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

[Stealth Hunter]

Damn the Republicans!

May the Federalists live long and successfully!

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Damn the Republicans!

May the Federalists live long and successfully!

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

[Stealth Hunter]

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.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

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

[DeepIron]

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

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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

This is interesting to look at in a modern perspective .



Republicans:
1. States rights, as long as it suits them
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)

[DeepIron]

I think the "independent" person is a fence-sitter who doesn't want to take sides.

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

I guess it's not perfect, but I like the 2 party system, at least you know where a politician stands (more or less) .

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"...

I think more parties= more chaos.

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.

[nikimcbee]

[quote=DeepIron]

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 love the chaos, that means they leave us alone and just fight among themselves. I think both sides are more interested in doing what's best for the "party" and not the country.

If you don't like the politicians, vote the bastards outta office! We did it in 1994- Democrats totally depth- charged outta office! The Republicans didn't deliever, look what happened in our last election cycle.

I'm all for term limits!

[fatty]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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.

Yep. You cannot realistically expect that every individual will find proper their views sufficiently representated in a biparty system. It's a stretch to call it democracy. I like our system in Canada; the parties represent their views but because the parliament is much more partitioned, politicians are striking deals with other parties rather than demonizing them and mud-slinging since the opposition can bring forth a vote of confidence and call an election at any time.

It's a stretch to call it democracy.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

You are ironic wg. You proclaim the evils or the oddities or the inaccuracies of the left in a blanket statement, and in so doing you mimic the dogma of the right. There is little credibility in arguments predicated on broad generalizations. And I might interject that perhaps the left isn't the only body of thoughtful individuals who might be incorrect now and then.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

I'm bending a little towards you're stretching a little bit.

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra....22Republic.22

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[fatty]

Originally Posted by waste gate

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Sorry, this is silly. Being a republic does not exclude a state from being a liberal democracy. The United States is both. If you are appealing to the Madisonian contrast of a republic being a representation of the people and a democracy being direct rule by the people, fair enough. But this description is a little dated or else there would be no democratic states in the entire world and George W. Bush's democratic proliferation policies would sound really daft. Of course it is representative democracy, but none the less a democracy. Otherwise, whether republic, principality, or constitutional monarchy, etc. they're just meaningless titles. I certainly grant that there are speed bumps in the current U.S. style of electoral system that do not make it a perfect democracy (that's exactly what I was getting at in my last post, anyway), and we could start making a list of them, but it does not change the fact that every four years the state asks the public who they want to represent them.

Originally Posted by waste gate

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

You will have to explain this one, although I suspect that as above, our definitions of democracy are not in agreement.