The Illusion of Choice

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
13,965
The RNC and DNC Do Not Represent “Voters”, They Represent the Interests of Their Private Corporations

When it comes to the private corporations in American politics known as the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democrat National Committee (DNC), there is a common misconception that the corporations represent the voters, they do not.

The RNC and DNC corporations represent their interests, which are not necessarily in alignment with the interests of the unpaid voluntary participants, the voters. As a consequence, when a lawyer is hired by the RNC they are not representing the candidate or voter, they are representing the interests of the corporation. A big difference.

Legal success is found in representing the interest of the RNC, not the candidate. Once, that success is achieved, the legal team move to the next objective as instructed by the corporation.

There are two private corporations representing Republicans and Democrats; they are most commonly referred to as political parties. There is no basis for the existence of private political parties in the United States constitution. Both parties’ function from a position as private interests outside the framework of government.

What we commonly refer to as ‘politicians’ are selected representatives to the government from each of the corporations. What we commonly refer to as ‘primary elections’ are suggestions to each of the corporations from citizens expressing their preference for the representative. The corporation can individually choose to accept or decline the suggestion from the voters, and the only thing that binds the corporation to follow the suggestion are the corporate rules.

The corporation of the RNC and DNC exist to serve their own interests.

This facet to U.S. politics is rarely discussed because the corporations and the people who run them do not want this process emphasized.





DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules

A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

"To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary."

Rather than reflecting on the consternation everyday voters are having over the conduct of the Democratic presidential primary, the Democratic National Committee is doubling down on the assertion that the primary election belongs to the people who control the party -- not voters.

In the transcript for last week's hearing in Wilding, et. al. v. DNC Services, d/b/a DNC and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz, released Friday, DNC attorneys assert that the party has every right to favor one candidate or another, despite their party rules that state otherwise because, after all, they are a private corporation and they can change their rules if they want.


 
Read two pages, right here.
Nothing has changed in 300 years, except the EXACT WHOM.
it's not the Catholics or the clergy anymore the people are worried about

One might wonder how this New World would have fared if there weren't such anti-Catholic bigotry
and so much naïveté amongst the Protestant goyim.

 
There is no basis for the existence of private political parties in the United States constitution. Both parties’ function from a position as private interests outside the framework of government.

A.K.A. the free market :cool::up:
 
A.K.A. the free market :cool::up:

But when the politicians are available on a nice, free black market, soon nothing else is available on a free market.

So no matter how free the market for politicians is, that is anti-free market. Why do you keep trotting out this tired old bit of trollery as though it's fresh?
 
So why do you keep trotting out this tired old bit if trollery as though it's fresh?

Self explanatory I would think

giphy.gif
 
Protocol #9 Section 5:

DIVISION INTO FRACTIONAL PARTIES HAS GIVEN THEM INTO OUR
HANDS, FOR, IN ORDER TO CARRY ON A CONTESTED STRUGGLE ONE MUST HAVE MONEY,
AND THE MONEY IS ALL IN OUR HANDS.
 
.

A system designed to locate, interview and ultimately hire the next group of masters is in no way analogous to anything even resembling a “free market.”

Last I checked, the political parties are voluntary organizations and they themselves don't do anything coercive. So shrug :up:

People wanted political parties so they made political parties... :up:
 
A.K.A. the free market :cool::up:

You mean Public-Private Partnerships. It's not a "free market"; if I choose not to participate, or if I voted but somebody else "wins", I am still forced to pay for things that I did not want, need or agree to, like welfare and wars.
 
You mean Public-Private Partnerships.

What he's saying is, if We the People pooled all our spare pennies and outbid the multinationals, the arms dealers and the Zionists, we could bribe our own Congress tomorrow and have a bunch of garbage repealed by the end of the year.

The bribery market is the only free market.
 
The bribery market is the only free market.

That is indeed the only free market :up:

The entire system is built on layers of coercion upon coercion all the way down.

Everything from political parties to your Netflix subscription, is to some degree a "public private partnership".

So either both Netflix and political parties are inventions of the free market, or neither is.

And if people want to say neither is free market, I would have no objection :up:
 
That is indeed the only free market :up:

The entire system is built on layers of coercion upon coercion all the way down.

Everything from political parties to your Netflix subscription, is to some degree a "public private partnership".

So either both Netflix and political parties are inventions of the free market, or neither is.

And if people want to say neither is free market, I would have no objection :up:

I don't have a bill for Netflix, or women's panties. Nobody is coercing/bribing/forcing me to buy replacement parts for a 2017 Jeep I don't own or want.

You're one of those of ones who try to redefine libertarianism, or at least what a free market is or isn't.
 
I don't have a bill for Netflix, or women's panties. Nobody is coercing/bribing/forcing me to buy replacement parts for a 2017 Jeep I don't own or want.

You're one of those of ones who try to redefine libertarianism, or at least what a free market is or isn't.

If you don't want me to redefine libertarianism, then use a consistent definition :up:

Everything you said in post #10 applies also to a Netflix subscription. If you choose not to participate in Netflix, the government will still force you to pay for things that you do not want. The government will continue to tax you regardless of your participation in, or the existence of, Netflix, or political parties. Neither has much to do really with whether or not the government is going to continue to tax you. :up:
 
If you don't want me to redefine libertarianism, then use a consistent definition :up:

Everything you said in post #10 applies also to a Netflix subscription. If you choose not to participate in Netflix, the government will still force you to pay for things that you do not want. The government will continue to tax you regardless of your participation in, or the existence of, Netflix, or political parties. Neither has much to do really with whether or not the government is going to continue to tax you. :up:

That doesn't make sense. If I choose not to participate in a Netflix subscription, or don't buy women's panties, I am not forced to pay for those things.

As for the government, or even some other entity, if I am forced to pay for things, that is not libertarian at all.
 
That doesn't make sense. If I choose not to participate in a Netflix subscription, or don't buy women's panties, I am not forced to pay for those things.

Yes, and have you ever received a bill from the Republican Party demanding payment? I surely have not.

Unless you can produce a bill with The Republican Party's letterhead on it, they aren't forcing you to pay for things.

As for the government, or even some other entity, if I am forced to pay for things, that is not libertarian at all.

Sure, and that's just awful certainly. The government forcing you to pay for those things is bad. But what's that have to do with political parties?
 
This forum itself is very much like a political party. Or it used to be back when people here still gave a damn.

We'd choose our favorite candidates and then go support them on the streets and in the polls.

If the Republican Party is a public-private partnership, then so are we.
 
This forum itself is very much like a political party. Or it used to be back when people here still gave a damn.

We'd choose our favorite candidates and then go support them on the streets and in the polls.

For those who participate in the process/system.

If the Republican Party is a public-private partnership, then so are we.

For those who participate in the process/system.

But then there are those of us who no longer support candidates, or work the polls, or vote, and don't contribute time/money to any candidate. Yet we are still forced to pay for things that we don't want, need or agree to.
 
Back
Top