Political Parties
 

These are the parties which emerged during the ratification of the US constitution. Some of the issues may be dated. That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.


Federalists

1. Favored strong central government.
2. "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.
4. Strongest in Northeast.
5. Favored close ties with Britain.
6. Emphasized order and stability.

Republicans

1. Emphasized states' rights.
2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Preference for agriculture and rural life.
4. Strength in South and West.
5. Foreign policy sympathized with France.
6. Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

Damn the Republicans!

May the Federalists live long and successfully!

What points made you choose the Federalist? Why didn't you vote?

Oh I voted Federalist, don't worry.

Sorry for not posting a reason, I was busy.

I favor the Federalists because I believe that they are what the United States defines; they symbolize what the nation was created for: equality, freedom, justice, and the right to a happy life.

To me, the Republicans are like a Democratic form of a Dictatorship. They believe that the Constitution is to be taken strictly into account, but hasn't free thinking about it taught us that we must build upon the base of our government to advance into a better nation? I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with their political ideas.

One of the good points you made was in regards to the Republican idea of trust in the people. If history has taught us anything, it's that the people cannot be trusted fully. True, they deserve their rights, but too much can be a bad thing (the Roman Empire taught us that). To me, it seems that we should act as if we are holding the reigns of a horse: there's a time to loosen your grip and there's a time to hold tight and stand fast. FDR, for instance, exercised this idea during World War II. He didn't give us the truth about the war because we came very close to losing (perhaps luck saw us through). He gave us what he knew was best: motivation and new ideas.

Then there's the states' rights issue that I must make with the Republicans. This idea influences that the states should act as their own country in some respects, not as a united nation. The Articles of Confederation gave us this idea abroad, but we know today how much of a failure that was. States shouldn't be independent; they should be forced to work together to make an exceptional nation, like a watch. All the cogs and screws must work in perfect synchronization. Making the states work together also gives us the opportunity to cut down on the amount of arguments that might break out between them.

Commerce and manufacturing, however, is what I admire best in the Federalist beliefs. IF the United States were to become a nation that was based off manufacturing and trade, we could become like China, only much better (with rights, currency, and what have you). Assuming that we were to become a major power in manufacturing, like China, in which a majority of the Earth depended on us, we could have them by the balls. The idea: "Meet our demands and follow us or we shut down with you and watch you fall apart." Simple and effective, if used correctly.

Thank you for your input Stealth Hunter.

That's an interesting observation because at one time the US was the mightest industrial power on the planet.

Well, personally, I'd endorse the Klingons if I thought it would precipitate a change in the US political scene... :shifty:

Pardon my cynism, but that is why the left cannot be taken seriously.

Always looking toward comedians, movies or star trek. Reality is much too scary.

Vote in the poll!

I would but the Romulans aren't listed... ;)

The question was: That being said which party would you be affiliated with, or would most closely identify.

"Neither" wasn't a choice... This is a good demonstration of just how the US political system has evolved/devolved.... If you're not in one party or the other, your not taken seriously and run the risk of incurring other people cynical remarks... LOL...

Beyond that, it becomes a choice of "party" not "ability", not "is he/she really the right person for the job"? BTW, that's what I measure, the persons abililty... not how much $$$ they raise or their party affiliation...

When was the last time, or any time, an 'independent' was elected? :hmm:

You are absolutely correct DI. The last time a serious independent canditate (other than Joe Liberman in Connecticut, b/c the Democrats didn't like his stance on the actions in Iraq, what does that tell you) was Ross Perot. He sucked votes from GHWB and Bill Clinton was elected as a result.

Independents are nothing more than 'blood suckers' for the fringe. That is why you'll never see an independent candidate so long as the current system is in place. They have been even more marginalized.

Remember:
Every country gets the government it deserves.

Yea the lefties are the deluded ones... And having a sense of humour isn't a bad thing. The right won't take the left seriously simply because... and the reason is whatever the loudest a$$hat pundit can latch onto that isn't even politically relevant. You might scoff at comedians but they say alot more truth than many politicians or 'serious' commentators, the only problem is you dismiss it and use the person's appearance against them. ad hominems galore. oh and don't forget the broad generalizations. LOTS AND LOTS OF GENERLIZATIONS!

whichever one slows down immigration to the country and starts kicking out and blocking the building of mosques in britain would be my choice...:shifty::yep:

Undoubtably...

I didn't say deluded. Following the wrong folks. You, P-funk, of all people should should be disgusted with the profit that these people make for the big corporations in the name of comedy. Jon Stewart's production company owns Colbert's show, and makes a profit catering to peoples lowest denominator. Its like NASCAR for the left.

Yipes! And all these years I thought sitcoms (which also make obscene amounts of $$$ for their respective companies and networks) were 'intellectual manna"... Thx for setting me straight WG... LOL... ;)

C'mon, if you can't laugh or parody or lampoon, you end up constipated with stomach ulsers...

I'm just surprised our Constitution has survived all these years. We argue this all the time at work. As long as we are not a monolithic utopia, there will always be parties, atleast 2 of the cursed things. I think the "independent" person is a fence-sitter who doesn't want to take sides. I guess it's not perfect, but I like the 2 party system, at least you know where a politician stands (more or less):roll: . I think more parties= more chaos. Just look at the Russian political system. How many parties do they have, and what the hell do they believe in?

This is interesting to look at in a modern perspective:know: .



Republicans:
1. States rights, as long as it suits them:dead:
2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution?
3. Preference for Business'
4. Still strong in South and Mountain West.
5. Foreign policy sympathized with ourself.
6. Stressed civil liberties ( does not include terrorists) and trust in the people (still true?)

Democrats:
1.Central gov't is the center of the universe, run by themselves.
2. Constitution??? As long as it is politically correct.
3. Panders to unions.
4. East Coast, West Coast, union states.
5. All power to UN
6. What evere feels good at the moment and doesn't challenge their control (then look out):dead:

Ouch! I'd prefer to think of independents as folks who just "think and believe" differently than the "established" political parties...

Well, the "more or less" clause is what gets us in trouble IMO... I usually end up voting for the "less", believing he or she to be the "more"...

Glorious, isn't it? Personally, I think the more parties, the better. Why? Anyone who wishes to make an educated decision about the electoral/political system should be better informed considering the number of choices. Not just the same old "republican vs. democrats" schtick...

Not only that, but it injects a bit of uncertainty into the system, a "spoiler" can make or break victory for a particular candidate forcing changes (good/bad) that would otherwise not happen.

I think the independent is someone who is disenchanted with the two party system. Look what we have a choice of:

Republican: A party of corrupt business oriented leeches no matter the repercussions. The public is stupid and deserve to be taken advantage of. Live life how I say not as I doers. Who is against everything the other party tries to do just because they are the other party no matter how good the idea.
OR
Democrat: A party of corrupt, promise anything. Socially unrealistic. Give country away, borderline insane whose leadership is frighteningly idiotic. Who is against everything the other party tries to do just because they are the other party no matter how good the idea.

I'm disillusioned to the max. It's time to take back the country.

@Brad, LOL! :rotfl:

As my friend Wes (a political science major from WSU, Class of '71) puts it; "Voting is now the choice of the evil of two lessers." :damn:

Yup. The America I grew up in (HS grad in 1975) no longer exists... Big $$$, career politicians, special interest groups, a politically apathetic citizenry and illegal aliens are putting the US "down the tubes"... :nope: