Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:19 AM
 
1,805 posts, read 1,456,585 times
Reputation: 1895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Despite being surprised to see my 2008 thread resurrected, here it is 2012, and another presidential election upon us, where are the Libertarians running for local offices around the country? Don't you think you need that kind of structure to build a Presidential run?
Don't know what the ballot looks like where you live but here in Kansas there are, and have been for quite a while, several Libertarians running for several different offices at different levels of government. I have been voting for them for a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2012, 01:06 AM
 
791 posts, read 456,622 times
Reputation: 141
George Washington, on parties and the Constitution...
Quote:
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
He tried to warn us, but we wouldn't listen....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 03:08 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,167 posts, read 22,137,026 times
Reputation: 23791
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Zona Stona View Post
George Washington, on parties and the Constitution...
He tried to warn us, but we wouldn't listen....
Sure we did. He said the Constitution must require amendment to change it, and require it, we did. And the amendments started coming shortly after it was signed. Washington's letter was a warning not to lapse back into confederacy, as that system did not work for the common good.

As I already mentioned, the very construction of the Constitution allows only two parties as a practical method of choosing our delegates. If the founders had wanted more than two parties at a time sharing political power equally, the Constitution would have been much more similar to the British Parliament- it could have been written to be similar to the Canadian constitution, which is parlimentary but lacks the houses of Lords and Commons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 03:21 AM
 
791 posts, read 456,622 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Sure we did. He said the Constitution must require amendment to change it, and require it, we did. And the amendments started coming shortly after it was signed. Washington's letter was a warning not to lapse back into confederacy, as that system did not work for the common good.

As I already mentioned, the very construction of the Constitution allows only two parties as a practical method of choosing our delegates. If the founders had wanted more than two parties at a time sharing political power equally, the Constitution would have been much more similar to the British Parliament- it could have been written to be similar to the Canadian constitution, which is parlimentary but lacks the houses of Lords and Commons.
Say WHAT?? Let's hear a little more from old George, shall we??

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,340,278 times
Reputation: 2922
It is a up hill battle for the Campaign for Liberty endorsed candidates to win a election even in the confines of the {R} party. In 2010 I decided to pick one to give cash contributions too since I do not have a lot of money. I picked R J Harris in Oklahoma because I thought he had a good chance to unseat Tom Cole. Even though Harris ran a great and professional campaign he did not come close.

As you all know we send incumbents right back to there seats by a wide majority and I do not see that changing. Once they are in the voters allow them to be entrenched. The CFL I think has about 5 reps in the House and Senate, can't go to the site to check. The movement has to start somewhere and it is going to be a long battle considering the electorate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,176 posts, read 10,648,521 times
Reputation: 9644
Here's a litmus test for voting -
IF a candidate has coffers filled by an extreme majority of unions, businesses, corporations, *.org groups, and spends that money to run endless ads on why he is or should be your hee-ro, rather than basing his campaign on his proven and historically accurate accomplishments for others -
THEN your vote, your voice, your opinions, your very life - doesn't mean a thing to him. Or her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,844,707 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You, the guy that has praised Obama over and over, while kissing his feet is an independent.

So you voted for Bush? The other elder Bush? Dole? Reagan? Ford? Nixon?
I voted for Bush in his re-election bid and I voted for Bush Sr in his initial bid for office. I also voted for Nixon. Not to mention several state level and Congressional level Repubs. I do not always praise Obama, there are some things I disagree with him on, you mistake defending the President against outright Lies and Attacks with praise, the difference between someone that is an Independent and someone that is a Party Hack like some here, Bent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,844,707 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
Here's a litmus test for voting -
IF a candidate has coffers filled by an extreme majority of unions, businesses, corporations, *.org groups, and spends that money to run endless ads on why he is or should be your hee-ro, rather than basing his campaign on his proven and historically accurate accomplishments for others -
THEN your vote, your voice, your opinions, your very life - doesn't mean a thing to him. Or her.
Remove the word Unions and you just described the entire GOP field, your point is what, that only the President has Union support?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,942 posts, read 17,717,655 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Remove the word Unions and you just described the entire GOP field, your point is what, that only the President has Union support?
Wrong yet again. Ron Paul does not get the corporation donations. Research much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top