity that's formed as a collection of people does, really, it's just a matter of how "profit" is defined. It's why humans are really pretty awesome in isolation but do a lot of bad shit when they get together. The parties started as groups of people who thought the same as each other and figured their message is more effective with numbers behind it. Same for the other. Then all kinds of decisions get made to justify the health of the party first and foremost, because without the party, our good message can't be effectively communicated. So let's compromise here, make a morally wrong but effectively right decision for the health of the party. Let's change our views here cause it'll help the party even though we know it's wrong. The moral relativism just swallows the entity whole. All in the name of the greater good.`
Political parties are "for profit" businesses, first and foremost.
`
Wow you really are batshit.Foaming-at-the-Mouth Fundamentalist FanaticsYour Pet Constitution Establishes the Best Government Money Can BuyMake contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.
Defund party politics.
So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?
No one has the freedom to bribe. With their unrestricted view of their own freedom, the plutocrats are telling us what we can't do, so, as usual, Right Wing bootlicking fanatics are being one-sided in their aggressive preaching in defense of their Masters.
"Right-Wing bootlicking fanatics" is what leftists think of people who uphold the Constitution.
Since "bootlicking" refers to a passive-authoritarian, i.e., those who crave some Daddy figure to give them orders on how to run their own lives which they obsequiously obey without a second thought, I think not. The Constitution abhors that sort of knuckledraggery
Only sheep who don't want to bother with self-determination praise your anti-democratic Constitution. Its supremacy is as oppressive as a theocracy; indeed, political bullies push it like religious Fundamentalists push their own supreme document.
Those bossy pukes ought to be shouted down and put in their place; they are pathetic childish weaklings looking for a father figure. Every lie the Constitutionazis claim about their Sacred Cow covers up their political cowardice. We can only move forward if that elitist manifesto is thought of as a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. Think of it as some dictator who throws us a milk-bone like the obstructive Amendment process and the simple-minded Bill of Rights, when all that should be needed is a majority vote.
