|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 15:16:38 GMT -5
But if society had tried that in the 1860's they'd have all been hung.And while back then not a single political parties platform worked for such things, today at least one major political parties platform is specifically tailored toward those exact things. So all the Abolitionists were hung? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 15:18:03 GMT -5
And no one was killed a la Mississippi Burning fighting for Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 17:43:02 GMT -5
So back in the Golden Age of America when political parties loved their constituents, which party had a platform that involved legalizing gay marriage? Sorry, but I absolutely will never get behind the idea that things were better back when only wealthy white land owning men were allowed to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 23:42:32 GMT -5
I never said political parties loved their constituents. I said they only responded if they met the needs of their constituents and if they didn't new political parties would rise to meet those needs and replace the old parties. Personally, I think Political parties are essentially extra-constitutional part of American politics and should be abolished altogether. And I will never get behind the idea that political parties now have human rights and the best interest of their constituents at the hearts of their platform. They don't. And if the Republican and Democratic parties disappeared to be replaced by others who did, I wouldn't shed a tear, but I don't believe for a second the new parties would be any better than the old.
I never said political parties were better then, I said it was better when they were accountable for their actions and could be replaced. It was better when they responded to the needs of people rather than dictated to people what they should believe. Better than being invincible and so entrenched in the political process that their needs and desires trumps the actual needs of the the people. And don't thin political parties have anything to do with originating legislation for gay marriage or any other type of civil rights based issues, those only come into play when political parties have no other recourse.
And for a little historical perspective-marriage rights are not a priority in a society where 1 out of 3 women die in childbirth, the average lifespan is only into the 40's for the vast majority of people not in the upper classes, infant mortality was insanely high-more than 1 in 2 children died before the age of 3-priorities are ensuring survival and the quantity of life before ensuring the quality of life. If the quantity of life is in jeopardy people will make sacrifices regarding quality of life to ensure their survival and worry about that once their life is not in constant jeopardy. It is not until massive industrialization radically altered the standards of living and advances in medicine eliminated some of those issues that quality of life issues became a political issue.
That's not to say marriage rights are not an important issue in today's world, but the world was a vastly different place 150 years ago and people had different priorities. Unless people expect to survive, everything else is secondary to it.
And as for only wealthy white people being allowed to vote-have we really come so far when political parties are passing voter laws restricting people's rights to vote because of issues as to types of identification cards-cards the wealthy have easy access to but the poor do not? Because yeah, those political parties today have the people's best interests at heart when they sponsor that type of legislation.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 6, 2014 0:27:57 GMT -5
And as for only wealthy white people being allowed to vote-have we really come so far when political parties are passing voter laws restricting people's rights to vote because of issues as to types of identification cards-cards the wealthy have easy access to but the poor do not? Because yeah, those political parties today have the people's best interests at heart when they sponsor that type of legislation. -M I don't really like the plural in "political parties" as it's used here. I know it's in fashion to say both sides are just as bad, but there is only one party supporting voter suppression via ID cards. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 0:31:55 GMT -5
But if society had tried that in the 1860's they'd have all been hung.And while back then not a single political parties platform worked for such things, today at least one major political parties platform is specifically tailored toward those exact things. So all the Abolitionists were hung? -M Only the male ones, surely. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 6, 2014 12:57:29 GMT -5
And as for only wealthy white people being allowed to vote-have we really come so far when political parties are passing voter laws restricting people's rights to vote because of issues as to types of identification cards-cards the wealthy have easy access to but the poor do not? Because yeah, those political parties today have the people's best interests at heart when they sponsor that type of legislation. -M I don't really like the plural in "political parties" as it's used here. I know it's in fashion to say both sides are just as bad, but there is only one party supporting voter suppression via ID cards. Valid point that both parties are not behind the voter suppression movements. But as far as political parties looking out for the well-being of the average citizen, neither party really shines. I'd like to think one party is better about it, but if I'm honest, it's only a little better. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 6, 2014 13:25:30 GMT -5
I don't really like the plural in "political parties" as it's used here. I know it's in fashion to say both sides are just as bad, but there is only one party supporting voter suppression via ID cards. Valid point that both parties are not behind the voter suppression movements. But as far as political parties looking out for the well-being of the average citizen, neither party really shines. I'd like to think one party is better about it, but if I'm honest, it's only a little better. Choosing between the major parties is like choosing your breakfast when the alternatives are:
Toast with no butter or jam that has been sitting on the table for a few hours;
Or a clump from the litter box.
Neither is what you want, but one is still a lot better than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 13:44:01 GMT -5
I prefer to think of it as being given the choice between two forms of virulent cancer.
One is certainly worse than the other; neither is good for you; both really ought to be obliterated ASAP.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 14:29:35 GMT -5
The problem is that the average citizen doesn't have time to deeply investigate both the issues and the candidates, so a party platform is convenient, even if it completely polarizes debates to the point that they become meaningless.
I'll be honest. I've never ONCE done my homework on state representative running for office. I don't know their platforms and stances, but if I know their party, I have a basic idea what I'm voting for.
It isn't right. It isn't working. But I can't think of a better way. The vast majority of people simply aren't going to attend Lincoln-Douglas style debates for every government position up for vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Nov 6, 2014 20:30:51 GMT -5
I was pretty happy with the midterm results. The Republicans picked up the Senate by a probable 54-46 margin that should help deal with the tough map they face in 2016. The House may wind up with the biggest Republican majority since 1928. The real shocker was in the governorships where several blue states got Republican governors and the targets like Scott Walker held on to power for a 31-18-1 majority. The Republicans also expanded control of state legislatures to its highest margin in a century. Not bad for a party people thought was on the edge of extinction six years ago.
I am a Tea Party member that gave his first campaign contribution to Ronald Reagan at the age of ten. I have donated to organizations connected to the Koch Brothers. I may be the only person on Earth to shake hands with Dick Cheney and Mark Millar in the same week. (sadly, I never got the Lady Thatcher/ Alan Moore double) While I mostly identify with the Republican Party, I frequently bolt to the right and vote for Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates. Dan B. mentioned that he liked to freak out conservative colleagues by referring to Obama as too conservative, I've freaked out progressives by calling George W Bush too left wing.
Yes, there is a five syllable fascist/ Legion of Doom member/ stupid clump of kitty litter in your forum.
Time for me to finally put politics behind me this week and read some comics. Have a good night.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 6, 2014 20:51:24 GMT -5
The Libertarian stance is somewhat understandable as no one like the idea of Big Brother, and yet, there are many things government does right and not looking to profit from.
I'm all for keeping government in check and all, but I don't know what you would strip out of the existing system. Reform perhaps, but hack away, isolate and kill ?
Let's see. The VA, social security, the EPA, student loans, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the mail service, NASA, the CDC, FBI, Health & Human Services, etc ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 3:31:35 GMT -5
The problem is that the average citizen doesn't have time to deeply investigate both the issues and the candidates, so a party platform is convenient, even if it completely polarizes debates to the point that they become meaningless. I'll be honest. I've never ONCE done my homework on state representative running for office. I don't know their platforms and stances, but if I know their party, I have a basic idea what I'm voting for. It isn't right. It isn't working. But I can't think of a better way. The vast majority of people simply aren't going to attend Lincoln-Douglas style debates for every government position up for vote. The real reason for political parties is campaign finance. The party platform is there, and many politicians adhere to most of it, but it's definitely not set in stone for each and every one of them. If there were more party options, there would still be the same amount of people representing us, likely the same amount of people pursuing politics, likely with the same political ideology. So Barry Sanders calls himself independent. How is he ideologically different from Elizabeth Warren? When does he not toe the Democratic party line 100%? If the Green Party had financed his campaign, would he be better or worse? I'm assuming he'd be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 3:50:08 GMT -5
Never mind.
I don't much like this thread anymore; I'm hoping my appreciation for the forum itself isn't irreversibly poisoned as well.
Thank you, Block function.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 7, 2014 11:01:31 GMT -5
Having read senator McConnel's comments about the Environmentalist Left...  The environment is not a hippie fashion. It's what we depend on to survive. People like McConnell or Canada's own Stephen Harper err badly when they think it is less important than more money in the pockets of oil company shareholders. |
|
