Can ANYONE explain how the US party system worked historicallyto an inquisitive autist because it doesn't make any sense to meIt's weird how what appears to be the most reasonable and normal setup in a two-party system, i.e. one side representing broadly the right, conservative, rural voters and the other representing broadly the left, liberal, urban voters only started being a thing since about 1980 or so>(additionally, with the exception of the 1946 and 1952 elections, it appears Hoover and the Great Depression left such a distaste in Americans' mouths that the Dems dominated BOTH the Senate and the House from 1932 to 1980 and from 1932 to 1994 respectively)or, everything was set in motion when LBJ won the race to pull the nigger gambit first, in 1964, explaining his rationale in private>I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred yearsi know the original political divide was between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, with Hamiltonians being the industrial urban, Northern (back then New England and Mid Atlantic) federalist movementand Jeffersonians being the pastoral rural, Southern (back then South Atlantic) anti-federalist movementHOWEVER the only election Hamiltonians won was in 1796the Jeffersonians dominated from 1800 to 1820s, wiping out the federalist party, and then they split in the 1820s into>Democratic Party headed by Andrew Jackson>fractured opposition of everyone who lost against Andrew Jackson, consisting of the liberal Whigs (inspired by the British Whig party), populist Anti-Masonic party and nationalist traditionalist anti-immigrant Know Nothing/American Partywho all eventually merged into the Republican Party by the Civil Warso Jeffersonians seemingly won but then split and ended up recreating the original divide with the Republicans (who were Jeffersonians) adopting Hamiltonian positionsmakes no sense to me, on the face of it it just looks like total opportunism and spinelessness on both sides of American politics
oh and then fast forward beyond Reconstruction, to Progressive Era/WW1 and the Great Depression, and now the DEMOCRATS are the Hamiltonians and close to nat-soc (but still Southern-focused)while Republicans are big bussiness laissez faire (but still Northern focused)it just makes no sense to meit's complete schizophrenia
>oily skin and small titsYellow fever fags are absolutely subhuman.
>>532213970Nigga that's a kike
>>532213970she's jewish
>>532213970she's Ashkenazi Jewish
>>532213970youre an idiot
>>532213837You’re going to have a hard time here Piotr. 99% of Americans don’t care about their own history. They were taught to only care about World War Two and beyond by the education system. The founders are considered “problematic” now. We’re taught the only thing we can be proud of was fighting Nazis for jews.
>>532213970That’s an asiatic kike you dumb brown
>>532213837I'd like to set her on fire if you know what I mean
>>532214035>>532214102Eye folds indicate at least 1/4 asian.
>>532214636kek
>>532213837IMPERFECT PEOPLE CANNOT SUPPORT PERFECT SYSTEMS CREATED BY IDEALISTS...like Jefferson, Madison, Washington...that's the whole answer to your question...DESCENDANTS WILL LOSE EVERYTHING - that's an axiom.
>>532213837Yes, you already analyzed it perfectly.>total opportunism and spinelessness on both sides of American politicsExactly.Have a look at Washington's farewell address.>the worst thing that could happen to US politics is a party systemAnd boom, here we are.The core of the matter is simply:>parties aren't human, they are organizations>they have no human goals but organization goals
>>532213970Thats a kike, nigger. I knew one that everyone also thought was Asian.
>>532214893>anon discovers Ashkenazis have turkic ancestryOY VEY!
I think she's pretty.
>>532213837>Can ANYONE explain howNo, I'm an independent so that means nothing to me and I also avoid the junk mail spam. Idk why anyone would commit to a party of criminal gangsters op.
>>532213837>Can ANYONE explain how the US party system worked historicallyjews buying off both sidesI think I explained this already to you in other thread?
>>532217115maybe i shouldn't have ended with such a conclusion because that wasn't really my overarching pointlook at the UK. they've had parties for centuries now, but theirs roughly make sense historicallyfirst it was the Tories vs Whigssince 150 yrs it's Tories vs Labour (which superseded the Whigs with the rise of the working class, and the Whigs transformed into Lib Dem)it all makes sense, unlike the american shitshow
>>532213837>on the face of it it just looks like total opportunism and spinelessness on both sides of American politicsYou understand it correctly, then. This is partially why there was such discouragement from allowing an exclusively two-party system, or even becoming too reliant on a party system that would lead to this, because it would devolve into neither side representing anything of real substance and becoming an overall duopoly that cared more about securing federal power for themselves, since they both would get in either way, so it makes sense to focus on that over maintaining liberty; akin to two competing corporations deciding to work together and manipulate the landscape to knock out all other competitors, because they will both have dominion this way.
>>532218769I see what you're getting at, but the fundamental problem remains the same:>the party isn't a human being>consequently it does not behave like a human being>has no human concerns or faculties like "integrity" or "reason">also doesn't grow old and dies: the people inside simply are replacedAs such a party can be twisted in literally any way, as long as the party leaderships can implement it; and this is all the more critical the less accountability there is:>what if the "party" doesn't keep its promises?Not a whole lot, especially when all parties don't keep them. People could vote for another party with the exact same result.The USA never really had room for a third party, so instead the 2 parties there were transformed depending on the occasion; the current thing, and made up whatever they thought necessary to be elected. A new idea didn't bring a different party but was integrated into one or both.And especially in the long term, say over 50 years.. none of the guys inside a party still are the same. Same party, but totally different membership profile.Finally: politics also is about eliminating competition, so it's only natural to adopt some new position that comes up if this promises greater election success, completely irrespective of what positions it previously held; after all positions that don't bring you votes are functionally useless to a party.This is always well demonstrated in Green parties every time they become a coalition member or even majority.>suddenly they decide capitalism and wars are amazingIf that is necessary to maintain their political position and influence.>and here I thought they were all about environmental issuesThat's an important factor in why such "single issue parties" cannot really function. Politics isn't about single issues, so should they actually get elected they'll have to make up their mind on everything.
>>532218986politics isn't just the parties but also the electorates, im suggesting general opportunism, spinelessness and ignorance on behalf of your entire societyparties existing isn't the fault, literally every country in the world has parties, see: >>532218769
>>532213970Definitely. Bugchasers are vile. Oriental beauty standards scream invasion.
>>532219856>>532218769A "Green Party" may really the best way to illustrate it.Starts with "Ye Olde Greene Partey" that basically are monarchists trying to educate the king about environmental issues,then it turns into the "Nazi Olive Green Party" because that's the current fashion because jews are bad for the environment but wars are good (by destroying others heavy industry),then comes the "Libertarian Green Party" because now it's hyper-capitalism and homosexuality that's good for the environment (and getting votes) also muh welfare for poorfags because people are plants.It's all the same Green Party.
>>532221257Based.
>>532213837The Civil War became such precisely because Dixie’s were no longer represented by the Democrat party, making participation in the system impossible. >on the face of it it just looks like total opportunism and spinelessness on both sides of American politics I mean, yeah. Parties organize around an issue, causing opposition to funnel into an opposition party, and as time goes on the issues that are relevant to address change, causing a shift in dynamic to secure votes. This chaotic “spineless opportunism” as you put it, exists because from day 1 there wasn’t a core unifying ruling class. So, the concerns are entirely up to what the people make the concerns out to be, and throughout our entire history we’ve furthered constant and drastic technological innovation in all aspects of life that radically alter how a person lives.. so the concerns that are relevant to the populace change just as rapidly; your dad lives on a farm and his concerns are local and community oriented.. while in your youth you move to the city and work on an assembly line and your concerns become material and individual. Your father grows up in civil war getting his legs blown off by a gatling gun, and in your youth you grow up with radio programs you can listen to after working 5 hours at a bar that you drove home from in a model t. The only constant in American life is change.
>>532213837The autism spectrum isn’t real
>>532213855>it just makes no sense to me>it's complete schizophreniaFirst-past-the-post voting means only a two-party system can be stable. But that means each individual party is itself unstable, because it will contain blocs with different, sometimes conflicting, interests. And the US is a big country, so there's lots of different blocs to cram into two parties.
>>532219875>>532218769The U.K is a very old country that has had very little technological and lifestyle changes from its inception. The U.S. has had drastic technological innovations every 20 or so years since its founding. When your lifestyle changes at the drop of a hat between your own generations then so too do your concerns and outlooks fluctuate.
I’ve noticed a lot of Jews have that slightly fishy look, with the nose and big lips. What’s the deal?
>>532213837It never did. The weakness of republics is that they degenerate into anarchy. The weakness of monarchies is that they degenerate into tyranny. The weakness of a constitutional system is that it degenerates into government by fraction. The number of parties doesn't matter. It could be 2 or it could 10. It's the same problem. This is why Washington was against political parties just as much as he was against kings.
>>532213837You cannot comprehend the American mind because your country is founded on very close-knit roots with a clear and entrenched origin; America is not like that. From day 1, the value of having the populace’s identity in farming was put into question due to the cotton gin and mass importing slaves from Africa. The lifestyle of what it means to be “American” has always shifted in very extreme ways since the inception. What you see as being “opportunistic” in reality is being active taking charge in an ever-shifting world where the opposite approach results in being at the mercy of everyone around who is already climbing ahead; the chaos is a necessity because otherwise you end up with Canadians.
>>532213837fascism is the way
