VaporTrail Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 It's broken. Neither party represents me. Nothing ever gets done because each party is too busy spending time to make the other look bad. I want a parliamentary system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Nope, The reality is that the system is already broken and it can not be put back together because the physics of the money already has set too much energy in motion. Its not the parties who are failing you/us.... it is the rules of engagement. We can NEVER organize and spend as much as any special interest..... whether its the AARP or Wall Street the truth is that the groups can pay lobbyists who have access and the groups can put together fund raisers that the "reps" use to get elected only do so at a Quid Pro Quo.... The laws that allow unlimited outside groups advertising only further enhances the character/position PR attacks that do not allow for any true representation but just PR positioning that is adverse to any action for fear of reprisal campaigns by unlimited special interest funds. The organized money has destroyed any real fundamental representation and the media is complicit because they are corporate entities that profit from negative news/sensationalism because humans are wired to respond strongly to danger over well boring every day work. Vapor it is over barring any "revolution" but that will not happen because the military can not be overthrown and they intentionally want 18-22 year olds so they can brainwash and command them not let them think to do the bidding of the minority command and control system. The military has nukes, bio weapons and smart drone/automated systems now and the regular people dont have a chance anymore. There really are no parties per se more just over theatrical puppets and sheep who follow them thinking they actually represent them. What we have is organized money who fight for positioning and special treatment that furthers their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I doubt it. With the 2 party system you have black and white and generally have half the country in favor of what is happening and half unhappy. Turn it in to a 3rd party system you would end up with 1/3 happy and 2/3 unhappy. I think you would see a real stalemate at that point. I think the best way to get some action out of government is to lessen the role of the federal government and turn more of the authority over to the state governments. You'd still share revenues with the fed being the broker so states like Montana got adequate road money etc., you'd still have federal oversight to make sure each state is living up to set standards all the states agree upon, but this idea that everything revolves around Washinton rather than revolving around places like Nashville, Columbus, Mount Pillar, Montgomery, or Bismark needs to change. The closer one gets to local government, the closer to the people it remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Nah. Just face the fact that nobody is going to be totally on board with my (or anybodys) whole view. Anyway say there are 30% conservatives 30% moderate conservatives and 40% liberals then 60 % of the country is screwed. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Hrm... I don't think that 50% + 1 vote is very representative of the people. I think that representation should be a function of the number of votes. Maybe that's the problem I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Hrm... I don't think that 50% + 1 vote is very representative of the people. I think that representation should be a function of the number of votes. Maybe that's the problem I have. Vapor you are then setting up the balkanization of demographics...... that would be counterproductive to getting things done. movement is generally slower the more cooks you get in the kitchen...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 Just liked Ballpeen's post so much, I wanted to repeat it.. ********************************************** I doubt it. With the 2 party system you have black and white and generally have half the country in favor of what is happening and half unhappy. Turn it in to a 3rd party system you would end up with 1/3 happy and 2/3 unhappy. I think you would see a real stalemate at that point. I think the best way to get some action out of government is to lessen the role of the federal government and turn more of the authority over to the state governments. You'd still share revenues with the fed being the broker so states like Montana got adequate road money etc., you'd still have federal oversight to make sure each state is living up to set standards all the states agree upon, but this idea that everything revolves around Washinton rather than revolving around places like Nashville, Columbus, Mount Pillar, Montgomery, or Bismark needs to change. The closer one gets to local government, the closer to the people it remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.