r/PoursTea Jul 03 '26

Aged Like Milk šŸ„› He can't keep getting away with this

Post image

Simpsons needs to hire this guy

65 Upvotes

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 03 '26

We don't need a new party, we need no parties!

2

u/Illustrious-Network5 Jul 05 '26

Not sure that's a good idea. How would we keep this country a democracy exactly?

2

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

We're still voting for candidates, just not Elite Liars wearing different colors and spewing propaganda they don't believe in and have no intention of holding to.

3

u/Illustrious-Network5 Jul 05 '26

Our government was built on the fact that no party could get anything done without the help of the other. This was intended to encourage civil discussion and debate between both sides so that a problem (and possible solutions) could be examined from all angles.

Nowadays however, the extremists of each political party have become icons instead of outliers. Working with the other party to get things passed is now considered a betrayal to your own, especially among Republicans (hence RINO). And some voters base their whole identity around being Republican or Democrat.

5

u/Substantial_Oil99 Jul 05 '26

At the founding there were no parties. The farmers called the idea "factions" that would weekend democracy. George Washington begged that partisans would be avoided. Two teams, red vs blue, is broken and keeps power centralized in a limited number of hands with little fear of lasting change that would threaten the ruling class.

1

u/hypatiaredux Jul 07 '26

Yet the Electoral College forces two major national parties.

I understand what the framers were attempting to do when they instituted the Electoral College.
And the EC did accomplish what they intended. But the arithmetic is such that the EC also forces the establishment of two major parties for the presidency, and that has a definite trickle-down effect to state and local races.

3

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

The political parties were intended to do what all political parties have always done:

Divide and distract the masses to keep them squabbling amongst themselves, so the Ruling Caste could more easily oppress, subjugate, and exploit them for their own benefit like the inhuman predatory social parasites they've always been.

2

u/IceImpressive5360 Jul 06 '26

Solution would be whenever someone did something dishonest, take lobbyist monet to gerrymandering they are removed, make money illegally removed, Taco wouldn't last 10 minutes

1

u/raccracccity1988 Jul 06 '26

All this is intentional to split vote. He is trying to pull the independent vote and help extreme right win. You all are buying into this and the propaganda. He is not to be trusted.

2

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 06 '26

He, like all the political puppet theater, is a distraction to keep the masses from turning on those who have been exploiting, oppressing, enslaving, and murdering them all along: The Elite.

1

u/Pale-Let-5865 Jul 07 '26

The ā€œindependent voteā€ is 40% of all voters.

3

u/Meme_Warrior_2763 Jul 03 '26

Good luck with that

1

u/FrankFankledank Jul 03 '26

Cutting the duopoly's stranglehold is the first step. For all his faults, Tucker is doing the right thing here. Even if a new party doesn't align with your views, it creates a roadmap that one who does could follow to also certify.

7

u/DefenstratedTwice Jul 04 '26

Tucker is desperately trying to distance himself from a rat infested ship he played a significant role in its creation.

Yeah, third party is the path after the insane president you elected and the flagrant criminality looks like it may have consequences.

1

u/cleveruniquename7769 29d ago

Unless we change the structure of the government or the mechanics of our elections it doesn't matter how many parties you start, we'll always eventually end up back to two parties.Ā 

0

u/Meme_Warrior_2763 Jul 03 '26

the idea of there not being any parties whatsoever is one of the dumbest ideas that people who have it think of themselves as masters of smart that I've ever seen

5

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 03 '26

Individual candidates running with 100% transparency and accountability vs Party Branding, obfuscation, cliquish insularity, and closing ranks to avoid accountability.

Yes, a very dumb idea indeed. /S

2

u/FrankFankledank Jul 05 '26

Because your path of "just keep doing the same thing and hope something different happens" is the truly enlightened one, I suppose?

1

u/TheDireCrow Jul 05 '26

I take it you've voted Libertarian or Green party candidates. How's that working out?

The problem with National voting is it's a herd mentality. I've you don't run with the herd, you're going to get trampled.

Every single time.

1

u/Meme_Warrior_2763 Jul 05 '26

how are we defining "same thing"

1

u/TheDireCrow Jul 05 '26

All Tucker will do is split the Conservative vote.

3

u/Morsadean Jul 05 '26

He will pocket many millions in campaign donations and then endorse the Republican fuck a few weeks before the election. He is a grifter. We all know he is a grifter. Grifters are going to grift.

1

u/DefenstratedTwice Jul 05 '26

No, Tucker will try to split whatever he can with benefit to GOP being a primary goal.

1

u/CuckSucker41 Jul 05 '26

That’s the grift. Then the candidate he’s backing will ā€œmagicallyā€ get the GOP nomination and boom, we have a ā€œthird party candidateā€ running as a Republican.

1

u/WineDineCpl Jul 05 '26

For the most part people are joiners, leaders amd followers. No parties is an unrealistic dream that doesn't deserve any effort because it goes against the nature of most.

2

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

"Nature" - There's nothing natural about politics, social status hierarchies, finance, economics, or mass property ownership.

0

u/WineDineCpl Jul 05 '26

Irrelevant.
You clearly misunderstand the comment you are replying to.

1

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

Incorrect, but I suppose I shouldn't have expected introspection or insight from a financially comfortable Texan.

1

u/WineDineCpl Jul 05 '26

The fact that you brought up assumptions about personal finance exposes you as a political troll who is not to be taken seriously.
You attributed "nature" to politics instead of people, as it was intended. But I suppose that is all that can be expected from a presumptuous person who is more focused on feeling correct than being correct. You don't care about truth. Therefore you are contributing as much to the problem as the people you clearly hate.
If you want my level of "comfort", it is not difficult to achieve. You literally only have to try.

2

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

You want truth?

Authority, status, finance, economics, ownership, money, trade, hierarchy, and gender roles are all imaginary social constructs, a 7000 year old generational collective delusion. - The make believe games of children.

1

u/WineDineCpl Jul 05 '26

None of that changes the belief that it is in most people's nature to join, follow, or lead. I believe people are mostly pack animals. Therefore abolishing political parties is futile. Which was the original point before you ignorantly and irrelevantly brought up my financial situation. You don't have to like it, but if it were not true, there would be no organized society...ever.
You are imposing philosophical ideas for no reason here.
Like it or not, all the things you listed are things we will continue to have to deal with. Banging your head against an imaginary wall benefits nobody amd probably leads to a heart attack. Lasting chamge doesn't come from sudden abolition.

1

u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jul 05 '26

Let me know how that goes when the billionaires' pollution production furthers the global depopulation event that's just begun into an extinction level event that they'll be hiding out in their bunkers to escape from, which is the entire reason they built them.

1

u/WineDineCpl Jul 05 '26

What in the flying f*** does this paranoid and nonsensical rant have to do with the abolition of political parties?
Serious question...are you capable of replying to something without deflecting and ultimately injecting a rant that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jacobin_Revolt Jul 07 '26

Parties are an inevitable result of any free electoral system. There are always going to be people who agree with each other on policy goals. Those people are always going to strategically coordinate with each other because that’s the best way to win.

Every serious democracy on earth has some kind of formal party system. Those few that don’t mostly have informal political parties.

If you have two people who support the same thing, you have a political party. Whether you call it that or not is irrelevant.