Should political parties be banned in the U.S.?

S

sear

serene
Should political parties be banned in the U.S.?

No need to ban currently practiced ideologies. But parties themselves?

BUT !!

a) The Constitution does not require political parties, and does not endorse either the Dems. or the GOP.

b) Our members of congress (MOC) swear their oath of fidelity to the Constitution. BUT !! Some of them show greater loyalty to party than to country, apparent perjury of that key oath element.

c) But would eliminating parties eliminate political partisanship?
 
sear said:
Should political parties be banned in the U.S.?

No need to ban currently practiced ideologies. But parties themselves?

BUT !!

a) The Constitution does not require political parties, and does not endorse either the Dems. or the GOP.

b) Our members of congress (MOC) swear their oath of fidelity to the Constitution. BUT !! Some of them show greater loyalty to party than to country, apparent perjury of that key oath element.

c) But would eliminating parties eliminate political partisanship?
Click to expand...
It's a novel idea, I have no party affiliation.
 
"Eliminate money from campaigning and there is no need of parties." Cg #3

Eliminating money from campaigning would be a disaster.

How would the candidates get their campaign messages out?

- They wouldn't have any $money (except perhaps their own?) to buy an ad, and publish their platform, their agenda.

- Would they even have the resources to drive their pickup truck from town to town to gladhand at churches and factories?

- If their own $money would be allowed, it would leverage HUGE advantage to the wealthy; an ideal recipe for plutocracy, among the most despicable forms of oligarchy.
 
#5

That's one approach.

You don't need me to present the advantages / benefits, of what you suggest.

But there are down-sides.

a) Some estimates indicate Trump got over a $Billion worth of press coverage $free to him, just by making outrageous news-making headlines, and then walking them back after he'd gotten the publicity.

- Mexicans are rapists. I'm gunna build a wall. Mexico will pay for it. Trump has been hedging on all that ever since.

- So it would invite a Jerry Springer approach to political campaigns in the U.S., and would advantage the gaudy campaigners in elections; concentrating their populations in our government positions.

b) The People get to vote on election day.

BUT !!

We also get to vote before that, by which candidate we write a check to.

I've made such donation before. Perhaps this recent presidential election might not seem the best example. Hillary hot $more, and lost.

BUT !!

She not only got more $money.
She also got millions more votes.
Hillary was in fact the popular favorite. If not for the electoral college, Hillary would be the president elect.
 
"A well functioning opposition is essential to democracy." NM #9

That's fine.

BUT !!

There can still be (for example) "liberal" & "conservative" without formal parties.
There could then still be political alliances, debate, & legislative negotiation.

BUT !!

Instead of alliances based upon PARTISANSHIP they could be alliances based on merit; what is actually best for the people. Novel idea.

"Without parties it would essentially become a single party state." NM #9

Potentially, perhaps.

But it could also become a non-partisan legislature, where legislation proceeded on basis of what is appropriate, rather than what Speaker Ryan or Speaker Pelosi think is best.
 
NUKE MOSCOW said:
We need to ban a political party, the Republican party.
Click to expand...
So much disrespect for the party that abolished Slavery, voted in higher percentages than Democrats in every major subsequent Civil Rights Act (1957, 1960, 1964 & 1965), and introduced & passed the 19th Amendment (women's right to vote), and 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits).

It doesn't make sense to "ban" political parties, because everyone's still free to vote and associate as they want. The answer to most political problems isn't banning something, it's informing citizens, which today's mainstream media and public education system does an incredibly poor job of... :palm:
 
sear said:
Should political parties be banned in the U.S.?

No need to ban currently practiced ideologies. But parties themselves?

BUT !!

a) The Constitution does not require political parties, and does not endorse either the Dems. or the GOP.

b) Our members of congress (MOC) swear their oath of fidelity to the Constitution. BUT !! Some of them show greater loyalty to party than to country, apparent perjury of that key oath element.

c) But would eliminating parties eliminate political partisanship?
Click to expand...

since the constitution neither confirms nor denies political parties the answer to your questions for a) and c) are no and b) is irrelevant

i sometimes think that politicians think that following oaths is optional. i would like to see them have real consequences. and congress critters be seated alphabetically not by party, but congress gets to set its own rules.
 
the "point"
"So much disrespect for the party that abolished Slavery, voted in higher percentages than Democrats in every major subsequent Civil Rights Act (1957, 1960, 1964 & 1965), and introduced & passed the 19th Amendment (women's right to vote), and 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits).
It doesn't make sense to "ban" political parties, because everyone's still free to vote and associate as they want. The answer to most political problems isn't banning something, it's informing citizens, which today's mainstream media and public education system does an incredibly poor job of..." b3

the counterpoint:
Republicans are resting on their laurels. We were a positive influence, decades ago ...
Sure. The GOP might have been grand indeed, a half century ago. Where have you been? Have you read a newspaper in the new millennium?
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003
Click to expand...
c5725774c467b13b9b8771277ae74b7774e6098.JPG


Lying U.S. into War is absolutely despicable.
And if you don't mind my opinion, I'm not sure it was McCain / Palin that lost the 2008 race. I suspect it was GWB that lost it for them; a referendum on the GOP itself; putting Obama into office. Similar story in 2012 perhaps.

And the 2016 Republican primary tells a similar story.
There were over a dozen Republicans seeking the nomination. Many of them were very well credentialed, current or former governors, etc.

The grass-roots Republicans picked Donald (I'm gunna drain the swamp) Trump. Even REPUBLICANS have rejected the Republican party.
 
You can't ban political parties thanks to the 1st Amendment. It would also be an extreme exercise in naïveté. What you can do is abolish government establishment of parties, like abolishing party primaries conducted on the taxpayer dime.
 
sear said:
the "point"
"So much disrespect for the party that abolished Slavery, voted in higher percentages than Democrats in every major subsequent Civil Rights Act (1957, 1960, 1964 & 1965), and introduced & passed the 19th Amendment (women's right to vote), and 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits).
It doesn't make sense to "ban" political parties, because everyone's still free to vote and associate as they want. The answer to most political problems isn't banning something, it's informing citizens, which today's mainstream media and public education system does an incredibly poor job of..." b3

the counterpoint:
Republicans are resting on their laurels. We were a positive influence, decades ago ...
Sure. The GOP might have been grand indeed, a half century ago. Where have you been? Have you read a newspaper in the new millennium?

Lying U.S. into War is absolutely despicable.
And if you don't mind my opinion, I'm not sure it was McCain / Palin that lost the 2008 race. I suspect it was GWB that lost it for them; a referendum on the GOP itself; putting Obama into office. Similar story in 2012 perhaps.

And the 2016 Republican primary tells a similar story.
There were over a dozen Republicans seeking the nomination. Many of them were very well credentialed, current or former governors, etc.

The grass-roots Republicans picked Donald (I'm gunna drain the swamp) Trump. Even REPUBLICANS have rejected the Republican party.
Click to expand...
The Iraq War initially had bi-partisan support, and the majority of Democratic senators supported it, including: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Dodd and Feinstein to name a few. There was no "lying" involved, just bad intelligence. Iraq had violated over 17 UN Resolutions, and although there was enough reason to go to war with them just on that basis alone, it was a horribly waged war because there were several opposing objectives involved. This really has nothing to do with the Republican Party, as there is nothing in the Republican Party platform that explicitly states that we should go to war with Iraq just to do it...

The Republican Party in the era of Obama, has tied their hands behind their backs and cut their respective balls off (with a few exceptions), because they are deathly afraid of the mainstream media attacking them and causing their constituents to reject them... Their fear was backwards. It was their cowardice and fear of the media damaging them that caused voters to reject the "insiders" and vote for Trump (the outsider) because he had no fear of anyone, and does not care what the media says about him. Republican voters were attracted to this because they support the Republican Party platform, which their own politicians were too afraid to support while in office... GWB may have helped lose it for McCain/Palin, but they were ahead in the polls after the RNC, but dropped after the economic collapse that the Democrat-controlled Congress oversaw... and THAT was what damaged them the most that year.
 
"You can't ban political parties thanks to the 1st Amendment. It would also be an extreme exercise in naïveté. What you can do is abolish government establishment of parties, like abolishing party primaries conducted on the taxpayer dime." T #16

Excellent point T. Thank you.
 
"The Iraq War initially had bi-partisan support, and the majority of Democratic senators supported it, including: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden ..." b3 #17

Yes!
But not based upon facts.
Instead based upon lies.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are
We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

All LIES!!

And even the U.K. prime minister fell for it.

You think he would have committed U.K. troops to it if he'd known following through would have DIRECTLY resulted in the proliferation of ISIL. Are you aware ISIL senior military leadership were mainly if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders? Commanders that Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld fired, cutting them loose and unleashing them upon the Middle East?

"John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Dodd and Feinstein to name a few." b3

GIGO
It's the essence of the syllogism. Embrace a false premise, the conclusion can be unreliable. Next time, the Republican president should not grotesquely disinform congress & the public.

"Although Iraq had violated over 17 UN Resolutions, and there was enough reason to go to war with them just on that basis alone, it was a horribly waged war because there were several opposing objectives involved."

Spoiling for a fight, any excuse will do.
It's not a question of whether there was justification.

It's the fact that:
- with well enforced North and South No-Fly zones
- with powerful sanctions confining Iraq & its economy
- with "UN" inspections & destroy regimes such as those of Blix & Ritter,
Iraq / Saddam was well maintained, and the entire region was stable.

Removing Saddam from power in Iraq was M O N U M E N T A L L Y self-defeating. It was a blunder of absolutely colossal proportions.

"This really has nothing to do with the Republican Party, as there is nothing in the Republican Party platform that explicitly states that we should go to war with Iraq just to do it..."

a) It was a Republican presidential administration that ordered it.

b) It was the Republican minority in the electorate (and essential help from SCOTUS w/ Bush v. Gore) that put President Bush (the lesser) into office.
 
sear said:
"The Iraq War initially had bi-partisan support, and the majority of Democratic senators supported it, including: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden ..." b3 #17

Yes!
But not based upon facts.
Instead based upon lies.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are
We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

All LIES!!

And even the U.K. prime minister fell for it.

You think he would have committed U.K. troops to it if he'd known following through would have DIRECTLY resulted in the proliferation of ISIL. Are you aware ISIL senior military leadership were mainly if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders? Commanders that Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld fired, cutting them loose and unleashing them upon the Middle East?

"John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Dodd and Feinstein to name a few." b3

GIGO
It's the essence of the syllogism. Embrace a false premise, the conclusion can be unreliable. Next time, the Republican president should not grotesquely disinform congress & the public.

"Although Iraq had violated over 17 UN Resolutions, and there was enough reason to go to war with them just on that basis alone, it was a horribly waged war because there were several opposing objectives involved."

Spoiling for a fight, any excuse will do.
It's not a question of whether there was justification.

It's the fact that:
- with well enforced North and South No-Fly zones
- with powerful sanctions confining Iraq & its economy
- with "UN" inspections & destroy regimes such as those of Blix & Ritter,
Iraq / Saddam was well maintained, and the entire region was stable.

Removing Saddam from power in Iraq was M O N U M E N T A L L Y self-defeating. It was a blunder of absolutely colossal proportions.

"This really has nothing to do with the Republican Party, as there is nothing in the Republican Party platform that explicitly states that we should go to war with Iraq just to do it..."

a) It was a Republican presidential administration that ordered it.

b) It was the Republican minority in the electorate (and essential help from SCOTUS w/ Bush v. Gore) that put President Bush (the lesser) into office.
Click to expand...
You are being very intellectually dishonest... Bush didn't "inform" Congress, the intelligence community informed Congress with the same facts they informed Bush with. You seem to be confusing Bush's national speech to the public (in front of Congress), as him "informing them", but they were already informed independently before that happened, and they saw fit to support the war of their own volition. You can try to revise history all you want with your "Bush lied" mantra based on the false premise that he "wanted" to go to war with Iraq regardless, but universal intelligence matched what U.S. intelligence was saying. The last thing Bush wanted was for us to be attacked again by some other "threat", and to have ignored the intelligence warning him of that "threat". There were mixed objectives, some of which were incredibly noble, such as a newer, friendlier Democracy in Iraq, that could've potentially paid dividends in our future. But the reality was more sobering, and the mixed objectives only clouded the efforts.

Republicans support a strong national defense, but they do not inherently support a war where there are mixed objectives and waning U.S. success in achieving them as originally hoped. One of the reasons Bush's poll numbers went down over the course of his presidency is not only due to how he never defended himself against the lies perpetuated by the mainstream media, but because Republicans did not want their party to be defined by a few of his "monumentally" questionable decisions that they didn't inherently support and distracted from the party's actual platform. And it's worth repeating... A single Republican president's decision to go to war, does not define the party's platform. Unlike when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, Bush was essentially rejected by his own party (as well as his brother, Jeb, more recently), and he has not been in the public eye much ever since he left office. Now, if he had continued to be worshiped the way that many in the Democrat party still worship Bill Clinton, then you could argue that Bush came to redefine the Republican Party platform, but this has not been the case. He didn't define the party, and the party has moved on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top