Current Events > GOP introduced resolution to BAN the democratic party

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address

George Washington warned us about the Dangers of Political Parties.

Look what happened.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

I like how Kamen is literally pushing to arrest people for their political views.

Only if you form a party, if you have it individually, you're fine.

---

Kavatar posted...

He got paid by taxpayers to come up with this.

This. Throw them out. Stop wasting time and taxpayer money and actually make bills that will help the country.

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Only if you form a party, if you have it individually, you're fine.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you hate the 1st amendment.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you hate the 1st amendment.

I only dislike Political Parties when it comes to government.

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

I only dislike Political Parties when it comes to government.

And you want to arrest people for their political views. I perfectly understand. You hate the 1st amendment.

---

But statues.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

And you want to arrest people for their political views. I perfectly understand. You hate the 1st amendment.

Now you're stretching things way too far.

You can have "Political Views", you just can't have a "Organized Group" to operate as a entity while in office in government.

---

Not stretching. You are pushing to arrest people over what their political views are.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Not stretching. You are pushing to arrest people over what their political views are.

No, I'm pushing to arrest people who want to form a Entity while serving in a government seat.

---

divot1338 posted...

But statues.

Republicans are far-left socialist Democrats confirmed

---

Form an entity over their political views which you want to arrest.

You basically want thought police.

---

DarkRoast posted...

"We must protect these statues because they're our respected heritage and heroes"

"But their political party should be banned"

now now, you should know by now consistency and nuance are both lost on repubs

Tmaster148 posted...

Form an entity over their political views which you want to arrest.

You basically want thought police.

You really don't understand what I'm trying to do then.

You can hold WHATEVER political views you want, I don't give two shits what they are.

You cannot organize as a Entity to RAMROD your votes through because you operate like Mafia.

You must vote "individually as a representative of the people", like you promised your constiutents.

You as a "representative" will promise them that you will support ___ positions.

And as long as you're supporting those ___ positions, you are in line with what you promised.

Don't just blindly follow a group, be individualistic.

---

I can't believe this motherfucker got paid for that.

---

I understand perfectly. If people get together to express their political views together you want to arrest them despite the 1st amendment protecting them.

---

what a fuckin farce

Tmaster148 posted...

I understand perfectly. If people get together to express their political views together you want to arrest them despite the 1st amendment protecting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Please, explain how I've violated their 1st Amendment rights?


---

Political Parties are a peaceful assembly of people with the same political views.

---

This doesnt seem like a very actionable or well thought out position to take

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Political Parties are a peaceful assembly of people with the same political views.

Political Parties are controlled Entities, like a corporation who have collective goals.

They just happen to have "Political Views" who happen to peacefully assemble.

The Party leaders will punish any members who don't vote in lockstep with leadership agenda.

This has happened way too often in the past.

Political Parties are harmful entities, and should be outlawed.

You can still express political views as Individuals working to represent your constituents.

You don't need a Collective Entity to operate under.

---

So now Kamen is not only anti-1st amendment, but also anti corporation.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

So now Kamen is not only anti-1st amendment, but also anti corporation.

I'm anti-entity when it comes to politics and government.

You ___ representative should be "Serving the People", your constituents.

Not your Political Party masters.

Corporations are fine as long as they stick their nose OUT of politics and law making.

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

I'm anti-entity when it comes to politics and government.

You ___ representative should be "Serving the People", your constituents.

Not your Political Party masters.

Corporations are fine as long as they stick their nose OUT of politics and law making.

Corporations are people are free to express their own political beliefs. Look at all this anti-american talk coming from you.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Corporations are people are free to express their own political beliefs. Look at all this anti-american talk coming from you.

Do you really believe Corporations are people and should be given the same legal rights as people?

Whoever thought that was a good idea did humanity a huge dis-service.

Corporations are Profit Seeking Entities, they shouldn't have any rights as people have.

---

This is fucking hilarious

---

Tmaster man. What.

Herodopus posted...

Tmaster man. What.

He's a "Corporate Shill". Anything for his Corporate Master.

---

Herodopus posted...

Tmaster man. What.

I'm sorry you Trump supporters get upset at my posts.

---

How am I a trump supporter

Reps: DemoKKKrats!!11
Also Reps: WTF dont take down Confederate statues!!11
---

Do Republicans sincerely not realize that the voter base and platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties have completely swapped since the Civil War?

---

SolKarellen posted...

Do Republicans sincerely not realize that the voter base and platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties have completely swapped since the Civil War?

They do. Its just easier for them to ignore it.
---

The Democratic and Republican parties had opposite values back then. Dunno how they switched

---

What a great use of time


---

Any centrists interested in a standalone party if the Dems get banned? While I doubt the party would get banned (the GOP is better off banning just the far left instead, you'd get far more support), I still want a card or two on the table, just in case the improbable occurs.
---

Arcanine2009 posted...

The Democratic and Republican parties had opposite values back then. Dunno how they switched

The values never really switched, because both parties were essentially founded on what you'd call "classical liberalism" that focused on a free market, free trade, liberty, equality, rule of law society. The differences with the parties in modern times is that Democrats generally focus more on left-wing policies that deal with egalitarianism and progressivism, while Republicans generally focus more on right-wing policies that deal with individualism and hierarchies.

The GOP was formed by several parties joined together (Republican, Whigs, Free Soils, anti-slavery Know Nothings, etc) as an anti-slavery party, and have always been the champions for liberty and civil rights. The Confederacy were Southern Democrats that founded the KKK to kill and bully Republicans (both black and white) in order to regain political control of the South. The Democrats also opposed the 13th-15th amendments, established Jim Crow laws, and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which was only passed because Republicans managed to get enough votes to beat the filibuster that lasted for weeks, and one of the people to lead that filibuster was Robert Byrd, a KKK member and recruiter).

The Southern Strategy is total bogus, as Republicans never used racism as part of their platform in the South. The South became less racist and more modernly conservative because it was no longer defined by racism after the 1960's. This is evident by looking at the political affiliations of members of both parts of Congress from the 1850s to today. Democrats dominate the South for decades until the late 70's. You don't see more Republican representation in the South until the 80's and early 90's. So if the parties truly did "switch", why did they wait over 20 years to do so?

---

GOP: ban the Democrats
DSA: take the Democrats place
GOP: "wait we didn't think this one through"

---

That's 4D chess.

---

Xenozoa425 posted...

The values never really switched, because both parties were essentially founded on what you'd call "classical liberalism" that focused on a free market, free trade, liberty, equality, rule of law society. The differences with the parties in modern times is that Democrats generally focus more on left-wing policies that deal with egalitarianism and progressivism, while Republicans generally focus more on right-wing policies that deal with individualism and hierarchies.

The GOP was formed by several parties joined together (Republican, Whigs, Free Soils, anti-slavery Know Nothings, etc) as an anti-slavery party, and have always been the champions for liberty and civil rights. The Confederacy were Southern Democrats that founded the KKK to kill and bully Republicans (both black and white) in order to regain political control of the South. The Democrats also opposed the 13th-15th amendments, established Jim Crow laws, and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which was only passed because Republicans managed to get enough votes to beat the filibuster that lasted for weeks, and one of the people to lead that filibuster was Robert Byrd, a KKK member and recruiter).

The Southern Strategy is total bogus, as Republicans never used racism as part of their platform in the South. The South became less racist and more modernly conservative because it was no longer defined by racism after the 1960's. This is evident by looking at the political affiliations of members of both parts of Congress from the 1850s to today. Republicans held majority in the South until the start of the 20th century, Democrats dominate the South for decades until the late 70's. Republicans had black congressmen in the early 1900's, while Democrats didn't elect their first black congressman until 1935. You don't see a huge majority Republican representation in the modern South until the 80's and early 90's. So if the parties truly did "switch", why did they wait over 20 years to do so?

The social values sure as hell switched

---