• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Constitution vs. the one party state.

Site can't be reached
Yes the Trump Accountability Project by Hari Sevugan was taken down.

The state knows who you are and if you're eligible. So it should be mandated to register you - you don't have to do anything
You can vote if you're on the voters' roll.
And validation? If I can say I'm my neighbor or the guy in apartment 4C?


You're as gullible as Trump was when it comes to North Korea aren't you ?
My my, personal insults now?

Can you provide any evidence that NK's elections were false other than your opinion? The answer is no, and of course NK's elections aren't free and fair, their people live under tyranny, just as during Stalin in Russia, or Mao in the 1960's China. Yet when I mentioned Mexico's 72 years of same rule, no such skepticism was provided by you. When I mentioned Chavez, the answer is "Meanwhile, back on planet Earth".... that's a fairly poor argument. Care to explain the differences? I'm all set to take notes.
 
Yes the Trump Accountability Project by Hari Sevugan was taken down.

Pity

And validation? If I can say I'm my neighbor or the guy in apartment 4C?

The the voter fraud will be exposed when your neighbor actually does vote

And after a short investigation, you go to jail


My my, personal insults now?

So you deem comparison to Trump as an insult. Interesting (I would too Btw)

Can you provide any evidence that NK's elections were false other than your opinion? The answer is no, and of course NK's elections aren't free and fair, their people live under tyranny, just as during Stalin in Russia, or Mao in the 1960's China.

So you claim that "of course" no evidence that North Korea's elections are "false" and any assertion that they are, is pure opinion...
...then in the next breath you voice your opinion, that they aren't free and fair, as the people live under a tyranny

You posts lack consistency wouldn't you say ?

Yet when I mentioned Mexico's 72 years of same rule, no such skepticism was provided by you. When I mentioned Chavez, the answer is "Meanwhile, back on planet Earth".... that's a fairly poor argument. Care to explain the differences? I'm all set to take notes.

Because you said:

Of course they are free and fair elections. Venezuela had Jimmy Carter validate tyrant Hugo Chavez's election in 2012. Corruption could never have entered into it, just like in North Korea.
Of course they were free and fair. Anyone who didn't vote the correct way didn't get to vote again for various reasons. Sometimes they met with untimely accidents.

First you damn Mexico and Venezuela and their elections...then drop into sarcastic praise....as I said, consistency is not a feature of your posts.

Mexico and Venezuela are Third World countries and those countries often exhibit corrupt practices in elections (India - the world's largest democracy - is not immune to this)
Even England had somewhat questionable practices in the early days of its democracy - eg: Rotten Burroughs.
 
Last edited:

Great. When the shoes on the other foot and your name is on a list, your family harassed or attacked, I'll make sure to be as disinterested and callous as possible.
 
Having parties and a Constitution are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent on each other.
 
Having parties and a Constitution are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent on each other.
Not entirely true.

The US Constitution contains the First Amendment which acknowledges our right to peacefully assemble and speak freely. That freedom of association and freedom of speech acknowledged and protected by the US Constitution allows people to establish their own political parties without government interference.

Could political parties exist without the constitutional protection of their freedom of association and speech? Sure, but it could just as easily be restricted or even abolished by government on a whim without that protection from a constitution. Like what has already happened in other countries that do not protect freedom of association or freedom of speech.

To be able to create a political party that cannot be restricted or eliminated by government requires a constitution that prohibits the government's ability to infringe on its citizen's freedom of association and freedom of speech.
 
Not entirely true.

The US Constitution contains the First Amendment which acknowledges our right to peacefully assemble and speak freely. That freedom of association and freedom of speech acknowledged and protected by the US Constitution allows people to establish their own political parties without government interference.

Could political parties exist without the constitutional protection of their freedom of association and speech? Sure, but it could just as easily be restricted or even abolished by government on a whim without that protection from a constitution. Like what has already happened in other countries that do not protect freedom of association or freedom of speech.

To be able to create a political party that cannot be restricted or eliminated by government requires a constitution that prohibits the government's ability to infringe on its citizen's freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Unless a law is passed outlawing the party, then the first amendment was easily thrown out the window.
 
Unless a law is passed outlawing the party, then the first amendment was easily thrown out the window.
That is the whole point. While the First Amendment exists, no law than prohibits a political party can be enacted. Without the First Amendment a law prohibiting a political party could be enacted. Which means that political parties are dependent on a constitution that protects their freedom of speech and association from government.

Without that constitutional protection there is no assurance that a political party that exists today will continue to exist tomorrow.
 
Any one party rule would be dangerous, regardless of the "side" which implements it. That's not to say there aren't benefits politically and socially, but the down sides always point back to a darker part of human nature. We see some of that in censorship and oppression historically in countries like Poland, Romania, Russia and see it now in China. I do not want any political group to have one party rule or rig the political system such that one group has power over the others, for that is when those with power exercise that power in ruthless ways. It's human nature to not want to have to answer difficult questions, just remove the person or group asking. I do not want to live in a country where asking questions or questioning power gets me silenced or hauled off to a re-education center, or worse, disappeared.
Well said. From my perspective, this is why the deterioration of the R party into the Trump party is so distressing. They offer two choices: total adherence to an authoritarian regime, or total rejection of political opponents (and, along with that, total adherence to the left). I hate those choices.
 
That is the whole point. While the First Amendment exists, no law than prohibits a political party can be enacted. Without the First Amendment a law prohibiting a political party could be enacted. Which means that political parties are dependent on a constitution that protects their freedom of speech and association from government.

Without that constitutional protection there is no assurance that a political party that exists today will continue to exist tomorrow.
The whole point is that it doesn't matter about the 1st Amendment if enough people are motivated to act. I'm not talking in the abstract banning a party, I'm talking history: Link
 
The whole point is that it doesn't matter about the 1st Amendment if enough people are motivated to act. I'm not talking in the abstract banning a party, I'm talking history: Link
Consider the source. The Communist Party USA was founded in 1919 and still exists to this day.


No political parties have ever been banned in the US. Nor can any be banned as long as the First Amendment exists.
 
Consider the source. The Communist Party USA was founded in 1919 and still exists to this day.


No political parties have ever been banned in the US. Nor can any be banned as long as the First Amendment exists.
The source is the government of the United States.
 
The source is the government of the United States.
No, it isn't. Your source is Middle Tennessee State University.

Considering the Communist Party has existed in the US since 1919 and has never been banned by anyone, that pretty much discredits your bogus source.
 
No, it isn't. Your source is Middle Tennessee State University.

Considering the Communist Party has existed in the US since 1919 and has never been banned by anyone, that pretty much discredits your bogus source.
Suit yourself: Link
 
No, it isn't. Your source is Middle Tennessee State University.

Considering the Communist Party has existed in the US since 1919 and has never been banned by anyone, that pretty much discredits your bogus source.

Why do you keep harking back to the Communist Party ?
You may as well say the Republican party continues to exist

You can't ban political parties because of the economic system they support - you can only ban a political party if it openly supports the gaining of political power/goals through violence.
 
Why ?

One part winning time after time (see the Liberal Democrats in Japan) isn't necessarily a bad thing, indeed it could be a good thing.

It's not to be confused with a one party state.
I thought I explained it very concisely. I'm sorry you didn't understand it.
 
Well said. From my perspective, this is why the deterioration of the R party into the Trump party is so distressing. They offer two choices: total adherence to an authoritarian regime, or total rejection of political opponents (and, along with that, total adherence to the left). I hate those choices.
Frankly there are little differences between R and D. The fringes of both parties are complete lunatics, and the middle of both seem to just want selfish power and wealth while really caring little about the people they represent. Maybe the best thing for the country is to dive deep into oppression and pain for a few decades to remind us how good we had it. It's hard to miss something like freedom to speak one's mind when that freedom has never been stomped on.
 
I thought I explained it very concisely. I'm sorry you didn't understand it.
I'm not convinced

You last post used a scenario of the kind of activity seen in a one party state

If you're just saying a one party state is bad then sure.
 
Frankly there are little differences between R and D. The fringes of both parties are complete lunatics, and the middle of both seem to just want selfish power and wealth while really caring little about the people they represent. Maybe the best thing for the country is to dive deep into oppression and pain for a few decades to remind us how good we had it. It's hard to miss something like freedom to speak one's mind when that freedom has never been stomped on.
Sadly, I can no longer agree with this "there's no difference" view -- which non-centrists on both sides have touted forever -- because the R party is in the lunatic asylum these days. 20 years ago I could disagree but see it as a maybe-reasonable argument (back when Naderites unfortunately used it to give us Bush instead of Gore), but now the contrast between the parties in terms of respect for democracy is far too stark to say they are just different flavors of the same thing IMO. Maybe we need a period of authoritarian rule to understand that what the two parties are selling these days is dramatically different.
 
Sadly, I can no longer agree with this "there's no difference" view -- which non-centrists on both sides have touted forever -- because the R party is in the lunatic asylum these days. 20 years ago I could disagree but see it as a maybe-reasonable argument (back when Naderites unfortunately used it to give us Bush instead of Gore), but now the contrast between the parties in terms of respect for democracy is far too stark to say they are just different flavors of the same thing IMO. Maybe we need a period of authoritarian rule to understand that what the two parties are selling these days is dramatically different.
You're blaming the Green Party for Bush?
 
You're blaming the Green Party for Bush?
Duh? They made the difference. But I'm sure it ushered in a green revolution or something ... Or maybe it didn't matter because, as they loudly proclaimed, there was no difference between the mainstream candidates. But ignoring ludicrously stupid arguments they actually made to promote their candidate, the most obvious evidence is that Bush surrogates funded Nader's campaign, because they were perfectly aware of the obvious (to all-but-Naderites) fact that Nader was just siphoning votes from Gore and increasing Bush's chances.
 
It's even worse than that.

Prior to Trump, it hasn't really mattered which Party had how much control. Both the legislators and the President have been controlled by big money from donors and lobbyists. Until Trump, it would be more accurate to call the Dems and Reps the UniParty.

Of course, Trump isn't part of "The Big Club" and when he got elected, he threw a big wrench into the machine...and he's paid the price. More than four years of opposition and abuse.

There are TRILLIONS at stake.

Right, Trump isn't a globalist as he tries to build in Russia, get money from a German bank, and manufacture clothes in Bangladesh.
 
Right, Trump isn't a globalist as he tries to build in Russia, get money from a German bank, and manufacture clothes in Bangladesh.
You STILL insist on not knowing what a globalist is.

sigh...

You are dismissed.
 
No, it isn't. Your source is Middle Tennessee State University.

Considering the Communist Party has existed in the US since 1919 and has never been banned by anyone, that pretty much discredits your bogus source.
"The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is an American law signed by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954 that outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in or support for the party or "Communist-action" organizations."


Edit- far as I know that law is still in effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom