Originally Posted by Guest

It all started in the 1960s with "civil rights". Lowered standards, quotas...they've all led to the end of "America"...white America...the GREAT America...the #1 America.

Is civil rights a Type 1 or Type 2 law?


.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes--glad you brought up the "independents" That would be the answer for us all--IF we got to the point where we simply did not have "parties" at all.
AND--the TV stations did not accept paid ads, but, as a public service, hosted, let's say--10 "candidates forums" in September and October.
Also--NO paid ads in newspapers nor on the internet.
AND--at all government levels--we did not put candidates on the ballots based on "political party" affiliation.
Yes--LOTS of problems implementing those ideas, but we need solutions to the political mess we have right now.
Definitely--one place to start throughout the nation--is to have the public more involved in local government decisions. Straighten out the politicians at the local level and then move to the state and federal level.
The bottom line: A revolution in this country to get politics out of government!

Originally Posted by Guest

Bravo.

Do you accept the fact that Type 2 laws ARE politics, and that you can't accomplish that without eliminating Type 2 laws?


(Also, the things you propose are also 100% Type 2 law, i.e. denying/limiting access to TV time, etc. Isn't this adding more politics, when your goal is to reduce it?)

.

Won't one of you guys take a crack at this one ?????


.

Originally Posted by Guest

No there aren't. The Ds and Rs get 90% of the vote...because the country is full of ignorant, brainwashed, sheep.

Actually it is because those are the only two choices they have. They have been exposed to only two names in the media for 6 months. I think the primary system we have should get much of the blame. The real chooses are made before the voting starts. IMO

Originally Posted by Guest

No there aren't. The Ds and Rs get 90% of the vote...because the country is full of ignorant, brainwashed, sheep.

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually it is because those are the only two choices they have. They have been exposed to only two names in the media for 6 months. I think the primary system we have should get much of the blame. The real chooses are made before the voting starts. IMO

They've been BRAINWASHED into believing there are ONLY two choices.

You are offered a "choice" between two HAND SELECTED candidates who BOTH work for the system. The "primary" is nothing more than the public choosing their favorite corrupt crook. Any one of them would be fine for the party.

Originally Posted by Guest

They've been BRAINWASHED into believing there are ONLY two choices.

You are offered a "choice" between two HAND SELECTED candidates who BOTH work for the system. The "primary" is nothing more than the public choosing their favorite corrupt crook. Any one of them would be fine for the party.

While the population hasn't figured out the difference between Type 1 protection and Type 2 screwing, the "screw-ers" of Type 2 know full well how much they benefit from the screwing, and are VERY well organized in their bullying and manipulation of the "screw-ees"


Recommendations:

How to rid the Supreme Court of Femo-Fascist idiots

How to rid the Senate of Femo-Fascist idiots



.

Originally Posted by Guest

I tend to agree with this but have never seen a solution for replacing political parties.

Almost every country in the world has political parties. I don't know how people would get elected to represent us if we didn't have them. To me, they are a necessary evil.

They are going to exist and I think that we have to deal with that. Even if you were to come up with a different system, do you think that it would have any chance of replacing the party system?

Although there is nothing in the Constitution regarding parties, they have existed almost from the beginning of our government.

Again a bi-cameral arrangement such as exist in Nebraska. they have 49 representatives and the governor makes 50.

Jesse Ventura when he was governor of Minnesota wanted to move to this arrangement but met fierce resistance from both GOP and Democrats (DFL'ers)

As I suggested in a previous post the benefit of a bi-cameral approach is we move away from party loyalty to individual ideology or belief

What I do dislike is when we vote for a GOP candidate or a Democratic candidate and suddenly they jump ship to the other side

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Almost every country is corrupt too.

WHY do we still need representatives? You DO know WHY we had them in the first place? Because things happened SLOWLY back them. I could take over a month to get the voting results tallied. There was no TV, no radio for instantaneous communication. No Internet for instant information.

We could go to a pure Democracy...but...since we're a nation with a minority majority now...it would just hasten America's demise as the popular vote...is the WRONG vote.

Look at how our cities are voting. They're a minority majority and it shows...our cities are falling apart! Blacks/Hispanics/women are NOT good at running things...leave that up to the white men who are.

All governments are amoral. As to corrupt

Perceptions Index 2016

Let's get straight to the point: No country gets close to a perfect score in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016.

Over two-thirds of the 176 countries and territories in this year's index fall below the midpoint of our scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country's public sector. Top-scoring countries (yellow in the map below) are far outnumbered by orange and red countries where citizens face the tangible impact of corruption on a daily basis.

google it and read the results

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Again a bi-cameral arrangement such as exist in Nebraska. they have 49 representatives and the governor makes 50.

Jesse Ventura when he was governor of Minnesota wanted to move to this arrangement but met fierce resistance from both GOP and Democrats (DFL'ers)

As I suggested in a previous post the benefit of a bi-cameral approach is we move away from party loyalty to individual ideology or belief

What I do dislike is when we vote for a GOP candidate or a Democratic candidate and suddenly they jump ship to the other side

Personal Best Regards:

rubi...you've got it backwards...I tried telling you that before.

"During the 1930s, the Legislature of the State of Nebraska was reduced from bicameral to unicameral"

Originally Posted by Guest

rubi...you've got it backwards...I tried telling you that before.

"During the 1930s, the Legislature of the State of Nebraska was reduced from bicameral to unicameral"

Yeah. Bad move to. - the less cameralsn the more Type 2 screwing.


.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah. Bad move to. - the less cameralsn the more Type 2 screwing.


.

I want 535 independents...so the federal government pretty much STOPS passing laws.

EVERY law they pass screws us and benefits "them", the wealthy. They add so much crap to the bills that something that WAS "good for the people" that's a paragraph long...gets overshadowed by 3,000 pages of riders that benefit the wealthy...and screw us.