Are we really going to be a people without a party?

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Libertarians Could Appeal To Social Conservatives. They Just Don't Want To

Libertarians have lost an opportunity to lure conservatives by picking socially liberal candidates who oppose religious liberty and free association.

thefederalist.com

With some calling for the end of the Republican Party, there have been those encouraging the Libertarian Party to step up. There's just one small problem. The Libertarian Party seems to want to walk in complete lockstep with the Democrats on social issues, so where does that leave us, when we have a society that won't accept the fact there are people who really give a damn about the moral decay in America.

Moral decay does not exist.

 

[Lisa]

McCain and Romney destroyed the GOP. Out of the ashes Trump rebuilt it better than ever before.

The existence of either Gingerich, Trump, Ryan, McConnell, or Palin has destroyed the GOP as a rational intelligent party of conservatives. Even John Boehner knew when you jump ship and get out of the group of partisan crazies.

 

[Bassman]

Moral decay does not exist.

Oh really? Say that again when out of wedlock births are up, broadcast standards are lax, and so forth.

 

[Bassman]

The existence of either Gingerich, Trump, Ryan, McConnell, or Palin has destroyed the GOP as a rational intelligent party of conservatives. Even John Boehner knew when you jump ship and get out of the group of partisan crazies.

Boehner was a RINO sellout.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Oh really? Say that again when out of wedlock births are up, broadcast standards are lax, and so forth.

Ok welp lets talk about how back in the good ole days we had slavery.

Nothing has changed humans are humans. Pick any date from the past and you'll find every bit of immoral act that you can think of.

But of course thats not what the church teaches you. I tend not to listen to religions since they are the source of all what you think is immoral. Take the quip about wedlock births, that is a religious thing. In reality it is not immoral to become pregnant without a husband. To say so is immoral. It is religions that treated single moms as if they were evil. Specifically it is American Christians that have made life very hard for single moms (and their kids) to get along in your Christian society.

 

[Lisa]

Ok welp lets talk about how back in the good ole days we had slavery.

Nothing has changed humans are humans. Pick any date from the past and you'll find every bit of immoral act that you can think of.

But of course thats not what the church teaches you. I tend not to listen to religions since they are the source of all what you think is immoral. Take the quip about wedlock births, that is a religious thing. In reality it is not immoral to become pregnant without a husband. To say so is immoral. It is religions that treated single moms as if they were evil. Specifically it is American Christians that have made life very hard for single moms (and their kids) to get along in your Christian society.

The bible doesn't oppose slavery and they approve of genocide and child abuse, so Christians who think that the bible is a book of morality don't have much room to judge others.

Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.”

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master.

When the Israelites captured Jericho, the Bible says that "they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:20-21).

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV / 2,521 helpful votes

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).

 

[Bassman]

Ok welp lets talk about how back in the good ole days we had slavery.

Nothing has changed humans are humans. Pick any date from the past and you'll find every bit of immoral act that you can think of.

But of course thats not what the church teaches you. I tend not to listen to religions since they are the source of all what you think is immoral. Take the quip about wedlock births, that is a religious thing. In reality it is not immoral to become pregnant without a husband. To say so is immoral. It is religions that treated single moms as if they were evil. Specifically it is American Christians that have made life very hard for single moms (and their kids) to get along in your Christian society.

Wilfull, careless single motherhood SHOULD be shunned. Children have a 100% better outcome when both parents, in legal matrimonial bond, are present and involved. Now, that being said it's different whenever one of the parents dies or abandons the family.

 

[Bassman]

The bible doesn't oppose slavery and they approve of genocide and child abuse, so Christians who think that the bible is a book of morality don't have much room to judge others.

Actually, you're dead wrong on all accounts.

 

[Lisa]

Actually, you're dead wrong on all accounts.

Your claim is not supported by biblical facts, or did you Sharpie those passages out while someone wasn't looking?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Wilfull, careless single motherhood SHOULD be shunned. Children have a 100% better outcome when both parents, in legal matrimonial bond, are present and involved. Now, that being said it's different whenever one of the parents dies or abandons the family.

I cant help to notice that you skipped over slavery. WHy is that?

 

[Luther]

Libertarians Could Appeal To Social Conservatives. They Just Don't Want To

Libertarians have lost an opportunity to lure conservatives by picking socially liberal candidates who oppose religious liberty and free association.

thefederalist.com

With some calling for the end of the Republican Party, there have been those encouraging the Libertarian Party to step up. There's just one small problem. The Libertarian Party seems to want to walk in complete lockstep with the Democrats on social issues, so where does that leave us, when we have a society that won't accept the fact there are people who really give a damn about the moral decay in America.

so where does that leave us,

We could protest and NOT vote at all

 

[Luther]

I cant help to notice that you skipped over slavery. WHy is that?

Why do you want to keep Slavery going?

 

[Luther]

The Founders created the two party system.

Hamilton founded the Federalist Party. Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party.

The Founders created the two party system.

Which the MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDER(Father of our country) warned against

 

[Luther]

Libertarians Could Appeal To Social Conservatives. They Just Don't Want To

Libertarians have lost an opportunity to lure conservatives by picking socially liberal candidates who oppose religious liberty and free association.

thefederalist.com

With some calling for the end of the Republican Party, there have been those encouraging the Libertarian Party to step up. There's just one small problem. The Libertarian Party seems to want to walk in complete lockstep with the Democrats on social issues, so where does that leave us, when we have a society that won't accept the fact there are people who really give a damn about the moral decay in America.

Sounds Great!

No party for me!

 

[RealityNow]

Libertarians Could Appeal To Social Conservatives. They Just Don't Want To

Libertarians have lost an opportunity to lure conservatives by picking socially liberal candidates who oppose religious liberty and free association.

thefederalist.com

With some calling for the end of the Republican Party, there have been those encouraging the Libertarian Party to step up. There's just one small problem. The Libertarian Party seems to want to walk in complete lockstep with the Democrats on social issues, so where does that leave us, when we have a society that won't accept the fact there are people who really give a damn about the moral decay in America.

The Declaration of Independence did not have a Party... The Preamble does not have a Party, and The Constitution does not have a Party.

Political Parties are Organizations of Lobby Structure. Political Parties are NOT necessary.

We have "ONE PERSON", ONE VOTE".... its up to people as an individual to be INFORMED, and communicate their support through their Elected Representative.

America has a system of "Education"; it is up to EACH PERSON, to become "educated, so they can become informed, and to cast their vote from a position of being Informed. There is No Party, necessary for that to be the principle.

 

[Glitch]

The Declaration of Independence did not have a Party... The Preamble does not have a Party, and The Constitution does not have a Party.

Political Parties are Organizations of Lobby Structure. Political Parties are NOT necessary.

We have "ONE PERSON", ONE VOTE".... its up to people as an individual to be INFORMED, and communicate their support through their Elected Representative.

America has a system of "Education"; it is up to EACH PERSON, to become "educated, so they can become informed, and to cast their vote from a position of being Informed. There is No Party, necessary for that to be the principle.

Political parties in the US began during the election of 1788. The nation was divided between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. George Washington may have warned against political parties, but he was a Federalist. As was John Adams. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Anti-Federalists. Then in 1800 Thomas Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists still existed, but they became the minority party from 1800 until 1824.

As long as the First Amendment protects our freedom of association, there will always be political parties in the US.

The names may have changed but the same Federalist and Anti-Federalist political ideologies are reflected in the current political parties. There has been a direct connection for the last 232 years:

1788 Federalist Party >>> 1828 Democratic Party
1788 Anti-Federalist Party >>> 1800 Democratic-Republican Party >>> 1828 Whig Party >>> 1856 Republican Party

 

[RealityNow]

Political parties in the US began during the election of 1788. The nation was divided between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. George Washington may have warned against political parties, but he was a Federalist. As was John Adams. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Anti-Federalists. Then in 1800 Thomas Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists still existed, but they became the minority party from 1800 until 1824.

As long as the First Amendment protects our freedom of association, there will always be political parties in the US.

Always is a "big word"....

Don't rule out the capabilities of "Technology"... (example: the blockchain tech, that can track and record transactions, can also be used to track and log the voice of people... which means Representative at any and every level.. can have the actual choice of the people communicated to the representative in non refutable clarity, and the Representative will have to represent the voice of the majority on any and every issue, from those who elected them. (not their own ideology) ... Then,... in Chamber, people's Representative will speak for or against something, and that speaking will have to convey the voice of the constituency. Not the voice of any Political Party nor have any party dictate what that Representative can cast their vote for or against.

That changes the buying and selling of the voice of the people among the politicians... They will be bound to represent the voice of the people. not what kind of bargain they can make by bartering away the voice of the people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I may end up regretting asking but what do you see as the moral decay and how would you fix it

Perhaps he means public accommodation and workplace discrimination laws and, of course, allowing the choice of having a legal abortion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Precisely. It's a document full of compromises suited for that time. For instance, why does every state get two Senators while the House is apportioned by population? Because it took that compromise between the small and large states to get the Constitution through Congress.

Yep, that is a major road block to ever increasing federal government power (and expense) unless, of course, the SCOTUS decides that whatever congress gets enacted into “the law of the land” automagically becomes constitutional (as a new federal power).

 

[Glitch]

Always is a "big word"....

Indeed, and in this case very true. Or are you envisioning a time when everyone agrees with just one point of view? I can assure you that such a time will never occur.

As long as people can freely associate with whomever they please, political parties will exist. Like-minded people always gravitate together.

Don't rule out the capabilities of "Technology"... (example: the blockchain tech, that can track and record transactions, can also be used to track and log the voice of people... which means Representative at any and every level..

You are confused. Tracking and recording transactions is not representation. Representation is having someone who represents the political ideology of their constituents.

The US began with proportional representation, but then Congress enacted the Apportionment Act of 1911 and fixed the number of House Representative to 433 by 1913. Which means that the US ceased having proportional representation and the representation we do have since 1913 has been diminishing with each passing generation. Which means that you have 3.4 times less representation today than your grandfather or great-grandfather had in 1913.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What you fail to understand is that different people have different moral preferences and ideas. That is part of being in the modern world.

And the more you try to enforce your way of life on people who have a different point of view, the more they will reject you.

I suspect, once you guys figure out your morals are for your and while you can encourage others towards your point of you, you cannot force them to it without drastically altering what America is, the more you will continue to alienate the rest of society. The lack of a willingness to compromise and live-and-let-live sets up the situation where the greater number of votes wins and creates an all or nothing game.

You guys did this to yourselves. People like me are just trying to defend the America we love and don't wish to see it changed.

That all or nothing deal requires more complete federal control (power). A significant portion of the constitution was devoted to preventing that.

 

[cabse5]

The Libertarian-Democrat connection is not unexpected. Both parties are champions of liberty. As differing from Republican 'law & order' authoritarianism.

*Snort* The Democratic Party isn't the party of liberty. The Democratic Party is the opposite of the party of liberty.
<EDIT: Not to say there aren't authoritarians in the GOP (there are too many, IMO). What is different is the leader of the GOP (Trump), isn't authoritarian like the leadership of the Democratic Party is authoritarian. END OF EDIT>


Anyone who dares to disagree with the intended wishes of the authoritarian Democratic Party will receive a concentrated rebuke from the dem party in an attempt to prevent aspiring individualism of the person trying to speak their own minds...Yeah, that's authoritarianism and even worse on the part of the Democratic Party.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That all or nothing deal requires more complete federal control (power). A significant portion of the constitution was devoted to preventing that.

I would prefer that the situation be de-escalated. But I am not sure it is possible until those who view policy through the uncompromising eyes of 1800s religious values stop trying to break it. Right now, the only thing that can be done is to defend society.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Morality is a personal matter, while law is the responsibility of government, on behalf of the people. Until someone puts a law into place that forces you to do something AGAINST your morals, the best course of action is to mind your own damn business.

Unequal taxation of identical annual income amounts based on how or upon who that income was later spent seems to fall into that category as does the existence of “sin” taxes. Both violate the principle of equal treatment (protection?) under the law.

 

[cabse5]

Morality is a personal matter, while law is the responsibility of government, on behalf of the people. Until someone puts a law into place that forces you to do something AGAINST your morals, the best course of action is to mind your own damn business.

Wouldn't you consider a carbon based tax a 'sin tax' or would you rather certain prominent US and world politicians who propose a carbon based tax mind their own businesses?