If You Were Going to Start A Revolution ....

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by MMDad

That's why we need to destroy the broadcast networks, magazines, and large newspaper companies.

That's exactly right, because THEY control the populace. We only think politicians do, but they are supported and nurtured by the biased Leftwing press. If not for the universal * sucking they gave Barack Obama, he'd still be an Illinois Senator. John McCain could have never won the primary without them.

We know that their agenda is more important to them than money, or they wouldn't have that loser Keith Olbermann with his pathetic ratings still on the air. I personally boycott any and all media that promotes the Leftist agenda. That includes movies, television shows, and music. If a celebretard spews Leftist kookery. I will not give them one dime of my money by seeing their movie or watching their TV show. If a magazine splashes Leftist bull#### and bull####ters all over their front page, I won't buy it.

These #######s can tax me to death and take my money by force, but I'll be a sunny beach if I'll give it to them voluntarily.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Who would that be? The completely unrealistic Ron Paul? I don't agree with his isolationist blame America first rhetoric. Nor do I agree with his silly "abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing" dream world. So who would I support?

You could support those who agree with you; that people are stupid, need to be governed because they can not govern themselves and the system already is extra constitutional and it's never gonna change, so don't even bother; just make it more so.

You are an impossibilist. The nattering Vrailblonde of negativity. No one expected Heller to actually get in front of the scotus, never, never, never, never, let alone WIN. However, he did and he won. It's a step. That's how the left wins, one small step at a time. That's how the right will win; one small step at a time.

Or it won't. Because people like you say it'll never happen and everyone who even tries, Paul, Heller, etc, are kooks.

Hell, Obama himself is the glaring example of why you are so wrong; He is, by far, the most left wing potus we've had, perhaps ever. The left kept ignoring those who said 'it'll never work' and they fought and they fought and they fought for their guy.

It IS possible to get real right wingers. It is NOT possible if we all just lay down and quit because 'it'll never, never, never' happen.

[SamSpade]

We need a strong third party in Congress. It needs to have a large enough constituency to completely block major legislation.

It would only serve one purpose - to force the major parties to cooperate. In all other respects, they would simply abstain or vote against major bills. Because of this function, they wouldn't need to hold a position on major issues at all.

It would have the effect that Rome's tribunes had and their votes would directly come from the people.

And I'm beginning to embrace the wisdom of term limits. The President has it, and there's no good reason to believe that if you've been in Congress most of your life, your ability to represent the will of the people is in any way enhanced.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

We need a strong third party in Congress. It needs to have a large enough constituency to completely block major legislation.

It would only serve one purpose - to force the major parties to cooperate. In all other respects, they would simply abstain or vote against major bills. Because of this function, they wouldn't need to hold a position on major issues at all.

It would have the effect that Rome's tribunes had and their votes would directly come from the people.

And I'm beginning to embrace the wisdom of term limits. The President has it, and there's no good reason to believe that if you've been in Congress most of your life, your ability to represent the will of the people is in any way enhanced.

It'll never work. It's impossible. Never, never, never...

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

It'll never work. It's impossible. Never, never, never...

Actually - that could work. We already have two independents in the Senate, but they're really just Democrats running as independents.

Libertarians are almost there. I swear they'd get my vote if they didn't have a couple really peculiar ideas.

The big hurdle here is that no one wants a representative who has a function or agenda other than representing THEM. So to gain that kind of voter, you'd have to target districts where there's voter dissatisfaction, but little opposition. You'd have to go for open seats, or unopposed elections.

Part of the reason we're where we are is the nature of the beast - it's winner take all, simple majority wins. In some parts of the world, the parliament/duma/ruling body is partitioned according to the vote, and the actual leader is voted upon by that body. So in that respect, there's always representation by the smaller parties. We don't do that. ONE person wins an election in his district - not, say, 20 according to his state.

The major parties have also staked out the sides on the major issues - this way or that way on abortion, on the war, on taxes, on defense - and so on. If a party came along and staked out new territory that neither party would dare take a stand on - say, balancing the budget - they'd get new voters. Because if they had a platform that took sides on the major issues, it wouldn't be long before they'd either be subsumed by the major parties, or be seen as just a major party with a minor issue (i.e. the Green Party).

Let's face it - you're not going to change Congress by waiting for the major parties to nominate someone who will change everything. It's gonna have to come from outside. It has to be compelling enough to get people to say "screw pro-choice or gun control as issues - I want THIS guy". That's not going to happen in our current environment where Greens are considered Dems with an environmental itch to scratch, and Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke dope.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Actually - that could work. We already have two independents in the Senate, but they're really just Democrats running as independents.

Libertarians are almost there. I swear they'd get my vote if they didn't have a couple really peculiar ideas.

The big hurdle here is that no one wants a representative who has a function or agenda other than representing THEM. So to gain that kind of voter, you'd have to target districts where there's voter dissatisfaction, but little opposition. You'd have to go for open seats, or unopposed elections.

Part of the reason we're where we are is the nature of the beast - it's winner take all, simple majority wins. In some parts of the world, the parliament/duma/ruling body is partitioned according to the vote, and the actual leader is voted upon by that body. So in that respect, there's always representation by the smaller parties. We don't do that. ONE person wins an election in his district - not, say, 20 according to his state.

The major parties have also staked out the sides on the major issues - this way or that way on abortion, on the war, on taxes, on defense - and so on. If a party came along and staked out new territory that neither party would dare take a stand on - say, balancing the budget - they'd get new voters. Because if they had a platform that took sides on the major issues, it wouldn't be long before they'd either be subsumed by the major parties, or be seen as just a major party with a minor issue (i.e. the Green Party).

Let's face it - you're not going to change Congress by waiting for the major parties to nominate someone who will change everything. It's gonna have to come from outside. It has to be compelling enough to get people to say "screw pro-choice or gun control as issues - I want THIS guy". That's not going to happen in our current environment where Greens are considered Dems with an environmental itch to scratch, and Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke dope.

I was being sarcastic; of course it can work if people will make better decisions and start seeing obstacles instead of dead ends.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I was being sarcastic; of course it can work if people will make better decisions and start seeing obstacles instead of dead ends.

MY beef with it is that money controls elections, and the money centers around the major parties. Unless you're Ross Perot and have loads of your OWN money, you can't compete with the major parties when they have the airwaves.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

MY beef with it is that money controls elections, and the money centers around the major parties. Unless you're Ross Perot and have loads of your OWN money, you can't compete with the major parties when they have the airwaves.

Dead end; Money
Solution; we can't do anything about it!

Or


Obstacle; Money
Solution; The Internets.

How many $100's of millions did Obama raise from the net, outside the party?

People need to put their money where their mouth is. Like Palin? Send her $25a quarter. Like McCain? Send him $25 a quarter. Whomever.

If 60,000,000 voted for McCain to be in charge of decisions that cost us each $1,000's and $1,000's, or save us $1,000's and $1,000's, then at least a million voters, 1 in 60, may be willing to put up or shut up. That gives McCain/Candidate X $100 mil, per year, to make his/her point. To build a team. To push issues.

Outside the parties control.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

PS; So, imagine, in an election year, if, as momentum builds, candidate X starts getting millions of people donating? 60,000,000 by $10 each is $600 million. What if they gave $100 to support issues that saved them $1,000's?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

And people, please - do not make threats against elected officials. You are on a public forum and anyone can read this.

I assumed by "go after" we were being asked who we'd vote out of office.