H.Clinton again shows true colors regarding firearms..
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
Ivy Mike
Member
and if that person doesn't follow along with the party closely enough, how long do you think they'll last in congress? Elections would come up and they would be out on their rear.
Parties get people elected, but only when that person represents the party. I care that the parties have managed to all but shut the door behind them. Neither party wants any type of voting or election reform. They've got the power and they don't want to give it up.
Political parties are about power and nothing more.
Parties get people elected, but only when that person represents the party. I care that the parties have managed to all but shut the door behind them. Neither party wants any type of voting or election reform. They've got the power and they don't want to give it up.
Political parties are about power and nothing more.
Big mistake, GTI.
Republicans don't care so much that someone "represents the party" as long as he/she WINS.
You're mistaking mainstream parties, which are organizations that exist to get as many of their people elected as possible, for third parties, which exist to advance specific ideologies.
There is no "big tent" in thirdpartyland. There is in the world of D's and R's.
Don't mistake the recent rise of extreme partisanship for the rise of a highly specific ideology. Partisanship waxes and wanes.
Republicans don't care so much that someone "represents the party" as long as he/she WINS.
You're mistaking mainstream parties, which are organizations that exist to get as many of their people elected as possible, for third parties, which exist to advance specific ideologies.
There is no "big tent" in thirdpartyland. There is in the world of D's and R's.
Don't mistake the recent rise of extreme partisanship for the rise of a highly specific ideology. Partisanship waxes and wanes.
Ivy Mike
Member
I don't see how its a mistake.
A republican that gets elected was backed by a party because they represent that party. Ideally, they are supposed to represent the people and parties are unneccesary, but it doesn't work like that anymore. Start going against your party and you'll find yourself losing the next election.
I believe I nailed it on the head when I said large parties are all about power. The more people you put in power, the more powerful your party becomes. You'll notice we don't say that the centrists or the liberals control congress. We say the Republicans or the Democrats control congress. You group similar ideas together in one camp and viola, its party time. The stronger you grow (by gaining votes) the more influence you possess.
We've gotten to a point where two parties encompass (or so they would lead you to believe) the entire populace. Now, this gives an illusion of choice when actually, they offer up moderate, fence riding candidates in order to maintain their positions of power.
A republican that gets elected was backed by a party because they represent that party. Ideally, they are supposed to represent the people and parties are unneccesary, but it doesn't work like that anymore. Start going against your party and you'll find yourself losing the next election.
I believe I nailed it on the head when I said large parties are all about power. The more people you put in power, the more powerful your party becomes. You'll notice we don't say that the centrists or the liberals control congress. We say the Republicans or the Democrats control congress. You group similar ideas together in one camp and viola, its party time. The stronger you grow (by gaining votes) the more influence you possess.
We've gotten to a point where two parties encompass (or so they would lead you to believe) the entire populace. Now, this gives an illusion of choice when actually, they offer up moderate, fence riding candidates in order to maintain their positions of power.
It seems that you and I disagree on the facts. It's hard to reconcile a difference of opinion when your reality and mine are different.
My reality includes Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Patrick Leahey, as well as Ron Paul and Michael Crapo, on the Republican side, at least. Their "tent" is bigger; they are in the majority and the Democrats have become a minority-opposition party. Show me someone who was winning elections but who was tossed out of a major party for "going against it."
If you're winning elections and are willing to put an R or D by your name, there's a VERY high chance the party will be happy to include you. And THAT is why it is more important to get good candidates before the electorate than it is to fight against the party system.
Of COURSE the parties are about consolidating power under their own banners. But that contradicts your assertion that they are about ideology. Of COURSE they put up inoffensive, relatively worthless candidates when they have no one who would really gin up some positive votes.
If the Libertarians became a major party, we probably wouldn't like us much, either.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Third parties will never gain power either way. Vote third party if it helps you sleep at night, but don't delude yourself about any third party candidate being able to win any meaningful national election. It ain't gonna happen.
As for Hillary, she's spent the last 5 years carefully positioning herself for a run at the white house. She's taken a number of very public, very moderate positions recently. She'll use them as "proof" she's a moderate, and not the rabid socialist she really is.
But she also has to look after her core base of luny leftists and commies. They have to be reminded from time to time that she's still their girl. This current gun control gambit is merely quiet, subtle way of reassuring her base that she's still herself.
I doubt that she actually cares one way or the other about this particular bit of law. I think she's just using it to play politics. If nothing else, the Clintons are masterful politicians.
alan
Member
Headless Thompson Gunner offered the following:
As for Hillary, she's spent the last 5 years carefully positioning herself for a run at the white house. She's taken a number of very public, very moderate positions recently. She'll use them as "proof" she's a moderate, and not the rabid socialist she really is.
But she also has to look after her core base of luny leftists and commies. They have to be reminded from time to time that she's still their girl. This current gun control gambit is merely quiet, subtle way of reassuring her base that she's still herself.
I doubt that she actually cares one way or the other about this particular bit of law. I think she's just using it to play politics. If nothing else, the Clintons are masterful politicians.
__________________
I find the last paragraph particularly interesting, and might I note the following, regarding "movers and shakers" (big name people) in both the anti gun movement and the anti abortion or pro life movement.
I submit that they are most interested in obtaining personal power, that is the power to tell you and yours what to do, what not to do, and when they might do whatever it is that happens, at the moment, to be permitted. I really do not believe that they care overly much about the "masthead issue", whatever it might happen to be, for it is power that they seek. Hillary Clinton is no different in this respect.
As for Hillary, she's spent the last 5 years carefully positioning herself for a run at the white house. She's taken a number of very public, very moderate positions recently. She'll use them as "proof" she's a moderate, and not the rabid socialist she really is.
But she also has to look after her core base of luny leftists and commies. They have to be reminded from time to time that she's still their girl. This current gun control gambit is merely quiet, subtle way of reassuring her base that she's still herself.
I doubt that she actually cares one way or the other about this particular bit of law. I think she's just using it to play politics. If nothing else, the Clintons are masterful politicians.
__________________
I find the last paragraph particularly interesting, and might I note the following, regarding "movers and shakers" (big name people) in both the anti gun movement and the anti abortion or pro life movement.
I submit that they are most interested in obtaining personal power, that is the power to tell you and yours what to do, what not to do, and when they might do whatever it is that happens, at the moment, to be permitted. I really do not believe that they care overly much about the "masthead issue", whatever it might happen to be, for it is power that they seek. Hillary Clinton is no different in this respect.
- Status