ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

DNC RNC Corruption

Updated on August 2, 2016
Alfried Krupp
Alfried Krupp

Content

The corruption and collusion, perhaps even conspiracy perpetrated by the RNC and the DNC this year should come as little surprise to anyone. They bring to mind historic lampoons about obese men in wigs, smoking cigars and mocking anything new or interesting. These two conclaves of political reprobates form a pair of heads over a single political bureaucracy that presents itself as two parties. They use polarizing political diatribe to prevent solidarity within the citizenry, and disenfranchise candidates that are not vetted supporters of the bureaucracy.

This is really a form of fascism that has convoluted the system of representation our Republic is supposed to guarantee. I have railed against these demons all my life but to no avail. Their alliance with Lucifer (The Media) makes them a formidable adversary. Mugwumps is what they are, both Republican and Democrat alike: Fascist Mugwumps who consider your wishes tertiary to personal enrichment and maintenance of the bureaucracy. But things need not always be thus. (I got this from " The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas), (I love that movie).

Imagine a revolution were ranks of soldiers and armed militia close and rake each other with musket ball and grape shot, ultimately converging into a mass, an orgy of bludgeoning and bayoneting. Then replace these courageous militia persons with I-Phones. Battalions of I-Phones, Regiments then Division then Corps and Armies and Army Groups armed with Twitter and Facebook. We are already there. All you have to do is commit to never voting Republican or Democrat again, and telling a friend.

It is not as difficult as you might think. There are always 3 or 4 good options for President, but we need to start smaller. Everyone who votes deals with elections were many of the offices only provide a Republican or Democrat as an option. You should always choose the 'write in' option and vote George Washington. Even though these votes may seem wasted what actually happens is the data will show interest in other candidates and in the next election cycle there will be better choices. But without Lucifer and the Mugwumps telling you what to think and how to feel, you will have to find things out for yourself. Trust in this new Army we now posses.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 8 weeks ago

      There is a growing far Left pejorative in this country that lives in a world of ideological bs. Nothing President Trump does will ever be acknowledged regardless of proof or fact. It is they who are the true "Flat Earthers" not the disenfranchised majority. They have a monopoly on media and education so that one will create an electorate too "Dumb" to realize the lies and disinformation dispensed by the other.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      The proof is in the pudding. If Trump can succeed even 50% in his 4 years in office, without any political background, then it should be clear to even a child that we don't need politicians that lie and cheat and beg for donations to accomplish so little.

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 8 weeks ago

      HiHo JL. I do believe the situation to be the proverbial southbound snowball. Too many people rely on imagery and sound bites and believe that "Proffesional" politicians are better than inexperienced people. A politicians who spends years honing his or her craft is not going to vote for service limitations any more than a person would spend 8 years of training to become a Doctor only to be allowed to practice for 6 or 8 years.

      We cannot get the career politicians out because the majority of voters do not think for themselves. They like being told what to think by professionals.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 8 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      I don't think it is that dire. All we need is a change to the election process, for example institute term limits to Congressmen and senators... that will go a long way to fixing Washington DC.

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 8 weeks ago

      I have written at length on how to restrict the 'Representative' component of American Democracy but I fear it is too late. Our monstrously ineffective education system has created a population incapable of independent thought or reason. It is quite literally a joke.

      The size of the United States poses challenges for elective processes as well, but I do not believe this will be an issue for long.

    • Nathanville profile image

      Arthur Russ 2 months ago from England

      Hi Setank,

      I’ve heard about the bizarre voting system in America that is biased in maintaining a two party system and makes it virtually impossible for a third party to gain seats in elections. As a Brit, I don’t understand the American voting system, but from what little I know of the system I get the impression that it is very undemocratic.

      In the UK you don’t have to be a member of a Political Party to stand for election. Most British citizens are eligible to stand as a candidate for election. Those not allowed to stand include the police, armed forces, civil servants, judges, Peers in the House of Lords, and people who are bankrupt.

      If you want to stand as an Independent candidate in the UK, or form your own Political Party, then all that is required is to make a simple registration, pay a £500 ($660) ‘Deposit’ and abide by the very ‘strict’ spending and donation rules.

      Under the British system, if you get less than 5% of the votes in the election then you lose your deposit. You also have to submit full accounts of your spending and donations to the ‘Electoral Commission’ after the election for careful scrutiny e.g. to exceed the spending limits in an election campaign is a criminal offence. The Electoral Commission is an ‘Independent Government Body’, which means they are answerable only to Parliament e.g. they are NOT answerable to the Government.

      At the last General Election in the UK in June 2017, the Electoral Commission set the spending limits for the campaign costs for each candidate standing for election at just £8,700 ($11,500).

      If you haven’t already guest, the purpose of having a nominal deposit and strict spending limits and donation rules on election campaigns is to ‘level the playing field’ so that Independent candidates and minority parties have a fair chance at getting their message across to the electorate, and are not drowned out by the major parties.

      In Britain, we do have proportional representation for local elections (Local Governments, Mayoral elections etc.), but not for the General Election (National Government). Nevertheless, even with the ‘1st past the post’ system for the General Election, because donations and spending of the major parties is strictly limited, the smaller parties in the UK can and do win seats and in doing so prevents the major parties from having absolute control.

      Examples of how multi-party electoral system (rather than just a two party system) can work:-

      Green Party retain their Parliamentary Seat in the General Election (under 1st past the post system); 6 candidates: https://youtu.be/4PBiely7GAs

      Election of Mayor of London (using proportional representation); 12 candidates: https://youtu.be/ChY4nooWgGs

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 9 months ago

      I understand you frustration but the reality is from an election standpoint someone who won't vote, will do the "write in", or put in a blank ballot is irrelevant. Look at it this way what would one of the major parties have to do to convince you to vote for them? Would what you require be worth their effort?

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 9 months ago

      Don't feel bad Nell, it is getting very confusing for everyone. The single vote, simple majority system does not allow for legitimate voter representation.

      We need a voting month not a voting day. People need 3 votes instead of one so they can give 2 to their preferred candidate and one to their second choice, and they need to vote 3 or 4 times.

      In this system ignored candidates from "other" parties would receive great support as second choices. Anyone receiving 10% or more would continue to the second vote. Here you retain how ever many candidates you need to represent 75% of all votes. From here you have a 3rd vote and whom ever takes 60% wins. If no one gets 60% then you vote a 4th time as in the third. If no one hits 60% this time then the candidate with the most votes wins.

      In the case of Governors and the President, when the 60% is not reached then the candidates who collectively have 75% of the votes must be appointed to high office.

      It may seem unorthodox but this is how you get government back under control.

    • Nell Rose profile image

      Nell Rose 9 months ago from England

      Well this is above my head coming from England so, nice to meet you! lol!

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 16 months ago

      It is called strait ticket voting and is for general elections not primaries. I recently spoke to a fellow Huber from Missouri who encountered this problem. There are ways around it if you do the research and plan ahead, however most people reasonably expect to show up and vote. In States with strait tickets ballots they try convince voters that they must choose Republican or Democrat ballots. This is what happened to the Huber I encountered.

      Being an informed voter should not mean mastery of a balloting system. Anyone who is running for office within your voting precinct should be on every ballot.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 16 months ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      Most states will have at least four presidential candidates this year on their November ballot.

      We have choices.

      And ... my recall is that party line ballots are reserved for primary elections, where those of a particular party are voting for who will be there designated party candidate in the general elections.

      Voting can be confusing, yes?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 16 months ago from Orange County California

      Setank

      That is scary stuff, and I hate to admit I was not aware of it.

    • profile image
      Author

      Setank Setunk 16 months ago

      Thanks Brad.

      The George Washington or GW maneuver is for when the options are restricted to Rep and Dem, as is common is local elections.

      But now there are 17 States (I think) that use party-line ballots so that you cannot opt for any choices. Scary stuff.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 16 months ago from Orange County California

      Setank

      It is not your verse and composition on the subject that is a problem. The problem lies in the followers of the subject of your hub, in that they cannot and will not deviate even mentally from their dog like loyalty to one of the two parties.

      They most likely grew up in a family as do most people where political party and religion have been impressed upon them by their parents. And most of them never change even as they grow older and logically smarter.

      Your article shows that no matter how far the robe opens, the loyal party voter has eyes, but refuses to see the real corrupt party. To them, it is always the other party that is the problem.

      Pavlov could have easily move from dogs to the loyal party member without losing a beat. I would say that each party depends on the loyal party voter to vote their Row of candidates all the way down the ballot.

      So, I would suggest that instead of George Washington, the vote should be for the best person in one of the other parties. And the rest of the ballot should cross any and all parties.

      The voting by the loyal party voter has generated the political seesaw. Instead of creating a strong third party, the loyal party voter just enables the control to go to one party, and then the other party.

      The new party in control is only interested in wiping out whatever the other party did in office. This paradigm doesn't allow forward movement. It generates either a zero sum, or negative one.

      The loyal party voters, especially the ones on the left are driven by emotion, and hearsay. Their cause is to recruit more loyal voters out of the minorities by treating them like little children and giving them the basics of survival. They barely survive, but attribute that survival to the left because they gave them welfare, and benefits that they didn't have to work to get. All they had to do was be a loyal left voter.

      It is not that they embrace the ideology of the left, they just didn't want the right to take away their stipend.

      Loyal party voters are not using their intelligence, they are just being faithful and loyal to their masters.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 17 months ago from Yorktown NY

      A bit of advice. You writing is a bit cryptic. It lacks clarity and purpose. For a topic like this, you need to provide more details. Keep trying and improve. Not bad for a first hub. Good luck!