Jump to content
270soft Forum
jdm06ltd

Political Parties

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

George Washington detested political parties. Are they actually helping or hurting us?

The rigid, rigged, corrupt two-party system that controls the electoral process through institutional means is hurting the U.S. and taking away voter choice. A multi-party system would be better. Also, Benjamin Franklin detested political parties too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jdm06ltd said:

@Patine are you ragging on the electoral college? 

It's purposes for creation have all become obsolete, the last nail being the election of a populist in 2016 (stopping the election of a populist was one of the stated purposes of the EC detailed at the Philadelphia Convention). Also, the EC was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, a man who had the utmost of contempt and distrust in the capabilities of the common voters and their competence to choose their own leaders, in the most condescending and paternalistic ways. Also, another of the biggest reasons behind it was the compromise that stopped the Slave States from seceding right from the start, instead of waiting until 1860/1861. So yes, it's an outmoded and contemptable that was worn out any purpose it may have one had and should have been done away long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's purposes for creation have all become obsolete, the last nail being the election of a populist in 2016 (stopping the election of a populist was one of the stated purposes of the EC detailed at the Philadelphia Convention). Also, the EC was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, a man who had the utmost of contempt and distrust in the capabilities of the common voters and their competence to choose their own leaders, in the most condescending and paternalistic ways. Also, another of the biggest reasons behind it was the compromise that stopped the Slave States from seceding right from the start, instead of waiting until 1860/1861. So yes, it's an outmoded and contemptable that was worn out any purpose it may have one had and should have been done away long ago.

So SF, LA, Chicago, NYC and Philly (states) get to decide who the president is? No offense but all of those cities are crapholes. If they pick someone that will turn every state into a craphole I dont want that. That is why the EC was invented to prevent California and NY from being the only states that have a say Nebraska Wisconsin and Idaho may as well not vote. 

 

I do agree that the 2 party system is bad. I envision a 6 party system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdm06ltd said:

So SF, LA, Chicago, NYC and Philly (states) get to decide who the president is? No offense but all of those cities are crapholes. If they pick someone that will turn every state into a craphole I dont want that. That is why the EC was invented to prevent California and NY from being the only states that have a say Nebraska Wisconsin and Idaho may as well not vote. 

 

I do agree that the 2 party system is bad. I envision a 6 party system. 

I just told you that is NOT why the EC was created? How could such a reason have been there at a time when the U.S. was about 80% rural and the largest city was at about 40 000 people out of over 2.5 million (the rough demographics of the nation in 1787)? Also, in world electoral history as a whole, especially since the Industrial Revolution and beyond, artificially overinflating representation of rural over urban constituents is only ever a desperate political ploy of reactionary paleoconservatives struggling to maintain rapidly diminishing political relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

So SF, LA, Chicago, NYC and Philly (states) get to decide who the president is? No offense but all of those cities are crapholes. If they pick someone that will turn every state into a craphole I dont want that. That is why the EC was invented to prevent California and NY from being the only states that have a say Nebraska Wisconsin and Idaho may as well not vote. 

 

But as it stands right now, many people in other states don't have  a say either. I'm lucky in a state that does have a considerable sway, Iowa, is where I live.

I favor a multi-party system much more, and it has to do with how the House/Senate/Presidency is formed. It encourages you to vote for the "Least bad" option. Not saying that if another party would pop up I would automatically support, as I currently still find home with the one that I think is best for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

I know what you said i just think you are wrong. 

You would like the Alternate universe scenario I created. 6 major parties that control congress and the senate (Constitution Party, Modern Whig Party, Progressive Party, Libertarian Party, and the Nationalist party)

 

Party 

Modern Whig is like Republican Party but mainly moderate conservatives

Constitution Party is far right radicals

Progressive party is the far left party

Libertarians are a Centrist party, candidate can lean right or left as long as they agree witj 3 basic issues which are

"Social and Economic freedom are a right"

"The Constitution is not up for debate"

"You have the right to do whatever you wish with your body"

 

The Nationalist Party are Cnetrists that must oppose Foreign Aid of any kind, oppose any trade deals with foreign nations, and dont view the world as one economy, the candidate can be left wing or right wing on any or all other issues. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think political parties do hurt us, and also think a multi-party system would still be problematic. Having the only options be to think in line with a certain group is iffy for me (but may also just be human nature.) I like the idea of electing individuals better and have them find ways, as individuals, to collaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jdm06ltd I believe in the equality of each individual. As such, every person's vote should be equal as any other person's vote. It's a mistake to think that the population centers are going to turn Rossville, Kansas into an inner city cesspool if they get an equal vote with someone from Rossville. Nevertheless, this is a government for, by, and of the people and the majority of the people should have legislation that represents the majority, regardless of where the majority lives, so long as the laws do not violate the Constitution or International Laws, such as the Geneva Convention. So I have to agree with @Patine

In regards to political parties, I'd like to see the two-party monopoly broken up. I think competition over the people will lead to parties advocating much more practical and popular laws. and it will reduce symbolic words and actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

@Patine

I know what you said i just think you are wrong.

 

 

Please tell me how I am wrong. How wold the Founding Fathers have had reason to motive to create the EC in the mold you describe and not the one I do, given the context of the nation in late 18th Century, and the general mentality of social and governing doctrine of "White Christian Nations" in the late 18th Century as a whole? Please explain this to me in a way that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@jdm06ltd I believe in the equality of each individual. As such, every person's vote should be equal as any other person's vote. It's a mistake to think that the population centers are going to turn Rossville, Kansas into an inner city cesspool if they get an equal vote with someone from Rossville. Nevertheless, this is a government for, by, and of the people and the majority of the people should have legislation that represents the majority, regardless of where the majority lives, so long as the laws do not violate the Constitution or International Laws, such as the Geneva Convention. So I have to agree with @Patine

In regards to political parties, I'd like to see the two-party monopoly broken up. I think competition over the people will lead to parties advocating much more practical and popular laws. and it will reduce symbolic words and actions. 

But socialism turns cities into cespools....they poop on the street in NYC, Chicago, and LA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

But socialism turns cities into cespools....they poop on the street in NYC, Chicago, and LA

I, uh, live in NYC and have never once seen anyone pooping on the street, nor encountered poop on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jdm06ltd said:

But socialism turns cities into cespools....they poop on the street in NYC, Chicago, and LA

Uh, no. Rampant capitalism failing to provide sufficient jobs and services because of corporate self-interest and cutting corners, wages, and costs at every opportunity, even where they're products and services direly suffer, just to jack up artificial and empty profit margins is what creates that lovely phenomenon. It also creates ghost towns and wasteland former company towns outside of big cities. Socialism was created in the first place to, and has always had as it's ideological centre-purpose, to lash back on behalf of the working class against such excesses of the corporate and industrialist tiny minority elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

But socialism turns cities into cespools....they poop on the street in NYC, Chicago, and LA

I've live in Philadelphia. I've lived in NYC, Austin, Dallas, and spent a month's worth of time in more in each of the following cities: New Orleans, Boston, Washington DC, Houston, San Antonio and I've never seen a single person poop on the street. While 10% of some of these cities can seem derelict and subpar, about 90% of these cities are not anywhere near a cesspool, and are actually vibrant economies that make America powerful. All these cities are blend of both capitalism and socialism. They aren't at odds with one another, they are mutual partners. One needs the other to balance out the weaknesses of the other. It's the imbalances between the two that cause the problems. 

A city is going to be dirty no matter how capitalistic or not a country is. It's the nature of having millions of people living in close proximity together. That has little to do with having an electoral college or not and it has little to do with capitalism or socialism. 

Expand your horizons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdm06ltd said:

Progressive party is the far left party

So, communists? Or are you using "far-left" to mean social democrats and some further left liberals...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

So, communists? Or are you using "far-left" to mean social democrats and some further left liberals...

 

You're wasting your time. @jdm06ltd is another willfully ignorant individual of the modern day who does not understand the political spectrum or political science or ideology AT ALL, and doesn't wish to learn, because he stubbornly clings to lies and myths of his favourite manipulative ideologues and pundits, and blinds himself to anything else. A societal archetype that is, sadly and tragically, becoming more and more common in the modern day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

You're wasting your time. @jdm06ltd is another willfully ignorant individual of the modern day who does not understand the political spectrum or political science or ideology AT ALL, and doesn't wish to learn, because he stubbornly clings to lies and myths of his favourite manipulative ideologues and pundits, and blinds himself to anything else. A societal archetype that is, sadly and tragically, becoming more and more common in the modern day and age.

Ok, so evidently you never read my blog where I talk about political ideologies. Www.polititalkweekly.net just in case you are curious. Secondly, I am a political consultant its my job to know political ideologies. Call me Racist, call me homophobic or Islamaphobic and I will happily engage you and tell you why I am not any of those things. 

 

But the next time you call someone "ignorant" you better know who you are talking to. I work in politics for a living, I blog politics weekly, and just in case you wondered my IQ is 142....

 

Ill await your apology for calling me ignorant before I engage any of your other ramblings. 

 

@WVProgressive

They are Democratic Socialists and more liberal, liberals, other liberals, the more moderate ones would fall into another party Ideologically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

Ok, so evidently you never read my blog where I talk about political ideologies. Www.polititalkweekly.net just in case you are curious. Secondly, I am a political consultant its my job to know political ideologies. Call me Racist, call me homophobic or Islamaphobic and I will happily engage you and tell you why I am not any of those things. 

 

But the next time you call someone "ignorant" you better know who you are talking to. I work in politics for a living, I blog politics weekly, and just in case you wondered my IQ is 142....

 

Ill await your apology for calling me ignorant before I engage any of your other ramblings. 

 

@WVProgressive

They are Democratic Socialists and more liberal, liberals, other liberals, the more moderate ones would fall into another party Ideologically. 

I have not read your blog, but I have not seen a damned thing you've posted on these forums, in all of your 895 posts, that disproves my assertation of you, or does anything but reinforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

Ok, so evidently you never read my blog where I talk about political ideologies. Www.polititalkweekly.net just in case you are curious. Secondly, I am a political consultant its my job to know political ideologies. Call me Racist, call me homophobic or Islamaphobic and I will happily engage you and tell you why I am not any of those things. 

 

But the next time you call someone "ignorant" you better know who you are talking to. I work in politics for a living, I blog politics weekly, and just in case you wondered my IQ is 142....

 

Ill await your apology for calling me ignorant before I engage any of your other ramblings. 

You should really spell check your articles before publishing them, it's "Islamophobic" by the way.

10 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

@WVProgressive

They are Democratic Socialists and more liberal, liberals, other liberals, the more moderate ones would fall into another party Ideologically. 

Your wording makes it seem like you think of socialists as another offshoot of liberalism, rather than a totally separate and opposing ideology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

You should really spell check your articles before publishing them, it's "Islamophobic" by the way.

Your wording makes it seem like you think of socialists as another offshoot of liberalism, rather than a totally separate and opposing ideology. 

Liberals and socialists have too much in common to be considered opposing ideologies in todays terms anyways. If this were the 70s or 80s I would agree with you. But liberal voters from the 80s are a lot farther to the left now then they were then. 

 

I know they still have several different beliefs yes, but that gap closes more and more each year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

Liberals and socialists have too much in common to be considered opposing ideologies in todays terms anyways. If this were the 70s or 80s I would agree with you. But liberal voters from the 80s are a lot farther to the left now then they were then. 

 

I know they still have several different beliefs yes, but that gap closes more and more each year. 

This is completely wrong. Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota is a liberal. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan is a liberal. Tammy Duckworth Of Illinois is a liberal. None are socialists. Liberalism and Socialism are worlds apart—just because you don’t want them to be doesn’t make it untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jdm06ltd said:

Liberals and socialists have too much in common to be considered opposing ideologies in todays terms anyways.

No they don't, what Liberal is arguing for worker control of the means of production, what Socialist is calling for continued imperialism, the answer is none.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

This is completely wrong. Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota is a liberal. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan is a liberal. Tammy Duckworth Of Illinois is a liberal. None are socialists. Liberalism and Socialism are worlds apart—just because you don’t want them to be doesn’t make it untrue.

I beg to differ. Liberals are veering farther and farther to the left. All of those people except Duckworth have adapted the socialist ideology that we are in a global economy and that no we are not the greatest nation on earth, 10 years ago a liberal would say "I disagree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death for your right to speak it" now most liberals think that any speech that disagrees with theirs is hate speech....I didnt say they were the same thing yet, Duckworth, and FeinStein and even Joe Donnelly and Joe Manchin all still have some Sanity.....but that is slowly vanishing. Some liberal positions I get behind. I may be a Republican but I am a centrist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...