The Next Model of American Politics.

[flacaltenn]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

 

[Disir]

We should get so lucky.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

Love it or hate it, unless we move to a parliamentary system, we will always have a two party system.

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

 

[Disir]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

 

[BluesLegend]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties.

It seems to me voters are punishing both parties, first one then the other. They kicked the Dem's to the curb after controlling congress for 40 years. Then kicked the GOP to the curb, then the Dem's again, the GOP again, and now the Dem's again. The establishment is fit to be tied over uppity voters.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

 

[fncceo]

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense.

Nothing is more stable than one leg ...

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

I worked with the Libertarians on the last election. We were thrilled to get 4.4%. The Greens got about another 1%. Money is not the issue actually. You can waste a LOT of it on campaigns as the Clinton campaign demonstrated. Trump spent VERY LITTLE.

The bigger issue is getting the American people to revolt and stop voting for WINNERS... The main obstacle is to convince people that they are not "wasting their vote" voting for something new. It's like the Coke/Pepsi war and a supermarket brand made in the same plant.

Trump got $BILLS in free coverage for spanking all the Repub opponents and Hillary and the press. Which didn't produce QUALITY in any way -- but was disruptive enough to get the free attention. Any 3rd party could do the same -- but focus that disruption on the failures of the current tribal standoff and the issues that they WON'T discuss.

When I mentioned collusion above, I should have included Ballot Access -- which is the next stumbling block. The 2 parties have made it legally impossible for any competition to spring up. The barriers to getting on 50 states is a MONUMENTAL task. And barring changing these obscene rules, Any party that qualifies in ENOUGH states to theoretically win an E-College vote --- should ALWAYS be included in the debates. They belong to the American people. Not to the parties. Give them BACK to the League of Women Voters -- like they were before the FEC got control of them...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Voters keep rewarding the 2 antiquated, highly polarizing Brand Name parties. They've been the only game in town for my entire life. But they are fractured, corrupt and ineffective. They care only about obtaining and retaining power. They call this "winning". Just like the deviant sex/drug addict Charlie Sheen. But WE are all losing. Losing more each election. The parties have succeeded in polarizing every aspect of governance. Even things like the ACA that should TRANSCEND polarization when it cries out for competent management and repair.

The swings are getting wilder. The fractures in the parties are deeper and the progress in Leadership has come to virtually stand-still. Time to ponder the 2 dynasty parties and euthanize them. With just TWO choices, when they ABANDON principles and stand for NOTHING -- it's just 2 tribes squaring off, pointing fingers, and excusing their bad behavior and ethics with the "They did it first" excuse. NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

So let me have you ponder the following quotes. So as to CONVINCE the tribal warriors that life would FLOURISH in America with NEW political organizations and leadership.. And that is gonna happen. Because the VAST MAJORITY of America doesn't WANT "more winning" if it means they constantly lose.

The 1st quote from Adams is my all-time favorite on this topic.


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
JAMES FENIMORE COOPER, The American Democrat

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912

Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 1978


It is UNDOUBTEDLY time for another revolution. And THIS TIME -- we declare independence from the tyranny of the current 2 party dynasties.
A guy name FlaCalTenn on an obscure Internet Message Board ---- 21 May, 2017

I've been calling for Proportional Representation for a long time. The problem is the main two parties don't want it, especially the Republicans who get an unfair advantage out of the current political system. So they tell their people that it's bad, then people come on here and tell everyone how bad it is too. Great.

You get Republicans coming on here shouting out how much they love choice, like school vouchers, biggest con ever, but they claim it's about choice, as if you need a voucher to be able to choose which school you want to go to, you can't just implement choice, you have to have choice with rich people getting money.

But then when you talk about choice here, they don't want to know.

 

[Disir]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

I worked with the Libertarians on the last election. We were thrilled to get 4.4%. The Greens got about another 1%. Money is not the issue actually. You can waste a LOT of it on campaigns as the Clinton campaign demonstrated. Trump spent VERY LITTLE.

The bigger issue is getting the American people to revolt and stop voting for WINNERS... The main obstacle is to convince people that they are not "wasting their vote" voting for something new. It's like the Coke/Pepsi war and a supermarket brand made in the same plant.

Trump got $BILLS in free coverage for spanking all the Repub opponents and Hillary and the press. Which didn't produce QUALITY in any way -- but was disruptive enough to get the free attention. Any 3rd party could do the same -- but focus that disruption on the failures of the current tribal standoff and the issues that they WON'T discuss.

When I mentioned collusion above, I should have included Ballot Access -- which is the next stumbling block. The 2 parties have made it legally impossible for any competition to spring up. The barriers to getting on 50 states is a MONUMENTAL task. And barring changing these obscene rules, Any party that qualifies in ENOUGH states to theoretically win an E-College vote --- should ALWAYS be included in the debates. They belong to the American people. Not to the parties. Give them BACK to the League of Women Voters -- like they were before the FEC got control of them...

I meant fighting the money backing the two parties in power currently. Ballot access is a huge stumbling block.

 

[fncceo]

You get Republicans coming on here shouting out how much they love choice, like school vouchers, biggest con ever, but they claim it's about choice,

I love choice ... especially when I win.

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

In our current presidential system, it would probably mean most presidential elections would be decided in the House and if agreement couldn't be reached there, the country might have to do without a president. Then who would run the executive branch? Who would nominate federal judges? Who would run the military? Diplomatic Corps?

Lots of other possibilities there. You run coalitions once the House/Senate has enough minority party members. Or you do "instant run-off" voting which allows a 1st and 2nd choice.

The rise of 3rd parties and independents is now inevitable. These votes were 6% of the November total. When that reaches 12 or 15% of the pop vote -- you already have "winners" with only 40% or so. So -- that's why this thread. Better get thinking. Because America is not gonna reward EITHER of these amateur hour acts much longer. You had 2 TERRIBLE choices. And then you had 2 experienced 2 term governors who would have MODERATED the tone and turmoil of the Dem/Rep clash. Would have put independent "counsels" into all the key appointments (with a Libertarian bent) But America insisted on "winners"...

 

[flacaltenn]

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense.

Nothing is more stable than one leg ...

That's not a leg man. That's a pedestal. And dictators on pedestals are "push-overs"..

 

[fncceo]

That's not a leg man. That's a pedesta

To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to.

 

[flacaltenn]

We should get so lucky.

Not sure it's all about luck. I think there's some basic "structural" truths here about stability and group dynamics. 3 legs on a chair are more stable than 2 obviously -- kind of common sense. I mentioned the finger pointing and absolution for criminal behavior you have when when 2 parties square off for 90 years with no moderating influence from the press or other stabilizers.

THEN -- look at my Avie. I picked it BECAUSE this topic is always a high priority for me. With MULTIPLE choices and "parties" -- it's harder to "reach the bottom" in terms of polarization. Because ----

1) It's harder to collude. Think gerrymandering, and giving up on losing states and districts. Think "plea bargaining" to blackmail each other with ethics and criminal offenses committed by Leadership.

2) It's harder to "spin".. When the Sunday shows and the daily talking points come from 3 or 4 ACTIVE parties, you can't get away with dodging and deflection or HIDING issues that are too sensitive to both parties. Think abuse of the PATRIOT Act Domestic Surveillance program that BOTH love and defend. And which if ABUSED would end the Republic as we know it. (If it hasn't already been abused.)

Actually -- there are NO Liberal or Conservative parties anymore. There are Libertarian and Socialist parties. They stand CONSISTENTLY for principles. Everything else in the middle is just noise and distraction and sports today..

I think it would be lovely. I want to see it.

I think it's going to be really difficult because of the money involved which is what the fight is against ultimately.

I worked with the Libertarians on the last election. We were thrilled to get 4.4%. The Greens got about another 1%. Money is not the issue actually. You can waste a LOT of it on campaigns as the Clinton campaign demonstrated. Trump spent VERY LITTLE.

The bigger issue is getting the American people to revolt and stop voting for WINNERS... The main obstacle is to convince people that they are not "wasting their vote" voting for something new. It's like the Coke/Pepsi war and a supermarket brand made in the same plant.

Trump got $BILLS in free coverage for spanking all the Repub opponents and Hillary and the press. Which didn't produce QUALITY in any way -- but was disruptive enough to get the free attention. Any 3rd party could do the same -- but focus that disruption on the failures of the current tribal standoff and the issues that they WON'T discuss.

When I mentioned collusion above, I should have included Ballot Access -- which is the next stumbling block. The 2 parties have made it legally impossible for any competition to spring up. The barriers to getting on 50 states is a MONUMENTAL task. And barring changing these obscene rules, Any party that qualifies in ENOUGH states to theoretically win an E-College vote --- should ALWAYS be included in the debates. They belong to the American people. Not to the parties. Give them BACK to the League of Women Voters -- like they were before the FEC got control of them...

I meant fighting the money backing the two parties in power currently. Ballot access is a huge stumbling block.

I guess I'm not scared of "money". Because focus groups and high power consultants and TV ads mean jack shit anymore. It's message. And disruption. And CREDIBILITY on issues.

 

[flacaltenn]

You get Republicans coming on here shouting out how much they love choice, like school vouchers, biggest con ever, but they claim it's about choice,

I love choice ... especially when I win.

Well at least the GOP OFFERED you a broad slate of choices. How many candidates on how many stages? While over in the Dem party -- the "collusion" aspect is taken to extremes with SuperDelegates and states already won before the first citizen casts a real vote.

Yeah - you're a winner all right. You got a party HIJACKED by an egomaniac with unlimited cash. And a party full of wimps who HIDE when any shouting or conflict turns up the heat..

 

[usmbguest5318]

NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

Worse, fewer problems get solved. Frankly, I would be fine with less punishment provided more problem solving be the thing I receive in exchange for making concessions on punitiveness.

 

[flacaltenn]

NOTHING gets punished anymore. NOTHING is truly unethical, irresponsible or wrong. It's all excusable with the "They did it worse" excuse. Instant absolution. No deed too stupid or devious.

Worse, fewer problems get solved. Frankly, I would be fine with less punishment provided more problem solving be the thing I receive in exchange for making concessions on punitiveness.

Problem solving and analysis. Something that GOVERNORS and mayors do routinely and Senate/House hearings NEVER accomplish. That should be a clue.

In the 19th Century when an admin was accused of corruption, or indecency we were all on the same page about those things being wrong. NOW -- it depends. There is a trial by media and partisan clashes over whether THIS corruption or indecency is WORSE than what the "other ever did". And if it's not WORSE -- the case is just funcking dismissed -- end of story. That's got to stop. And the only way to stop it -- is to end 2 sided deliberations and AGREE that wrong is simply wrong.

80% of Politics forum content is Ground Hog Day absurdity of COMPARING wrongs. That's why we got to get back to judging things differently and punishing offenses. Not in the mood to "excuse" very much at all -- personally. Because we are in Alice in Wonderland territory these days.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't use the term Dynasties loosely when discussing the 2 Brand Names. They have BECOME dynasties. If not for Trump -- the press would have anointed the Clinton-Bush Round Two event. And dynasty is the ONLY term to describe the HUBRIS and gall of what happens when ONE of these goofy primitive tribes gains total control of a city, state or country.

I'll bet that only 2% of America realizes (and maybe 4% of USMB combatants) that the recent US Senate Election in California had only ONE PARTY on the ballot. As a result of their cynical "redesign" of primary voting where only the "Top Two" candidates make it to the General Election. So it punishes any party that OFFERS more candidates and choices because they SPLIT the ballot and strip that party from the ACTUAL election. Every voter in California only got 2 Dems to choose from. No Republicans. No independents. No 3rd parties. No choice. Why isn't America talking about this? It's a direct threat to democracy and equal representation.

Given THAT -- how much longer do you want to wait and let the DYNASTIES finish the job of locking up their security??