The Duopoly Circus (1 Viewer)

[TheHammer]

“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]

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?

 

[Chomsky]

“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]

This is going to be the world's biggest ever unpopularity contest!

 

[Fearandloathing]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.