• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citizens Groups Are The Political Evolutionary Future

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
1,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The current political parties' formula for choosing American leadership is assemble as many clowns as you can, find the outrageously ridiculous ones, discard the others, and let the public vote for the remaining few.

I don't believe Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al would approve. Even the political parties our Originals spawned didn't behave this badly.

And, not surprisingly, a good chunk of the American public doesn't approve too, at least according to all the "Anybody But" sentiment they don't.

Of course, clowns create clownish policies .. so if bread and circuses is your preference for America, get ready to be well served no matter which Emmet Kelly wins.

After thinking a bit, I can't help but wonder if America is in the throes of an evolution of sorts with regard to political gatherings.

It's pretty clear the current bunch of political parties are simply all out of touch. The very appeal of the candidacy's of big top crashers Donald and Bernie pretty much attest to that.

But people still need something to belong to, believe in, and to hope will produce an antidote for clowning around in Washington so as to perhaps get something seriously done to the benefit of themselves as Americans.

Enter citizens groups.

A fairly new phenomenon of considerable weight, citizens groups may be the forerunner of more relevant political parties should their evolution continue.

And, it appears the primordial political conditions may be just right for letting the fittest of these groups survive.

A citizens group is an internet website based assemblage of, in America's case, Americans, who are bound by the perspective of the group in hope of achieving the group's goal of some kind of political betterment for those so joining. The group can extend operations outside of the base website, but the site is home.

With the right relevant perspective, these groups can be effective, especially as a bastion of hope for serious political improvement in the midst of all the disgusting political laughter this fall.

So, who are these citizens groups?

One more famous one is Move On .Org. Move On is left-wing everything, and gained prominence a few years back as a protester of everything right-wing. They gained traction for awhile, peaking with the "Occupy Wall Street" and "99 Percenters" movements. But when those 15-minutes-of-famers ran out of time, Move On petered out too. Today they're so far to the left, they're essentially as irrelevant as the current crop of left-wing political parties .. and thus they're not likely to evolve.

Another citizens group that's had a small bit of fame is Citizens United. Essentially the antithesis of Move On, CU is right-wing everything against left-wing everything. They've never really been a major player, and their members are simply hunkered down in defense of the onslaught from all those who don't fit the "winners" mold of traditional American status quo. Because they too mimic existing right-wing political parties, it's not likely that they'll ever evolve, having lost traction and relevancy with respect to the mainstream.

A new player in the citizens group arena is Powerful American Political Alliance. This new guy on the block differs from the previous two by being centrist, not of either wing. They also aren't about being anti- this or that. Whereas Move On and CU are about both economic and especially social issues, PAPA focuses only on economics, with a singular goal of making life economically better for all Americans, but has no typically political opinion on social issues at all. This intriguing position may bring it relevancy, as it's not likely to get divided by social-issue squabbles. But, time will tell if they're a forerunner to a new more relevant political party, though indeed, despite the fact that the majority of Americans would identify centrist, there's presently no centrist political party real player in existence so there's plenty of room for this alliance to so evolve.

If you know of other citizens groups in this genre, please feel free to post a link to them.

As Americans eventually turn their disgust with the current painted-face dinosaurs into remedial evolutionary action, the most relevant citizens group may become the next big player in American politics.

I mean, just look at what we have now: either goofy Donald or sad sick Hillary will become our next .. wait for it .. President. :shock:

If America is to continue, hell, with either of these two clowns, if the world is to continue, we ordinary every-day Americans are going to have to bind together to overcome dinosauric politics as usual and create something unusually much better ..

.. That is, we will if we too don't want to end up on the scrap heap of history like brontosaurus bozos.
 
We need more PACs because... ;)
I don't know whether the legal technical category under which a citizens group falls is PAC or not.

Indeed, PAPA makes it clear in their home page that they're not a PAC.

But the spirit of your question is a fair one.

My answer would be: goofy Donald and sad sick Hillary.

Some would ask as well, "We need more political parties because...".

Something's got to change, and Americans still want to belong and believe in and hope with, being the social animals that people are.

I agree that we don't need additional narrow special interest groups. Heck, their lobbyists are part of the problem.

But something organized needs to be done to benefit we the people, as we the people are being harmed by the current circus of affairs.

Creating a new political party all at once is too costly and too risky, what with the current crop of political parties viewed so negatively.

Something needs to be formed that is first viewed positively.

It seems to me that citizens groups may be the evolutionary path.
 
I don't know whether the legal technical category under which a citizens group falls is PAC or not.

Indeed, PAPA makes it clear in their home page that they're not a PAC.

But the spirit of your question is a fair one.

My answer would be: goofy Donald and sad sick Hillary.

Some would ask as well, "We need more political parties because...".

Something's got to change, and Americans still want to belong and believe in and hope with, being the social animals that people are.

I agree that we don't need additional narrow special interest groups. Heck, their lobbyists are part of the problem.

But something organized needs to be done to benefit we the people, as we the people are being harmed by the current circus of affairs.

Creating a new political party all at once is too costly and too risky, what with the current crop of political parties viewed so negatively.

Something needs to be formed that is first viewed positively.

It seems to me that citizens groups may be the evolutionary path.

If the citizens groups (CGs) offer their own candidates then they are political parties (even if they are labeled, on the ballot, as "independent"), if the CGs support/endorse existing party candidates then they are PACs. For national office, a new party has little chance under the "winner take all" allocation of each state's EC votes,
 
The current political parties' formula for choosing American leadership is assemble as many clowns as you can, find the outrageously ridiculous ones, discard the others, and let the public vote for the remaining few.

I don't believe Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al would approve. Even the political parties our Originals spawned didn't behave this badly.

And, not surprisingly, a good chunk of the American public doesn't approve too, at least according to all the "Anybody But" sentiment they don't.

Of course, clowns create clownish policies .. so if bread and circuses is your preference for America, get ready to be well served no matter which Emmet Kelly wins.

After thinking a bit, I can't help but wonder if America is in the throes of an evolution of sorts with regard to political gatherings.

It's pretty clear the current bunch of political parties are simply all out of touch. The very appeal of the candidacy's of big top crashers Donald and Bernie pretty much attest to that.

But people still need something to belong to, believe in, and to hope will produce an antidote for clowning around in Washington so as to perhaps get something seriously done to the benefit of themselves as Americans.

Enter citizens groups.

A fairly new phenomenon of considerable weight, citizens groups may be the forerunner of more relevant political parties should their evolution continue.

And, it appears the primordial political conditions may be just right for letting the fittest of these groups survive.

A citizens group is an internet website based assemblage of, in America's case, Americans, who are bound by the perspective of the group in hope of achieving the group's goal of some kind of political betterment for those so joining. The group can extend operations outside of the base website, but the site is home.

With the right relevant perspective, these groups can be effective, especially as a bastion of hope for serious political improvement in the midst of all the disgusting political laughter this fall.

So, who are these citizens groups?

One more famous one is Move On .Org. Move On is left-wing everything, and gained prominence a few years back as a protester of everything right-wing. They gained traction for awhile, peaking with the "Occupy Wall Street" and "99 Percenters" movements. But when those 15-minutes-of-famers ran out of time, Move On petered out too. Today they're so far to the left, they're essentially as irrelevant as the current crop of left-wing political parties .. and thus they're not likely to evolve.

Another citizens group that's had a small bit of fame is Citizens United. Essentially the antithesis of Move On, CU is right-wing everything against left-wing everything. They've never really been a major player, and their members are simply hunkered down in defense of the onslaught from all those who don't fit the "winners" mold of traditional American status quo. Because they too mimic existing right-wing political parties, it's not likely that they'll ever evolve, having lost traction and relevancy with respect to the mainstream.

A new player in the citizens group arena is Powerful American Political Alliance. This new guy on the block differs from the previous two by being centrist, not of either wing. They also aren't about being anti- this or that. Whereas Move On and CU are about both economic and especially social issues, PAPA focuses only on economics, with a singular goal of making life economically better for all Americans, but has no typically political opinion on social issues at all. This intriguing position may bring it relevancy, as it's not likely to get divided by social-issue squabbles. But, time will tell if they're a forerunner to a new more relevant political party, though indeed, despite the fact that the majority of Americans would identify centrist, there's presently no centrist political party real player in existence so there's plenty of room for this ......... become .......

.. That is, we will if we too don't want to end up on the scrap heap of history like brontosaurus bozos.

Very interesting. I think I will have a read about the papa. I hadn't run into it and economics is best, when applied without an ideological bias. So this might be a reasonable place to look around.

It would not be enough to be a one topic movement, if one wanted to supply the nation with Presidents, that would not be enough. There are further important competencies required to run a company of the size.

That is the reason, why the present parties have been successful in the past. Their remarkable failure this election cycle might, but is probably not related to the breadth of the expertise the parties posses.
 
If the citizens groups (CGs) offer their own candidates then they are political parties (even if they are labeled, on the ballot, as "independent"),
Yes, that would make sense.

Regarding the OP-listed CGs, I don't think either Move On or Citizens United offers their own candidate. They may support a candidate by announcing endorsements, but that's not the same as offering a candidate.

And Powerful American Political Alliance states clearly in their home page that they're not affiliated with any candidate. Elsewhere their website makes it clear that they don't endorse any candidate, that candidates/elected officials must endorse PAPA, not the other way around. So PAPA's not a political party as well.

A true CG will not offer a candidate on a ballot.

That would not prevent a CG from evolving into a party at a later time.


if the CGs support/endorse existing party candidates then they are PACs.
I looked it up on the web, and both Meriam-Webster and Wiki agree that a PAC is a group/organization that is formed to raise and contribute money to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiative or legislation.

Thus a PAC must both raise and contribute money.

Regarding the OP-listed citizens groups, I'm not sure if Move On and Citizens United contribute money to a campaign, though they clearly oppose both Trump and Clinton respectively and thus may endorse a candidate too, neither speaking for or against a candidate, however, makes them a PAC.

But Powerful American Political Alliance clearly does not contribute money to any person, initiative, candidate, etc., and their only revenue source is membership dues. They also don't endorse any candidate.

Nevertheless, as Wiki states, state laws defining a PAC vary. And the latest federal law says that an "organization" becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600.00 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Considering that all three CGs likely raise more than $2,600.00 (it's "or", you don't have to spend it, just raise it), then it would look like Move On and Citizens United would qualify as PACs, as their home-page function makes it clear they're trying to influence.

And PAPA's home page makes it clear that they want to influence federal elections as well, but their intent is not enough; their actual method of doing so must past that test.

The question here is whether these CGs are "organizations". Move On and Citizens United may have articles of organization that define them as an "organization", but PAPA clearly states that they are not an organization, even though they are a membership site. It's all about the articles of organization.


For national office, a new party has little chance under the "winner take all" allocation of each state's EC votes,
Yes, unless a new party were to run a Reaganesqe-popular candidate, they would be hard-pressed initially indeed.

Evolving a CG into a party would take time and dedicated effort.

Whether a CG would want to do that would I guess depend on what benefit would accrue to them.

Not sure what that would be for any of the aforementioned three CGs, though the absence of a centrist party would at least give PAPA a place to evolve to.
 
Very interesting. I think I will have a read about the papa. I hadn't run into it and economics is best, when applied without an ideological bias. So this might be a reasonable place to look around.
They sure caught my eye .. .. but I'm a centrist, so it's understandable.

Their lack of either a left or right -wing ideological position on social issues helps keep their economic-issue goal in focus, I would think.


It would not be enough to be a one topic movement, if one wanted to supply the nation with Presidents, that would not be enough. There are further important competencies required to run a company of the size.
Oh, absolutely true.

I wonder if leaving social issue resolution to society and the courts would be enough though.

Regardless, Powerful American Political Alliance clearly is not a one-topic movement. They appear to address all economic issues. They even list the important competencies a truly vote-worthy candidate needs.


That is the reason, why the present parties have been successful in the past. Their remarkable failure this election cycle might, but is probably not related to the breadth of the expertise the parties posses.
Though the preexisting parties may have a lot of expertise in running campaigns and pandering for votes, I think their failure is that the public has finally come to recognize that their focus is irrelevant to helping American citizens secure and comfortably retain a living-wage job.

Social issue rhetoric may trigger emotions and sway votes, but resolution of those issues is always a temporary pendulum swing, and does very, very little if anything to put food on the table.
 
Back
Top Bottom