Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: One Party Rule

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 9:57 p.m. EST by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've noticed many regular posters here seem to blame all the ills of this country on republicans. While I refuse to vote for either party I'm wondering: if the democrats controlled both houses and the presidency would all be well? Would this country be the progressive/utopian paradise so many of you espouse?



Read the Rules
[-] 12 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

We have a two-party system. Corporations and politicians on one side, citizens on the other.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 8 years ago

LOL, now thats what it is more like

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

As if the citizens have had any say in over 50 years.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

toss out the repelicans and I bet we can change the whole thing.

I thought this statistic was interesting:

Goldman Sux

  • Goldman Sachs gave $478,250 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election period through its political action committee - 35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans. 112

The campaign expenditures stated above would seem to indicate that the repelicans are twice as useful to corporate interests.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Tossing out the Republicans would accomplish nothing. Democrats and Republicans feed at the same trough.

From your source:

GOLDMAN SACHS 2010 1st Quarter Campaign Contributions: $259,400 (52% to Democrats, 48% to Republicans)

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

you have to have the whole picture - which admittedly this does not provide, but it does provide indications:

Campaign contributions

2010 1st Quarter Campaign Contributions: $259,400 (52% to Democrats, 48% to Republicans)[110]

Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $25,445,983 [104]

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., then Chair & CEO of Goldman Sachs, was a Bush Pioneer having raised at least $100,000 for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. In 2006, Paulson was appointed by Bush to be Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. [111]

Goldman Sachs gave $478,250 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election period through its political action committee - 35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans. [112]

I think it is key here to note that the biggest disparity in donations is to federal candidates

Probably they give a lot to NYC dems, I don't know -but clearly at the federal level they perceive the biggest advantage is to be found among repelicans

I think it is just stupid to ignore this fact.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

The party in power gets the most money. That's how it "works".

Tossing out the Republicans would only get rid of half of the crooks and liars.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

look at the party line voting record

the dems don't stand together

get rid of the repelicans - they are on their way out anyway, plus their stand on the tax issue is in our favor

what's your problem?

get rid of them, and both houses are ours

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

What's my problem? Your ignorance.

It's a two party system: Corporations and politicians on one side, citizens on the other. Getting rid of Republicans won't fix anything, Democrats are just as bad. Wake up.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

to say they are all this same is a cop out.

And it isn't true.

Jim Jeffords was a repelican - and in 2002 he left the party to become independent, because he could not stomach the corruption of the bushite regime.

He was a good man, one who acted on the basis of what he believed, not on what was expedient.

Sanders is another.

I can't comment on the rest of Congress, I haven't followed individual legislators that closely. But the fact remains, they are all individuals. The ones that act purely out of self interest can be steered more easily than can someone who acts on the basis of principle -


as long as we stand on reasoned principle we should be able to reach them.

Blaming both parties equally is what repelicans want - I'm not the only one who has said this -


If you look at the voting records, you will see the repelican party more often votes party line, they enforce discipline among their members. That is not the case among the dems - or it happens much less frequently.

Your vision sees it as a single monolithic entity - that isn't what it is. It is full of division, cracks that can be used to our advantage. One of the biggest is the one between parties.

For example - the issue of taxes - repelicans will not raise them, period. Dems would end the bush era tax breaks, with public pressure.

One of those tax breaks goes to the oil industry - an industry that has benefited from the war in Iraq. When we invaded something like one million barrels a day came off line, and that pushed up prices. These chief beneficiaries of the war are subsidized by Congress through corporate welfare - the dems would end it - Biden raised that issue as a Senator on the Senate floor.

You are the one being ignorant - too damn lazy to examine the facts.

If you want to use a sledge hammer to break a large rock into smaller pieces you have to find the cracks.

Congress is riddled with them.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

While there are a handful of reasonably honest and thoughtful pols in DC - in both parties - they are all corrupted by a system that requires 50-70% of their time be spent fundraising AND by the 0.5% that gleefully uses its financial power for access and service.

Both Republicans and Democrats benefit from this system, and neither wants to change it. The difference is that Reps will tell you exactly what they are going to do, without any qualms whatsoever, while the Dems tell you what you want to hear then legislate and vote for their own pockets (and those of their benefactors). Look at Obama, a Democrat so far to the right he makes Reagan look like a liberal.

To think that replacing ONE party - really one half of what is truly one "party", a political class that represent the 1% - is going to solve anything is delusional.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

a Democrat so far to the right he makes Reagan look like a liberal.

that analysis isn't even based on anything like reality. It's a regurgitation of everything mass media has been spinning - that the President is right of center.

He isn't right of center, he is center.

the problem is that the system is so corrupt that to get Congress to do anything you have to appease repelicans, and that always means a step backwards, no matter what the gain.

I would point out that the President has placed the Keystone pipeline on the back burner, Boner has attached it to tax breaks, and the President has said he will veto.

He has begun to learn there is no compromise with the fascist scum.

the repelican party is DONE.

and you seriously need glasses.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

BO is right of center. On top of that, he is testicle-free, and has consistently compromised what he wants YOU to think our his principles for the GOP platform.

BO put Keystone on the back burner until AFTER the election. BFD. You act like he canceled it. Vote for ME! I'll fuck you later ...

Interesting how you agree that congress is corrupt, not just the Republicans. Sad that you can't see the ironic contradiction in your own point of view.

FYI I'm hoping for a Republican bloodbath in November, if not before, which would be infinitely preferable.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago


I won't quote you. ; D

But I'm tellin ya . . ..


And I do understand the possibility exists that the President may still sign on to keystone - after the election.

I sincerely hope not. It would be really nice if we could get an accurate analysis of the global impact should that pipeline go through - but the entire debate has been stifled by the oil industry, and their false promises of a rosy future.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would still think that BO is ever going to stand up for citizens.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I need a fucking brain implant.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I could easily be wrong,

but I do believe he has been trying.

I think the corporate alliances arrayed in opposition are staggering, and they exert a tremendous amount of pressure. I think there is a lot of information we just don't have, and are left looking at a very incomplete picture.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

I think it is true that the more liberal supporters of OWS tend to still be attached to the Democratic Party, though exactly why is beyond me given the fact that most of the mayors evicting occupations are Democrats and Obama's Democratic administration has closer ties to Wall Street than any Republican. The radicals in OWS are much more sensitive to this and realize that both major parties are really nothing more than two wings of the one party of the 1%.

[-] 4 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

BE STRONG WORKING CLASS REPUBLICANS! Stand strong beside your Millionaire and Billionaire brothers and sisters. Make sure they get their tax cuts!

When the Tea Party Revolution takes our country back we will help big business by reducing social security benefits, getting rid of Medicare, and getting rid of the minimum wage.

We will also give control of the health care system back to the insurance companies. If a policyholder gets so sick that it would eat into company profits, it only makes good business sense to drop that policyholder (and his or her family).

Why can't Democrats and liberals understand that?

Real Change is Coming - Help the Rich - Vote Republican 2012

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

poe's law.

But from what I have seen written by you so far, you are probably one hundred percent truthful. Sad that you do not know your nation's history.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

Yeah I think about that all the time.

Maybe you could enlighten me. Just keep it "fair and balance"

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

If you look at the rising tied of wealth in this nation before the '80s you'll see that as a whole every boat was rising. after the Reagan revolution, only boat to rise was the higher echelon of wealth. This tells me that something in the body politic changed. I believe it was that the higher echelon received more of America's rewards and invested those rewards in foreign nations and left the lower echelons to fight for the remnants. This tells me that our policies are off kilter and leaving us at the mercy of less government is just going to speed up the carnage, IMO. but what do you believe?

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

I believe you are correct. I have re-learned a lot of history going back to 1920. I was amazed at the destruction of unions and the rise of the super wealthy and then eventual crash that was caused by rich bankers etc. And how raising taxes on the super wealthy was a big factor in getting us out of the depression

Today has many parallels to then. I believe the gaurdians of the 1% need to go!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

that is an idea. we need to stop voting in CEO backed candidates. maybe go four to six years with academic type people. I don't believe they could do any worst.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

I would support that 100%. How do we find a candidate. Let's get started.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

You have your academic already.

Who is actually going to wor in this economy of yours.?

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

What do you mean?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

Obama is an academic.

How do I get a job in this economy of yours and are we all payed the same.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

I think we are talking about electing a non politician, not creating a new economy or compensation scheme

I don't really understand what you are talking about. It is as if you are replying to things I didn't say or even imply

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

How was every boat rising in the 70s when unemployment and inflation was high?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

it's the aggregate. Unions made sure that those who were working were getting their fair share. Maybe there were less people employed but those that were employed were not humiliated like the truck drivers in today's news article. Inflation is not a problem for workers when the minimum wage keeps pace. But to keep it fair the worker's real wages have been stagnant since the '50s. But that is just a fact of the american way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

Inflation is detrimental to everybody as prices rise across the board.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Not if the minimum wage increases. Maybe you should be lobbing your Congress members to raise the minimum wage.. to fixate on one aspect of the problem is to be blinded by the whole. to fixate on only the bad is to fall down the hole.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

If you raise the cost of a good then less will be used. I'm interested in putting people to work and giving the market the most flexibility to hire is the best way to do this. The demand for labor in the US should increase as the population ages.

Fair share is a very subjective point.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

It would be so much easier to talk to people if they understood basic economics. Learn, and you don't even have to go to my website. But learn how the whole process works then come back and debate me. Cheers!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

Sure what's your background for teaching me economics.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

I did not say I was going to teach you, child. I said learn.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

Defending your ideas is difficult when under scrutiny. It's common to resort to attempted put downs when under pressure.

Fortunately, there are enough freedom loving people in this country who don't want your goverment controlled economy and intrusion in their lives. You can try to keep people under your control and tyranny all you want but there will always be good people out there that will fight your types.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

I'll be nice. The fed is devaluing our money; this in the long run is good for the holder of debt and bad for the Banks. But if congress redistributes the taxes, then in essence they are reshuffling money that is already there. say you raise the taxes on the one percent by ten and give five of it to the mom and pop shops, three of it in minimum wage expenditures and two of it to needed government programs, then you have generated economic activity, which would entice the Fed not to devalue our money. rearranging the money in the system does not make more dollars chasing fewer goods. it takes from the hoarders and gives to the producers and workers. You do know you can be freedom loving to a fault. your brand of freedom is counter intuitive to the history of this nation. so i reiterate, learn. also, I am not a government bureaucrat; I am a smart, independent, working class slob who is on strike.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

How about the radicals. As an OWS radical I resent being characterized as a liberal, undoubtedly because most Americans find it impossible to think outside the liberal-conservative binary.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

Hey Red, I say go with what feels good.

I am not a liberal or conservative. I am a freethinker.

I create my own likes and dislikes.

I don't really care what label the brainwashed sheep put on me.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

It is true that labels often are not very useful and are typically, more often than not, used as swear words without any specific content.

If we do have common definitions though labels can often be useful generalizing tools in characterizing somebody's politics or the general direction of a particular political movement.

All you have to do is look to the top of this page to conclude that liberalism does not accurately describe the political content of OWS. It is really very radical, but most Americans are unable to think outside of the liberal-conservative binary.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

It seems the right wing media is constantly dividing us. Their message is: if you are not conservative then you are liberal. There is nothing in-between or otherwise.

Many of the people I am in contact with have assumed the either or labels. I find it a bit disturbing. Much of the time their behavior doesn't match what they call themselves. In my opinion they are brainwashed. It's like being blue and telling everybody you are red

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Conceptually there really isn't anything in between liberalism and conservatism. I'm really not sure what it means to be a moderate. Moderation after all, the golden mean, is essentially a liberal value. The is, however, a considerable political range both to the left of liberalism (which is technically not left at all but really the quintessential centerist doctrine) and to the right of conservatism.

Many if not most of the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition, a fact which they make no effort to hide. Conservatives on this list claim that this is some kind of secret, but that hasn't been my experience at GAs or in Working Groups were people are very open about their political influences and affiliations.

It is odd that the media chooses not to cover the actual politics of the movement. I don't think it is because they don't understand it. I think it is because they simply do not know how to frame arguments for their audience that fall outside the Democratic-Republican Party binary.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

It seems like you have a good handle on the labels. Me not so much. I really dont care.

Personalities are so diverse that, in my opinion, labels only work to generalize.

It seems as though many are trying to cast OWS as anarchist and militants, Overthrow the government Blah, Blah, Blah.

I do understand that labeling/false labeling works great for propaganda and demonizing groups . That's the GOP mainstay through the Right wing media

Like I said before there are plenty of brainwashed people

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

I have been active in OWS since day one. That the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition is no secret as you would learn even by attending a single GA. Or just look at the top of this page. It says "The revolution continues world wide." I didn't put that there. The people who put up this website put that there and there is every reason to believe that they mean exactly what they say.

Many of the most influential intellectual voices in OWS are very self consciously radical and not afraid to say so. Again, if you don't believe me, take a really close look at this website, not the posting, but what the website itself says about itself and OWS. While the mass base of OWS may be liberals or perhaps uncommitted like yourself, the most coherent political voices in OWS are very self consciously radical and they do nothing to hide this. There is no secret about it for anyone who cares to look.

This is not a matter of what some right wing yahoo says or writes or thinks about OWS. This is about what OWS says about itself. It is self consciously politically radical and proud of it.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 8 years ago

I'll check it out. Thanks

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 8 years ago

The two-party system has ruined the political minds of many Americans. Most of them do not even know what liberalism means. Most of the conservative idiots who attack liberals for 'disagreeing' with the founding fathers don't even realize that the founding fathers used liberalism as a justification for their rebellion from Britain.

I really wish that we had more than two major parties.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

I think many liberals are still Democrats because they only pay attention to what Obama and his ilk say rather than what they do.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

I think many liberals still vote Democrat because they have no other option right now.

Who is going to provide the third party that we are looking for?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

Simply put, most of us are still Democrats because even though they're generally not as tolerant of our ideas as they should be they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative; I'd rather have a quietly warmongering administration that gets things like universal healthcare through, at least pays lip service to cleaning up DC, and tries to push through some sort of relief measures for the working and middle class than the open calls for theocracy and plutocracy coming from across the aisle.

The other reason I remain attached to the Democratic Party is because traditionally speaking it is through the Democratic Party that major reforms enter the political dialogue and in general wind up being reenacted. As short-lived as Bryan's Populist movement was (and as embarrassing as Bryan's role in the Scopes trial was) it was responsible for a strain of reformist thinking that pervaded the Democratic Party for a long time and led directly to FDR and the New Deal. Essentially we don't support the Democratic Party because of its behavior now; we support it because there is an established road to co-opting it and reunifying it around the principles of fairness and reform.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Bryan was not a Populist. He was always a loyal Democrat though he successfully captured the Populist movement for the Democrats in the 1896 election the first example of many of a popular mass movement going into the Democratic Party to die. Far from being a home to progressivism, the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists. It is a racist,pro-corporate party that has successfully hoodwinked the 99% for more than 100 years.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I do feel like the better base for a Populist movement back then would have been the urban working class with the farmers coming aboard in an auxiliary capacity rather than the other way around. As to your statement on movements going to the Democratic party to die: does it matter what becomes of the movements if the policies become law? Most of the major reforms that went through under the Roosevelts (Teddy and FDR both) derive in some manner from the Populist ideals and policy goals. Ideally, we'd have both the policies and the movement that spawned them remaining a strong part of American politics, but if I had to choose I'd rather have the policies.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

It certainly does matter whether or not a movement lives or dies. Regardless of what legislative changes were made by the capitalist parties as a consequence of mass movements, those changes would have been significantly more comprehensive had those movements been able to remain politically independent. Indeed, while it is counterfactual, I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate that had the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement remained politically independent it is concievable that we would not even currently be living under the same social system as is the case.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I don't know. I probably sound like a hand-wringing old woman by now, but political independence only matters when you have enough of a strong support base that you have teeth. In other words, what I worry about is that an OWS third party movement will wind up going the way of Ralph Nader and the Green Party: a voice on the fringe of the American political scene with enough power to tip elections the wrong way but not enough to get things done.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Political independence is not only crucial, it is essential to the survival of popular mass movements, which are not to be confused with marginal so-called third party efforts such as the Green Party. The Populist movement at its peak contained 3 million activists, not mere supporters, but activists in a nation less than one third the population we have today.

The Socialist Party at its peak had over a thousand elected public officials and over 1200 newspapers. In the mid 1930s 5 million workers organized themselves into the CIO in 10 months. These were real mass movements, which neither the Green Party nor OWS is yet, though throwing in the towel on political independence before it even becomes a mass movement will only contribute to its own demise.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

Fair enough, and ideally in 2016 we'll have a strong enough membership and a loud enough voice that we can extract concessions from both parties as far as beginning to fix the system. In the meantime, though, how would you propose we get political by Novermber 2012? The 99% Declaration people have a fairly good idea, and something like that could go far? The reason I keep pushing for action in the primaries is because it seems like the most efficient route to power.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

My commitment is to OWS. We need to build the movement. We need expodentially more occupations and more GAs. That is what is going to affect the political discourse. Anything else is a distraction. It can be argued that the few minutes spent in a voting booth is not a distraction, but where does it stop. The Democratic Party is not simply interested in the votes of OWS activists and supporters, which are frankly insignficant. What it is interested in is the literal physical energy of OWS activists to ring door bells and make phone calls for Democratic candidates, including Obama, and THAT would be a distraction.

I have heard some people say that they plan to vote for Obama but not work for him, but what is the point of that. You either want him re-elected or you don't care. If you do care and really do think that it is all that important then any time spent building OWS or specifically OWS actions (including demonstrations a Democratic Party rallies and meetings) is time not spent helping Democrats, including Obama getting elected. It's either important or it isn't. I think what is important, what trumps everything else, is building the movement.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

The other thing we need to do is broaden our approach beyond just occupations and GAs; after a while if all we have is a few Internet forums and tents in parks things won't change. Building OWS is important, but I feel like focusing only on the occupations and the GAs limits our influence on policy and that's not necessarily a good thing.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

I think the biggest waste of time and distraction is probably forums like this. I tune into them basically because I do not have the time or energy to be a full time occupier, but I am a part time occupier and that is by far the most important contribution that I make to the movement.

I don't really think we are in a position to think beyond occupying for a very, very long time, at least until there are 10 or 20 million people occupying. Right now there are optimistically only about 1% of that number occupying, only about 200 thousand. Once we become a serious mass movement, and I am talking about a serious mass base of activists, not mere supporters, then will be time enough to talk about a next step, whatever that might be.

It is also the most democratic way to proceed. Once we become a mass movement it will be up to that mass movement how to proceed, but we are not there yet and it would be both presumptuous and undemocratic for us to act and speak for people who have not yet organized themselves.

I think the occupations themselves had the most profound effect on policy than anything else OWS might have done to date. They are also important because they are a highly visible public space where people can go to find out about the movement any hour of the day or night, they are partial models of the kind of society we would like to build and as such their very existence gives us the best ideas of where to go next.

[-] 4 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

It is definitely both parties that are fucked. Its just more obvious with the republicans.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Its all a matter of perspective. Republicans think their party is about personal freedoms, but can clearly see that the Dems dont rep the little guy.

Dems think their party is about the little guy, but can clearly see that the R doesnt give two shits about the constitution or human rights.

Then there are those who have been involved, take a step back, and analyze simply on ACTIONS not words. Those are the ones who want real change.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

The Republicans are more upfront about their agenda. The Dems talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

[-] 3 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

There has been one party rule in the USA for at least about 100 years, since the creation of the Fed: the Gangster Bankster Party. Since then they have gone global with their European capitalist aristocratic counterparts. Nation states effectively ended by WWI replaced by the global cabal of international gangster bankster plutocrats and their client multinational corporations.

The rest is show biz with the political clowns, course for better milking the sheeple on the way to the butcher shop.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 8 years ago

The 99% Declaration outlines a concrete plan for creating a third party borne of the OWS99% movement and it's not being demanded by anyone else here except me. I don't get it.


[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I've read through most of it, and I'd say I agree with about 85% of what they have now, possibly more. I think that what they're trying to do and to a lesser (but still very significant extent) the manner in which they're trying to do with it. I don't however, necessarily know if the creation of a third party is necessarily a good idea. The idea that a third party is doomed to failure is only partially a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I feel like the policies themselves are more important than the means we take to enact them, and thus I feel like co-opting both parties at the primary level is a better idea.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 8 years ago

The redress gives the RepubliCrats one last chance. I'm sick of the two -party system and the endless election games over the last 35 years which has brought people to their knees. No, one last chance to prove themselves incapable and then it's bye bye.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

The third party would have to start small and take one or two seats at a time. I think it can be done, but the effort has to be focused. The party would not be able to afford fighting multiple races at once.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

Yes. I'll run for delegate if that project gets off the ground.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 8 years ago

the working group pages just re-occupied the NYCGA.net site. That speaks volumes.

the new site had a server issue but should be up again very soon. Be sure to vote up the down payment when the site comes back up. Right now it's bouncing to the google site.


[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

It is not about the regime (political structure), it is about the system (economic structure). As long as there is capitalism, there will be money in the politics, i.e., a ruling class on top crushing the working class. It doesn't matter how many political parties you have in the mix. One of the excuses Nazis used to dominate Germany was that there were too many political parties (i.e., about 100) in the parliment, which caused great division and nothing could be done. Go figure. Whether you think you have too little choices, or too many choices in politics it comes down to the underlying economic system which trumps all politics because the ownership of economy is the true seat of power. All the rest is a puppet show. We don't have the luxury of time for such stupidies. We need a new economic system that is not based on any type of private ownership (i.e., no money, not government, no other type of hierarchy). We need to learn to share the world in equality or lose it all.

Equality or Death

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 8 years ago

I hear ya, this isn't my home movement ya know ; )

But this is potentially the symbol of the transition. A change of this magnitude is required. No I didn't see anyone tossing their piggy banks but OWS happened. I've seen all good people...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

I agree. Capitalism is the problem. Unfortunately, I don't know of any set of steps that would replace it with something else in this country. What I can do is support efforts to remove the corruption that spawns from it, marginalize the negative effects of it, and hopefully help those who are the worst off live better lives.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

--- Einstein

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

--- R. Buckminster Fuller

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I'm not sure if that's the most efficient way to do things; if we can get people in primaries then the machine winds up having to back them whether the machine likes it or not, and thus we have the support of the machines of both parties. This would allow our message greater coverage and our candidates a better shot at winning.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

IDK. I am guessing, from a strategic standpoint, that we will not have enough funds/support early on to do much more than one or two races at a time if we hope to do more than just divert votes (i.e win the race.)

However, the political climate that I am observing right now tells me that this party, if done right, can grow much faster than the other major third parties did. As long as the platform starts with a refusal to hear lobbyists or accept any corporate donations, then we can gain way more support than the Green or Libertarian parties have.

[-] 2 points by fansmiles (24) from New York, NY 8 years ago

two parties: Twiddlee-dee and Twiddlee-dumb

[-] 2 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

I think the division between Republican and Democrat is mostly a false one (especially from the top down), but I don't think refusing to vote is the answer. Let's see if we can hoist up some politicians with backbone and stand a greater chance at having our voices be heard.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

I just don't have your faith in this System.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

Don't get me wrong MVSN, I don't think being more cautious in supporting and electing candidates will do it alone. We have to work this thing from every angle we can.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

Only about half of registered voters actually vote. I bet this system would work better if we could get those "armchair politicians" out to the polls.

[-] 2 points by Just1MoreVoice (76) 8 years ago

What, you mean instantly? Of course not. Change for the good rarely happens like that, especially without a lot of collateral damage on the way. But if we are focused and remain active and vigilant, and don't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security, we can bring about perhaps one or two major changes every few years.

If the Democratic party took both houses, (a big "if,'' but not impossible, anymore) then at least we would not have complete gridlock, which has led to a lot of trouble. We might be able to get some justice concerning the banks, and gain some relief in the form of the real "Trickle down" economic system (i.e. progressive taxation and realistic estate taxes). It would be a start. And if we are very, very persistent, we might even be able to pass an amendment to reform campaign finance laws and even get some term limits set for congressional representatives that will discourage the kind of corrupt political empire building that we see so often in the current system. If we can just get that far, we might have a shot at breaking the two party system thereafter, and maybe we will be able to take comfort in the fact that, for a time, at least, our representatives would actually do what we elected them to do.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

The Dems controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency from 2009-2011 and they accomplished diddly squat yet still blamed it on the Republicans.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

That's because that getting Democrats to get in line on a given platform is like trying to build a functioning army out of lolcats. The Republicans are highly destructive as it stands right now, and their machine is well-oiled, well coordinated, and highly disciplined. Everyone who doesn't get in line and back them gets booted from the party; why else do you think Arlen Specter switched parties? There wasn't any more room for him once the extreme conservatives got involved.

The result of this kind of strict hierarchy coming from Republicans is that you now have a whole lot of people who agree with 50-75% of their party line, but the 25-50% they disagree on made them homeless. Many of them then turn to the Democratic Party, who in turn welcomes them with open arms because it's a big-tent party. The increase in the Democratic base is great during election seasons, but what happens when it's time to govern and a whole lot of people are now in office who are under your banner and yet disagree with two thirds of your core platform? Answer: jack squat.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

ARE YOU OWS PEOPLE LISTENING ? There it is. Support the Democratic party and have your wildest dreams come true!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

Yes we can!

[-] 1 points by Just1MoreVoice (76) 8 years ago

You asked what might happen if the Democratic Party were to take both houses, and I told you what I thought might happen. I did not say that the Democratic Party would make everything ok, what I said was that at least we would continue to have an opportunity to keep pushing them until WE made everything ok. Nothing will happen if we don't remain active and keep pushing for satisfaction.

You want to know what might happen if the houses remain divided or even if the Republican Party won both houses and the Presidency? The Congress would continue to hold the government hostage to their whims, until they either got all the 'reforms' they wanted (they would have to, since the president they will have elected will still need to be pushed hard to approve the ridiculous crap they would try to pass).

Worse, yet, with the Republicans in power, they will be far more likely to use greater and greater oppressive force to get us to give up. Given my choice, I would prefer the Democratic Party win and take both houses, yes, but NOT because I think they will fix everything. You are reading what you want to see into my statement. Stop that.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Okay. I get that your mind is locked in the present system. Perhaps you will get your wish in 2012. I have no doubt your leader will be re elected. Perhaps your Party will regain power.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

no it would not - but the candidates for a few years at least, would be more reflective of their individual constituencies as opposed to liars propping up corporate exploitation of the public.

you would still have attempts to sabotage regulation from within and without, you would still have incompetence in some areas. These things would take time to address, and probably would not get addressed unless the public demanded it.

If we demand it, they can focus resources on it. The trick is in making sure they are the right resources, who have no other agenda.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 8 years ago

progressive/utopian paradise huh ? Surely your not referring to the left wing smear of what progressives are about are you. Also democrats are also a part of the problem which is why this movement isnt taking sides. Where do you get the people here espouse a utopian paradise, yeesssh, cant you troll any better than this.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

I would suggest you spend some time on other threads.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

utopia no
single payer yes
capital gains tax up yes
no billions in untaxed corporate profits
infrastructue spending up
FDR type WPA & CCC

do you blame the nazis brutes for what happened in the 1930s-40s?
it was the average intelligent Germans who let them blow up their country

do I blame the republican brutes for what happened in the 1980s-2000s?
it was the average intelligent Democrats who let them blow up our country

[-] 1 points by AllPeopleAreEqual (1) 8 years ago

Will we continue to elect, "the lesser evil", now that we know both parties are controlled by money influence? I believe we should unite and vow to vote against BOTH parties! Establishing that, We the People can insist that we will only vote for the candidates that agree to change our political process to a publically funded process.
If money influence remains in our political process, discussing all other issues is pointless.

[-] 1 points by Fedup15 (30) 8 years ago

The democrats did control both houses during Obamas first two years as president. We steered to socialism very quickly and the deficit skyrocketed

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 8 years ago

We were degraded because the bipartisan government doesn't work. They couldn't reach an agreement in time for credit agencies. The republicans don't care about this country as much as they care for their political power, the dems are the same. If they care about the country they would compromise for the greater good all of us.

[-] 1 points by SkepticismAndWonder (29) from Imperial, CA 8 years ago

There is already a single party ruling the United States, the Property Party, and it has two wings, Democrat and Republican.

[-] 1 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Obviously not because they had that for the first two years of Obama's presidency and all we got was Obamacare that now even his own party is running away from.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

i think it would send them the message of approval and they would just continue on with biz as usual.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 8 years ago

No it is not too much parties it is too little.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That leaves you pretty much with Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders.

You don't vote much?

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

I refuse to vote for the status quo. I will not be part of the problem. I do vote. Third parties. Write ins.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 8 years ago

Well that won't get you anywhere. I don't thin both parties are bad just not good. They both have good ideas. Its just when you put their other ideas together that you get crap out the other side.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

At this point, refusal to vote for bad candidates is vitally important. So long as the major parties are assured of votes no matter how poor their performance, they have zero motivation to change. Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils will get us more of what we've been getting.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 8 years ago

Oh I agree with you. I've decided that I'm not going to vote until I change the system or do a write in.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Odumba had a super majority in the senate, and a massive advantage in the house for the first two years of his term. The result: never passed a budget, and odumba care. Now the commie in chief stated that if he can't get congress to go along with his plans, he will bypass them to get what he wants. Very Stalinish.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

They had total control for 2 years and couldn't pass a budget. The only thing they managed to do is ram an unfunded healthcare nightmare bill through and that was it.


[-] -1 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

-Article 5 NOW!-

If free speech had the capacity to be sure information vital to survival was shared and understood. We would need no parties after a time.