65% Favor Getting Rid of Entire Congress and Starting Over

lol...i would have been part of that 65% if they had called me...so make is 65.01% ...most members of congress are merely puppets for corporations is my guess...nothing wrong with starting with something new...

sometime I think they listen in through our tv's. Not many people seem to answer phones and take a survey, and I kept saying during every political ad, that they should add no confidence to the ballot and we should start over.. is that crazy?

Yep lets just see what america is like with an overall dictator, lol, like its not like that already.

Congress has no power over anything major. Yep congress people may have powers to destroy you on an individual basis, but they do not have any power, as we all know they are in someones pocket, and why would chucking them out change anything, some other bunch will come in.

Look how americans thought changing bush for obama worked lol. America are still bombing and killing everything in site.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government starts telling us that the enemy terrorists are trying to undermine faith in our governmental system, and that certain extremists are lying in wait to take up political power in our country.

That if we oppose the current government then we are aiding terrorists.

A new political party will arise in American soon, it will be reactionary and entirely populist in its policy. But in nature, or organically speaking, it will be fascist. The late Weimer Republic, before the Nazifaction, is a weak analogy to contemporary United States politics, but is worth making the comparison. Put economics aside, the political linkage is worth mentioning.

The American people, like late Weimer, are angry and frustrated about their unfortunate circumstances - with legitimate concerns. Alarmingly their willingness to invoke the overhaul or even restriction of democratic institutions is illogical and potential catastrophic. Mainstream politicians should avoid advocating the alterations of democracy.

Hitler was never listened to, nor were the Nazi's electorally successful, until the National Conservatives became the first significant mainstream party to endorse and legitmatise Nazi positions on Jews and Bolsheviks. And what happened? Hitler became Chancellor within eight years.

A mother was interviewed on the BBC, about her opinions on the mid term election. This average working class American wished, and I quote, "for Republicans and Democrats to disappear". What happens if a President candidate appeared, was elected, and moved to abolished political parties?

Pandora's box has been opened in America.

reply to post by infinite


A President could not abolish political parties without first tossing out the Constitution and declaring them self some sort of autocrat. It would have to be Congress that abolished political parties, and such a thing is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment. The right to speak freely, the right to publish, and to meet peaceably is a fundamental right of all people.

However, Congress can, and I maintain should limit the stranglehold the two party system holds on the electoral process. For a third party candidate or no party candidate to get on a ballot in certain states is an extremely difficult proposition. Ballot access is primarily left up to each state, but Congress is not prohibited from legislating easier access across the board. The major argument that many states hold for restricting ballot access is that if the bar is set too low there would be too many candidates on the ballot. What precisely constitutes "too many" seems to vary from state to state.

One of the problems that arise in our current system is the plurality voting we tend to rely upon. This first past the post type voting means that if two candidates of one party together command 55% of the vote, but separately this divides that vote, and the candidate from the opposing party only brings in 45% of the vote, that candidate of the opposing party will win, even though the majority of voters did not vote for that candidate. This phenomenon tends to create a consolidation within parties, and if one party has two candidates running against each other, the party will tend to ask one to step down, or as in the case of primaries, choose one over the many, in order to prevent any win by default from the opposition.

Of course, this only works when there are just two parties running candidates, and when extra political parties are introduced into the race, the problem of plurality voting still takes it toll. Also, for roughly the first hundred years of the United States electoral process there were really no restrictions as to who could get onto the ballot. That all changed in 1880 when the "Australian Ballot" was introduced. The Australian Ballot has four elements to it:

1.) The official ballot is now printed at public expense.

2.) All names of all candidates appear on this ballot.

3.) The ballot is distributed at polling places only.

4.) The ballot is marked in secret.

It should be noted, however, that mail in ballots violate two of the four rules established by the Australian Ballot, and in the State of West Virginia voters are technically still allowed to cast "open ballots".

The greatest problem that came with this implementation of the "Australian Ballot" was that it gave government officials the power to regulate who could be placed on the ballot. This means that the strength of the two party system we have today has, and has used their political power to restrict ballot access which has the chilling effect of influencing elections, and ensuring re-election of of their own party candidates.

This is a genuine problem for Americans and why so many are sick and tired of the stranglehold the two party system has on the political landscape. Even so, and in spite of the fear mongering anti-Tea Party opposition tends towards, most Americans are not at all interested in a President who holds autocratic power. Also, despite the ad hominem attacks on the current Presidents detractors, far from being a vast array of "racists" and "fascists", they are people who deeply fear a Chancelloresque or autocratic President.

In George Washington's Farewell Address, he gave dire warnings to the evils of political parties, but the reality is that nobody took his warnings seriously then, and they certainly do not now. It is not political parties that most American's want to put an end to, it is the very chilling effect that both Democrat's and Republican's have had on the electoral process. If this process were to be changed, it just could not happen by Presidential legislative fiat, and must necessarily happen through the political body that has been empowered to legislate, the very Congress that has been Controlled by Democrats and Republicans ever since the Civil War.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sir, I totally agree with your remarks. Political parties are abhorrently undemocratic - swinging governance from one extreme to another. Honestly, based my own country of the United Kingdom, Parliament was far more productive when political alliances were unorganised and not official. The idea of "whips" enforcing voting intentions is a violation of democracy.

Members of the legislative branch should be free to vote without fear from lobbyists or party officials.

reply to post by infinite


It is always good to agree, is it not? On a further note, you also made mention of Americans seeming proclivity to restrict democratic institutions. It should be noted that in the United States, our Constitutions was designed to restrict democratic institutions from the get-go. As time has gone on the United States has moved closer and closer to a more democratic government, at least on paper, and in theory, and further and further away from the republic that was established to prevent majorities from trampling all over the rights of minorities.

Even worse, the United States began with a deep respect, (with the tragic exception of slavery), for unalienable rights. As time has gone on, that respect for unalienable rights has been replaced with a disturbing adoration for civil rights. Civil rights are, of course, those rights granted people by government, and unalienable rights are those rights that all people have with or without governments. This double whammy of moving closer towards democratic institutions and further away from a republic, combined with a move away from unalienable rights and towards civil rights has also had a very chilling effect on governance in America.

Once again you have to be a moron if you think there is any difference between what and whom the "right" and the "left" politicians in this country represent. They pick bs platforms to run on. And once in office, THEY BOTH DO THE SAME EXACT THING AS THE OTHER! So grow up and quit slurping the kool-aid.

Sure they put on a nice show sometimes but the important stuff to them, always passes. They find things that really truly bottom line, don't matter, and make a big show for everyone. Anything that really matters in the big picture, a few people are set up to say, "I oppose this". However if you are honest with yourself and the corporate-plutocratic agenda is kept in mind, you will always know exactly what will get done and what won't.

Whether they have to sleeze it through by greasing the squeaky wheels or by jingling keys with one hand while the other hand takes care of business, just ignore what all of their mouthes are saying for once and follow what they do! You'll see how very much in bed these people are.

You all sound silly and braindead when you mindlessly stick to your liberal or conservative platforms! Don't you both after all really want a free country where everybody has a shot at prosperity? Grow up!

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes we are my friend, but the sad reality is that if we get rid of congress is just going to be another political whore prop by big interest to take their place regardless of political parties.

My husband is voting for midterm elections, I have chosen no to vote and neither for presidential elections.

Unless I just got and check the ballot and anybody that is independent Will get my vote, still they are pay off also by big interest.

Americans need to understand that as long as our politics are corrupted with private interest money we the tax payer, citizens and voters stand not chance

Americans also need to understand that our nation have the most money corrupted government in the world

Originally posted by Vicodin

how many did they call?

Why don't you ring them up and ask?

second line

I wonder - how does one bring about a national vote of no confidence in a whole administration?
It surely must be possible.

Suggestions I have been reading about tactical voting:

- use your ballot paper to tell them what you think.
- write 'Vote of No Confidence in the Senate and Congress' on the ballot paper
- vote for outsiders, Independents who have little (2 years or less) experience of being in Congress
- write 'Dismantle the criminal Federal Reserve' on the ballot paper
- don't vote.

Since the vote is rigged and the outcome already decided by the Government Mafia, I guess it doesn't matter what you write, if anything!

reply to post by wcitizen


I think far too much emphasis is placed upon voting and not near enough emphasis placed upon the actual inherent political power that we the people genuinely hold. While we are angry at Congress, and would like to "throw the bums out", I would think it would be infinitely more satisfying to collectively flip Congress the finger and refuse to convict drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes, and their clients, gamblers, and any person who has been charged with a crime by the IRS.

Just tell Congress to go right ahead and do whatever they damn well please, because God knows that this is what we the people will do too, and since there are way more of us than them, and since as members of the jury, once we render a verdict, that decision is final and above reproach, they can legislate as many damn acts as they please, but good luck in trying to get a damn conviction.

In the meantime, as members of the jury, we simultaneously continue taking the McDonald's hot coffee incident to even higher stakes, and do everything we can to bankrupt the corporations. Let us as members of the jury take the banks to the cleaners, both by refusing to grant any verdict for the plaintiff when a bank sues for recovery of a debt, especially since the push towards a cashless society and electronic transfers means there is no real physical evidence of money exchanging hands, and for the plaintiff when it is the average Joe suing the bank for wrong doing.

While there are charter revocation laws in every state written to deal with corporate malfeasance, if the States Attorney Generals won't do their jobs, then it is left up to us, we the people, to do ours. Bankrupt the corporations, reward tax protesters with acquittals, reward black marketeers for embracing free market principles, punish government officials with jail time, (in those rare instances they are brought up on charges), and use the halls of justice to re-establish justice.

How do we do this? One person at a time, each and everyone of us accepting responsibility for our role in government, and doing what we can to inform our friends, family and community of the inherent political power that we now hold, as we have always held, and at no point never, ever surrendered.

reply to post by whatukno

Oh fail is your middle name, I got it now! Freedom of Speech is the 1st Amendment, you know, that same amendment right wingers want to get rid of?

oh fail indeed since the thread is nothing but a discussion exercising everyone right to free speech as if congress will ever be fired.

See, sometimes I have a hard time defending the 2nd Amendment because of sentences like this, so you want some massive machine gun with a ton of rounds to start spraying bullets randomly in public? Really? So basically you want to shoot up a mall, and you think that's ok, am I getting this right?

fail again since the intention of the second ammendment was to have the people as well armed as the government and since we aren't armed better or on even equal footing the government could wipe us all out in the blink of an eye without much trouble.

a semi auto rifle against a machine gun,grenades,rocket launchers,tanks,bombers and smart munitions means
armed revolution if it ever came to pass would even up in a blood bath much like the civil war.

Because they won't self govern, companies do things for the bottom line not what is best for the environment.

because power of the epa exceeds that of congress and it's answerable to noone if you people want the epa there needs to be congressional oversight.

and agian man read up on the constitution yourself

reply to post by The Sword


like i just told the other poster.

the epa power exceeds that of the government answerable to noone which is the problem

you want epa and the complete fascist rule of it give it congressional oversight

if not this entire coutnry is being held at gunpoint by fascism.

the epa has no system of checks and balances and can do whatever it wants

absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The failure of the Democrats and Barrack was that they didn't justify their "Agenda".

Life on Earth only exists because life developed, and was destroyed and this cycle repeated giving our planet a hydrocarbon-oil/gas resource within the crust of our planet. This resource is the sole reason our planets core continues to be molten. Since it enabled our core to remain molten, we have a magnetic field which allows life to exist.


Since man sucked up all the gas and oil our planets core will not continue to be molten and our magnetic field will fail. Our planet will die. The Democrats should have used this to justify a "Socialist" ecomomy capable of funding extreme science and development to get humans off of this planet before we become extinct. Barrack wouldn't make a good vacuum cleaner salesman. He never justified the end goal.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

Eliminate Department of Homeland Security!
Eliminate the Democratic and Republican Parties!

Actually, the Department of Homeland Security can and should be eliminated. The DHS is not a Constitutional mandate, nor are political parties. Of course, political parties have every right to exist in the U.S., but there can, and very probably should be an Amendment created to restrain the influence and stranglehold political parties have on this nation.

The problem with political parties, any political party, is that they invariably seek to hold power. I find it interesting that there is even a Libertarian Party in existence. If one reads the Libertarian Party Platform it becomes fairly evident at some point that if they actually stick to their principles they could never rise to political power, and certainly, if they somehow did momentarily gain this power, they could never hold it...unless they sacrificed their principles in order to hold that power, and therein lies the problem with political parties.

There is no Constitutional mandate for political parties. That they arose so quickly after the founding of The United States of America, and that the two party system that exists today has done so for quite some time does not mean that they are necessary for a robust and healthy political system. In fact, the animosity they foster, the endless bickering and squabbling they engage in, suggests that they are antithetical to a strong and healthy political system. It may be inevitable that people will find political allegiances through like minded people, but allowing political parties to dictate the electoral process is antithetical to free elections.

That said, it should be noted that Presidents are not elected popularly, but are elected by an Electoral College. There was a time when Senators were not elected by popular vote, but instead were chosen by the State legislature from the State they represent. It is my firm belief that the decidedly anti-democratic nature of the Constitutional mandate, rendered moot by the 17th Amendment, that Senators be chosen by the State legislature from which they reside was intended to slow down the legislative process, and hopefully keep a tight reign on Congress.

The primary argument for passing the 17th Amendment came from a problem that arose when gridlock happened in certain states, and no Senator was chosen in time for the next session of Congress leaving enough vacant seats that Congress could not pass legislation that session. I respectfully submit that this is not such a bad thing, and given the immense amount of legislative acts currently on the books, arguably it would be a good thing.

You seem to be outraged that people want to "throw the bums out" of Congress. You insist that there is no "reset button", but the passing of the 17th Amendment, and indeed, the passing of the 12th, and the very necessary 13th Amendments were, in effect, "resets" that corrected problems that arose, or inherent problems that existed, and due to the "three-fifths" Clause, that came with the Constitution.

The Amendment process is just one necessary tool for revolution in this grand political experiment we call the American Experiment. It is doubtful that "throwing the bums" out of Congress will derail the country and ensure disaster, and arguably will keep the country on the right track, which is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Either both the federal and state governments exist to protect the individual and unalienable rights of all people, or they exist for some other reason not expressly mentioned by Constitution. The granting of privileges that both federal and state governments are inclined to do is a big problem, and privileges tend to be elevated above unalienable rights. In a free nation, with a government mandated to protect the individual rights of all people, privileges are antithetical to this purpose, and should be, as if they aren't all ready, expressly forbidden.

But like I said, NOBODY is going to add in a constitutional amendment that somehow resets America, or resets parts of the Constitution.

There is NOBODY who's going to vote out all of Congress.

So, unless you're going to overthrow the government, and believe me, you best be prepared for a fight, people need to stop going on about "Removing Congress."

When the time comes that their terms are up, vote them out. Vote in somebody who you feel is going to do the right job. But just because you disagree with the majority of Americans who voted for these people doesn't mean ousting out congress will solve anything.

But like I said, NOBODY is going to add in a constitutional amendment that somehow resets America, or resets parts of the Constitution.

What makes you so sure about that? This nation fought a Civil War just get a Constitutional Amendment in prohibiting slavery, and effectively reset the Constitution by doing so. Almost fifty years later, once again a Constitutional Amendment was written that reset the way Senators were elected and this time a Civil War wasn't necessary. Women Suffrage? I would suggest that was yet another reset. Lowering the vote to 18 years of age? Yet another reset. Where do you hail from that you naively think that Americans are fundamentally opposed to change?

There is NOBODY who's going to vote out all of Congress.

I got news for you, friend; NOBODY is capable of voting. Only SOMEBODY'S can do that. It is unclear what precisely you mean by this awkward sentence of yours, but if you're implying that this thread has suggested that the American people are going to, in masse, render Congress vacant, as opposed to "throw out the bums" and replace them with new and inexperienced Congressman, then you are being a bit hysterical.

So, unless you're going to overthrow the government, and believe me, you best be prepared for a fight, people need to stop going on about "Removing Congress."

Your fallacious reasoning is perplexing. This is not an excluded middle where it is either re-elect the incumbents or "overthrow the government", which apparently you have used as an option so you can threaten people with federal force. I have news for you grandma, in the United States, We the People have cycles of revolution, at the very least potentially, every two and four years, and at worst, every two years. It is quite possible, and even probable to remove the vast majority of incumbents and start over. Your threats of violence are inappropriate, and your fear mongering and histrionics unseemly.

When the time comes that their terms are up, vote them out. Vote in somebody who you feel is going to do the right job. But just because you disagree with the majority of Americans who voted for these people doesn't mean ousting out congress will solve anything.

Either you are a troll, or didn't really bother to read the article linked by the O.P., and maybe both, but again, you using this thread to attempt to paint people who wish to do precisely what you just suggested as being dangerous and reckless extremists is inappropriate. Pay attention, and if you don't like being lectured by the likes of me, you best calm down and stop falsely defaming people in this thread and acting as if they don't have every intentions of using this upcoming election, and the one in 2012 to "throw the bums out." Gawd! Grow up!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I think far too much emphasis is placed upon voting and not near enough emphasis placed upon the actual inherent political power that we the people genuinely hold. While we are angry at Congress, and would like to "throw the bums out", I would think it would be infinitely more satisfying to collectively flip Congress the finger and refuse to convict drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes, and their clients, gamblers, and any person who has been charged with a crime by the IRS.

Just tell Congress to go right ahead and do whatever they damn well please, because God knows that this is what we the people will do too, and since there are way more of us than them, and since as members of the jury, once we render a verdict, that decision is final and above reproach, they can legislate as many damn acts as they please, but good luck in trying to get a damn conviction.

In the meantime, as members of the jury, we simultaneously continue taking the McDonald's hot coffee incident to even higher stakes, and do everything we can to bankrupt the corporations. Let us as members of the jury take the banks to the cleaners, both by refusing to grant any verdict for the plaintiff when a bank sues for recovery of a debt, especially since the push towards a cashless society and electronic transfers means there is no real physical evidence of money exchanging hands, and for the plaintiff when it is the average Joe suing the bank for wrong doing.

While there are charter revocation laws in every state written to deal with corporate malfeasance, if the States Attorney Generals won't do their jobs, then it is left up to us, we the people, to do ours. Bankrupt the corporations, reward tax protesters with acquittals, reward black marketeers for embracing free market principles, punish government officials with jail time, (in those rare instances they are brought up on charges), and use the halls of justice to re-establish justice.

How do we do this? One person at a time, each and everyone of us accepting responsibility for our role in government, and doing what we can to inform our friends, family and community of the inherent political power that we now hold, as we have always held, and at no point never, ever surrendered.

I absolutely and totally agree with you. In fact, the true role of juries has been hidden by the powers that be. One of the legal duties of every juror is to control the legal system - so, if a juror thinks a law is unjust, irrespective of whether the defendant has done what they say he has done, the juror should find not guilty.

This would work in US and Europe. We could really get something going!

Thanks for a great post..

McDonalds hot coffee incident? I don't know about that one.

I think an important point was made in an earlier post - about how US has gone from a republic to a democracy.

This video gives a simple illustration of the significant difference between the two:

www.youtube.com...

Having said this, not all 'Republican' candidates' want a republic. Democracy is definitely the flavour of the day across the board. It is easy to see why, when power is the ultimate objective.