- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
- Messages
- 828
- Reaction score
- 215
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes the Trump Accountability Project by Hari Sevugan was taken down.Site can't be reached
And validation? If I can say I'm my neighbor or the guy in apartment 4C?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.
My my, personal insults now?You're as gullible as Trump was when it comes to North Korea aren't you ?
Yes the Trump Accountability Project by Hari Sevugan was taken down.
And validation? If I can say I'm my neighbor or the guy in apartment 4C?
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.
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.
Pity
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.
Not entirely true.Having parties and a Constitution are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent on each other.
Unless a law is passed outlawing the party, then the first amendment was easily thrown out the window.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.
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.Unless a law is passed outlawing the party, then the first amendment was easily thrown out the window.
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.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.
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: LinkThat 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.
Consider the source. The Communist Party USA was founded in 1919 and still exists to this day.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 source is the government of the United States.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.
No, it isn't. Your source is Middle Tennessee State University.The source is the government of the United States.
Suit yourself: LinkNo, 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.
I thought I explained it very concisely. I'm sorry you didn't understand it.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.
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.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.
I'm not convincedI thought I explained it very concisely. I'm sorry you didn't understand it.
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.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.
You're blaming the Green Party for Bush?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.
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.You're blaming the Green Party for Bush?
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.
You STILL insist on not knowing what a globalist is.Right, Trump isn't a globalist as he tries to build in Russia, get money from a German bank, and manufacture clothes in Bangladesh.
"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."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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?