this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
55 points (72.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7242 readers
96 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (20 children)

Did those that downvote even read the article?

Shit is valid and you and your reactionary ear-plugging is this problem.

[–] Sabre363 15 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Yeah, the article basically calls both political parties a bunch of evil idiotic pricks. Which is pretty fucking accurate, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge this, even here on Lemmy

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Show me a political group worth backing and I will listen. Otherwise you are yelling at clouds. We acknowledge, we see no alternatives. Over throw the government, hell yeah sounds punk rock but what replaces it? A bunch of dungeon dweebs with zero understanding of global politics. Some Christo fascist extremist group that would start and lose a civil war with anyone non white. A far left progressive group that doesn’t understand how the American threat of violence is the only commodity keeping the US from being a third world country. There is a reason we spend the money we do on our military, its why Israel is our Middle East enforcers, it’s why we have to back Ukraine no matter what. It’s why the 2 parties are essentially the same.

[–] Sabre363 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking maybe we should just replace all the old cunts with younger and more competent people that actually care about what's going to happen in twenty years. The parties aren't really beneficial, it's time to let them go

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

huh, this is the first time I've ran across this idea on here. I mean, it would be fucking crazy and to pull it off would take a miracle of a life time.... but I think this has merit.

You could file this under Anti-trust/monopoly competition law.

Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. In economics, competition is a scenario where different economic firms[Note 1] are in contention to obtain goods that are limited by varying the elements of the marketing mix: price, product, promotion and place. In classical economic thought, competition causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products.

This is largely how both the DNC and RNC are defined

According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers."

So if you look at both the RNC and DNC as an organization or company that provides a service (which they've argued themselves in court, that they're not a true democratic function), you could consider them a national monopoly on a service provided to political prospects (think ticketmaster-livenation). If you break up the national level to only have individual organizations in states that aren't allowed to unlawfully co-operate with eachother, you would have better chances of people getting their state representatives to actuallly listen to their constituents.

National elections would become like an All-Star Jam or the Olympics basketball team. It would be much the same players but having to form their own services eliminating the "political pipeline" that the DNC/RNC currently has a market on, on a national level. Which, the overwhelming power they have, trickles down into state elections with vast resources and political sway disrupting a democratic process.

You could do all of this in a courtroom, no legislation required to be passed for enforcement. I have faith in each side having enough disgruntled members and judges tired of playing politics that you might get some headway.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)