• Political Parties
    93 replies, posted
Washington knew what was goin on
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;23770942]Washington knew what was goin on[/QUOTE] He also said that we should stay the fuck out of other countries business.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;23770289]That people should vote for the best candidate, not just the one running in their own party.[/QUOTE]Cute idea, needs practical way for it to be executed.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;23771226]He also said that we should stay the fuck out of other countries business.[/QUOTE] oh yeah? well he also said that aliens will destroy earth! my friend told me so it's true!
[QUOTE=abananapeel;23771226]He also said that we should stay the fuck out of other countries business.[/QUOTE] And he was right on that as well. ... :sigh:
Yeah our government is corrupt within itself, and basic ideals that they used to be based on. Right now the best we can hope for is the Centralist type of government were everything is even in amount. Really there is only one party that really takes the ideas of both sides though. Which is the infamous, unknown Independent party...
I say we drag some random, mild-mannered, hard working guy off the streets and put him in the office. Presidents these days are [mostly] from old money/privileged families. They don't know shit about the average Joe.
[QUOTE=Thomas849;23773778]I say we drag some random, mild-mannered, hard working guy off the streets and put him in the office. Presidents these days are [mostly] from old money/privileged families. They don't know shit about the average Joe.[/QUOTE] YES!!!!! Way back in the day presidents were gardeners, lawyers, farmers. They were the average, hard working Americans, that built up our country. 1 George Washington Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier (General of United Army of the Colonies) 2 John Adams Lawyer, Farmer 3 Thomas Jefferson Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner 4 James Madison Lawyer 5 James Monroe Lawyer 6 John Quincy Adams Lawyer 7 Andrew Jackson Soldier, Lawyer 8 Martin Van Buren Lawyer 9 William Harrison Soldier 10 John Tyler Lawyer 11 James Polk Lawyer, Plantation owner 12 Zachary Taylor Soldier 13 Millard Fillmore Lawyer 14 Franklin Pierce Lawyer 15 James Buchanan Lawyer, Diplomat 16 Abraham Lincoln Lawyer 17 Andrew Johnson Tailor 18 Ulysses Grant Soldier, General of the Army 19 Rutherford Hayes Lawyer 20 James Garfield School teacher, minister, soldier 21 Chester Arthur School teacher, lawyer, collector of tariffs 22, 24 Grover Cleveland Sheriff, lawyer, assistant teacher 23 Benjamin Harrison Lawyer, journalist 25 William McKinley Lawyer 26 Theodore Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Public Official, Rancher 27 William Taft Lawyer, judge, law reporter, dean of law school at the University of Cincinnati 28 Woodrow Wilson Lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University 29 Warren Harding Newspaper publisher/editor 30 Calvin Coolidge Lawyer, Vice President of Northampton Savings Bank 31 Herbert Hoover Engineer, Investor 32 Franklin Roosevelt Lawyer 33 Harry Truman Farmer, Men's clothing retailer 34 Dwight Eisenhower Soldier (Supreme Allied Commander, Army Chief of Staff), President of Columbia University, 35 John F. Kennedy Writer, Sailor (Navy Lieutenant) 36 Lyndon Johnson Teacher, Public Official 37 Richard Nixon Lawyer 38 Gerald Ford Sailor (Navy Lieutenant Commander), Lawyer 39 Jimmy Carter Sailor (Navy Lieutenant)[1], peanut farmer[2], writer 40 Ronald Reagan[3][4] Actor & broadcaster, President of the Screen Actors Guild[5] 41 George H. W. Bush Pilot (Navy Lieutenant, Junior Grade)[6], Businessman (Oil)[7], Director of Central Intelligence[8] 42 Bill Clinton Lawyer, Law lecturer 43 George W. Bush Businessman (Oil[9], baseball)[10] 44 Barack Obama Lawyer[11], Law lecturer[12], and Community organizer
I don't know bout everywhere else, but we have to vote for the local member if we want that party to win, even if he is a complete arse
Here in Australia one of our political parties is the Australian Sex Party :smug:
I'd vote on a nationalist party if i was old enough.
[QUOTE=Chekko;23774057]I'd vote on a nationalist party if i was old enough.[/QUOTE] not cool.
Why? Nationalism =/= Nazism :downs:
It doesn't matter, Nationalists are retards on their own.
[QUOTE=Chekko;23774170]Why? Nationalism =/= Nazism :downs:[/QUOTE] but nationalism=stupid
[QUOTE=lnfx;23774045]Here in Australia one of our political parties is the Australian Sex Party :smug:[/QUOTE] Avatar fits.
[QUOTE=Chekko;23774057]I'd vote on a nationalist party if i was old enough.[/QUOTE] What exactly would this nationalist party stand for?
Venus Project
[QUOTE=RichyZ;23773984]Lawyers aren't average Americans, they are assholes.[/QUOTE] lankist will be president in our lifetime [editline]02:45PM[/editline] Also in the UK there is a similar situation, but at least we have more than two parties to choose from.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;23778514]lankist will be president in our lifetime [editline]02:45PM[/editline] Also in the UK there is a similar situation, but at least we have more than two parties to choose from.[/QUOTE] I think multiple parties are better than just two (or one, for that matter) if there can't be a disbursement of all parties. When you have two parties, you have to vote for [I]all[/I] of the beliefs of one or the other, not some of one, some of the other.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23778330]What exactly would this nationalist party stand for?[/QUOTE] It's a far right-winged party. To put in perspective on how right-winged, the BNP restricted membership of any races other than whites. They are major supporters of capitol punishment(execution). They are also proponents of restricting gay rights, thinking that you should only be allowed to be gay privately, otherwise no marriage or adoption rights. Though that's as far as I understand, I'm not interested much in British politics.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;23778995]It's a far right-winged party. To put in perspective on how right-winged, the BNP restricted membership of any races other than whites. They are major supporters of capitol punishment(execution). They are also proponents of restricting gay rights, thinking that you should only be allowed to be gay privately, otherwise no marriage or adoption rights. Though that's as far as I understand, I'm not interested much in British politics.[/QUOTE] No, no, I know what a nationalist party usually entails, I wanted to know specifically what Chekko meant by it.
America shouldn't have more than 2 parties, at least not until it also has proportional representation. (Percentage of votes=percentage of seats in government) The more parties you have, the less votes one party needs to get elected. With 10 parties, the president could be chosen when almost 90% of America wanted someone else to win.
I'm sorry if you advocate the destruction of a political party you know very little about the political workings of America. They're critical aspects of our democracy and despite their flaws they provide a much greater purpose than you're giving them. Independents are historically much less reliable than anyone in a political party and actually have a history of fucking shit up (Lieberman, for instance). The purpose of a political party (for the public) is to have an ideology that you stick behind. It provides a logical thought process behind decisions; those who do not identify with a political party, calling themselves Independents and often "moderates" have no logical thought process behind their actions, which is why they're forced to address issue to issue. Fuck, I'd trust a republican over an independent, because at least I know that a republican will have a core set of beliefs behind his decisions. In addition to that political parties provide a system of accountability; ie, this way we know someone with similar beliefs will not be voted into office if their predecessor fucks up. Also, the political parties (and the loyalties associated) are extremely important as well because of the fact that it broadens the amount of voters we have coming to the polls during elections. In a perfect world, everyone would examine each candidate and their beliefs, however, the fact of the matter is that few people do that, simply because they don't have the [I]time[/I]. America has one of the most politically active cultures in the world, and yet, our turnout is only about 65%. If you make it so that in order to vote in a manner that's not completely fucking arbitrary (aka showing up and selecting some random fucker you saw on tv that you said "HEH I LIKE THIS GUY") you'd see a shift in voter turnout for the worst; it would decrease dramatically and the vote of the president would be placed in the hand of political elites, which do [I]not [/I]represent the public at large whatsoever. Political elites are people who have a significant role in the political process, such as campaign contributors, CEOs, and other lobbyists. Aka, people that know what they're doing. While this is all well and good, these historically conservative views would not only allow a complete commercialization of the political process, it would completely destroy the ability for the liberals to take control (we've got significantly fewer political elites; ours tend to be educators and current liberal politicians). What we would see is the growth of a political aristocracy because the average american simply doesn't have the time to devote to learning the ins and outs of the political system and all possibly political beliefs in the country. This aristocracy would be absolutely crippling to our society because of the fact that we've had no significant cleavage (besides race) to create separate social classes. Our lower, middle, and upper class economic classes have nowhere near the same implications as the class cleavages created by the feudal system over in Europe. the basic [B]purpose [/B]of a political party is to do exactly what you said in the op; give a face to one set of political beliefs that a person can get behind and trust to generally represent them. If you think that political parties in america need to be disassembled you do not know enough about American culture and politics. I'd love to see a pluralist society over here in the states, but the problem is that our political system is radically different than those of European countries. We don't have a representative democracy like they do. We're majoritarianism, they're pluralist. They're different, and both equally effective. [editline]10:49AM[/editline] ps that's only the benefits for the public i can start on the benefits for upcoming politicians if you'd like briefly, you understand if it weren't for political parties President Obama wouldn't have a chance in hell to get elected and make one of the foremost racial breakthroughs in fucking decades
[quote]feudal system over in Europe.[/quote] :colbert: [editline]05:10PM[/editline] I agree with everything you put except that btw
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23778665]I think multiple parties are better than just two (or one, for that matter) if there can't be a disbursement of all parties. When you have two parties, you have to vote for [I]all[/I] of the beliefs of one or the other, not some of one, some of the other.[/QUOTE] Agreed. to hell with the 2 party state. We have 4 or 5 major parties here and we're doing alright [editline]01:37PM[/editline] Parties are very necessary things to have in the political process, though
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;23780542]:colbert: [editline]05:10PM[/editline] I agree with everything you put except that btw[/QUOTE] feudal europe has created quite a few cleavages not all of europe had a feudal system I'm sure but it was pretty widespread [editline]01:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23778665]When you have two parties, you have to vote for [I]all[/I] of the beliefs of one or the other, not some of one, some of the other.[/QUOTE] see this is the thing that doesn't seem to translate to people your opinion on a specific subject [I]doesn't matter[/I]. It's entirely about the ideology behind it; for example, conservatives are for economic freedom and social control. Liberals are about economic control and social freedom. The parties represent that as a whole; and as long as the things they do go towards that goal, it's a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;23774224]but nationalism=stupid[/QUOTE] :downs:
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23782014] see this is the thing that doesn't seem to translate to people your opinion on a specific subject [I]doesn't matter[/I]. It's entirely about the ideology behind it; for example, conservatives are for economic freedom and social control. Liberals are about economic control and social freedom. The parties represent that as a whole; and as long as the things they do go towards that goal, it's a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE] So who do I vote for? I want social freedom [I]and[/I] economic freedom.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23783764]So who do I vote for? I want social freedom [I]and[/I] economic freedom.[/QUOTE] libertarian? depends on whether you put greater focus on social liberty or economic liberty i'd honestly suggest social liberty because social progress tends to pave the way for new job markets and is also overall better for society as a whole if anything is clear in the past few decades is that given too much economic freedom the upper class will go to town and fuck shit up in favor of getting a third bentley and the economic "control" given by the dems really isn't very extreme, it's just got taxes (big whoop) and regulation on some of the more lucrative businesses
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.