Current Events > George Washington: Do not create political parties!

(+) Yeah! (+)

America: *ignore*




---

FabIemaster posted...

America: *ignore*

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson: *ignore*
Literally the next two guys.

You can't not create political parties though

People group together naturally.

It's just what we do.

---

George Washington had slaves so his opinion is invalid :)

---

God: Don't have anal sex
America: *ignores*

---

Scintillant posted...

George Washington had slaves so his opinion is invalid :)

Most of the founders wanted to end slavery but couldn't figure out how to do it, since slaves were so essential to the economy. Also, freeing the slaves raised the uncomfortable question of whether they would be allowed to vote. The founders passed the question to future generations who they were hoping would abolish it.

He was essentially the only person who could say that at the time and not be attacked. Everybody loved him and his genius, but always found ways around his ideologies.

It disturbs me with how genius a man like Franklin was, yet so much inclination towards existence of slavery. Quincy Adams said it was only because Franklin was raised in a much older world. And could not be changed.

---

John Adams and Benjamin Franklin: "Don't own slaves"

America: *ignore*
---

Scintillant posted...

George Washington had slaves so his opinion is invalid :)

Except that's irrelevant to the topic at hand and he's right. Political parties are a massive blight and only serve to ensure the candidate we get is never the best candidate.

---

It was a pretty unrealistic and idealistic thing to say tbh

People naturally group together. Especially when issues of power and leverage are involved

---

Scintillant posted...

George Washington had slaves so his opinion is invalid :)

---

There was a rising abolitionist movement that was going on after our independence but Washington squashed that with his stance on political parties.

Fuck him.
---

As i mod, i really want to discuss George Washington, right now.

---

Lairen posted...

As i mod, i really want to discuss George Washington, right now.

I'm not currently modding. I just really like his expression in that picture lmao

---

he was right about political parties. but wrong about slaves. he was a complicated guy. even assholes are sometimes right about certain things

"I'm not currently modding."

mod ab0se!

---

Trump: "If George Washington had slaves, why can't I?"

---

The problem is that you need more than two parties.

---

I agree with the slave owners politcal views.


---

Lairen posted...

I agree with the slave owners politial views.

It's a fucking meme.

Andrew Jackson: "National banks are destroying the lower class and benefit only the rich. Don't let them make paper money, it's just a scam to rob you of the valuable metal you have."

America: *gets rid of gold standard, makes national bank, prints paper money, puts Andrew Jackson's face on one of the most common bills*

---

well if we have to have parties, it's important to have more than just 2. 2 causes polarization. smart countries have like 5 or more parties that are all viable. I know we technically have other parties. but only the democrats and republicans are realistic. the other parties are just kinda...."there". nobody expects them to ever win anything

I wanted to post this for the funny look on his face stop making points and arguing. This is why we can't have nice things.

---

"I just wanted to discuss the slave owners political views that i agree with."

-A mod


---

Whoops lol

Sure let's go with that.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Andrew Jackson: "National banks are destroying the lower class and benefit only the rich. Don't let them make paper money, it's just a scam to rob you of the valuable metal you have."

America: *gets rid of gold standard, makes national bank, prints paper money, puts Andrew Jackson's face on one of the most common bills*

he also genocided half of an entire race
---

You cannot just write off what someone says because the person is terrible. An idea is either good or it is not and this value exists regardless of the person advocating for it.

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

he also genocided half of an entire race

Yeah that's a big oof. Did that movement to remove him from the $20 bill ever gain any traction? I remember reading about it in like 2014.

---

He was mostly talking about a party controlled election system like we have I believe, not simply the idea of parties themselves. But yeah. It's a mess.

---

FabIemaster posted...

Yeah that's a big oof. Did that movement to remove him from the $20 bill ever gain any traction? I remember reading about it in like 2014.

yes. it would have happened if Trump hadn't stopped it. it was all set to replace with Harriet Tubman I think. Trump used his power to shut it down

Of course he did. I wish we had more than old dead presidents on our money.

---

He warned about it. Nobody took the advice. We do need more choices than just 2 though, as the two parties drift further apart in ideology, it becomes fascism vs communism on a smaller scale.

---

KillerKhan420 posted...

it becomes fascism vs communism on a smaller scale.

More like feudalism vs feudalism.

KillerKhan420 posted...

He warned about it. Nobody took the advice. We do need more choices than just 2 though, as the two parties drift further apart in ideology, it becomes fascism vs communism on a smaller scale.

I try to stay as centrist as possible and yeah in recent times the 2 parties make it harder and harder to stay neutral. I consider myself left-leaning and fuck Donald Trump and all that but I also acknowledge that both parties have some decent ideas.

---

He didn't say "don't create political parties". He said "Don't make a two-party system"

He pointed out that in both foreign and domestic affairs, having only group A and group B leads to a constant "us against them" scenario, where groups A and B drift further and further apart and develop a constantly growing mutual hatred. The addition of a third, fourth, fifth, etc part yields the chance for every party to find common ground and learn to work with the others without constant unstoppable hatred.

Lairen posted...

I agree with the slave owners politcal views.

Oh, hey, look, proof of the point.

There are bad people. Bad people who do bad things. If someone does bad things, that doesn't immediately invalidate everything good they've ever done. You can agree with some things that someone says without agreeing with everything they've ever said or done. You can condemn Washington for being a slave owner while still admitting he was a great general and understood the value in discourse.

---

FabIemaster posted...

Yeah that's a big oof. Did that movement to remove him from the $20 bill ever gain any traction? I remember reading about it in like 2014.

We were supposed to get Harriet Tubman but Trump stopped that
---

GodIsImaginary posted...

Most of the founders wanted to end slavery but couldn't figure out how to do it, since slaves were so essential to the economy. Also, freeing the slaves raised the uncomfortable question of whether they would be allowed to vote. The founders passed the question to future generations who they were hoping would abolish it.

Dot dot dot

---

People think party politics is bad today, and it is, but it was even horrible back then. Look up some of the stuff they said about each other.

My favorite is when the Democratic-Republican camp called John Adams a "hideous hermaphrodite" who "has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

---

Southernfatman posted...

My favorite is when they called John Adams "hideous hermaphrodite" who "has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Damn that's rude as fuck but not unlike some of the things Trump said about Hillary.

---

The founder of a certain global religion owned slaves, so we should ignore all of his opinions and all of the opinions of his billion followers.

---

I think they made a big mistake with how they set up the government. The government (both the Legislative and Executive branches, plus the Judicial branch by extension) is set up that a two-party system will be the most successful. The Executive branch especially favors a two-party system with the Electoral College. I understand why they created the Electoral College, but it should be quite obvious that if there are more than two candidates and if two have them have similar views or are the same party, one of those two will be screwed over.

Look at every parliamentary system in the world. They all have two major parties, but they also include many more parties that represent a lot of diverse views. To take power, a major party has to form a coalition with other parties, so naturally more views are going to be represented.

Although you could fix this with the voting system. Make it based on % of votes rather than whoever gets the majority. But then again the parties in power would never want to implement a new voting system.

---

Skiggie posted...

The founder of a certain global religion owned slaves, so we should ignore all of his opinions and all of the opinions of his billion followers.

Jesus did not own slaves if this is what you're getting at.
---

Doom_Art posted...

You can't not create political parties though

People group together naturally.

It's just what we do.

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

he also genocided half of an entire race

Half of what was left after the colonials and conquistadors got done with them.

---

I mean, the founding fathers structured the country to be classiest and racist. And rights are very difficult to enforce for anyone without the money or power to do so.

---

GodIsImaginary posted...

Also, freeing the slaves raised the uncomfortable question of whether they would be allowed to vote.

Why was it uncomfortable?

darkphoenix181 posted...

Why was it uncomfortable?

Because white people feared a world where they would be treated as they have treated black people.

---

Jefferson wanted a cycle of revolution:

the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed.

the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

Now 20 years here isn't hyperliteral, but his point is that the masses are always going to be dumb dumbs and those in power are always going to end up being corrupt. So you need to oust them and start over all the time to function.


---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I mean, the founding fathers structured the country to be classiest and racist. And rights are very difficult to enforce for anyone without the money or power to do so.

And sexist

Don't forget that. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.... Except non whites and chicks"

---