So, the Declaration of “Independence” was for whites only...

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,322
Reaction score
4,783
Points
280
Location
Washington
One of the enduring American myths we cherish is the two-party system. We must have two parties! To have three parties or more is impossible; to have only one, unthinkable.
We have more that three parties today but they usually don't get many votes, Libertarian, Green, & Constitutional. Throughout history we have had 3rd parties and some were pretty significant in elections, such as Ross Perot's Independent Party which garnered 20 million votes, Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and the Dixiecrat Party that carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina in the 1948 presidential election.
Indeed, and yet on this and most other MBs, most of the messages stupidly presume an absolute "Left" vs "Right" / "Liberal" vs "Conservative" / "Democrat" vs "Republican" political dichotomy. This is built in and something the Founders tried to avoid, at least originally, being an aspect of the British system that they really hated.. Because, in the final analysis, creating such stark, artificial divisions can only serve the interests of the established elites.. Be anti-democratic and hopelessly corrupt, in other words.

Take the issue of slavery here lately. People mostly jumping up and down blaming the Democratic Party as though the Republicans were apt to do a significantly better job had they won. They wouldn't have. Everyone knows this. Yet it's just this kind of crap that captivates all of far too many's political time and energy. We can no longer afford such luxury. Serious decisions need to be made now. Lots of work that's needed doing for decades. High time to end this "Party" nonsense and elect the people one supports directly. Also, mandate political participation. Civic engagement. Civil service.
The primary value of political parties is to reveal a candidates position on major issues. So if a candidate claims to be a republican then we know he or she supports or at least does not oppose certain principals or issues such as prolife, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, etc. Likewise candidates claiming to be a democrat will generally support right to choose, social welfare programs, mitigating climate change etc. Without political parties, voters would be faced with determining the position of hundreds of candidates on dozens of issues. There are many other pros and cons to political parties, but suffice to say, they are here to stay for a number of reasons.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,478
Reaction score
35,568
Points
2,190
One of the enduring American myths we cherish is the two-party system. We must have two parties! To have three parties or more is impossible; to have only one, unthinkable.
We have more that three parties today but they usually don't get many votes, Libertarian, Green, & Constitutional. Throughout history we have had 3rd parties and some were pretty significant in elections, such as Ross Perot's Independent Party which garnered 20 million votes, Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and the Dixiecrat Party that carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina in the 1948 presidential election.
Indeed, and yet on this and most other MBs, most of the messages stupidly presume an absolute "Left" vs "Right" / "Liberal" vs "Conservative" / "Democrat" vs "Republican" political dichotomy. This is built in and something the Founders tried to avoid, at least originally, being an aspect of the British system that they really hated.. Because, in the final analysis, creating such stark, artificial divisions can only serve the interests of the established elites.. Be anti-democratic and hopelessly corrupt, in other words.

Take the issue of slavery here lately. People mostly jumping up and down blaming the Democratic Party as though the Republicans were apt to do a significantly better job had they won. They wouldn't have. Everyone knows this. Yet it's just this kind of crap that captivates all of far too many's political time and energy. We can no longer afford such luxury. Serious decisions need to be made now. Lots of work that's needed doing for decades. High time to end this "Party" nonsense and elect the people one supports directly. Also, mandate political participation. Civic engagement. Civil service.
The primary value of political parties is to reveal a candidates position on major issues. So if a candidate claims to be a republican then we know he or she supports or at least does not oppose certain principals or issues such as prolife, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, etc. Likewise candidates claiming to be a democrat will generally support right to choose, social welfare programs, mitigating climate change etc. Without political parties, voters would be faced with determining the position of hundreds of candidates on dozens of issues. There are many other pros and cons to political parties, but suffice to say, they are here to stay for a number of reasons.
Parties also provide a political alliance for the candidate. Hard to operate by yourself
 

The Original Tree

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
27,838
Reaction score
5,377
Points
290
Location
OHIO
This is the argument of the radical left, wanting to tear down every symbol and statue of the Founding Fathers and of our Independence. That, as CNN puts it, the Declaration of “Independence” (they put that in quotes now), didn’t apply to blacks or natives.

My question to you America hating BLM types is, why should had the white people from Europe built a free nation for Africans? Or for the Natives? Or for the Chinese for that matter? Most of the people in the colonies considered themselves English in heritage, if not nationality. They were after all building and expanding colonies for the British and the crown. They had their rights as citizens diminished and stripped, that’s all they really wanted at first, was their rights back and representation. People who weren’t ever British citizens to begin with, probably didn’t care much.

It’s stupid to think that these people of English and European descent would fight to make a free nation for Natives, Africans, or anyone else but themselves. A people and culture are defined by their language, values, and religion. It’s funny how BLM types like morons on this board feel that Africans were entitled to the benefits of these white people fighting a war for independence. Why couldn’t the Africans build their own free nation somewhere? Oh I know, they couldn’t build ships to sail to the Western Hemisphere to start any colonies. But they had the whole continent of Africa to make a new nation.

I find it interesting that the BLM idiots here think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every other early leader of our nation, should had been the White Saviors for Africans and Native peoples. Were the Natives and Africans too stupid to make their own free nation? They certainly had the numbers and the resources. So which is it, my BLM friends? Did blacks and natives need the white man to give them rights and freedom? Were they too stupid to accomplish this on their own? Why is it the white man’s responsibility to provide these things to “people of color”? Even today, the majority of blacks keep trusting in their white liberal savior, and they still remain the poorest, least educated, most violent group in America.
Martin Luther King made his arguments based on The Constitution and nothing else.

Democrats have blocked Civil Rights Legislation since the 1870s, and flew the Confederate Flag over their capitals when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
14,957
Reaction score
6,859
Points
1,095
Location
Walker County, TX
But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land.
Exactly. Times have changed. Time to grow up and just let all vote as equals.
NO. That breaks all the promises the Union made to small states. No knife-in-the-back shit to small states who signed on with promises made and kept all these years to keep creeps from the deep in densely populated holding their foot to the farmer's necks.

We won't let you hold the people in small states necks to your boot, and that's that.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,322
Reaction score
4,783
Points
280
Location
Washington
One of the enduring American myths we cherish is the two-party system. We must have two parties! To have three parties or more is impossible; to have only one, unthinkable.
We have more that three parties today but they usually don't get many votes, Libertarian, Green, & Constitutional. Throughout history we have had 3rd parties and some were pretty significant in elections, such as Ross Perot's Independent Party which garnered 20 million votes, Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and the Dixiecrat Party that carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina in the 1948 presidential election.
Indeed, and yet on this and most other MBs, most of the messages stupidly presume an absolute "Left" vs "Right" / "Liberal" vs "Conservative" / "Democrat" vs "Republican" political dichotomy. This is built in and something the Founders tried to avoid, at least originally, being an aspect of the British system that they really hated.. Because, in the final analysis, creating such stark, artificial divisions can only serve the interests of the established elites.. Be anti-democratic and hopelessly corrupt, in other words.

Take the issue of slavery here lately. People mostly jumping up and down blaming the Democratic Party as though the Republicans were apt to do a significantly better job had they won. They wouldn't have. Everyone knows this. Yet it's just this kind of crap that captivates all of far too many's political time and energy. We can no longer afford such luxury. Serious decisions need to be made now. Lots of work that's needed doing for decades. High time to end this "Party" nonsense and elect the people one supports directly. Also, mandate political participation. Civic engagement. Civil service.
The primary value of political parties is to reveal a candidates position on major issues. So if a candidate claims to be a republican then we know he or she supports or at least does not oppose certain principals or issues such as prolife, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, etc. Likewise candidates claiming to be a democrat will generally support right to choose, social welfare programs, mitigating climate change etc. Without political parties, voters would be faced with determining the position of hundreds of candidates on dozens of issues. There are many other pros and cons to political parties, but suffice to say, they are here to stay for a number of reasons.
Parties also provide a political alliance for the candidate. Hard to operate by yourself
True. Without political parties, legislation would often be passed by coalitions in the legislatures. Eventually coalitions would give way to more formal alliances, political parties. There are essential no nations on earth that do not have political parties. Even dictatorships have a party.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
662
Points
140
Fair enough. Trash the Dems and Repugs. Then no more permanently sanctioned or govt established parties. 20 year term limited. Have to keep inventing new ones, lol.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
662
Points
140
Information about candidates is readily available now. Search engines can easily sort out which most agree with one's stances on the issues of the day. It ain't the rocket science you portray it as. Issues are what should matter. Not Party affiliations.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,322
Reaction score
4,783
Points
280
Location
Washington
Information about candidates is readily available now. Search engines can easily sort out which most agree with one's stances on the issues of the day. It ain't the rocket science you portray it as. Issues are what should matter. Not Party affiliations.
Voters rarely do any research on the candidates. 75% of the voters, never even open election guides. If they actually had to research the candidates to determine there position on issues, most would not even vote.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top