PDA

View Full Version : tPF Should the Democratic and Republican parties be banned?



iustitia
01-19-2016, 01:01 AM
It's something I often think about when contemplating the corrupt nature of the two-party system. After WWII the Nazi Party was banned in Germany. The Communist Party was banned in the Soviet Union after a failed coup. At what point should a political party be considered such a huge menace that its existence should no longer be tolerated?

For the record...

Since its creation in 1828 Democrats:

Threatened the invasion of South Carolina and the execution of its leaders during the Nullification Crisis
Engaged in forced relocations of Native Americans which ultimately cost the lives of thousands
Used the federal government to expand the institution of chattel slavery into new territory
Started a war with Mexico, costing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and Mexicans, for money
Created the Fugitive Slave Act, mandating that Americans turn in slaves fleeing to freedom
Supported black codes, segregation, Jim Crow laws and the like along with Plessy v Ferguson
Got America involved in a world war, with over one hundred thousand American casualties, for the profit of financial elites
Got America involved in another world war, the bloodiest war in human history, based on lies
Threw Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps
Waged the Korean War, costing millions of lives, to maintain a South Korean dictatorship

Since its creation in 1854 Republicans:

Waged the bloodiest war in American history, killing nearly 1 million people, over taxes
Exterminated the Plains Indians for the sake of railroad interests
Engaged in the occupation of the southern states and institution of military governments during Reconstruction
Started a war with Spain, costing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, Spaniards, Cubans and Filipinos, for money
Committed the genocide of 300,000 Filipinos upon destroying their independence
Overthrew governments in Iran, Guatemala and elsewhere for big business connections
Have armed, trained and funded terrorists throughout the world to protect their interests


Both parties engaged in the Banana Wars and terrorized Latin American and Caribbean peoples for decades. Both parties have for over a century engaged in an incestuous relationship with corporate interests, selling out the interests of common citizens and allowing the rich to write their own legislation. Both parties routinely engage in nepotism. Both parties lie about everything. Both parties empowered the militarization of police. Both parties got us entrenched in Vietnam. Both parties have started and supported illegal wars overseas in the Middle East and elsewhere. Both parties created and maintain what is tantamount to a police state. Both parties consistently diminish constitutional rights of citizens while pointing fingers at the other side all while both get paid by the same people. Both parties have contempt for common citizens. Both have no problem killing without trials, charging whistle-blowers with treason, and spying on Americans without warrants.

In their combined tenure Democrats and Republicans have with their duopoly over power done more to threaten the life, freedom and well-being of Americans than the British, Nazis or Soviets ever did. Why the hell should these two bastard parties of abomination be allowed to exist?

Peter1469
01-19-2016, 06:01 AM
The First Amendment would not allow banning political parties.

But more people can leave the establishment parties. I have. Close to 60% of the people have. This is an old article. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1)

AeonPax
01-19-2016, 07:05 AM
`
`
There is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. That being said, theoretically, congress could enact a law banning both or all political parties....but that's never going to happen. There is way too much money involved

Chris
01-19-2016, 07:57 AM
I think their stranglehold on debates and ballots should be ended. Make it easier for third parties to get on ballots. Allow more third parties to participate in national debates, not just the two Dem and Rep candidates.

nic34
01-19-2016, 10:16 AM
Allow more third parties ....


lol

Peter1469
01-19-2016, 04:23 PM
Allow more third parties ....


lol

Why not?

The Xl
01-19-2016, 04:24 PM
Wouldn't even matter. They'd come back the same, heavily financed, under a different name.

nic34
01-20-2016, 02:21 PM
Why not?

After 3, they wouldn't be third.

Peter1469
01-20-2016, 05:06 PM
Not excuses to keep voting for the two we know for sure are utterly corrupt.

Bo-4
01-20-2016, 06:01 PM
That wouldn't be possible for a myriad of reasons.

PolWatch
01-20-2016, 06:08 PM
I would like to see actual choices instead of the same-old same-old under R or D. More parties would eventually end up as corrupted as those we have now. Perhaps a parliamentary type system would give voters more of a voice?

Chris
01-20-2016, 06:16 PM
After 3, they wouldn't be third.

"Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections...."

@ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Third_parties

Hal Jordan
01-20-2016, 06:16 PM
They should, but it wouldn't make any difference at this point. The corrupt would take over the parties that took their place. The only hope is to get the corrupt to lose their hold. Vote in people (right now, third parties) that are not part of the corrupt. Also, as Chris said, break their grip on debates, ballots, and I have to add their unconstitutional grip on the media to that.

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 06:28 PM
The First Amendment would not allow banning political parties.

But more people can leave the establishment parties. I have. Close to 60% of the people have. This is an old article. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1)


Right. I don't get this silly idea about banning political parties. If you disapprove of the two major parties, don't support either. It's simple.

It seems to me that many of the people who continually harp on the two major parties are the most bitterly partisan and beholding to one or the other.

Hal Jordan
01-20-2016, 06:43 PM
Right. I don't get this silly idea about banning political parties. If you disapprove of the two major parties, don't support either. It's simple.

It seems to me that many of the people who continually harp on the two major parties are the most bitterly partisan and beholding to one or the other.

Some of us don't support the major parties. Some of us only vote for candidates we believe are good for the country regardless of party (third parties included). I'll admit to being bitter, but knowing that we're getting raped by the corrupt in both major parties will do that to you.

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 06:59 PM
Right. I don't get this silly idea about banning political parties. If you disapprove of the two major parties, don't support either. It's simple.

It seems to me that many of the people who continually harp on the two major parties are the most bitterly partisan and beholding to one or the other.


Some of us don't support the major parties. Some of us only vote for candidates we believe are good for the country regardless of party (third parties included). I'll admit to being bitter, but knowing that we're getting raped by the corrupt in both major parties will do that to you.


Good. Just as I said. If you disapprove of the two major parties, don't support the candidates who represent them.

Politictials are prone to corruption without regards to party affiliation. Banning parties won't eliminate corruption. The only what to ease the corruption is to enact term limits and create other reforms which limit their power.

Hal Jordan
01-20-2016, 07:07 PM
Good. Just as I said. If you disapprove of the two major parties, don't support the candidates who represent them.

Politictials are prone to corruption without regards to party affiliation. Banning parties won't eliminate corruption. The only what to ease the corruption is to enact term limits and create other reforms which limit their power.

I support term limits, and definitely believe much of the power they've been take should be stripped from them.

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 07:27 PM
I support term limits, and definitely believe much of the power they've been take should be stripped from them.

I think term limits are long past due. Plus, I would eliminate their lifetime pension and I'd eliminate their ability to exempt themselves from the laws they impose upon us.

Subdermal
01-20-2016, 07:36 PM
So many things need to be done. Senators and Congressmen should be appointed by State Senators and Representatives. We need multi-tier voting, where the top two vote getters face off for POTUS. We need to erase Judicial Review, and return SCOTUS to its original purpose.

PolWatch
01-20-2016, 07:41 PM
I think term limits are long past due. Plus, I would eliminate their lifetime pension and I'd eliminate their ability to exempt themselves from the laws they impose upon us.

I don't support banning any parties....I just hope that eventually voters will quit accepting pre-purchased candidates who are only interested in obtaining & keeping power & money. I would like to see accountability to the voter, not the party or the donors.

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 07:49 PM
I don't support banning any parties....

Neither do I. Did. I give you the impression that I did?

Tahuyaman
01-20-2016, 08:05 PM
So many things need to be done. Senators and Congressmen should be appointed by State Senators and Representatives.

I completely disagree with that.