The greatest danger to the U.S.
I believe the greatest danger is the existence of and the power of political parties in their present form.
I can find nothing in the constitution giving political parties any right to have majority or minority leaders or sections, no right to "two sides of the aisle, actually no rights, powers, or privileges in any part of government. I can't even find any mention of political parties in the constitution.
I think political parties should have the same status as fraternal or civic organizations. NO VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, no repub or dem designations on b****ts, NO TAX MONEY FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, absolutely no legal standing or power or voice in government.
If the dem por repub CLUBS want to meet and select who they would support for political office they would do so at their own expense and their opinions would carry no weight, no more than a newspaper editor supporting a candidate.
Think about it
hprinze wrote:
I believe the greatest danger is the existence of and the power of political parties in their present form.
I can find nothing in the constitution giving political parties any right to have majority or minority leaders or sections, no right to "two sides of the aisle, actually no rights, powers, or privileges in any part of government. I can't even find any mention of political parties in the constitution.
I think political parties should have the same status as fraternal or civic organizations. NO VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, no repub or dem designations on b****ts, NO TAX MONEY FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, absolutely no legal standing or power or voice in government.
If the dem por repub CLUBS want to meet and select who they would support for political office they would do so at their own expense and their opinions would carry no weight, no more than a newspaper editor supporting a candidate.
Think about it
I believe the greatest danger is the existence of ... (
show quote)
I have said from the beginning of my time with this forum that we need to get rid of the parties. We can't have a president making all the decisions willy nilly, so we do need a governing body. I do believe that body should be made of businessmen who understand how to budget, rule a large body of people, know how to make money and restore our economy and create jobs. Preferably ones with international experience also. No parties. Just concerned citizens Who want to see USA be a great country and will pass regulation that does that without worrying about crossing party lines. They should be paid a stipend for their time. I doubt it would ever happen because our government leaders are too power Hungry and they make too much money.
alex
Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
Kachina wrote:
I have said from the beginning of my time with this forum that we need to get rid of the parties. We can't have a president making all the decisions willy nilly, so we do need a governing body. I do believe that body should be made of businessmen who understand how to budget, rule a large body of people, know how to make money and restore our economy and create jobs. Preferably ones with international experience also. No parties. Just concerned citizens Who want to see USA be a great country and will pass regulation that does that without worrying about crossing party lines. They should be paid a stipend for their time. I doubt it would ever happen because our government leaders are too power Hungry and they make too much money.
I have said from the beginning of my time with thi... (
show quote)
so what if one bunch of those people disagree with what another bunch wants to do how do you keep them from dividing into separate groups or parties?
alex wrote:
so what if one bunch of those people disagree with what another bunch wants to do how do you keep them from dividing into separate groups or parties?
=======================================
I don't think you understood the intended message in the original post
hprinze wrote:
=======================================
I don't think you understood the intended message in the original post
As much as I like the idea, I think we would still wind up with the rich promoting who they want, and no one else getting any notice.
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
hprinze wrote:
I believe the greatest danger is the existence of and the power of political parties in their present form.
I can find nothing in the constitution giving political parties any right to have majority or minority leaders or sections, no right to "two sides of the aisle, actually no rights, powers, or privileges in any part of government. I can't even find any mention of political parties in the constitution.
I think political parties should have the same status as fraternal or civic organizations. NO VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, no repub or dem designations on b****ts, NO TAX MONEY FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, absolutely no legal standing or power or voice in government.
If the dem por repub CLUBS want to meet and select who they would support for political office they would do so at their own expense and their opinions would carry no weight, no more than a newspaper editor supporting a candidate.
Think about it
I believe the greatest danger is the existence of ... (
show quote)
I thought about it - and here's what I concluded - there is nothing in the law requiring political parties and there is nothing in the law disallowing them. Membership in either party is totally voluntary - you and anyone else can join either party, and you can change party at any time for any reason. Those elected to office can belong to any party, or no party, and can even change parties once they are elected. Should enough people elect enough representatives of the Party of the Obsessed, such a party can have a majority caucus.
In other words, the existence and continuation of parties is the result of free people making free decisions in joining or not joining and v****g or not v****g for individuals representing a party or for individual representing no party.
If you want change you need to start with the people who elect other people.
moldyoldy wrote:
As much as I like the idea, I think we would still wind up with the rich promoting who they want, and no one else getting any notice.
===================================
Same old whining about those greedy capitalists . Typical class hatred and insane jealousy of anyone who has been financially successful in free enterprise. H**e the rich. pity the poor lazy slob parasites who have to carry the load for the rich. It's almost funny
Dave wrote:
I thought about it - and here's what I concluded - there is nothing in the law requiring political parties and there is nothing in the law disallowing them. Membership in either party is totally voluntary - you and anyone else can join either party, and you can change party at any time for any reason. Those elected to office can belong to any party, or no party, and can even change parties once they are elected. Should enough people elect enough representatives of the Party of the Obsessed, such a party can have a majority caucus.
In other words, the existence and continuation of parties is the result of free people making free decisions in joining or not joining and v****g or not v****g for individuals representing a party or for individual representing no party.
If you want change you need to start with the people who elect other people.
I thought about it - and here's what I concluded -... (
show quote)
====================================
And you obviously did not read or did not understand what I said in the original post.
hprinze wrote:
===================================
Same old whining about those greedy capitalists . Typical class hatred and insane jealousy of anyone who has been financially successful in free enterprise. H**e the rich. pity the poor lazy slob parasites who have to carry the load for the rich. It's almost funny
quote kachina
I do believe that body should be made of businessmen who understand how to budget, rule a large body of people, know how to make money and restore our economy and create jobs.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You two believe that we need to be controlled by those with money. That means you want to continue, exactly what we have in the wake of citizens united. The kochs have decided to spend almost a billion dollars to steal this e******n. That is the future you want.
alex
Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
moldyoldy wrote:
As much as I like the idea, I think we would still wind up with the rich promoting who they want, and no one else getting any notice.
you liberals just can't get that jealousy out of your system can you, if you want to be rich educate yourself then invent something, nobody gets rich working for someone else
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
hprinze wrote:
====================================
And you obviously did not read or did not understand what I said in the original post.
I guess I didn't understand what you said and after reading it all two more times I still don't get your point. I agree that parties are a lot of our problem but would rather point out that too many of those who were elected because of the letter (R or D) that followed their names are leaning the other direction, away from the party that elected them.
Lets look at two of the worst of these, RINOs Sir Hiss and McConnell who seem to lean hard left too much of the time. It is the failure of certain members to see the t***h too much of the time that I see danger from.
Have you seen this video from one of the leading Republicans in the House? He explains what law is and how we need to obey the law as we once did. Outstanding young man, in my opinion.
http://freedomforce.com/1894/trey-gowdy-blasts-democrats-on-breaking-immigration-laws/
alex
Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
Dave wrote:
I thought about it - and here's what I concluded - there is nothing in the law requiring political parties and there is nothing in the law disallowing them. Membership in either party is totally voluntary - you and anyone else can join either party, and you can change party at any time for any reason. Those elected to office can belong to any party, or no party, and can even change parties once they are elected. Should enough people elect enough representatives of the Party of the Obsessed, such a party can have a majority caucus.
In other words, the existence and continuation of parties is the result of free people making free decisions in joining or not joining and v****g or not v****g for individuals representing a party or for individual representing no party.
If you want change you need to start with the people who elect other people.
I thought about it - and here's what I concluded -... (
show quote)
a political party as such has no power if enough people of a like mind join forces and select someone of like mind and elect that person but too many people listen to the BS put out and believe it so thats who the v**e for, watch Water world when he goes on our college campus and watch the stupidity of our so called educated elite
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
hprinze wrote:
====================================
And you obviously did not read or did not understand what I said in the original post.
On the contrary - I did read it and understand it - you suggest they have no right to organize by party - and clearly they do have such a right.
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
alex wrote:
a political party as such has no power if enough people of a like mind join forces and select someone of like mind and elect that person but too many people listen to the BS put out and believe it so thats who the v**e for, watch Water world when he goes on our college campus and watch the stupidity of our so called educated elite
Exactly - being in or not is completely voluntary - neither required nor banned - in other words you, me and they have complete LIBERTY on this particular subject
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.