Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Amash Declares Independence

JermanatorJermanator Senior MemberPosts: 16,244 Senior Member

Replies

  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 8,504 Senior Member
    Back to the horse and buggy!! B)
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I've felt for along time that many adopted tennants of the party actually fly in the face of conservative ideals for the sake of pandering to some wedge issue.

    In reading detailed description of the post war years during the Truman Presidency, it's striking how much members of Congress refer and consult with their district constituencies. Almost like a progression from small town to national policy.

    In a way, Trump's continuation of campaign rallys during his Presidency has a similar feel. But how much of that is reference and counsel with the people, and how much is pandering to the wedge issues of divisional support?The answer of course being subjective and debatable.

    Elected members of Congress from both parties here often intentionally avoid direct contact with their district constituencies in an obviously blatant manor. Thats very bad business for the American people.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member

    "Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party," Amash wrote in a Fourth of July op-ed for the Washington Post. "No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I’m asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system — and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it."

    The libertarian congressman, who said he's become "disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it," argued that "the two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions."

    This is nothing that I haven't been saying for years, and completely agree with 110%. {INSERT RANT HERE} But how this is Trump's fault is a bit more unclear.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,046 Senior Member
    zorba said:

    But how this is Trump's fault is a bit more unclear.

    Trump is not the disease, he is a symptom.  The republican/ conservative base is fed up with the same old same old every election cycle.  So they (we) elected something different.  

    Hopefully it it will begin the fracturing of the two party structure and get us to a more issue based election system.  


    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    zorba said:

    But how this is Trump's fault is a bit more unclear.

    Trump is not the disease, he is a symptom.  The republican/ conservative base is fed up with the same old same old every election cycle.  So they (we) elected something different.  

    Hopefully it it will begin the fracturing of the two party structure and get us to a more issue based election system. 
    This much I'll agree with - I've been fed up for years, and I'm so "over" the two party "system". I keep saying it: As far as I'm concerned, Trump is the best president we've had in my lifetime, maybe earlier. Nobody's perfect and his choice of VP was *very* unfortunate, but all in all he's doing a great job.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    The linked article outlines problems that seem to me to be exclusive of President Trump. In fact his ascension would not have been possible without at least a perceived exclusion. The pin point accuracy of George Washington's editorial on partisan politics is almost hauntingly prophetic.
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,690 Senior Member
    The linked article outlines problems that seem to me to be exclusive of President Trump. In fact his ascension would not have been possible without at least a perceived exclusion. The pin point accuracy of George Washington's editorial on partisan politics is almost hauntingly prophetic.
    He saw the rancor between the Federalists(Hamilton) and Anti-Federalists(Jefferson) during the 8 years of his administration. 
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Amash is a Libertarian to the same degree that I'm the reincarnation of Andrew 'By Gawd' Jackson. He's a 'so called' Republican that is really a Democrat and is declaring his Libertarian awakening to throw the low info folks off the scent. Hard to throw folks off the scent when you reek of skunk perfume and tear gas in a 8'x8'x8' enclosure.

    Rather than stay in the Republican Party and help fix its ills he abandons ship like a rat. Good analogy, actually; cowardice is rampant in the politicians of ALL stripes scampering and pandering to promise the world to satisfy the worst  avarices of their low info greedy constituents. He's just a symptom of the disease.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    I don't think the Republican - or the Democratic - parties are "fixable". I think they're both broken beyond redemption.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    I don't think the Republican - or the Democratic - parties are "fixable". I think they're both broken beyond redemption.
    That unfixable part is because of the greedy 'ME TOO!' voters that only want promises of more free crap paid for by 'someone else'. That, and the greed of the filthy sewage sucking politicians that get elected and reelected by their majority of idiot constituents. 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' ring a bell? Bueller. Bueller. Bueller? :D
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    No argument there!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    Things are beyond help if Democrats claim to be Republicans in order to pander to idiot constituents by promising them government free stuff.😋
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    I think everybody is missing the point.

    Political parties are a symptom of government. They are going to exist for as long as government exists, because a single individual cannot be easily heard. Government exists as a remedy to anarchy, and it works fairly well...until the people start pooling their resources and 'bundling' to get a better deal. But, somebody is always going to get the short end of the stick, at which point they band together and become 'the disenfranchised,' and regress backwards into anarchy.

    The solution? There isn't one that delivers a pat answer. The obvious answer is compromise, but that doesn't work either, because radicalism is the enemy of compromise. The radicals use emotionalism to intimidate the problem-solvers, who by their very nature are calmer and less combative, and that makes them appear weak to those who are prone to emotionalism, so the radicals gain strength while the problem-solvers are trying to shift from the problems they were working on to the problems caused by radicalism.

    The real enemy is radicalism, from either side. But once one side gives up on solving problems with genuine and honest debate, the other side can only counter it with their own brand of radicalism. This is not a new problem. The great thinkers of the world have been trying to solve it since the beginning of time.

    The philosophers try to ask the right questions. The scientists try to answer them. The religious try to ease the fears of the common people, caused by the lack of factual answers. Sometimes, an uneasy peace prevails for a while, when the factions become weary from the battles, and can find a couple of things to agree on, or at least not protest too loudly about. The rest of the time is some form of chaos, on varying levels, depending upon how insane the radicals are.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    The way I see it is the Republicans have too many closet Libs in it, and the Demonrats have too many communists. The only fix would be to clean house and go back to what the parties were traditionally. (I'm not talking about slavery either)
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    How about defining "radical" instead of using the word to smear anyone passionate about changing/fixing the system? 
    Marginalizing people by calling them radicals or anarchists does nothing to pacify the malcontents. Quite the opposite. It makes the accusers feel smug and superior, simply because they are satisfied with the current system. There's no boot on their necks at the moment, so why are *you* complaining? 
      
    2A advocates are the perfect example. A huge portion of the population view us as radical and uncompromising.
    Meanwhile, we drown in compromises. 
    We vehemently self describe using phrases like "law abiding, peaceable, upstanding citizens"....Yet we are still called radicals, even by members of the supposed gun friendly GOP. Everyone is a bad guy to someone else. It's simply POV. 


    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” 


    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    I'm just saying that when there is no compromise possible, the result is conflict. I'm not saying that radicalism is never necessary - only that it prevents fair compromise. Constitutional issues are not subject to compromise, without amendments, but everything else is, among reasonable people. A lack of reasonable people on the left is the problem, at the moment.

    Just my opinion of course.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    A lack of reasonable people on the left - AND the right - is the problem...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    Reasonable people all become radicalized for the right price.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement