It's not just every 4 years... a true change in the two party system, which seems almost impossible, would have to start at the local level and move upwards. Local elections are forgotten, but are key!

Not even, if you got even 5-10% of the Senate you would stop the others from getting a majority and you would actually need to be paid attention too.

Not trying to shit on anyone's parade but that's a toxic lie tied to hope too.

It doesn't matter how we vote in if once they get to a certain level they WILL buy into the globalist Zionist game.

Vote for a candidate that is against usury and will replace the fed with a national bank.

What's wrong with usury, aside from when the Fed does it?

The two party system is a byproduct of the design of our political system. There will be one party that panders to the poor, one party that panders to the rich.

Canadian here. Just wondering Which party in America currently panders to the poor?

neither pander to the poor, one just pretends to.

Which one pretends these days? Haha I don't see it

i guess they both do. have u watched the campaigns. trump saying income disparity is worse than ever before we have to do x to help the working class. hillary saying the same thing. when in reality they are just corporate cronyists

democrats and welfare

Ah isn't medicare a Republican thing though? I know it's an old person thing but in Canada many of our poorest are our seniors

obama is a democrat. obamacare.

I am familiar with Obama care or the affordable care act but I was wondering about medicare

No, you are historically correct. Republicans often talk about medicare, but not so much since obamacare became a hot topic that encompasses it. It is easier to go after that since it affects more people.

The important part to remember though, is that these parties only pay lip service to these issues, and don't actually want to fix them. They want people to be dependant on them for these issues, and fixing them rarely works to that end.

For instance democrats will raise welfare entitlement rather than try to get people less dependent on welfare. This give voters the idea they care about the issue, but really they are just making voters dependant on them for future welfare entitlements.

which poor are you talking about, the ones that dont want to work and sit on their ass all day collecting hand outs? Or the poor that are disabled and unable to work?

it doesnt matter. but when they do pander to the "poor" they are talking about working class americans who make 11 bucks an hour in factories, etc. the poor is more than people who dont want to/can't work. in some places people need 2 jobs to survive.

Yes it does matter. Its cause and effect. Theres a reason things happen. In your fantasy world where people just become poor for no reason at all, maybe all poor are the same. Theres a large portion of our country that is abusing welfare systems and has no desire to be productive members of society. Hell I can show you proof just meet some old highschool shit heads I know. There is a difference.

Opportunity is out there but it takes motivation to seek. Alot of people dont want to seek it. Alot of people simply dont want to work. Go volunteer at a homeless shelter then come back and tell me about your opinion again.

"Theres a large portion of our country that is abusing welfare systems and has no desire to be productive members of society. Hell I can show you proof just meet some old highschool shit heads I know."

Anecdotal evidence = a large portion of our country. Iron clad logic.

Id spend time linking statistics, but you strike me as the type of person who likes to live in ignorance.

you're one of those bitches that thinks "hur dur its poor peoples fault because they dont work hard enough durrrrrrrrr". u dont realize in some parts of the country people work 80 hours a week and still struggle with bills while living in small ass apartments. you cant see past the first layer of a problem so you just think being poor=your fault. very ignorant mindset.

listen here buddy, i worked two jobs 80+ hours for 3 years, dont try to preach to me. if you want something, get off your ass and work for it. Stop talking for people you know nothing about. Go volunteer at a homeless shelter and come back and tell me your opinion.

Now if youre disabled, sick, or poor because technology took your job or whatnot, you have a legitimate excuse. If youre poor and your physically able, its because you failed yourself.

I didnt inherit shit, I didnt get any help. Welcome to reality.

yeah i dont care i worked a bunch too, i dont have some sort of superiority complex about it though.

i live in the state with the most homeless in the u.s. and interact with them almost every day. some are able to work and milk the system, fuck them. most are fucked in the head and there is no way they could hold a job. some are alcoholics, schizos, brain damaged, whatever. i don't judge people i don't know. there is nothing you know that i don't know.

How do those boots taste?

Bernie pandered to the poor but he was cheated out of his election by his own party. A party pretending they were different than the other party...

No, the two party system is a new phenomenon created to keep third parties from joining the discussion.

No. It isn't. Read a fucking book. This is something discussed heavily in The Federalist papers, in addition to other writings by the Founding Fathers.

Yes, it is. I love that your post is angry and has no substance. It was discussed in the Federalist papers by James Madison, but he later abandoned that philosophy and joined with Jefferson to form an opposition party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willard-sterne-randall/founding-fathers-political-parties_b_1843593.html

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willard-sterne-randall/founding-fathers-political-parties_b_1843593.html

Read Federalist 10, among others. Instead of spending time trying to reinforce what you think you know, learn something. Again, this is a subject written of extensively in the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, and the secret minutes of the Constitutional Convention.

The proposition is that the two party system is a byproduct of our political system.

Your counter proposition is that it is not.

My counter proposition is read the writings of the Founding Fathers who wrote all about faction and how our system of government would lead to a two party system.

Your counter proposition is to post quotes from the Founding Fathers that prove how our system of government would lead to faction and a two party system? This is where you got those quotes. The headline reads, "The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System." So, why are you using those quotes to tell me I am wrong?

If you actually had a hint of intellect or had actually read the quotes you just posted, if you had any context with which to understand any of these things, then you would understand why the quotes you just posted prove my point. If you had actually read the writings of the Founding Fathers you would understand all of this. Instead you did a Google search and copied and pasted the first things that you could find, stupidly believing they supported your argument, when in fact they support mine. Instead of trying to reinforce your worldview, try learning.

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind."

"By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

OP ain't wrong.

OP ain't wrong.

What about anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism and abolish the state completely?

Nothing wrong with one super power if it's well behaved and follows the norms of international relations. It's when it goes rogue and says f the world that it's a problem. I'd love American hegemony if it wasn't so hypocritical about who's a bad guy and who isn't.

That's retarded

I agree, legalize everything.

what is more capitalist than using your money to dominate your competition with legislation? If you don't like, pick up your lazy poor asses and raise the capital to lobby a politician.

The government that's for sale is the ultimate form of capitalism.

interesting, but that's just crony capitalism and representatives betraying their oaths

looks more like they are honoring their commitment to campaign funders.

Agreed but I believe that's all illegal. Capitalism can be beautiful.

call it a donation from a lobbyist and now it's legal. it's grimy, but that's the game.

It's legal to take the donation, but it's not legal to act differently because you took the donation- quid pro quo. Yes, so grimy, but still not capitalism. "What could be more capitalist" is really funny though.

Just like communism becomes state capitalism, capitalism becomes crony capitalism.

Amen. this is why I love this sub. Logical and independent minded people!

If we all moved to a particular areas (like in Atlas Shrugged) and set up a Free districts, then we could replace some Congressmen. Of course, then the government would be on us like the FBI in Waco.

Good luck with that; the 2 party system is so ingrained in (US) culture, it will be too difficult to change; at this time, anyway.

I agree, there should be more than just 2 parties, but how do you bring about change when TPTB are invested in BOTH parties. Also consider the "mind game" (centuries of programming).

You're talking about the Free State Project

/r/voteflux

The revolution will be streamed.

What specific policy does a third party advocate, that neither of the two major parties advocate?

Non interventionist foreign policy, ending drug war, cutting ties with Israel, no free lunch on Wall St and many more.

That's a bit generic. Let's get specific. What would this third party do in the executive branch to wind down the war on drugs?

The executive branch makes it a priority with the public and encourages the rescheduling of pot. Executive branch order complete federal decriminalization. Executive branch stop growing opium in Afganistan, etc. ,etc.

The executive branch makes it a priority with the public and encourages the rescheduling of pot.

So what the Democrats were doing.

Executive branch order complete federal decriminalization.

The president can't actually do that. Congress has to pass legislation to do that.

Executive branch stop growing opium in Afganistan, etc. ,etc.

Sorry, forgot we were in r/conspiracy for a minute. I got no rebuttal for that.

potus on tv "officially ends" the war on drugs with a speech. Sounds meaningless, but that is everything.

Doesn't mean all that much without Congress. You had the rescheduling part right, and telling states that they can decriminalize if they want. Then again, that goes back to what the Democrats were doing.

There's about 4 actually orogressive democrats.. they aren't doing shit. Sure, the Pres can't unilaterally change the law, but it's about setting a priority and agenda. If you can get attorney general and DEA on your side, it's done.

If you can get attorney general and DEA on your side, it's done.

Again, sounds suspiciously like the Democrats. As much as he could, spending the political capital he had available, Obama pulled the federal government back from imposing on states that wanted to decriminalize. Then again, it wasn't always up to his decision. Just look at what happened when DC tried to decriminalize.

There's about 4 actually progressive democrats.. they aren't doing shit.

What do you expect them to do? There is a process by which votes are counted for legislation. The Republicans have already voted on DC's marijuana policy. It's not exactly difficult to guess where they would vote in regards to federal law.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. If Obama can get unconstitutional health care passed, the feds can certainly decriminalize pot.

1. The judicial branch decides what is or is not unconstitutional.

2. Obama's fight for a filibuster proof super majority in Congress is pretty well documented. He didn't wave a hand and magically control the legislative branch. Let's assume every single congressional Democrat voted to repeal all federal law against marijuana. It would still fail just on a majority vote, there wouldn't even be a filibuster.

You're right, laws will never change and there's nothing we can do and third parties are pointless.

The point is that there are already politicians fighting for this issue. People are just too lazy to vote for them in midterm elections.

They will get my vote unless there's a third party candidate. Green for green sucka.

Even if an independent party got voted in they would soon be consumed into the regular system. The parties and presidents are not even the true rulers of America. Several presidents premature deaths have shown what happens when you rub the real government the wrong way. "BOOM!" Headshot!

Voting is a fucking waste of time

sad but tru

Never gonna work. The entire system is rigged and needs to be let go completely. It's never gonna work because it was never supposed to.

Yes it will work stop being a defeatist / concern troll. That's exactly what they said about Bernie's campaign and he got 45% of the vote in a rigged primary.

All we have to do is start early. Our backup plan can be the democrats, but don't donate or volunteer for the Democratic Party who will waste 2+ years of your life when they cheat you.

The reason Stein didn't get into the debates is because we wasted our time with Bernie through the Democratic Party. Let's not make that mistake again. And if Democrats really fear Trump as much as they say they do they will join us to defeat him.

I've already started my search for 3rd party candidates. If anybody is interested in a crowdsourced search for our next president we could really use a little more support at /r/new_movement

That's exactly what they want us to think. They want us to continue playing their little game in hopes that one day we just might win. You'll see eventually that it's not going to happen.

No. That's what YOU'RE doing. It' not like I'm asking you for money. I'm just asking you for some god damn support so we can start taking care of our neighbors & so we can stop fucking bombing innocent people in 3rd world countries.

Join me or don't join me I don't care that much, but don't concern troll this movement. You're just speculating and it's not helping anybody.

I'm not joining you.

Ok then you will be implicitly supporting Republicans just like anybody who voted for Hillary was in 2016. #BernieOrBust supporters tried to warn people like you before and you didn't listen. I guess 4 more years of Trump might not be so bad. LOL.

dumb

dumb

I know. We didn't have to have Trump if Democrats actually held their party, candidates, and leadership accountable. Instead DWS was not held accountable at all. She was literally praised and offered a job by Clinton directly after stepping down https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/07/24/hillary-clinton-statement-on-the-resignation-of-democratic-national-committee-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz/

Luckily there is a class action lawsuit against the DNC & Debbie :D

https://www.facebook.com/DNCfraudlawsuit/

No I mean you, dummy.

Use your words. Until then I'll just downvote, report, and move on.

Thanks, dummy.

npnp

This "system" is similar to sports gambling, no matter what outcome, the only one's who always win are the bookkeepers.

It's not only the numbers that are rigged but the selection of candidates themselves.

It didn't matter if you voted for Trump or Clinton because both are from the same bloodline (Burke's Peerage).

You cannot change the system from within the system. Our system has already been corrupted by the psychopaths. We need a constitutional convention.

Please give up thinking that voters have any power to change who is actually running this country. And I am not being pessimistic either-- this is the reality. If voting changed anything-they wouldn't let us do it.

In order to have a real effect, you would have to win a majority in some district. This is a hard trick to pull off.

The Free State Project is working on this in NH.

The two party system prevents conquering through immigration. Ask Europe how their multi-party governments are doing. The Dutch literally just gave up 3 seats to Turkish invaders (Denk party).)

There's an American chapter of the Flux system being set up currently.

Flux is a system of digital democracy where you can vote directly on Bills that come through the senate and your Flux senator will vote according to the results of their constituents voting.

There's a few more complexities too it, but digital democracy is the revolution we're all looking for.

/r/voteflux

Digital democracy or death.

Exactly why it must happen.

For what it's worth, Flux is an altered version of direct democracy called Issue Based Direct Democracy. Same same, but different.

Ate there any politicians running as/with flux yet? school board even?

Not as of yet. They're contesting every upcoming state election in Australia and we have a few international chapters starting up throughout the world, but nothing locked yet.

I see no reason why it couldn't be focussed in on local councils etc. to run as proof of concept.

Way cool. Yes, I think the local proof of concept is a logical first step. Hadn't heard of flux but longtime DD fan. Good work.

Bro I feel ya but if you think gary johnson or plant lady were good for america then god help us.

Plant lady was legit compared to runs-with-CFR Gary Johnson. Cmon now.

Doesn't matter if you have 30 parties as long as you can buy a election with money.

Screw that noise, I've already founded and begun funding a PAC to oust Republicans - who I consider to be basically the Devil - the Democratic party presents the most likely option for that. Attempting to divert likely Democratic voters to third parties is the sort of insanity only someone who wants the Republican party to thrive would advocate - which is, also why I'm thinking I'll start a "Republicans should vote Libertarian!" Super PAC, while I'm at it. I've got ideas for campaigns designed to drive likely voters into the Democratic fold, drive Republican diehards third party, and discourage Democratic voters from considering third party candidates. Hell, I've already begun spending against the Green Party.

We'll get viable third parties once one of the major parties is toast - for a time, at least, until one supplants the faded major party - and I choose the Republicans to go the way of the dodo, personally. Our political system is a two party system, though, at its core.

This is a stupid strategy. The DNC is already on the verge of extinction and so it is the natural option to choose. It is also the party of the KKK and fascism. If we want to get rid of one of the two parties then the DNC is the most logical pick as it will require the least effort to finish off.

Yes, you can split the reoublican party- god and war on one side, and conservatism on the other.

Yes, you can split the Republican party- god and war on one side, and conservatism on the other.

Yes, you can split the Republican party- god and war on one side, and conservatism on the other.

Government is the problem. Monopoly of violence will never lead to freedom. Agorism

The solution isn't political.

I'm not sure multiparty systems are better. Besides, the 2 party system give us Trump.

You make it sound as though our participation is what fuels the 2 party system when it was created from the ground up to be self sustaining with or without us. Our diverging from it won't cause it to collapse and won't get us a different system either.

We need to take advantage of current situation and completely eliminate the Democratic Party and the two party system. There is no such thing as a one party system as The Diversity of Individuals is infinitely superior to a Diversity of Parties. The DNC should share the fate of the KKK and be eliminated for good. If we need a two-party system so bad, then a Republican - Libertarian system is far preferable.

Make no mistake though, the CIA and Deep State are currently engaged in Operation Save the Democrats. This can not 've allowed. The fascist and globalist DNC must be eliminated permanently.

The KKK is still around, in this land of the free, sir bans a lot.

Pfft, vote. The system is broken! How much longer do you think it's going to last like this? I say it's time for real change! I'm getting everything ready to announce my coronation as King of America.

We would need a massive campaign to get any traction. This game is rigged

The two party system and the divisions it creates permeate American society. If one party says 'yes' the other party only exists to say 'no'.

sad but tru

/r/voteflux

The revolution will be streamed.

"Theres a large portion of our country that is abusing welfare systems and has no desire to be productive members of society. Hell I can show you proof just meet some old highschool shit heads I know."

Anecdotal evidence = a large portion of our country. Iron clad logic.

you're one of those bitches that thinks "hur dur its poor peoples fault because they dont work hard enough durrrrrrrrr". u dont realize in some parts of the country people work 80 hours a week and still struggle with bills while living in small ass apartments. you cant see past the first layer of a problem so you just think being poor=your fault. very ignorant mindset.

How do those boots taste?