Political Party

Sweden said:

In every democracy political parties have evolved, starting out as groups coming together to pursue common goals. Nothing wrong with this and there is reason to believe that democracy cannot function without them.

Oh and 'banning' things is seldom a good idea. Certainly no parties if one favours freedom of assembly.

Click to expand...

Washington warned us. we should have listened, IMO.

Sweden said:

In every democracy political parties have evolved, starting out as groups coming together to pursue common goals. Nothing wrong with this and there is reason to believe that democracy cannot function without them.

Oh and 'banning' things is seldom a good idea. Certainly no parties if one favours freedom of assembly.

Click to expand...

Washington warned us. we should have listened, IMO.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

If President Trump ran it then it would be a marvelous idea.

MAGA.

Casper said:

Yes, a Moderate Party for everyone sick and tired of the Big 2. Start at the grass roots and it will catch in like wild fire.

Click to expand...

Ask 10 people to state the "moderate" position on the top 20 issues, listing them in priority order - and you will get at least 9 if not 10 different lists.

What is the "moderate" position? The status quo? Anti-status quo? Do the rules on social security remain the same or change to be "moderate?"

"Moderate" is just a word. There is no actual meaning in politics whatsoever.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

I think it's a good idea. We had the chance with Perot. Turned out he was nuts.

Helix said:

Washington warned us. we should have listened, IMO.

Click to expand...

""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's farewell address

The problem is what is the alternative? It can't be multiple political parties since there are over 50 already.

What happens if there is no political party? Partisans are the most knowledgeable voters and the political process thru political parties is filter. What happens if that filter is eliminated?

17,432 people run for president. Which ones go on the ballot? Which do not? Polling? By who? Go to run-offs between the top 2? The result could be the person with 0.2% of the vote in a run-off with someone who had 0.21% of the vote - two candidates 99.59% of voters opposed. It would then be a run-off between two groups of groupies - the Scientologist preacher versus the top country western singer.

Political parties exist because the nature of society and democracy will evolve to political parties inherently. In a sense, a political party is like a union. Strength in numbers. Even if formal political parties were outlawed, collective organized effort would happen anyway leading to the same as now exists, only using different words.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

Political parties are the problem; creating more political parties will just make more special interest corruption.

The problem is not political parties. Rather there are two massively worsening problems:

1. Uneducated voters. I do not mean they are stupid or lack college degrees. Schools stopped teaching civics classes when compulsory testing became required - and those tests do not test on knowledge of government, principals of our government and society, etc. As a result, a commonality of society is lost - with voters have no clue of history, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any other knowledge basis for voting. Rather, just emotionalism of the moment marketed to them by corporate propaganda.

2. Lose of a free and independent press - which includes the MSM and Internet. ALL major news outlets, press outlets and Internet info outlets are owned by 8 mega corporations of international interests. This was a result of the Internet financially ruining newspapers and media outlets. Corporations inherently pursue their own economic interests as their priority. The priority is always MONEY - more money for their corporations. What is best for people or the country are not corporate concerns. Only getting more money is the corporate interests.

As a result, our news sources are corporate propaganda on behalf of the greater corporate owner. Companies don't make money directly on advertising and have no need to directly make money off their newspaper, television news or Internet presentations. Rather, advertising/propaganda is money lost for the purpose of making more money than lost by propaganda costs.

One of the wealthiest persons on earth, Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Google - two of the wealthiest corporations on earth - didn't buy the Washington Post because he figured he could make a lot of money. Acknowledging he knows nothing about the newspaper business, which would include ethics, he explained he wanted it because it is in Washington DC so not only can influence the federal government. Rather, he stated he envisions the Washington Post - by linking it to his Internet knowledge - could have influence globally.

Possibly the richest man on earth and of the richest corporations on earth using the press for domestic and worldwide influence. At no time, not once, has Bezo mentioned journalistic ethics, keeping people informed of events, or anything else "press" related. He only spoke of influence, ie propaganda.

Jeff Bezos, ie Amazon and Google, should NOT have been allowed to purchase the Washington Post as an anti-Trust violation.

To no surprise, having taken total control of the "press" (MSM, print, Internet) the political, social and economic power of those mega corporations and the super rich is growing in wealth and power at an astronomical rate - and at the expense of everyone else.

This also explains the fanatical hatred of Trump by those corporate propaganda outlets. Trump is a nationalist. The corporations interests are international - meaning favoring cheap foreign sweatshops and opposing protective tariffs to keep the international corporate profits as high as possible. Of course they want unlimited cheap immigrant labor by the millions so they can keep wages as low as possible by flooding the labor pool. The rich ALWAYS want massive excess of potential workers via unlimited immigration to minimize wages to maximize their profits.

Of course those corporations want the government to have massive social programs - so the companies can minimize wages while avoiding strikes, unions and revolutions due to the government subsizing their underpaid employees. They'll just have the government pay their employees the extra they need - claiming Jeff Bezo and the WalMart heirs - all having tens of billions of dollars - can't afford to pay a living wage.

Democracy is no longer viable with the demise of a free and independent press - and that is exactly what we are seeing: uneducated voters whose only knowledge is based upon the propaganda of the international super rich corporations.

Anti-Trust laws should have included prohibiting non-media companies from owning media/press outlets.

FreedomFromAll said:

Political parties are the problem; creating more political parties will just make more special interest corruption.

Click to expand...

Blaming political parties for the problems is like blaming unions for economic problems as that is what a political party is - a union of people, entirely optional.

joko104 said:

""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's farewell address

The problem is what is the alternative? It can't be multiple political parties since there are over 50 already.

What happens if there is no political party? Partisans are the most knowledgeable voters and the political process thru political parties is filter. What happens if that filter is eliminated?

17,432 people run for president. Which ones go on the ballot? Which do not? Polling? By who? Go to run-offs between the top 2? The result could be the person with 0.2% of the vote in a run-off with someone who had 0.21% of the vote - two candidates 99.59% of voters opposed. It would then be a run-off between two groups of groupies - the Scientologist preacher versus the top country western singer.

Political parties exist because the nature of society and democracy will evolve to political parties inherently. In a sense, a political party is like a union. Strength in numbers. Even if formal political parties were outlawed, collective organized effort would happen anyway leading to the same as now exists, only using different words.

Click to expand...

we'd have to redesign the system, which i support. we're still too tribal for an "us vs them" binary choice. it's my opinion that it will most likely be the downfall of the country, and that the fall of the American empire section of history courses in a thousand years will conclude that this was a if not the the root cause. i don't see a better option than banning the ****ing things and letting candidates run on their own merit instead of running as an extension of some stupid team.

joko104 said:

Blaming political parties for the problems is like blaming unions for economic problems as that is what a political party is - a union of people, entirely optional.

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit too far left for me.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

Interesting, first you'd need to discovered what the core values of the new party would be and then see if there isn't an existing party that possesses those same values.

Which is going to be difficult, though not impossible.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

All organizations issuing a mission to contribute to the betterment of community, societal, or cultural organization, are potentially, "political parties," in a republic.

Creating a third plurality political party that has to split the dominate duality that exists seems very improbable; although, there are some minor parties that have gained popular attention - Libertarian and Green parties.

The problem is the Constitution needs to be amended to forbid, or regulate, the plurality parties that can change their platforms over generations of elections, as is often noted about the Democrat Party.

Of course, as anybody who knows me, the ultimate solution is the reordering of the entire system to ensure that everything is coordinated.

joko104 said:

Blaming political parties for the problems is like blaming unions for economic problems as that is what a political party is - a union of people, entirely optional.

Click to expand...

What kinds of organizations are not unions of people?

FreedomFromAll said:

Political parties are the problem; creating more political parties will just make more special interest corruption.

Click to expand...

What's the problem with political parties???

Are they causing the members to be dishonest, or something???

joko104 said:

The problem is not political parties. Rather there are two massively worsening problems:

1. Uneducated voters. I do not mean they are stupid or lack college degrees. Schools stopped teaching civics classes when compulsory testing became required - and those tests do not test on knowledge of government, principals of our government and society, etc. As a result, a commonality of society is lost - with voters have no clue of history, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any other knowledge basis for voting. Rather, just emotionalism of the moment marketed to them by corporate propaganda.

Click to expand...

And the solution is to make laws that educate children to understand how the system works like you, and all of your cool-aid drinkers, think it should work; and explain away the reason why there are instituted perspectives on the constitution and laws is misdeed that needs to be amended after 200 years.

joko104 said:

2. Lose of a free and independent press - which includes the MSM and Internet. ALL major news outlets, press outlets and Internet info outlets are owned by 8 mega corporations of international interests. This was a result of the Internet financially ruining newspapers and media outlets. Corporations inherently pursue their own economic interests as their priority. The priority is always MONEY - more money for their corporations. What is best for people or the country are not corporate concerns. Only getting more money is the corporate interests.

Anti-Trust laws should have included prohibiting non-media companies from owning media/press outlets.

Click to expand...

Pretty impressive. What would be the allowable combinations of any conglomeration?

joko104 said:

The problem is what is the alternative?

Click to expand...

The alternative is to reorder the government chartering system to correct the separation of responsibilities and powers; thereby preventing the creation of the plural political parties.

The problem is the same parties are in both houses, because the responsibilities are not distributed properly. If the Senate and House had more specific different responsibilities, and complimented by two more legislatures with specific responsibilities, all different; the factions will be specific to those legislatures, and not able to change principles, like the Democrat party is often noted.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

What's the problem with political parties???

Click to expand...

Its we the people not we the political parties. Political parties are the conduit of corruption.

Are they causing the members to be dishonest, or something???

Click to expand...

You seriously cannot figure it out, even with todays political climate in DC?

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

The alternative is to reorder the government chartering system to correct the separation of responsibilities and powers; thereby preventing the creation of the plural political parties.

The problem is the same parties are in both houses, because the responsibilities are not distributed properly. If the Senate and House had more specific different responsibilities, and complimented by two more legislatures with specific responsibilities, all different; the factions will be specific to those legislatures, and not able to change principles, like the Democrat party is often noted.

Click to expand...

Better yet, why dont you just move to a country with a parliament and be done with it?

FreedomFromAll said:

Its we the people not we the political parties. Political parties are the conduit of corruption.

You seriously cannot figure it out, even with todays political climate in DC?

Click to expand...

That is entirely your opinion. Most people have a tendency to associate with those that have similar interests, or a particular political ideology. You may consider it "corruption," but everyone else considers it the "freedom of association."

Glitch said:

That is entirely your opinion. Most people have a tendency to associate with those that have similar interests, or a particular political ideology. You may consider it "corruption," but everyone else considers it the "freedom of association."

Click to expand...

My opinion and George Washington's. And many other like minded Americans. And I do not assert that political parties should be banned outright from existing; instead just ban them from the government. It isnt like the framers of the US Constitution intended that there should be political parties in our government. And amazingly enough political parties are not in the Constitution. Like I said its we the people; not factions.

FreedomFromAll said:

My opinion and George Washington's. And many other like minded Americans. And I do not assert that political parties should be banned outright from existing; instead just ban them from the government. It isnt like the framers of the US Constitution intended that there should be political parties in our government. And amazingly enough political parties are not in the Constitution. Like I said its we the people; not factions.

Click to expand...

George Washington was a Federalist. As was John Adams. The very first thing that happened after the ratification of the US Constitution was the creation of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist political parties. Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist who created his own political party, the Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republican Party would dominate US politics for the next 28 years. It was those very founding fathers you speak of that created the very first political parties in the US. So your assertion is complete nonsense.

How can you protect an individual right for the people, and yet deny it to those who serve in government? Either it is an individual right, or it isn't. It doesn't change based upon your job.

Political parties don't need to be specifically mentioned within the US Constitution, the freedom of association is not only mentioned but also protected by the US Constitution, and that is enough. Even within political parties, after every new Session of Congress begins new coalitions are formed. We the people are factions.

joko104 said:

The problem is not political parties. Rather there are two massively worsening problems:

1. Uneducated voters. I do not mean they are stupid or lack college degrees. Schools stopped teaching civics classes when compulsory testing became required - and those tests do not test on knowledge of government, principals of our government and society, etc. As a result, a commonality of society is lost - with voters have no clue of history, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any other knowledge basis for voting. Rather, just emotionalism of the moment marketed to them by corporate propaganda.

Click to expand...

In the United States and as well in all countries of the world, the problem is in the qualities of voters . Namely, in universal suffrage. Since the majority of citizens are not competent in politics, economics, poorly versed in the personal qualities of politicians, and do not have ability to political distinguish. Thow, they elect most of the worst politicians, with poor moral qualities and low intelligence. Including those politicians who are prone to lies and have complete incompetence in public administration.

Whereas for the reason that political parties depend on incompetent voters, they are prone to populism and make deliberately wrong decisions (for example, support for Trump) that are imposed on them by the majority of their incompetent voters. In view of which, the tail wags the dog.

This was manifested, for example, in the fact that the Republican Party supports Trump contrary to the interests of the United States, since it is supported by the majority of voters of the Republican Party. The situation is similar with the Democratic Party and other parties. All of them are dependent on their incompetent voters.

The way out of this situation is the abolition of the general suffrage, and the transfer of control power over the state and suffrage to the civilized part of US civil society, selected on the basis of a certain qualification that does not allow incompetent people to become voters or members of the control power. If you make the appropriate amendments to the US Constitution, political parties will already be dependent not on incompetent voters, but on completely competent people who will never vote for politicians like Trump, and the like.

In view of what, the US political system will get rid of populism and move on to a sustainable existence. That is, to such an existence as if all voters under universal suffrage would be fully competent people.

One1 said:

Would anyone think creating a new political party to be a good idea, in today's society? Why or why not

Click to expand...

Creating a new political party and having it be successful would require low-informed voters to educate themselves on each candidate and how those candidates align with their personal beliefs/ideology; otherwise, it will continue to devolve into a two-party solution because that's the way we've always done it. It's not about the candidates today .. it's rather they are red or blue.

SocTheory said:

In the United States and as well in all countries of the world, the problem is in the qualities of voters . Namely, in universal suffrage. Since the majority of citizens are not competent in politics, economics, poorly versed in the personal qualities of politicians, and do not have ability to political distinguish. Thow, they elect most of the worst politicians, with poor moral qualities and low intelligence. Including those politicians who are prone to lies and have complete incompetence in public administration.

Whereas for the reason that political parties depend on incompetent voters, they are prone to populism and make deliberately wrong decisions (for example, support for Trump) that are imposed on them by the majority of their incompetent voters. In view of which, the tail wags the dog.

This was manifested, for example, in the fact that the Republican Party supports Trump contrary to the interests of the United States, since it is supported by the majority of voters of the Republican Party. The situation is similar with the Democratic Party and other parties. All of them are dependent on their incompetent voters.

The way out of this situation is the abolition of the general suffrage, and the transfer of control power over the state and suffrage to the civilized part of US civil society, selected on the basis of a certain qualification that does not allow incompetent people to become voters or members of the control power. If you make the appropriate amendments to the US Constitution, political parties will already be dependent not on incompetent voters, but on completely competent people who will never vote for politicians like Trump, and the like.

In view of what, the US political system will get rid of populism and move on to a sustainable existence. That is, to such an existence as if all voters under universal suffrage would be fully competent people.

Click to expand...

The problem is the total ignorance of voters combined with being total addicts to the perpetual infomercials of the richest people on earth that own and control the content of every television station in the USA, every newspaper in the USA and the Internet. They are in total control.