The Modern Whig Party

[Lemur]

I'm kinda interested in these guys. If they can manage to pull off some State-level wins, I would be quite happy. They claim to be "fiscal conservative social liberal," which, if true, and if they can create a coherent platform, would plant them in exactly the right position to grow into a real threat to the duopoly we've had for too long.

This may inspire me to finally join a party. Take a gander, let me know what you think. Wishful thinking on the part of the prosimian, or a real development?

[seireikhaan]

Wishful thinking. The system is too rigged in favor of the Democrats and Republicans.

I like their platform, however.

[Lemur]

I don't mind if it seems unreasonable or unrealistic; unreasonable people are the folks who get things done.

Political parties have come and gone in the past, although with depressing infrequency in our nation. All that's necessary is that the Whigs win some State contests and move on from there. The Republicans stand in danger of becoming a regional party, and the Dems are near experts at self-sabotage. I think there's a realistic chance for a new party to emerge, if it's done carefully and slowly.

-edit-

The other thing that gives me guarded hope is the fact that the majority of Americans describe themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Republicans have gained power in the past by pretending to be fiscal conservatives, and Democrats by pretending to be social liberals. A party that actually speaks to that broad, deep vein of support would be able to pull a lot of people.

I also like the fact that this group is resurrecting an old party instead of inventing a new one. Shows a certain amount of respect for our history and traditions, something that rubs me the right way.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.

[Spino]

It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.

Heh, true. If anything Lincoln would be deified by the Federalist party.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think the name will go over well.

[Gregoshi]

I don't think the name will go over well.

Why not? It covers just about everything.

[lars573]

Why not? It covers just about everything.

[Lemur]

It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.

It's true, the Whigs were anti-slavery, at least by the mid-1800s. I can see how not supporting a state's right to enslave people makes them inappropriate for a party that proclaims "Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs." Until the Modern Whigs renounce their fiendish anti-slavery stance, I shall oppose them!

[Adrian II]

Why not? It covers just about everything.

'cept brains.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.

The only state's right that the confederacy cared about was slavery...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A state should be allowed to leave the Union, even for the wrong reasons. Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War.

[Strike For The South]

A state should be allowed to leave the Union, even for the wrong reasons. Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War.

And let the Europeans keep wining? PFFFTt.

I would say that a state has a right to secede if the feds can come in and rip out anything that had any amount of federal dollars put in it. Which makes any argument now null due to the fact we all suck at the feds tit. Even these farmers in west Texas who complain about the yankee bakers still gobble up cotton subsidies.

As for 1860. The south had no right to secede even if you secession as legal. They saw the writing on the wall and made a last ditch effort. While invoking states right the planter elite sent thousands of southerners to there death defending some "Southern nobility"

Now if you want to talk nullification well talk 1832 but the civil war is all about old boys trying to keep there system in place, nothing more. Don't let the propaganda machine feed you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Secession was never specifically addressed in the then-extant Constitution. The process for joining the Union was spelled out, but no means of departing said union was discussed.

Interestingly, in the process of putting down the secession, Lincoln did accept the secession of most of NW Virginia (modern West Virginia) from Virginia. Certainly can't fault the man on his practicality.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

As for 1860. The south had no right to secede even if you secession as legal. They saw the writing on the wall and made a last ditch effort. While invoking states right the planter elite sent thousands of southerners to there death defending some "Southern nobility"

That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."

If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.

But whatever. America's broken. The only good news is our flailing about will take most everyone else down, too.

[Strike For The South]

That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."

If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.

But whatever. America's broken. The only good news is our flailing about will take most everyone else down, too.

I think we also accept that the union has the right to pimp slap wayward state back in its place.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."

If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.

Don't we have the right to go to war too?

[Xiahou]

If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.

Emphasis on successful. The Constitution doesn't allow for backsies. If a state thinks it's being short-changed, they can try to leave- but don't be surprised that everyone else doesn't want to let them walk away from their commitments.

I think one of the worst blows to state's rights was the direct election of senators- and the states willingly did that to themselves.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Don't we have the right to go to war too?

Emphasis on successful. The Constitution doesn't allow for backsies. If a state thinks it's being short-changed, they can try to leave- but don't be surprised that everyone else doesn't want to let them walk away from their commitments.

Ah, so might makes right.

[Xiahou]

Ah, so might makes right.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Strike For The South]

Ah, so might makes right.

At the end of the day, yes. Your ideals mean bugger all if you can't fight for them

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Disgusting.

[Xiahou]

Disgusting.

Why? That was what allowed us to win our independence. We could've written dozens of declarations of independence and accomplished nothing. It was force that allowed it to happen.

There is no mechanism in the Constitution for a state to back out. They can declare they're leaving, but the other states and federal government can force them to live up to the obligations- and that's how it worked, in a nutshell.

[Strike For The South]

Disgusting.

And the only reason you are allowed to feign such outrage is because the good ol US of A has been killing exploiting and coup d eating people for the past 100 years.

Ideals are fine as long as you're willing to hit the other man in the mouth. Otherwise you're just a pacifist and you get someone else to hit the guy in the mouth.

[GoreBag]

Disgusting.

Wimp.

[LittleGrizzly]

Disgusting.

I think so too. Might = Right is the most theory we have but it seems to hold true for alot of people...

The major problem being it validates almost every wrong action ever... because at the time they were mighty enough so they were also right(y).. the holocaust and every individual case of peadophilia seems to be validated by the statement...

Oops... well off topic!

I would be extremely happy for a 3rd party to rise in USA, even if it wasn't exactly my views just the fact they are not the 'bought' politicians from either of the 2 major partys is enough to please me..

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So if the French hadn't bailed us out...

Parliamentary monarchy would be a better system than a republic?

[Lemur]

The major problem being it validates almost every wrong action ever... because at the time they were mighty enough so they were also right(y).. the holocaust and every individual case of peadophilia seems to be validated by the statement...

Disagree. Moral force counts for something, and it's part of the equation. A pedophile rapist might be able to force himself on a child, but then the much greater force of law enforcement will unleash on the molester, if all goes as it should. Likewise, land-grabbing megalomaniacs like Napoleon and Hitler can "might makes right" their way for a while, but eventually the rest of the world gets sick of their behavior and smacks them down.

The good news is that sick, twisted sadists are a tiny minority of humanity. The rest of us can kick their asses anytime.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So when America's experiment is overthrown, it will have been wrong all along?

The good news is that sick, twisted sadists are a tiny minority of humanity. The rest of us can kick their asses anytime.

Unless we've voted for them.

[Yoyoma1910]

Good, cause my hair is starting to thin. I want my pompadour back.