For as long as I can remember, I've been told about the "wonder" of the American Two Party System; about how it is superior to all other political systems in the entire world! And yet, it is a known fact that as much as our Founders disliked and distrusted a strong central government, they really hated the idea of political parties! To them, if Government was but a necessary evil, political parties were an unnecessary one!
I wonder what they would think of our Two Party System?
I also wonder why so many Republicans, both Establishment and Tea Party types speak of the advantages of the Free Market and how competition is good for the economy, but that same competition is supposedly a bad thing when it comes to the political arena? "If you don't support the Party, the other guy will win!" "If there were too many political parties, Congress will never get anything done"!
If there were too many political parties, Congress would never get anything done... Yeah, Like that's a bad thing!
What do you folks think? Why is it that completion is good in the economic world, but bad in the political world?
Hate to tell you this, but we have MANY parties.
We do not have now, a two party system. America never has had a two party system. And the framers, who were obviously cognizant of the importance of protecting the freedom of political speech, would have rejected the very idea of a two party system that limits American's freedom of political expression and thought.
Quote from: daidalos on January 03, 2016, 09:23:16 AM
We do not have now, a two party system. America never has had a two party system. And the framers, who were obviously cognizant of the importance of protecting the freedom of political speech, would have rejected the very idea of a two party system that limits American's freedom of political expression and thought.
Yeah, it started out as a Representative form of Govt, morphed into a two party system resulting in a system representing the interests of the elite.
Quote from: carlb on January 03, 2016, 08:59:10 AM
Hate to tell you this, but we have MANY parties.
But we only have two with any real political power.
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
But we only have two with any real political power.
Oh, wait, hold your horses... that may be down to one soon!
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
But we only have two with any real political power.
Well, the next most famous 3rd Party is the Libertarian Party. Is it the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats that 2% support the Libertarian Party? Then there's the Green Party, the Communist Party and the Constitution Party. There are many others. The Tea Party is a revolution to TAKE BACK the Republican Party which was hijacked in the early 20th century by the Progressives.
Quote from: carlb on January 03, 2016, 03:47:34 PM
Well, the next most famous 3rd Party is the Libertarian Party. Is it the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats that 2% support the Libertarian Party? Then there's the Green Party, the Communist Party and the Constitution Party. There are many others. The Tea Party is a revolution to TAKE BACK the Republican Party which was hijacked in the early 20th century by the Progressives.
Actually, to a large extent, it is.
Or have you never heard the line about, "If you vote 3rd party, you automatically let the other major party win!"?
Kroz...
I'd say we are already there - judging by the recently passed Omnibus Spending Bill! What didn't Obama get in that 2100 page POS that he would have gotten with Reid and Pelosi?
NOTHING!
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 08:49:53 AM
What do you folks think? Why is it that completion is good in the economic world, but bad in the political world?
-You mean 'competition' ?
Economic is goods, services, and things like cost benefit analysis, which are intrinsic to the product on the market. Awful products and badly-run business will vanish pretty-quickly. It's the same with politicians IMO. I think you're conflating 'party system' with 'parliamentary governing'. The Founding Fathers set it up so America isn't privy to endless
no confidence reformations and coalition-building.
Any country only needs 2 parties.
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 08:49:53 AM
For as long as I can remember, I've been told about the "wonder" of the American Two Party System; about how it is superior to all other political systems in the entire world! And yet, it is a known fact that as much as our Founders disliked and distrusted a strong central government, they really hated the idea of political parties! To them, if Government was but a necessary evil, political parties were an unnecessary one!
I wonder what they would think of our Two Party System?
I also wonder why so many Republicans, both Establishment and Tea Party types speak of the advantages of the Free Market and how competition is good for the economy, but that same competition is supposedly a bad thing when it comes to the political arena? "If you don't support the Party, the other guy will win!" "If there were too many political parties, Congress will never get anything done"!
If there were too many political parties, Congress would never get anything done... Yeah, Like that's a bad thing!
What do you folks think? Why is it that completion is good in the economic world, but bad in the political world?
What?
Yes there are two dominant parties but in reality there are many more. The Tea Party is not in itself it's own party for two reasons. Firstly because it is a movement that could not (at first) be harnessed into one entity and secondly for strategic reasons. If it is to make a serious impact it has to be a part of the GOP to infiltrate the congress.
Quote from: daidalos on January 03, 2016, 09:23:16 AM
We do not have now, a two party system. America never has had a two party system. And the framers, who were obviously cognizant of the importance of protecting the freedom of political speech, would have rejected the very idea of a two party system that limits American's freedom of political expression and thought.
I really don't think that is quite correct, Daidalos.
WE had the Federalist which folded like a wet suit, especially after Burr did his thing and took out Hamilton, which in turn, then became the WHIGS, that eventually went the way of the Dodo Bird, giving way to the current Republican Party in 1856.
The Federalists were opposed by Jefferson's party, the Republican-Democrats, which eventually dropped the republican name and became simply the Democratic Party. How far that party has fallen from the days of Jefferson, and quite frankly, the Republicans have never actually been worth a fat rats ass.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 04, 2016, 10:55:42 AM
I really don't think that is quite correct, Daidalos.
WE had the Federalist which folded like a wet suit, especially after Burr did his thing and took out Hamilton, which in turn, then became the WHIGS, that eventually went the way of the Dodo Bird, giving way to the current Republican Party in 1856.
The Federalists were opposed by Jefferson's party, the Republican-Democrats, which eventually dropped the republican name and became simply the Democratic Party. How far that party has fallen from the days of Jefferson, and quite frankly, the Republicans have never actually been worth a fat rats ass.
Hey, Shooter. Be reallllllly glad we ain't got a Parliament. Get get down on those calloused old nubbies, raise those gunpowder-stained paws and shout
THANK YOU, JESUS! for that one!
Nice
opening second graf. :wink:
O/T and all that, but your mention of Hamilton sparks this question. Can the Treasury Department explain why they wish to remove the only SHOOTING VICTIM from our national currency, when they want to change our $10 bill? :blink:
Seems that the treasonous gungrabbing piece of warm cow dung we call our (p)Resident might want to hang on to old Alex. Good for the propaganda value, don'tchaknow.
/OT
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 03, 2016, 11:07:06 PM
If it is to make a serious impact it has to be a part of the GOP to infiltrate the congress.
Stated differently, the TEA movement is 100% wrong for free-spending Democrats dependent upon other people's money. Fiscal restraint is the wooden stake in the liberal heart. We need more stakes and more mallets.
Quote from: quiller on January 05, 2016, 12:51:14 AM
Hey, Shooter. Be reallllllly glad we ain't got a Parliament. Get get down on those calloused old nubbies, raise those gunpowder-stained paws and shout THANK YOU, JESUS! for that one!
Nice opening second graf. :wink:
O/T and all that, but your mention of Hamilton sparks this question. Can the Treasury Department explain why they wish to remove the only SHOOTING VICTIM from our national currency, when they want to change our $10 bill? :blink:
Seems that the treasonous gungrabbing piece of warm cow dung we call our (p)Resident might want to hang on to old Alex. Good for the propaganda value, don'tchaknow.
/OT
C'mon, Quill, you're a better student of history than that. The POS Lincoln was also a shooting victim.
I personally think Old Burr did his duty far to late regarding Hamilton, and gave him far too much time to damage the young republic.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 03, 2016, 10:09:23 PM
-You mean 'competition' ? Economic is goods, services, and things like cost benefit analysis, which are intrinsic to the product on the market. Awful products and badly-run business will vanish pretty-quickly. It's the same with politicians IMO. I think you're conflating 'party system' with 'parliamentary governing'. The Founding Fathers set it up so America isn't privy to endless no confidence reformations and coalition-building.
Any country only needs 2 parties.
I'm sure if you ask the DNC and the RNC, they'd agree with you - which is pretty much the problem as I see it! Eventually, the two dominant political parties become indistinguishable from one another, as the recent Ombibus Spending Bill has shown!
It is all too easy for the two parties to become two
wings of the same party!
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 03, 2016, 10:09:23 PM
Any country only needs 2 parties.
Ideally, there would be NO parties!
All representatives would seek what's best for
the general population, not special interests.
But vested interests formed the Democratic Party
to use the government to extract plunder from everyone else.
So everyone else HAD to form a 2nd party
to defend themselves against the Democrats.
About a parliamentary system,
European countries have proportional representation.
The USA elects representative by geographic districts.
So, in Europe, if a party gets 2 percent of the votes nationwide,
they get 2 percent of the seats in Parliament.
Usually, no one party gets a majority,
so the several parties negotiate with one another
to form coalitions to reach a majority.
In America, that negotiating between various factions
happens BEFORE the election (in a much more informal manner).
It's most apparent in the Democratic Party,
which is made up of a bunch of special interests
joined together to vote for one another's handouts.
People who want what's good for people's interests
as Americans are forced to gather in the Republican Party,
and still have to compete within the Party against
1) special interests
opposite those represented in the D Party, and
2) special interests
aligned with those represented in the D Party,
who are paid off by lobbyists to
not oppose the Dems!
Quote from: je_freedom on January 05, 2016, 07:17:23 AM
Ideally, there would be NO parties!
All representatives would seek what's best for
the general population, not special interests.
True, but only if the people were a virtuous people, which they are not.
QuoteBut vested interests formed the Democratic Party to use the government to extract plunder from everyone else.
HORSE SHIT! Simply not true.
QuoteSo everyone else HAD to form a 2nd party to defend themselves against the Democrats.
Again, simply not true. Is that how the Federalists, Whigs, and PUBS came to be? How about the Free Soil Party? Hint; that did not mean everyone got free land.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 05, 2016, 06:30:54 AM
C'mon, Quill, you're a better student of history than that. The POS Lincoln was also a shooting victim.
Just funnin' ya. I did forget about Lincoln. Can't really understand why, I just did.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 05, 2016, 06:30:54 AM
The POS Lincoln was also a shooting victim.
"Me too! Me too!"
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldcurrencyvalues.com%2Fimages%2F1934__500_bill_lgs.jpg&hash=7835698ae136790485125649c21c5cfa31b6dd27)
Quote from: kalash on January 06, 2016, 03:20:28 AM
"Me too! Me too!"
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldcurrencyvalues.com%2Fimages%2F1934__500_bill_lgs.jpg&hash=7835698ae136790485125649c21c5cfa31b6dd27)
That bill is not in circulation. The $5 (Lincoln) and $10 (Hamilton) are.
Quote from: kalash on January 06, 2016, 03:20:28 AM
"Me too! Me too!"
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldcurrencyvalues.com%2Fimages%2F1934__500_bill_lgs.jpg&hash=7835698ae136790485125649c21c5cfa31b6dd27)
Don't tell obama that McKinley's portrait is on it.
SIMPLE FIX:
No more Party Affiliations on any BALLOT.
Quote from: SalemCat on January 07, 2016, 07:40:58 PM
SIMPLE FIX:
No more Party Affiliations on any BALLOT.
RIGHT!! :rolleyes:
Look how well that is working out for our judges.
Quote from: walkstall on January 07, 2016, 07:44:20 PM
RIGHT!! :rolleyes:
Look how well that is working out for our judges.
Please explain.
Because I'm pretty sure that if there was no "D" beside the name, most Democrats would be completely baffled as to who to vote for.
Quote from: SalemCat on January 07, 2016, 07:57:09 PM
Please explain.
Because I'm pretty sure that if there was no "D" beside the name, most Democrats would be completely baffled as to who to vote for.
Sorry it when over you head. Judges say there nonpartisan. BS!
Quote from: walkstall on January 07, 2016, 08:11:25 PM
Sorry it when over you head. Judges say there nonpartisan. BS!
The Party sends out postcards
with the names of the "nonpartisan" candidates they endorse.
Quote from: walkstall on January 07, 2016, 07:44:20 PM
RIGHT!! :rolleyes:
Look how well that is working out for our judges.
This kid's becoming a laughingstock at express-train speeds. Our U.S. Supremely Ignorants (or the criminally incompetent 9th Circus) are the textbook example of nonpartisan nonsense.
Quote from: je_freedom on January 07, 2016, 08:15:56 PM
The Party sends out postcards
with the names of the "nonpartisan" candidates they endorse.
Unions hand out candidates' cards with all their endorsed candidates listed. Even illiterate shop rats can match names to get their stooge-of-choice onto a ballot.
Quote from: quiller on January 07, 2016, 08:31:39 PM
This kid's becoming a laughingstock at express-train speeds. Our U.S. Supremely Ignorants (or the criminally incompetent 9th Circus) are the textbook example of nonpartisan nonsense.
And I was trying to forget them democrats as they don't have "D" in back of there name. :rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on January 07, 2016, 08:37:29 PM
And I was trying to forget them democrats as they don't have "D" in back of there name. :rolleyes: :lol:
That's like the Democrats trying to replace their jackass symbol, with a circled capital D.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrrbgbdfkqwgbbfxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Ffbrrbrfbdxrgdbtrwkgxwdttffqkw%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201744%2F101111warning030-vi.jpg&hash=ec76334686a6c77968e172ebe640038733663590)