Political parties in the U.S.: net benefit? net detriment?

[sear]

The U.S. has had a variety of political parties over the centuries.

Whig Party and Free-Soil Party may not run a lot of candidates these days.

But Right to Life, the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Conservatives among others still do.

As you know, the political partisan duopoly that for practical purposes has a lock on U.S. politics (please pardon me Governor Ventura (MN)) are the Democrats and Republicans.

Topic Question:
Should political parties be abolished in the U.S.?

Background:
Parties may actually seem to solve problems rather than create them.
Our current primary & general election cycles provide the voter some feeble control over which candidates appear on the general election ballot.
That's fine.

BUT !!

There are drawbacks too.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-appears-to-want-to-shame-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/

This is an elected government official and party leader prioritizing his party ahead of the whole People. Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) said this at a time when we had U.S. military troops at War, in combat, on foreign soil.

I don't mean to single out Republicans. The Democrats may be about as bad. I invite posted quotations of examples of Democrats taking a comparably partisan position.

The issue is not which party is better, but whether it would improve our governance without political parties at all.

[Kathianne]

Just like countries, those highly involved in government will form alliances. That the issues change, but alliances usually don't seem to, does make for problems. Still there's no end of them.

I'm looking for a third party or at least a splinter that shares more of my positions.

[sear]

Just like countries, those highly involved in government will form alliances.

Amen.
I gather this was a prime driver in royal marriages centuries ago; more about solidifying territorial reach than finding a mate that won't leave dirty underpants in front of the bathtub.


That the issues change, but alliances usually don't seem to, does make for problems. Still there's no end of them.



Indeed. You invoke Palmerston here.

"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interest are eternal and perpetual, and these interest it is our duty to follow." Lord Palmerston 1848




I'm looking for a third party or at least a splinter that shares more of my positions.

I suspect that's how President Trump got into office.

It may be about 4 years too early to know if it's an improvement or not.

[Kathianne]

"Just like countries, those highly involved in government will form alliances." K #2

Amen.
I gather this was a prime driver in royal marriages centuries ago; more about solidifying territorial reach than finding a mate that won't leave dirty underpants in front of the bathtub.

"That the issues change, but alliances usually don't seem to, does make for problems. Still there's no end of them." K

Indeed. You invoke Palmerston here.

"I'm looking for a third party or at least a splinter that shares more of my positions." K

I suspect that's how President Trump got into office.

It may be about 4 years too early to know if it's an improvement or not.

He's not my choice of splinter. Just saying.

[sear]

I've wondered whether the sale of "sleeping tonic" (scotch & soda) has increased among those prone to sleeplessness, since his inauguration.

Trump sold himself as a capable businessman untainted by political experience, and that he'd apply is powerful business acumen to crush through the political logjam in DC, for the benefit of the whole People.

So far, what do we have?

- I'm gunna build a wall, and Mexico's gunna pay for it became:
I'm gunna build a wall, and U.S. consumers of Mexican products are gunna pay for it (I'm not sure that one lasted a full news cycle)
Now Republicans in congress are allocating $funds for it.
I really don't like "bait-&-switch", even from a $billionaire president.

- I'm gunna repeal Obamacare, and replace it with something better. That has become:
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump

What a city bumpkin !

"We will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning." Republican leading presidential candidate Donald Trump - September, 2015
- loser -

[Black Diamond]

I've wondered whether the sale of "sleeping tonic" (scotch & soda) has increased among those prone to sleeplessness, since his inauguration.

Trump sold himself as a capable businessman untainted by political experience, and that he'd apply is powerful business acumen to crush through the political logjam in DC, for the benefit of the whole People.

So far, what do we have?

- I'm gunna build a wall, and Mexico's gunna pay for it became:
I'm gunna build a wall, and U.S. consumers of Mexican products are gunna pay for it (I'm not sure that one lasted a full news cycle)
Now Republicans in congress are allocating $funds for it.
I really don't like "bait-&-switch", even from a $billionaire president.

- I'm gunna repeal Obamacare, and replace it with something better. That has become:
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump

What a city bumpkin !
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
- loser -

A Hillary voter calling trump a loser. That's funny shit.

[Kathianne]

I got to say, I'm enjoying not being associated with either of them. I just hope that some sensible people and candidates (meaning of course, those that see things more my way), come together.

It used to seem there were 'a lot' of conservatives, just was a false read.

[sear]

It may be a will-o’-the-wisp K #7.

My vote either ends up looking like a protest vote (I vote Libertarian or Conservative), or perhaps a strategic vote.

Here's a candidate I was actually enthusiastic about voting for:

The following excerpted from U.S. Presidential candidate Libertarian Andre Marrou's
1992 stump speech.



"The annual subsidy for each American dairy cow is between $600-$700 dollars a year.

This is greater than the per capita income of half of the worlds population. And what do
we get for that? We get a price for milk and other dairy products that's double the
world's level.
Who does this impinge on? Primarily poor people with children. Rich people could care
less what the price of milk is. Poor people without children, they don't use much milk.
It's the poor people with children who are primarily hurt by this."


...


In 1992 Libertarian candidate for U.S. President Andre Marrou included in his campaign

stump speech:
"Repeal the personal income tax, and abolish the IRS, sell the IRS buildings,

release the tax protesters from prison, burn all the tax records, and declare a national
holiday on April 15." Marrou


Candidate Marrou was asked at a 1992 campaign fund©raiser how U.S. federal
government could be funded if the IRS were actually abolished.


Marrou responded:
"... the income tax only brings in about a third of federal revenues. That leaves

us two thirds to operate the government on. Now; the two thirds of the budget this year
is equal to an entire budget how many years ago? Most people will guess like 1949,
1962. The answer is just 1985, seven years ago. All we have to do to get rid of the
personal income tax is to get rid of the excessive government that the Democrats and
Republicans have created during just the past seven years. It is that easy, it would be
pretty easy to do. But as I've mentioned before it would require intelligence and

courage. Now what do we ... operate the government on? The basic, original
Constitution has 4 taxes in it that supported the government of the United States
roughly until 1913, when the Democrats & Republicans gave us the income tax. We
can utilize those taxes. I think they're called excises, tariffs, imposts, and duties. And
that is what supported the government until then.”

...




"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans.
The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing
socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to
government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and
local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this
country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That
leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we
get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the
government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done. Individual
Liberty is diametrically opposed to governmental power.
There just aren't a lot of fiscal conservatives that both would be willing to take the job, and able to win the election.
Trump's no fiscal conservative.

And I'm curious to see how the Republicans handle the fast approaching debt ceiling issue.

They'd be fools to shut the government down.
But that means either cutting spending (not likely), or raising the ceiling.
If the latter, it's simply a matter of, the less they raise it, the sooner the next debt ceiling crisis arrives.
They've got a tiger by the tail.
And we're $20 $Trillion in $debt !

[aboutime]

The U.S. has had a variety of political parties over the centuries.

Whig Party and Free-Soil Party may not run a lot of candidates these days.

But Right to Life, the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Conservatives among others still do.

As you know, the political partisan duopoly that for practical purposes has a lock on U.S. politics (please pardon me Governor Ventura (MN)) are the Democrats and Republicans.

Topic Question:
Should political parties be abolished in the U.S.?

Background:
Parties may actually seem to solve problems rather than create them.
Our current primary & general election cycles provide the voter some feeble control over which candidates appear on the general election ballot.
That's fine.

BUT !!

There are drawbacks too.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-appears-to-want-to-shame-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/

This is an elected government official and party leader prioritizing his party ahead of the whole People. Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) said this at a time when we had U.S. military troops at War, in combat, on foreign soil.

I don't mean to single out Republicans. The Democrats may be about as bad. I invite posted quotations of examples of Democrats taking a comparably partisan position.

The issue is not which party is better, but whether it would improve our governance without political parties at all.


I've got a novel idea for you and others sear. Try following the U.S. Constitution, and all of the amendments for starters.
Remain true, and follow that document, and you might begin to see how changing things to suit... JUST FOR YOU won't work here...and, were designed by the Founding Fathers, and author of the Constitution.

[sear]

"I've got a novel idea for you" at

"Novel" means "strikingly new". But our Constitution is an 18th Century document. It can be downloaded from online.
I've got several copies, including shirt-pocket paper versions. But the one I used most is my electronic version. It's how I make quotations like this:


ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.

7 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



As you would know IF you were a U.S. military veteran, U.S. military inductees swear an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, AND an oath of loyalty to the U.S. president and his subordinate commanders.

"Try following the U.S. Constitution"

What do you think I've been doing for the past 4 decades?

These oaths vary, but here's one example:
"I, (name) do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and will defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, and will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me, so help me God." U.S. military inductee oath

Are you accusing me of perjuring my oath? Or are you confessing that you've perjured yours?
Or are you acknowledging that I have not done so?

"Remain true, and follow that document, and you might begin to see how changing things to suit... JUST FOR YOU won't work here...and, were designed by the Founding Fathers, and author of the Constitution." at

You're obviously quite gifted at writing fiction at. Have you ever considered trying it commercially? Your richly textured fantasy world could be a real $jackpot for you, and your writing style could be expected to improve with time.

[aboutime]

"I've got a novel idea for you" at

"Novel" means "strikingly new". But our Constitution is an 18th Century document. It can be downloaded from online.
I've got several copies, including shirt-pocket paper versions. But the one I used most is my electronic version. It's how I make quotations like this:


As you would know IF you were a U.S. military veteran, U.S. military inductees swear an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, AND an oath of loyalty to the U.S. president and his subordinate commanders.

"Try following the U.S. Constitution"

What do you think I've been doing for the past 4 decades?

These oaths vary, but here's one example:
"I, (name) do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and will defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, and will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me, so help me God." U.S. military inductee oath

Are you accusing me of perjuring my oath? Or are you confessing that you've perjured yours?
Or are you acknowledging that I have not done so?

"Remain true, and follow that document, and you might begin to see how changing things to suit... JUST FOR YOU won't work here...and, were designed by the Founding Fathers, and author of the Constitution." at

You're obviously quite gifted at writing fiction at. Have you ever considered trying it commercially? Your richly textured fantasy world could be a real $jackpot for you, and your writing style could be expected to improve with time.


Nope. Purjury is lying in a court of law. You simply appear to be another liar.
I took that oath six times during my 30 years. You figure it out.
I still am convinced, since you are unwilling, or unable to honestly tell us about your so-called military service...that you are a Proven STOLEN VALOR candidate.
Only YOU, can prove otherwise.

[sear]

"Nope. Purjury is lying in a court of law." at

We get it at. Your field of primary expertise is not the law, nor is it ethics or courtesy obviously.

Your comment is not completely correct.

A lie under oath can be, but is not necessarily perjury.
For it to qualify as perjury, it must be "germane to the inquiry". That's the language used when President Clinton lied under oath during the Monica Lewinsky kerfuffle.
Clinton was in court, under oath, and lied, but could not be convicted of perjury, BECAUSE the lie was not germane to the inquiry.

"Nope." at

Wrong again. Here's how AHD defines it. Please note TWO definitions. I referred to the 2nd, you the first.

perjury (pûr´je-rê) noun
plural perjuries
1.Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2.The breach of an oath or a promise.

[Middle English periurie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin periúrium, from periúrâre, to perjure. See perjure.]
- perju´rious (per-j¢r´ê-es) adjective
- perju´riously adverb *

"You simply appear to be another liar." at

a) I appreciate your judicious wording. "Appear to be" is subjective. You're more than welcome to think of me any way you wish.

b) Based on what? You think you've caught me in a lie? What lie? Because I don't want to release my résumé to the world? Tell us you're not really that simple. You equate security with dishonesty? There's only one possible explanation for anything not understood?

"I took that oath six times during my 30 years. You figure it out." at

I couldn't care less. You're the one that posted:

"I've got a novel idea for you and others sear. Try following the U.S. Constitution" at

which deliberately, insultingly, arrogantly implies that I haven't been. BASED ON WHAT ?! You're amateurish attempt to psychologically profile me?

"I still am convinced, since you are unwilling, or unable to honestly tell us about your so-called military service...that you are a Proven STOLEN VALOR candidate.
Only YOU, can prove otherwise." at

I've posted a standing offer. Anyone that's willing to rent the do jong can see for themselves, in Syracuse, NY on April 5.
If not you (if you live in Aridzona), perhaps you have a brother, or fraternity associate or trusted business partner that will. I don't care who it is. Anybody you trust enough so that when they tell you what I can do, no matter how impressive, you'll believe them.
Got a sister? With a balcony one could do Shakespeare from?

I understand at, and I don't want to rub your nose in it at this point.
But you're obviously simply not intelligent enough to figure out why I'd prefer to keep my personal details off the Internet.
Lemme guess. You do NOT have extensive experience in the field of security? What a surprise.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[jimnyc]

"Nope. Purjury is lying in a court of law." at

We get it at. Your field of primary expertise is not the law, nor is it ethics or courtesy obviously.

I clicked on new posts and it brought me to this one. How is someone, or a guest, suppose to know who wrote what here?

[sear]

More than one way to skin a cat jc #13.

Here's how I do it.
I use the following URL, bookmarked on my desktop computer browser.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/forumdisplay.php?29-Current-Events-International-News

A single mouse-click displays a list of the top 20 topics, in chronological order, most recent post on top.

For those using a "mobile device", good luck.

[jimnyc]

More than one way to skin a cat jc #13.

Here's how I do it.
I use the following URL, bookmarked on my desktop computer browser.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/forumdisplay.php?29-Current-Events-International-News

A single mouse-click displays a list of the top 20 topics, in chronological order, most recent post on top.

For those using a "mobile device", good luck.

Look at that latest post I put in the announcements section. The quoting is a piece if cake and I see you know that. But you should learn how to "multiquote", as then folks will see very easily what is what. Otherwise, both members here, and guests reading, may get lost. It would be easier for one person to learn the proper way, instead of the community trying to learn and/or decipher your way. I just think it's in your best interest, if you want to be 'read' properly and hopefully get more replies. Sure, one can figure it out, but folks don't want to work to figure out what was posted.

[jimnyc]

The U.S. has had a variety of political parties over the centuries.


I'm looking for a third party or at least a splinter that shares more of my positions.


He's not my choice of splinter. Just saying.


A Hillary voter calling trump a loser. That's funny shit.


More than one way to skin a cat jc #13.

I just multiquoted 5 posts in this thread AND edited a few of them to make it easier to read, since I'm only making a point. I'll guarantee anyone reading can understand the flow of things this way, other than how you are doing it - whether that be responding to just one post and one member, or a bunch.

With one member and one post, it can still be broken up into pieces/paragraphs, and then use the QUOTE button to quote what you're responding to.

Why do I get the feeling that you post or have posted elsewhere, and know this already? ;)

[sear]

Your format was easily readable jc.
But it was not interspersed with the repeating sequence of quotation, then reply.

"Why do I get the feeling that you post or have posted elsewhere, and know this already?" jc

Because I've been doing so since the previous millennium?

You are not the first to mention my format style. And I sincerely appreciate the constructive approach you've taken here.

Can you help me to understand? The third line in this post is highlighted in bold on my screen. Is it not also on yours? If not, how does it appear? And if not, what type of device are you using? Mine is a desktop computer with a UHD (high resolution) monitor.

You wonder why?
Sensible!

The reason is, using the "quote" feature by mouse click drives up bandwidth. I try to avoid that. BUT !!

QUOTE
The word "quote" in all caps here also uses the quote feature. It's boxed off, just as your post's quotations were. Does it not appear so on my post, on your screen? It does on mine.

[aboutime]

"Nope. Purjury is lying in a court of law." at

We get it at. Your field of primary expertise is not the law, nor is it ethics or courtesy obviously.

Your comment is not completely correct.

A lie under oath can be, but is not necessarily perjury.
For it to qualify as perjury, it must be "germane to the inquiry". That's the language used when President Clinton lied under oath during the Monica Lewinsky kerfuffle.
Clinton was in court, under oath, and lied, but could not be convicted of perjury, BECAUSE the lie was not germane to the inquiry.

"Nope." at

Wrong again. Here's how AHD defines it. Please note TWO definitions. I referred to the 2nd, you the first.


"You simply appear to be another liar." at

a) I appreciate your judicious wording. "Appear to be" is subjective. You're more than welcome to think of me any way you wish.

b) Based on what? You think you've caught me in a lie? What lie? Because I don't want to release my résumé to the world? Tell us you're not really that simple. You equate security with dishonesty? There's only one possible explanation for anything not understood?

"I took that oath six times during my 30 years. You figure it out." at

I couldn't care less. You're the one that posted:

"I've got a novel idea for you and others sear. Try following the U.S. Constitution" at

which deliberately, insultingly, arrogantly implies that I haven't been. BASED ON WHAT ?! You're amateurish attempt to psychologically profile me?

"I still am convinced, since you are unwilling, or unable to honestly tell us about your so-called military service...that you are a Proven STOLEN VALOR candidate.
Only YOU, can prove otherwise." at

I've posted a standing offer. Anyone that's willing to rent the do jong can see for themselves, in Syracuse, NY on April 5.
If not you (if you live in Aridzona), perhaps you have a brother, or fraternity associate or trusted business partner that will. I don't care who it is. Anybody you trust enough so that when they tell you what I can do, no matter how impressive, you'll believe them.
Got a sister? With a balcony one could do Shakespeare from?

I understand at, and I don't want to rub your nose in it at this point.
But you're obviously simply not intelligent enough to figure out why I'd prefer to keep my personal details off the Internet.
Lemme guess. You do NOT have extensive experience in the field of security? What a surprise.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.


Just like the STOLEN VALOR person I suspect you are. You once again, totally, and absolutely refused to answer any of my questions...but instead...pretend to be someone, or something you are not, and will never be. HONEST.
You are convinced that correcting me for the use of the word Purjury, will somehow clear you of any responsibility to remain on topic.
Those are all signs we are familiar with...of Liberals who lie, and can never figure a way to prove their lies...without distracting attention, and asking more questions.
SO...you phony, formerly someone else member here. YOU LOST YOUR WAR.

[Elessar]

If I may.....sear, you should stick to one point at a time instead of stringing numerous topics
in a reply and re-quoting your self so much - unless you simply like to hear yourself talk.
It gets really boring after a very short while.

[aboutime]

If I may.....sear, you should stick to one point at a time instead of stringing numerous topics
in a reply and re-quoting your self so much - unless you simply like to hear yourself talk.
It gets really boring after a very short while.

Honesty, and Truth are not part of their agenda, or character. It prevents them from ever taking responsibility for their words, or actions.

The more excuses they can string together, rather than answering questions is the DNC way of avoiding everything like HONESTY, and TRUTH they do not want to hear.

Take note, how sear keeps refusing to answer any of my questions. So..he/she is a PHONY.

[jimnyc]

Your format was easily readable jc.
But it was not interspersed with the repeating sequence of quotation, then reply.

"Why do I get the feeling that you post or have posted elsewhere, and know this already?" jc

Because I've been doing so since the previous millennium?

You are not the first to mention my format style. And I sincerely appreciate the constructive approach you've taken here.

Can you help me to understand? The third line in this post is highlighted in bold on my screen. Is it not also on yours? If not, how does it appear? And if not, what type of device are you using? Mine is a desktop computer with a UHD (high resolution) monitor.

You wonder why?
Sensible!

The reason is, using the "quote" feature by mouse click drives up bandwidth. I try to avoid that. BUT !!

The word "quote" in all caps here also uses the quote feature. It's boxed off, just as your post's quotations were. Does it not appear so on my post, on your screen? It does on mine.

You were sent a notification that helped outline both quoting and multiquoting. You never even clicked on the link.

Since I love freedoms, of course you are free to post however you wish, whatever format. But you shouldn't then be surprised if you don't get as many replies. Or for someone like me, who can reply to the OP before all mumbo jumbo comes along - and then I just hit another thread that I don't have to work at in order to read.