Is the Left - Right Paradigm Obsolete?

[Pogo]

The US needs more than two viable political parties, more than two that have a chance of winning an important political office, including president. The two party system has become something that simply divides the country down the middle and creates all this intense partisanship that is doing nothing but harm to the country.

Imagine the intense partisanship we'd see if we did have at least 3 political parties of near equal strength and the President ended up being picked by the House of Representatives every 4 years.

Look at countries with a multi party system like Israel and then ask if we really want narrowly focused parties making crazy deals to get and keep power.

- instead of a dysfunctional two-sides-of-the-same-coin party making crazy power plays to make sure between the two of them nothing ever gets done...

 

[Pogo]

"...As it stands there are no rules/laws limiting the number of political parties to two, and the voters generally (at least in CA.) have alternative choices, i.e., Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party in addition to the D's and R's."

Is it overly-difficult for a party to get on a ballot in many jurisdictions? If true, then, I think that has to be one of the key sticking points.

Another sticking point has to be money; few mavericks and startups have the kind of war-chest that the Big Guns do.

I don't know much about the history of campaign reform in our country.

Is campaign-reform on a national scale - overriding State and Local screening criteria for getting on a ballot or limits on advertising within a given market and other things - a likely remedy for our stuck-in-the-mud two-party system, or is there nothing more that remains to be done in connection with campaign reform, which might have a positive impact?

And, of course, most of the problem probably lies in our existing legislatures, likely to be in thrall to the power brokers on both sides of the aisle, for whom true reform and a wider sharing of power between parties is anathema, and obstructing meaningful change as a matter of self-preservation?

Sometimes I think that an overturning of the existing political-party system and an enabling of a multi-party environment similar to other parliamentarian systems is a pipe-dream in our country, barring a serious political reformation forced by the People themselves.

It's a puzzler, alright.

Of course, to paraphrase Gore Vidal, it's impossible to have a third party since mathematically it requires already having two other parties...

 

[AVG-JOE]

"...As it stands there are no rules/laws limiting the number of political parties to two, and the voters generally (at least in CA.) have alternative choices, i.e., Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party in addition to the D's and R's."

Is it overly-difficult for a party to get on a ballot in many jurisdictions? If true, then, I think that has to be one of the key sticking points.

Another sticking point has to be money; few mavericks and startups have the kind of war-chest that the Big Guns do.

I don't know much about the history of campaign reform in our country.

Is campaign-reform on a national scale - overriding State and Local screening criteria for getting on a ballot or limits on advertising within a given market and other things - a likely remedy for our stuck-in-the-mud two-party system, or is there nothing more that remains to be done in connection with campaign reform, which might have a positive impact?

And, of course, most of the problem probably lies in our existing legislatures, likely to be in thrall to the power brokers on both sides of the aisle, for whom true reform and a wider sharing of power between parties is anathema, and obstructing meaningful change as a matter of self-preservation?

Sometimes I think that an overturning of the existing political-party system and an enabling of a multi-party environment similar to other parliamentarian systems is a pipe-dream in our country, barring a serious political reformation forced by the People themselves.

It's a puzzler, alright.

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

 

[dblack]

"...As it stands there are no rules/laws limiting the number of political parties to two, and the voters generally (at least in CA.) have alternative choices, i.e., Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and American Independent Party in addition to the D's and R's."

Is it overly-difficult for a party to get on a ballot in many jurisdictions? If true, then, I think that has to be one of the key sticking points.

Another sticking point has to be money; few mavericks and startups have the kind of war-chest that the Big Guns do.

I don't know much about the history of campaign reform in our country.

Is campaign-reform on a national scale - overriding State and Local screening criteria for getting on a ballot or limits on advertising within a given market and other things - a likely remedy for our stuck-in-the-mud two-party system, or is there nothing more that remains to be done in connection with campaign reform, which might have a positive impact?

And, of course, most of the problem probably lies in our existing legislatures, likely to be in thrall to the power brokers on both sides of the aisle, for whom true reform and a wider sharing of power between parties is anathema, and obstructing meaningful change as a matter of self-preservation?

Sometimes I think that an overturning of the existing political-party system and an enabling of a multi-party environment similar to other parliamentarian systems is a pipe-dream in our country, barring a serious political reformation forced by the People themselves.

It's a puzzler, alright.

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Part of the problem are the Statists and pathological liars like the Bushes and other Republicans who call themselves "Conservatives" then govern to the Left of Bill Clinton, that's what muddies the waters.

The Left camp is State run and loss if individual Liberty, the Right camp is individual freedoms

They don't blend together at all and it's not obselete

it's one big clusterfuck in Washington....notice how they both put up candidates who are always 'pre-approved' by the insiders....not the ones who actually resonate with the voters....?
which is why the Tea Party is rabidly hated by both parties...

Washington lives by its own set of rules....notice how the leaders of both parties are all for freedom when it comes to themselves....? they are all for the most part of the same country club.....Congress legislates plenty of restrictions for the masses but somehow they are always exempt from those rules...

in other words.....socialism for the masses but liberty for the 'insiders'....

 

[Stashman]

The left - right paradigm from it's inception has been nothing other than a ploy to make the American people think they took part in some great democratic process to have their say. The truth is that both are one and the same beast. We lose either way. So, the answer to your question is no, not as long as they continue to get away with it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is it overly-difficult for a party to get on a ballot in many jurisdictions? If true, then, I think that has to be one of the key sticking points.

Another sticking point has to be money; few mavericks and startups have the kind of war-chest that the Big Guns do.

I don't know much about the history of campaign reform in our country.

Is campaign-reform on a national scale - overriding State and Local screening criteria for getting on a ballot or limits on advertising within a given market and other things - a likely remedy for our stuck-in-the-mud two-party system, or is there nothing more that remains to be done in connection with campaign reform, which might have a positive impact?

And, of course, most of the problem probably lies in our existing legislatures, likely to be in thrall to the power brokers on both sides of the aisle, for whom true reform and a wider sharing of power between parties is anathema, and obstructing meaningful change as a matter of self-preservation?

Sometimes I think that an overturning of the existing political-party system and an enabling of a multi-party environment similar to other parliamentarian systems is a pipe-dream in our country, barring a serious political reformation forced by the People themselves.

It's a puzzler, alright.

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The left - right paradigm from it's inception has been nothing other than a ploy to make the American people think they took part in some great democratic process to have their say. The truth is that both are one and the same beast. We lose either way. So, the answer to your question is no, not as long as they continue to get away with it.

nope...the truth is you need to look farther to the right....if you look at the continuum of FORCE the true right is where liberty and freedom reside...essentially what the Tea Party is promoting...

 

[dblack]

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Whoa... hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and Joe, correct if I'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... as a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let Congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

It will probably take a Constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

 

[Flopper]

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

If you look at the contributions from business, they are covering their bases by contributing to both parties and often both candidates. Businesses see their contribution as an investment but in reality it's nothing more than a bribe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's easy! Sort of...

There is no need to limit the free speech of anyone. The answer lay in removing the incentive to give large donations to particular candidates by removing from the politicians that we do hire the ability to turn those campaign contributions in to favored treatment under the tax code and fat government contracts using borrowed money.

Who would WANT to give a candidate a million dollars, knowing that the return on that investment would be -0- in terms contracts or favoritism?



Fair and simple taxes + PAYGO = a huge reduction in political corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Seven more reasons to deprive our politicians of the power to customize tax obligations and spend borrowed money.


Jus sayin'...

`​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Extreme means being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree.
Freedom means Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Thus the english translation of extreme freedom is being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree of liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

I don't see a reason to proffer a change to the book definitions.

"English translation" from what language?

Now who exactly is enslaving you? Who is detaining you? Who is oppressing you?

Since none of the above is actually occurring you already have "extreme freedom" by your own definition. Therefore you have just proved that I was 100% right when I posted this statement;

Extremism at both ends of the spectrum is the direct opposite of freedom and democracy.

Lol. The translation was from libtardian to English. The enslaving, detaining, and oppression is from authoritarians like you, ya prick.

Typical substanceless ad hominem!

 

[Wry Catcher]

"English translation" from what language?

Now who exactly is enslaving you? Who is detaining you? Who is oppressing you?

Since none of the above is actually occurring you already have "extreme freedom" by your own definition. Therefore you have just proved that I was 100% right when I posted this statement;

Lol. The translation was from libtardian to English. The enslaving, detaining, and oppression is from authoritarians like you, ya prick.

Typical substanceless ad hominem!

Yep.

 

[Pogo]

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Seven more reasons to deprive our politicians of the power to customize tax obligations and spend borrowed money.


Jus sayin'...

`​

I've always said we should toss our elected congresscritters in a locked dorm. Give 'em three hots and a cot, no salary, and absolutely no communication outside their own constituents. Make it a service of responsibility more like the military, with a finite term that they'll be glad when it's over and they've done their duty. Take the freaking glory out of it so it's not a career choice. And certainly not something you get rich off.

 

[RKMBrown]

"English translation" from what language?

Now who exactly is enslaving you? Who is detaining you? Who is oppressing you?

Since none of the above is actually occurring you already have "extreme freedom" by your own definition. Therefore you have just proved that I was 100% right when I posted this statement;

Lol. The translation was from libtardian to English. The enslaving, detaining, and oppression is from authoritarians like you, ya prick.

Typical substanceless ad hominem!

It's just a definition of commonly used terms, why should I add substance with some random number of meaningless adjectives?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'd like to launch a campaign to put Joe's post on billboards across the country. It's the single most impactful change we could make to get this nation back on track.

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Whoa... hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and Joe, correct if I'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... as a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let Congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

It will probably take a Constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

That's EXACTLY my point. Well said!

While a constitutional amendment would certainly work, I think the more efficient route would be to simply demand it.

Spread the word, kids... the louder We, The Peeps demand fair taxes, the sooner it will happen.

And remember... nothing will change until a politician with a message of fair and simple taxes and no corporate campaign money beats the pants off some incumbent with establishment political backing a few hundred million in his/her 'war chest'.

To truth, and to the Internet!

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree in principle with Joe's comments but need to point out campaign "donations' are only one way to influence the vote of elected officials. There are many ways to bribe a dishonest person, money is one. Others included sexual favors, booze, drugs, jobs for Jr. and wifey, jobs after government 'service' and blackmail.

Elected officials need to go to prison if they accept anything of value from anyone. Period. Those who want to run for office must be limited to X amount of dollars, legally obtained. Earned with records of how; borrowed, with terms of interest clear and no one can buy air or print time for any candidate.

Whoa... hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and Joe, correct if I'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... as a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let Congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

It will probably take a Constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

That's EXACTLY my point. Well said!

While a constitutional amendment would certainly work, I think the more efficient route would be to simply demand it.

Spread the word, kids... the louder We, The Peeps demand fair taxes, the sooner it will happen.

And remember... nothing will change until a politician with a message of fair and simple taxes and no corporate campaign money beats the pants off some incumbent with establishment political backing a few hundred million in his/her 'war chest'.

To truth, and to the Internet!

Yeah cause zero taxes and tons of welfare checks just isn't fair at all! Burn it all down says the communist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Reading comprehension's not your strong suit, eh Mr. Brown?



That's o.k.... a bump is a bump and your pointless political labeling has occasional entertainment value.

 

[dblack]

whoa... Hold on. I think you're missing the core of his point. He's talking about addressing the cause, not the symptom. What you quite correctly point out - that there are endless ways to bribe people - is exactly why focusing on what legislators accept in the way of 'gifts' will never work.

Joe's point (and joe, correct if i'm missing it as well), is that we cut off corruption at the knees by banning their ability to grant favors in the first place. That means cleaning up taxation and returning it to a straightforward means of raising money for government. We ban the practice of using incentives, deductions, rebates, penalties, surcharges, mandates, etc, etc, etc... As a way of currying favor and punishing those who fail to pony up. And it means we don't let congress parse out special regulatory exemptions and protections to their favorite interest groups. It means doing 'equal protection' and 'rule of law' for realsies.

it will probably take a constitutional amendment to stick, but honestly we'll need that much consensus from the country before such a thing would work anyway, because it's going to require everyone to commit to the principle enough to give up their own favorite perks.

that's exactly my point. Well said!

While a constitutional amendment would certainly work, i think the more efficient route would be to simply demand it.

Spread the word, kids... The louder we, the peeps demand fair taxes, the sooner it will happen.

And remember... Nothing will change until a politician with a message of fair and simple taxes and no corporate campaign money beats the pants off some incumbent with establishment political backing a few hundred million in his/her 'war chest'.

To truth, and to the internet!

yeah cause zero taxes and tons of welfare checks just isn't fair at all! Burn it all down says the communist.

wtf?

 

[Pogo]

Reading comprehension's not your strong suit, eh Mr. Brown?



That's o.k.... a bump is a bump and your pointless political labeling has occasional entertainment value.

Sometimes Brownie has a deep thought. Other times he can be the rhetorical equivalent of the guy at the party with the lampshade on his head.

He's doin' a heckuva job.