• 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!

The Duopoly Circus

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
“Bizarre” is probably a master under statement to describe the American political system and this election in particular. Likely, a better label for the surreal un-imaginary events going on would be “The Duopoly Circus.” It could only get more outrageous if Hillary goes to jail and beats Trump from her cell or Bernie takes her place and America has it’s first Communist President.


As an absolute non-partisan/anti party constitutionalist non-voter in the duopoly’s rigged elections, I find it just as bizarre that the national idiot partisan voting population hasn’t had a huge revelation by now and the grand discovery of just how corrupt ,authoritarian and just plain rotten to the core the Democrat and Republican Parties are and what a rigged farce the “Two Party” system is.


As the saying goes, “Only in America,” could the duopoly party have two opposing candidates who are felons by any honest observation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Multi-party / coalition / parliamentarian systems don't necessarily produce better candidates.

Ridiculous candidates can show up and get elected at any time. In US history, they tend to be outside the political parties -- e.g. Ross Perot. It's not like this is the first time in American or electoral history that things have gone a little bit off the rails.

By the way, as bad you think Trump or Clinton are, they don't hold a candle to Berlusconi, Putin, Yeltsin. Buchanan was reportedly quite awful as well.

There is no way to eliminate parties altogether. If nothing else, that violates the right of association.

Got any other suggestions?
 
Last edited:

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
60,111
Reaction score
46,918
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
“Bizarre” is probably a master under statement to describe the American political system and this election in particular. Likely, a better label for the surreal un-imaginary events going on would be “The Duopoly Circus.” It could only get more outrageous if Hillary goes to jail and beats Trump from her cell or Bernie takes her place and America has it’s first Communist President.


As an absolute non-partisan/anti party constitutionalist non-voter in the duopoly’s rigged elections, I find it just as bizarre that the national idiot partisan voting population hasn’t had a huge revelation by now and the grand discovery of just how corrupt ,authoritarian and just plain rotten to the core the Democrat and Republican Parties are and what a rigged farce the “Two Party” system is.


As the saying goes, “Only in America,” could the duopoly party have two opposing candidates who are felons by any honest observation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
A bit more harshly & coarsely worded than I would've done for an OP thread starter (I'd like to think more of my fellow citizens are misinformed through political FUD, than lacking in intelligence), but I can't disagree!

Multi-party / coalition / parliamentarian systems don't necessarily produce better candidates.

Ridiculous candidates can show up and get elected at any time. In US history, they tend to be outside the political parties -- e.g. Ross Perot. It's not like this is the first time in American or electoral history that things have gone a little bit off the rails.

There is no way to eliminate parties altogether. If nothing else, that violates the right of association.

Got any other suggestions?
A parliamentary system might be a decent start, but then we've got that little thing called "The Constitution", so doing this could be a bit problematic! :mrgreen:
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
35,744
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is going to be the world's biggest ever unpopularity contest!
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,346
Reaction score
18,962
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
“Bizarre” is probably a master under statement to describe the American political system and this election in particular. Likely, a better label for the surreal un-imaginary events going on would be “The Duopoly Circus.” It could only get more outrageous if Hillary goes to jail and beats Trump from her cell or Bernie takes her place and America has it’s first Communist President.


As an absolute non-partisan/anti party constitutionalist non-voter in the duopoly’s rigged elections, I find it just as bizarre that the national idiot partisan voting population hasn’t had a huge revelation by now and the grand discovery of just how corrupt ,authoritarian and just plain rotten to the core the Democrat and Republican Parties are and what a rigged farce the “Two Party” system is.


As the saying goes, “Only in America,” could the duopoly party have two opposing candidates who are felons by any honest observation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.


I doubt I could have said it better. When you are one or two steps removed from emotions, the whole thing looks like a farce, a comedy. From here Trump loos like a caricature of every semi-educated bigot with an empty head and mean streak, a kind of Hollywood image of what the composite American boor with a big wallet.

And Hilary, well it's been said.

In any event, the American people are now no longer a witness to a mammoth joke, but now are the joke.
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,346
Reaction score
18,962
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Multi-party / coalition / parliamentarian systems don't necessarily produce better candidates.

Ridiculous candidates can show up and get elected at any time. In US history, they tend to be outside the political parties -- e.g. Ross Perot. It's not like this is the first time in American or electoral history that things have gone a little bit off the rails.

By the way, as bad you think Trump or Clinton are, they don't hold a candle to Berlusconi, Putin, Yeltsin. Buchanan was reportedly quite awful as well.

There is no way to eliminate parties altogether. If nothing else, that violates the right of association.

Got any other suggestions?


Incredible!

It's so bad that seven months away from the election you are in defeat, and comparing the future president of the United States in a par with Putin or worse! "Gee guys, it's not that bad, at least he's not a dictator who murders gays!

And you wonder why America isn't great anymore. It may be that you two easily accept the worst based on glitter and bull****
 

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A bit more harshly & coarsely worded than I would've done for an OP thread starter (I'd like to think more of my fellow citizens are misinformed through political FUD, than lacking in intelligence), but I can't disagree!

A parliamentary system might be a decent start, but then we've got that little thing called "The Constitution", so doing this could be a bit problematic! :mrgreen:

When in recent, or even extended memory did the duopoly and their 9 black robed stooges pay any loyalty to the Constitution?
 

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is no way to eliminate parties altogether. If nothing else, that violates the right of association.

Got any other suggestions?

"Eliminate" them? How about just making them finance their own private party primary elections and conventions instead of bilking the taxpayers for the bills? Then there's insisting on a fair and honest ballot access system, some rules for the national debate including all others and eliminating the special interest money out of the system and holding every politician's feet to the fire when they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
"Eliminate" them? How about just making them finance their own private party primary elections and conventions instead of bilking the taxpayers for the bills?
How would that change anything?


Then there's insisting on a fair and honest ballot access system
Each state sets up its own rules. If you have an issue with a ballot, take it up with the state.

Further, each party sets up its own delegate rules. The government shouldn't tell the parties how to allocate its delegates.


some rules for the national debate
Those rules are set up by the TV networks hosting the debate. Yet another thing the federal government definitely shouldn't even consider altering.


holding every politician's feet to the fire when they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?
There are already myriad mechanisms for doing so.

1) No one is required to vote for an incumbent
2) An egregious violation can spark an impeachment or recall process
3) Laws these days are frequently tested in court for their constitutional status

We should also note that there is no such thing as a truly objective and uniform accepted standard for what is constitutional -- and far, far too many people are willing to characterize their opponent's positions as unconstitutional purely for rhetorical purposes.

Got any better ideas?
 

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How would that change anything?

So bilking the taxpayers to pay for private party activities, primaries and conventions is OK with you, right? Making the parties pay for their own operations, primaries and conventions does nothing in the world of fair and honest in your opinion, correct?

Each state sets up its own rules. If you have an issue with a ballot, take it up with the state.

All 50 States are politically owned and operated by the duopoly Democrat/Republican cartel. How would you suggest one take it up with the cartel?

Further, each party sets up its own delegate rules. The government shouldn't tell the parties how to allocate its delegates.

That would have merit provided taxpayers weren’t paying the tab for the crooked private party operations. If taxpayers are on the hook for the crooked duopoly operations, taxpayers have every right to demand a say in the rules for delegates. Let the bastard private parties pay their own tab and make all the rules they want.



Those rules are set up by the TV networks hosting the debate. Yet another thing the federal government definitely shouldn't even consider altering.

The rules for the national debate are set up by a ratings system. The duopoly owns access to major media because they own the American political system, no others need apply. It’s all about ratings. The end result is an American election system devoid of any credible political voice competitive with the corrupt duopoly cartel.





there is no such thing as a truly objective and uniform accepted standard for what is constitutional –

Except for the English language. The Constitution isn’t written in cosmic sign languages. Most 10 year olds can interpret the majority of it. What is constitutional and unconstitutional is mostly perfectly evident to any honest reader with an average intelligence.

far, far too many people are willing to characterize their opponent's positions as unconstitutional purely for rhetorical purposes.

On the contrary, far, far too many biased partisans violate the Constitution with absurd, perverted interpretations and such excuses like the “general welfare” clause and far reaching stretches of the commerce clause and even some absurd lie that the power to tax allows the feds to write any law they want in the name of the power to tax as long as it includes a tax.
 
Top Bottom