Political Parties (please reply), Good, Bad or Pointless? Options

[seetomatofly]

this has a lot to do with labeling people......
would the world be a better place without political parites?



please reply!

[*kryogenix*]

i believe that the more parties there are in a democracy the better.

i don't think political parties can be avoided.

[Teesa]

^yeah, I agree with the above statements. I don't think it's labeling, it's just what issues you agree with and what you believe in.
and no, I don't think the world would be a better place without political parties because like kryogenix said, they just cannot be avoided. They just form and some stay and some die out.

[kandiapplegrl]

Political parties are definitely needed to sustain a democracy. Although they have liars, cheaters, and corrupt individuals in them, they help represent groups in general. Without them, everyone would have their own beliefs, values, etc. & no one would learn the value of compromising. You can't please everyone. Political parties help please a lot or the majority of the people who share some of the same beliefs.

[*tweeak*]

political parties have nothing to do with labelling people. figure out what youre talking about before you post.

parties are entirely necessary to mainain any sort of a democracy. in one party systems, there is no one to contradict what has been decided upon, and typically dictatorships result, as without another party running, it is far easier to proclaim yourself leader indefinitely, epecially if most everyone supports you

[*CrackedRearView*]

There are something around 50 or more political parties in the United States democratic system as of today, and I believe every one of them should be there.

Political parties give people a chance to feel a part of a group -- it's almost like human nature (every aspect of democracy).

This is American democracy [capitalism] in a very small nutshell:

Man is born. Man has opportunities just like everyone else. Man grows up, enters the competition. Man works, earns money, leads his own path. Man joins groups, makes friends, and finishes his life.

Capitalism -- private companies are allowed, competition is encouraged. Caveman days -- competition for food.

So, to answer your press 'would the world be a better place without political parties', I'd have to ask you a question.

Do you think the world would be better without the United States? Because without political parties, the United States would have crumbled centuries ago.

Political groups are to today, as tribes and factions are to yesterday.

It's all human nature, and I'd have to say you stick with human nature in this case.

[sadolakced acid]

president washington, in his farewell speech, warned the country against the development of political parties. He said it would tear the country apart.

and so it has. Dems and Reps are enemies. they loose sight of making america better, and instead try to beat each other.

i look forward to the day politcal parties are gone, and politicians are selected on merit and personal beliefs, not whether thier name was highlighted in red or blue.

[to-devastate]

Hm. I never cared about the parties.. since I was always a democrat.. But from reading ^; I guess it would split the country apart.

[*CrackedRearView*]

president washington, in his farewell speech, warned the country against the development of political parties.  He said it would tear the country apart.

And George Washington was also a hypocritical idiot at times. Not only for his stupidity during the Whiskey Rebellion, but also for his contradiction.

Let's not forget he was ticketed as a Federalist...

[racoons > you]

^^ everyone is a hypocritical idiot at times, it doesnt mean that their basic theory cannot be sound.

the worlds greates superpower may be a good thing, but not if it creaks at the seams (or simialr odd expression) at every sign of and election

[sadolakced acid]

And George Washington was also a hypocritical idiot at times.  Not only for his stupidity during the Whiskey Rebellion, but also for his contradiction.

Let's not forget he was ticketed as a Federalist...

what's wrong with being a federalist?

and would you care to explain how the whiskey rebillion was stupid, considering what happened with shay's rebellion?

[heyyfrankie]

i don't think it would be that good without them because people are always going to be different and it is hard enough but we have to have political parties.

[*CrackedRearView*]

what's wrong with being a federalist? 

and would you care to explain how the whiskey rebillion was stupid, considering what happened with shay's rebellion?

What's wrong with being a Federalist?! You yourself said you wanted to rid the world of political parties!

And Shays's Rebellion? This has absolutely no relevance. Shays's Rebellion happened during the time of the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were even drafted, and before Washington was even hurled into office...

But the main difference is that in Shays's Rebellion there was fairly little havok -- the Captain Shays and his men simply barricaded county courts to prevent creditors from foreclosing their farms.

In the Whiskey Rebellion, however, towns were burned, pillaged, and ransacked. People refused to pay their taxes, tarred and feathered collectors, and killed, and Washington acted hesitantly. But, when he did act, he did so foolishly. Washington marched into Pennsylvania with upwards of 13,000 troops. He rode in the front, on his horse, in plain sight. It's a wonder he hadn't been killed, or our country wouldn't be stable today.

But that is what I meant by his idiocy in the Whiskey Rebellion.

[sadolakced acid]

... i thought shay's rebellion was like that too... i mean, he captured jamestown and stuff... burned some towns.

the reason for the strong hand in the whiskey rebellion was because it could be done. Shay's rebellion didn't get stopped for a while because such force could not be used...

are you sure washington rode at the front? i thought he stayed at the white house... setting the precident that presidents didn't actively lead the army.




federalist was not, at that time, a true political party. it was more of a belief in having a stronger central government. there was no esablished leader of the federalists... no one who would tell all the federalists how to think and how to vote.

political parties, to me, should be more like music genres... some fit into more than one; and they're just general. just because you like one person in a group doens't mean you'll like another.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Good point, but the Federalists still made policies conducive to their beliefs.

That's all that Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and others do today..

[blackxswan]

yo saraaaa! thanks for tellin me bout this site. your debate was awesome!!!!
<333 lauren