Author Topic: Jesse Ventura's thoughts on political parties (Read 1036 times)

coyotejoe · « **on:** June 12, 2012, 04:17:58 AM »

Thomas Jefferson said "if the only way I could get to heaven were at the head of a political party, I think I'd as soon not go". Jesse Ventura is of a like mind, he equates the political parties to violent gangs like the Crypts and Bloods, calling them "Democrypts and Rebloodlicans" but says they are far worse because the gangs effect only some things in a rather small geographic area, whereas the political parties effect everything everywhere. He says it makes no difference which party you vote for since they all are owned by the same people and so will perpetuate the same polices. Whether or not you like Jesse, I think you'll agree that he makes a lot of sense here. As a start he suggests we eliminate the party names from the ballot so that voters can't just go down the line and vote a straight party ticket but would have to at least become informed enough to recognize the name of the candidates.
Here is a link to the interview with Piers Morgan of CNN.
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/11/jesse-ventura-on-political-parties-the-best-thing-we-could-do-is-on-every-ballot-remove-all-gang-names-and-gang-symbols/

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2012, 12:18:11 PM »

My favorite Jesse Ventura quote:

Gambling is immoral unless the government gets to be the bookie.
Drugs are immoral unless the government gets to be the dealer.
Prostitution is immoral unless the government gets to be the pimp.

lakota · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2012, 02:01:24 PM »

The only real difference between democrats and republicans is which types of freedoms you will lose depending on who is in power. They are both rabidly anti freedom.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2012, 04:40:51 PM »

I agree with the concept of non-partisan elections. Not only should the political affiliation of candidates not be on the ballot the parties themselves should not be reprecented. No more one from part A, one from party B, etc. All candidates should competee together in the primaries and the top TWO run off, regardless of party affiliation.

ironglow · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2012, 03:20:04 AM »

Frankly, I couldn't care less what Jesse thinks. A great man once, but now seems to be operating about 3 french fries short of a Happy Meal..

magooch · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2012, 03:36:45 AM »

Removing the parties from politics is like trying to remove politics from politics. The removal of political party affiliation on official ballots has merit, but it would then mean that folks would have to pay more attention to who the candidates are. That would constitute cruel and unusual punishment on voters and most likely would result in fewer people voting. I'm good with that.

lakota · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:51:11 AM »

3 fries short of a Happy Meal or not, I would take Jesse Ventura any day of the week over the two "choices" we will have in November

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:52:56 AM »

Quote from: lakota on June 18, 2012, 04:51:11 AM

3 fries short of a Happy Meal or not, I would take Jesse Ventura any day of the week over the two "choices" we will have in November

+1

dukkillr · « **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2012, 05:27:14 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on June 18, 2012, 03:20:04 AM

Frankly, I couldn't care less what Jesse thinks. A great man once, but now seems to be operating about 3 french fries short of a Happy Meal..

Quote

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Any idea who said the above or what, "It" refers to? Any idea how many fries short that guy must have been?

josiah712 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2012, 06:42:37 AM »

I like the idea, and think it would be an improvement. But it's a moot point unless we could really make it happen.

That seems like a mighty tall order, considering we can't even get a real Republican to win a Republican primary.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2012, 06:43:04 AM »

yes lets take away all rights to assemble

that way the elections will be rigged behind closed doors rather than openly

lots of good ideas here

but we can't even get rid of he electoral college

when is the last time some one not from one of the gangs got one state

nw_hunter · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2012, 11:27:25 AM »

Quote from: dukkillr on June 18, 2012, 05:27:14 AM

Quote from: ironglow on June 18, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Frankly, I couldn't care less what Jesse thinks. A great man once, but now seems to be operating about 3 french fries short of a Happy Meal..

Quote

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Any idea who said the above or what, "It" refers to? Any idea how many fries short that guy must have been?

Farewell address..........The Father of our Nation. LOL! Fried Taters back then!

The founding fathers would more than likely be looked down on and considered a few fries short by some from both parties today.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:01:50 PM »

John Adams was another founding father that was a few fries short of a Happy Meal:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

nomosendero · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:09:26 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on June 18, 2012, 04:01:50 PM

John Adams was another founding father that was a few fries short of a Happy Meal:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

His concern was well founded, tha's a given now. It is sad we don't have a competitive 3rd party aat this point.

mechanic · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:19:43 PM »

In the beginning, they didn't even "choose" a vice president. The guy with the most votes was president, the second was vice. We've come a long way baby....farther and farther away from the founders....

Ben

josiah712 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2012, 04:22:25 PM »

The only thing that stops our third party, or fourth party, or any party, from being competitive; is the mentality that calls them a wasted vote.

When in fact it is the voting for the "competitive" (puppet) parties, that is the wasted vote.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:10:47 AM »

Exactly, what could be more of a wasted vote than a vote for someone you don't really want to be elected.

gstewart44 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:37:03 AM »

Quote from: magooch on June 18, 2012, 03:36:45 AM

Removing the parties from politics is like trying to remove politics from politics. The removal of political party affiliation on official ballots has merit, but it would then mean that folks would have to pay more attention to who the candidates are. That would constitute cruel and unusual punishment on voters and most likely would result in fewer people voting. I'm good with that.

Even one step further......I'll bet Jessie and Al would be screaming that would be disenfranchising and targeting minority voters........

magooch · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2012, 03:06:16 AM »

The only thing that keeps any number of parties from being competitive is certainly not the belief that voting for other than Republican, or Dumycrat is a wasted vote. There are so many other issues involved and what makes anyone think that a third party would be a panacea anyway?

There is plenty of examples of what happens when there are a plethora of equal political parties where none has a clear plurality of the citizenry. It is bad enough to have two sides to every issue; try dealing with a half dozen different views. Very few will ever be happy and the country is pulled in many different directions.

The system that has evolved in the United States is not unique; it just happens to be the most natural state of affairs. Human beans are not perfect, so why expect our politics to be perfect?

I think we have a very clear choice in the coming election--maybe as clear a choice as we've had in my lifetime. We have the capitalist against the communist, the somewhat conservative against the radical liberal, the flip flopper against the shameless liar . That seems like more than enough contrast to me. And don't forget, it was the primary voters who made these choices. That cannot be said of the third party candidates.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:18:02 AM »

As a third or fourth grade kid in the 1950's I remember the political views of my classmates came down to "Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor", that's all they knew because that is about all their parents knew. Voters today have every opportunity to be much better informed but few really are or want to be. The Libertarian Party has been around for 40 years and has gotten many candidates elected. I think few people would really find anything offensive in the Libertarian Party platform if they bothered to read it but most will say "why waste your vote on someone who can't get elected. The Tea Party has had an impact but has been pretty much gobbled up by the Republicans and is now largely just a small sect within that party which continues to ignore the Tea Party message. When Tea Party candidates have stood fast on the grounds for which they ran and were elected the media has painted them as obstructionists, unwilling to compromise.
Several elections back one network ran a debate among the "lesser party candidates" and all were asked the same questions. When asked why we need a third party the Libertarian candidate responded, "two parties could never be enough to represent the varied hopes, wishes and expectations of three hundred million Americans but today we don't even have two parties, we have one party with two faces".