Is there a serious distaste for both major parties in the US? Can partisan politics be ended?

John_C_87

@piloteer

The issue is the change made by the 22nd Amendment was to address the United State created by the legal precedent set by the witness account of President of the United States of America.

To this note: I would first need to protect, preserve, and defend certain self-evident truths one of which is "all men are created equal by their creator." The most perfect state of the union I could create to do this is the simple hold “all women equal by their creator.” Describing them as a witness held forever in constitutional right as “Presadera.” All women can be held in the witness state of Presadera forever because they are not charged with any crime but are only described with one word as a means of filing future different legal grievances before the court. The title can also be used to describe an outcome of a voting process where a woman is chosen to speak on behalf of all women in some kind of legal sense.

This becomes important as it is describing the existence of the 19th Amendment which might be said written in something far less than a self-evident truth. Why this might be said is for at the time it was Land Ownership and not “sex” that was the obstacle for the Constitutional Right to vote for women. Discrimination by gender being the influence of Land Ownership at the time in history. The state of the Union made is do we need a 22nd and a 19th Amendment on one united states held as self-evident truth? Is this a problem created by the lie America is a two-party system that is doubtful.

As then the question is do we alter Article IV Section IV and remove the 19th and 22nd Amendments? Its all about workload……

Write a knowing meaningless law to collect a paycheck…

Start the job as described by the conditions of employment………

piloteer

@John_C_87

The 19th 22 amendments WAS "the change". "Changes" to the Constitution was, and still is not allowed. Any legal precedent to reverse those amendments would only serve as a correction of policy to conform with the original text of Constitution, not a "change"!! The Constitution is completely legally AND socially objective. There is no Constitutionally viable method for changing the Constitution, and any support to attempt to do so IS the foreign influence on US politics that must be stopped!! 

I am not calling for any new law or change to the Constitution. I am calling on All US citizens to heed the call of our civic duty as was envisioned by our founding fathers and reject party affiliation and the foreign influence naturally embedded within.

The Constitution gives the states the right to decide who may, or may not vote. Nothing in the Constitution bars any citizen from having the ability to vote based on demographics, party affiliation, sex, race, social or economic status, or sexual orientation!! Nothing in the original text of the US Constitution bars women from having the right to vote! Nothing in the Constitution can stop us now from barring those who do vote for party affiliated candidates from voting!!!    

jack

piloteer said:

Is there a serious distaste for both major parties in the US? Can partisan politics be ended?

Hello p:

Nahh..  Democrats are, for the most part, happy with being a Democrat.  They're for the right things.  Always have been, always will..  Did you see the infrastructure bill they passed?? 

excon

Nomenclature

@jack

Nahh..  Democrats are, for the most part, happy with being a Democrat.  They're for the right things.

You're literally a convict who lies about being a Jew and you're selling a party which robbed the rightful candidate (i.e. Bernie Sanders) of his nomination twice. If the Democrats were offering anything of benefit to Americans they'd never be funded in the first place.

John_C_87

The 19th 22 amendments WAS "the change". "Changes" to the Constitution was, and still is not allowed.
Ratification is the process of change on American United States Consitution.
Any legal precedent to reverse those amendments would only serve as a correction of policy to conform with the original text of Constitution, not a "change"!! The Constitution is completely legally AND socially objective.  There is no Constitutionally viable method for changing the Constitution, and any support to attempt to do so IS the foreign influence on US politics that must be stopped!! 
The American United States Constitution by way of preamble has a specific condition that is to be met by legislators...The American United States Consitution is subject to all changes under the condition of a clear path has been set forth in writing of the course by which ratification of the document is to do so.

I am not calling for any new law or change to the Constitution. I am calling on All US citizens to heed the call of our civic duty as was envisioned by our founding fathers and reject party affiliation and the foreign influence naturally embedded within.

There is no two-party system there is a lie saying there is a two party system or there is a motion to place on the floor plans of ratification to the voting process itself. The one party system is held in this location Article IV, Section IV, of the American United States Constitution and neither the 22nd or 19th Amendments coming after that location make changes on Article IV, Section IV 's position as fact. The men who had written the American United States Constitution expected it to be changed and wrote the condition of all changes in the preamble. Again, the issue is over does changes to Article III by Section make better connection to established justice first by setting term limit as a Section and then securing a female vote by addressing a assignment of Presadera as one female constitutional representation of all women.   

The Constitution gives the states the right to decide who may, or may not vote.

 No the States get to decide who and how many of their own may be legally responsible for the liberties of the people’s right to vote, by representation due by taxation. As that is the way the document had been written from the beginning for at the start there had been no Federal Tax, nor state Tax. Here we are detailing complex litigation strategy to ensure America would remain to have a government like a Monarchy but better.

Nothing in the original text of the US Constitution bars women from having the right to vote! Nothing in the Constitution can stop us now from barring those who do vote for party affiliated candidates from voting!!!    Yes, the reason a man could not vote for a woman as President is that action can be proven in a court of law to be a perjury, also witness tampering. This easily addressed as a state of the union by simple holding all women in a single state describing them aligned with constitutional principle. As they had been incapable of doing so themselves for an over extended period having been allowed to interact with the voting process.  The best way by legal precedent is to Title the effort in such a way it is not a crime. Not simple create a crime to then say it is justification for lack of connection to established justice. We came from England so hint King and Queen are a Title of legal precedent as America was moving towards its independence. Where America's lack of representation was coming from actions of Parliament not by fact from King and Queen of England. As stated in a written claimas criminal charges in the Declaration of Independence.

 

John_C_87

 By Piloteer: Migrated this over hope you do not mind and will addressmthe questins a little later.

Of course it is ineffective. If it were effective, it would be absolutely antithetical to the ideals espoused in the US constitution, particularly our freedom of peaceful assembly. The hope was that non-partisan politics would become US political custom, not law, but they also knew any attempt to squash the formation of political parties while still holding true to the values of liberty would be fleeting and there would probably be nothing they could actually do to stop it. But that doesn't mean they didn't try, and we cannot now, does it?   

The legal political set up of the US government may certainly be a form of Republicanism, but that is just a form of government not, in and of itself a political party, and nothing in the original text of US constitution gives mention of, or lends allegiance to any political party!!!    

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

Not only did many of our founding fathers reject political party allegiance, they also considered it an evil European influence. I never mentioned any law to squash political parties, or change to the Constitution in any manner. I am calling on all US citizens to heed the call of our civic duty as was envisioned by our founding fathers and willfully reject party affiliation and the foreign influence of political parties!!!!  

MayCaesar

One might think this way based on the amount of criticism both parties receive - yet this is perfectly in line with the general habit of Americans to view power structures critically. Ask yourself this: if the people really dislike the major parties so much and are willing to vote for an independent candidate, then why has such a candidate never won the presidential elections?

One possible answer could be that, while Americans dislike the major parties, their opinions are much more lop-sided when it comes to individual independent candidates: perhaps 80% of Americans dislike Biden and 20% like him, while 5% of Americans love Jill Stein and 95% do not care about her. This however seems an insufficient explanation: certainly a centrist independent candidate could arise who combines what people like about the separate parties into a digestable mix.

What I think takes place here is people disliking major parties, but aligning with the populations they represent. There are few Republicans in the US who do not think that the Republican party is hopelessly corrupt - however, the general idea that the party represents the interests of, say, the farmers (in however a flawed manner) lives on, and if you are a farmer, you are very likely to feel that you belong in the party. And as much as you may hate the particular individual running in your district or state or country, believing that he ultimately will represent your interests and you will be a part of the community of other folks represented by him is very comforting.

People rarely are well aware of their own preferences, but their actions speak for themselves. I have lost count of how many times I cursed at the Apple products - yet I keep using my iPad and Mac daily, rather than swapping them for the competitors' products. However much I may dislike the particular features of these products, overall they clearly are very valuable in my eyes.

What the Founding Fathers had in mind assumed a very different culture from what we have today. They wanted people to actively participate in politics on a local level. Watching news and voting once every 2 years and not interacting with the system in any other way is not what they expected. In the current political climate it is only natural that people are going to split into two mega-tribes: the simpler everything is, the less everyone has to worry about. For a finer granulation you need a finer political culture, and it is just not there.

John_C_87

One might think this way based on the amount of criticism both parties receive - yet this is perfectly in line with the general habit of Americans to view power structures critically. Ask yourself this: if the people really dislike the major parties so much and are willing to vote for an independent candidate, then why has such a candidate never won the presidential elections? 

Simply said the cause is more than likely there is a multi-vote system for President, do away with the principle of runoff....it is not needed... There is by United States Constitution only one political party Article IV Section IV and the lie told there is more has proven itself to be an imperfect connection to established justice. Or is everyone voicing grievance a lair?

John_C_87

There are few Republicans in the US who do not think that the Republican party is hopelessly corrupt 

Doesn't that go without saying of all political elected officials are republican....it is not like they ever had a choice without putting in the work to ratify the constitution first it is a lie that has been given way too much liberty? And no it is not a freedom as the action has a know cost...

piloteer

@jack

I guess you think it matters how democrat-republicans feel about their party. That's neat. All that really matters is that they do not abide by the principles of the US Constitution and they are influenced by foreign entities. Jack, your attitude of pride for massive spending bills for walls along the Mexican border, infrastructure bills, wars for foreign interests and of course the interests of defense contractors, including a "war on drugs" that I guess has no end?!?! that "pride" typifies the obvious corruption and disregard for the national debt and the open scoff for struggling families with no plan to pay back these families the money that was taken from them to fund these massive initiatives of the democrat-republican party.

Not sure why or how you believe you have something to be proud about for your open support for foreign entities, let alone why you believe you shouldn't be stripped of your right to vote because of your support of the open corruption and foreign influence that is democratic-republican party?   

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Sorry to have to correct you, but George Washington had no party affiliation and identified only as an independent. There has been an independent US President, and there is no legal precedent that can stop that from happening again.

The "opinions" of US citizens do not change what is expected of them because of their civic duty. Our Constitution and the principles outlined within it are not supposed to be subject to ever shifting popular public opinion like foreign European countries conduct political business. Never did the text of the Constitution say that we are endowed with inalienable rights, unless those rights are unpopular, then if they aren't popular, report to your nearest labor camp. The Constitution is static and written to be unchanged by "the will of the people" like they do in Eurasian countries. There is no legally viable way to change the Constitution, only a difficult process of amending it, which only serves as a clarification of law, not a change of law.

It is the foreign influence of political parties that has caused the corruption that is the idea that our rights can be changed if an ABC news poll says most Americans don't care about liberty, or life, or anything but porn and fast food. I frankly fail to see how the opinions of the supporters of the democrat-republican party are of any value when put up against the expectations of them because of our civic duty to reject political parties and their foreign influence. 

All that really needs to happen to reinstate proper Constitutionality in US politics is a grass roots initiative of candidates who can take 5% of each major parties voters. If that can happen, monetary support will start to be taken more seriously for a grass roots initiative like that as an attempt to diminish, or even outright shelve the democrat-republican party and restore proper voting etiquette. The Whig party and the federalist parties no longer exist, but were once major political parties. Nothing says we must stick with the two parties we have now, or any party for that matter.   

It doesn't seem as though either major party are very enthusiastic about their respective frontrunners for President, and I doubt there are many here who could blame those parties for their lackluster support for their respective candidates who aren't even very popular within their own parties. But ain't that always the way with US politics, huh? Their candidates suck a$$, and we get stuck with supporting the lesser of two evils because we think our vote is only wasted on an independent candidate even if they may be a candidate that we agree with.  

Granted, my proposal here is thus far only a proposal and can understandably seem diminished by the fact that its not overwhelmingly popular as of yet, and I may not be the most popular debater here. But there is a small portion of concerned citizens who hope to reject the corrupt agendas and transcend partisan politics as the founding fathers hoped we would, and once again embrace our spiritual as well as legal connection as US citizens.                    

jack

Argument Topic: Is there a serious distaste for both major parties in the US?

piloteer said:

@jack

I guess you think it matters how democrat-republicans feel about their party.

Hello p: 

If I'm not mistaken the OP ASKED HOW I felt.  So, I told him..  Do I care if you like it?  No.

excon

piloteer

jack said:

piloteer said:

@jack

I guess you think it matters how democrat-republicans feel about their party.

Hello p: 

If I'm not mistaken the OP ASKED HOW I felt.  So, I told him..  Do I care if you like it?  No.

excon

Ok. You got me there. If it was my intention to have an objective conversation, I guess I shouldn't have asked how anybody feels about it. 

I do fail to see how you can somehow believe the democrats are insanely happy about their presidential candidate who doesn't seem to be much more popular in his own party than the respective republican candidate is in his party. I mean, can someone's pride for their party sometimes be just for the sake of towing the party line? If you are happy with your partisan candidates, that's obviously your choice, but I fail to see how your enthusiasm for your party is nothing more than ornamental and only for the purpose of saving face for a party whose candidate for president isn't very popular even within his own party, or that your enthusiasm is universal through all corners of the democrat wing if it is indeed genuine enthusiasm. Not to say the other major parties guy is the darling of their respective party, either. But you can't expect everyone here to believe you think all democrats are happy with their party and aren't only supporting the democrats so the republicans won't win, and others vote republican just so democrats wont win. 

Are we all expected to believe that none of us here support one major party only in the hopes of stopping the other major party from winning? I think it may be pretty hard to deny that doesn't happen just as easily as it is to know that it is not a logical voting technique to support a major party only for the sake of stopping the other major parties efforts. We should be voting for candidates we actually like regardless of their affiliation or even unaffiliated status. We should have NO political parties. Only independent voters who vote for independent candidates.      

jack

piloteer said:

I do fail to see how you can somehow believe the democrats are insanely happy about their presidential candidate.  I fail to see how your enthusiasm for your party is nothing more than ornamental

Hello again, p:

I can be a life long Democrat and NOT be insanely happy or enthusiastic, to use your word, about our candidate, our policies, or our representation in congress..  None of that rises to the level of serious distaste. I reserve my distaste for insurrectionists, MAGA wako's, and FOX News liars. 

I'm not sure what you want of me..  I'm a liberal.  Always was, always will be.  Do you wanna discuss particular issues??  I'm good with that.   You go first.

excon

John_C_87

@piloteer
Sorry to have to correct you, but George Washington had no party affiliation and identified only as an independent. There has been an independent US President, and there is no legal precedent that can stop that from happening again.
Goerge Washinton was republican he had no chioce Article IV Section IV is the legal precedent. Did he know or egknowledge he was republican? Did Congress know they had asigned him as republican when placing him commander and chief ( 1775 - 1783)
George Washington: Facts, Revolution & Presidency - HISTORY
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

MayCaesar

piloteer said:

@MayCaesar

Sorry to have to correct you, but George Washington had no party affiliation and identified only as an independent. There has been an independent US President, and there is no legal precedent that can stop that from happening again.

The "opinions" of US citizens do not change what is expected of them because of their civic duty. Our Constitution and the principles outlined within it are not supposed to be subject to ever shifting popular public opinion like foreign European countries conduct political business. Never did the text of the Constitution say that we are endowed with inalienable rights, unless those rights are unpopular, then if they aren't popular, report to your nearest labor camp. The Constitution is static and written to be unchanged by "the will of the people" like they do in Eurasian countries. There is no legally viable way to change the Constitution, only a difficult process of amending it, which only serves as a clarification of law, not a change of law.

It is the foreign influence of political parties that has caused the corruption that is the idea that our rights can be changed if an ABC news poll says most Americans don't care about liberty, or life, or anything but porn and fast food. I frankly fail to see how the opinions of the supporters of the democrat-republican party are of any value when put up against the expectations of them because of our civic duty to reject political parties and their foreign influence. 

All that really needs to happen to reinstate proper Constitutionality in US politics is a grass roots initiative of candidates who can take 5% of each major parties voters. If that can happen, monetary support will start to be taken more seriously for a grass roots initiative like that as an attempt to diminish, or even outright shelve the democrat-republican party and restore proper voting etiquette. The Whig party and the federalist parties no longer exist, but were once major political parties. Nothing says we must stick with the two parties we have now, or any party for that matter.   

It doesn't seem as though either major party are very enthusiastic about their respective frontrunners for President, and I doubt there are many here who could blame those parties for their lackluster support for their respective candidates who aren't even very popular within their own parties. But ain't that always the way with US politics, huh? Their candidates suck a$$, and we get stuck with supporting the lesser of two evils because we think our vote is only wasted on an independent candidate even if they may be a candidate that we agree with.  

Granted, my proposal here is thus far only a proposal and can understandably seem diminished by the fact that its not overwhelmingly popular as of yet, and I may not be the most popular debater here. But there is a small portion of concerned citizens who hope to reject the corrupt agendas and transcend partisan politics as the founding fathers hoped we would, and once again embrace our spiritual as well as legal connection as US citizens.                    

That is not a correction as George Washington was president long before either of the two major parties in question existed. Many things have changed over the two and a half centuries since then.

The next three paragraphs seem unrelated to anything I wrote. I have not made any arguments regarding the legality of election of an independent candidate as president: it certainly is legal, but it does not mean that it is very likely to happen.

Why the candidates proposed are so bad is a separate question; part of it, I believe, is the general trend of large political organizations becoming increasingly corrupt and self-serving. It is not like Joe Biden and Donald Trump were the best candidates the two parties could come up with in 2020, but the internal politics of those parties made it pretty much inevitable that whatever candidates would emerge would be people leading major political camps within the parties rather than people who appeal to the public. Political competition is very different in its mechanics from market competition: market players compete for the customers' money, while political players compete for the power to determine what rights the customers have.

But another major part, one in line with the reasoning I laid out above, is that they are, on some level, what the people actually want. The people want the show, the drama. Was Jill Stein a far superior candidate to either of these two clowns? Sure, you have to agree with that no matter your political affiliation. Was she a fun candidate to watch though? No. Trump's antics and Biden's blunders are what people turn the TV on for, not Stein's calm speeches.
In a democracy a candidate never wins without a significant degree of public support. And that public support is demonstrated by people's votes, not by their words. As I said before, people tend to have very little self-awareness when it comes to their actual desires (and I am no different) - their actions betray them, but even so they may be blind to what those actions suggest about their desires and will go to great lengths to rationalize them.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
That is not a correction as George Washington was president long before either of the two major parties in question existed. Many things have changed over the two and a half centuries since then.

This is untrue as George Washington was a Republican and had become one the moment he was placed in command of the American Armed forces in the American battle of Independence with England. It was then palce in writng after the War  Consitutional Article IV, Section IV was ratified in 1788 and Washington become President in 1789, there has been only one political party, again you are not addressing the issue when perpetuating an act of perjury by the people.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

This is untrue as George Washington was a Republican and had become one the moment he was placed in command of the American Armed forces in the American battle of Independence with England. It was then palce in writng after the War  Consitutional Article IV, Section IV was ratified in 1788 and Washington become President in 1789, there has been only one political party, again you are not addressing the issue when perpetuating an act of perjury by the people.

False, and easily disproved:-

You're slipping John.

John_C_87

The United States Constitutional Right as a state of the Union is to address the creator of the conflict which is the 1st Amendments as it lacks self-evident truth allowing a difference between liberty and freedom to be held in advance of court proceedings. This in turn give appearance as thought all Americans United States Congress is corrupted instead of lacking proper Presidential or Presadera leadership. The other grievance is made at the point of Presidential runoff voting as it is a waste of time and has been found to be an imperfect state of the union made on established justice and should be set before Federal Courts to make ruling on if it fails in connection to other facts required by American Constitution Preamble.

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

This is untrue as George Washington was a Republican and had become one the moment he was placed in command of the American Armed forces in the American battle of Independence with England. It was then palce in writng after the War  Consitutional Article IV, Section IV was ratified in 1788 and Washington become President in 1789, there has been only one political party, again you are not addressing the issue when perpetuating an act of perjury by the people.

False, and easily disproved:-

You're slipping John.

Constitution Article IV, Section IV, needs to be ratified before there is ever to be a two-party system in America.  That never happened by vote. All that has changed and is subject for test is the preliminary runoff for Republican and Democratic voting may come to an end, The reason for this grievance is clear because as misrepresentation to the United States Constitution by both parties and council in civil court proceedings took a large risk in spreading lies in the first place even when they claim they do not understand their own lies as a group. (politics makes changing parties a strategy only it does not mean there is two parties) All of this simply means that a connection to a perfect state of the union was allow but can now be tested to see if damage to third parties has taken place because of the attempt.

As for the error in the math application you are making with Pi. It is not infinite as stated in the example equation used. I went over this with you several time already natural numbers do not have a zero and Pi is connected to an arc by division.

piloteer

@jack

Voting democrat because that is the political ideal you embrace is perfectly fine and pari-passu with the vision the framers of the Constitution had. I have absolutely no qualms with how you want to vote. Its more so the political party you happen to vote for because of your personal  ideal, and whether that party is actually beneficial to your principles.

It seems we all accept that the democratic party is one of the two which make up this so called "two party system", and of course the other is the republicans. Because of the "major" status of the parties, they are in a constant state of reactionary opposition against the other "major party". The reactionary politics that arise from this purposeful conflict is what causes division and civil unrest. The Constitution has tasked our government with the duty of squelching civil unrest, but apparently the two "major parties", and their supporters feel as though that friction and civil unrest is just the way it goes. This places the burden of securing civil peace on a government that has not the economic means to deal with a nation wide civil unrest. This can be compounded by placing more of a tax burden on regular citizens because of the higher cost of security. We also happen to be in a time frame when our national debt is at its second highest point in the history of the our country. The economic strain caused by the assumed acceptance of the destructive process of this so called "two party system" is absolutely contrary to the principles of the Constitution and the vision of our forefathers. Therefore, this two party system is a clear violation of the civic of any its supporters, who are made up of the democrat republican apparatus.        

The second problem that comes from this "two party system" is that it also causes the platforms of each major party to be inexorably linked to the policies of the other major party. They then are really only working for the sake of stopping the other parties agendas instead of pressing for policies their supporters might actually want. They propose policies to inhibit the abilities of the other party. This causes both major parties to act as a single political apparatus that only functions to work against itself. This is not a sustainable system!!! 

The ideals of democracy and republicanism are perfectly harmonious with the principles of the original text of Constitution and the vision of its framers. I'm am in no way proposing that anybody should discontinue to vote for their principles whether they are democratic, republican, or otherwise. You, and everyone here can still vote for their principles while still only being registered as an independent with no party affiliation whatsoever. If voters begin voting for independent candidates, more candidates  will run as independent candidates which would further enhance the spectrum of political ideals being catered to in the independent column rather than a political party.                 

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Sorry to have to inform you that your attempt to dispel my claim that you were incorrect about their never being an independent president, is also incorrect. The federalist party, the anti-federalists, as well as the democratic-republicans or "Jefferson republicans" were all parties that predate the creation of the Constitution and the first election for President. Political parties did not predate the election of George Washington. So the claim that our first president was an independent president because his election predated political parties is false, and it is not the reason he identified as an independent president. He was independent in spite of the existence of political parties!   

What the people want is of no value in reference to the principles of the Constitution. There are some countries that do cater to the "will of the people", but the Constitution is not that kind of document. The civil unrest caused by the two major parties is not an acceptable form of governance, and the people of the Constitution have the legal and moral ability to neutralize the foreign threat posed by the democrat republican apparatus.             

John_C_87

The ideals of democracy and republicanism are perfectly harmonious with the principles of the original text of Constitution and the vision of its framers.
 You mean outside being a clear violation of Consitutional Article IV, Section IV? Making the creation of a so-call democratic or other party a test only on the intruduction of facts as a state of the union with established justice by American Consitution?       
You are getting way off base here @Piloteer.    

John_C_87

A grievance, a real grievance is set in the abilities for political candidates at whim can change party membership and the point of break in the preamble fact is to a state of the union made on the hardest crime to establish in court, lying on official documents like ballots.

John_C_87

The point being this trial would because of state law be required to begin in Armed Services court with a President placed on the stand under oath of the United States constitutional jurisdictional court as states have little or much lower connections to the preservation of United States Constitutional Right. 

Laws claiming immunity to the outcome of certain repercussions.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The point being this trial would because of state law be required to begin in Armed Services constitutional jurisdictional Right.

You are making a classic schoolboy error, John. Look, it's very simple.

Armed services' ability to stand under court with United States connections to being the stand under constitutional trial would because of much lower court with a jurisdictional right of the United States Constitution to being the point that the pre-service must stand under court as the United States constitutional right.

piloteer

John_C_87 said:

@piloteer
Sorry to have to correct you, but George Washington had no party affiliation and identified only as an independent. There has been an independent US President, and there is no legal precedent that can stop that from happening again.
Goerge Washinton was republican he had no chioce Article IV Section IV is the legal precedent. Did he know or egknowledge he was republican? Did Congress know they had asigned him as republican when placing him commander and chief ( 1775 - 1783)
George Washington: Facts, Revolution & Presidency - HISTORY
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

Umm, no. I'm not buying it. We are not republicans by default.  

MayCaesar

piloteer said:

@MayCaesar

Sorry to have to inform you that your attempt to dispel my claim that you were incorrect about their never being an independent president, is also incorrect. The federalist party, the anti-federalists, as well as the democratic-republicans or "Jefferson republicans" were all parties that predate the creation of the Constitution and the first election for President. Political parties did not predate the election of George Washington. So the claim that our first president was an independent president because his election predated political parties is false, and it is not the reason he identified as an independent president. He was independent in spite of the existence of political parties!   

What the people want is of no value in reference to the principles of the Constitution. There are some countries that do cater to the "will of the people", but the Constitution is not that kind of document. The civil unrest caused by the two major parties is not an acceptable form of governance, and the people of the Constitution have the legal and moral ability to neutralize the foreign threat posed by the democrat republican apparatus.             

I have not made either of the two claims. If you are going to just start attributing claims to me that I have never made and attacking them, then I will not participate in this discussion.

To your second point, you are the one who started talking about the principles of the Constitution. I was merely responding to your opening question about the distaste for both major parties which is a question of wants, not of legality. I will note, however, that the fact that something is illegal does not imply that it will not be done, and the fact that the Constitution has a mechanism of fixing the problems you are talking about does not imply that these problems will be fixed. We have just recently gone through a period of extreme authoritarianism, with people locked in their houses and entire business industries destroyed by monstrous COVID regulations; if after all this you still genuinely think that the Constitution is what chiefly defines how the politics work in the US, then you must be quite an optimist!

John_C_87

@piloteer

Umm, no. I'm not buying it. We are not republicans by default.Buy ? It is something not for sale so you cannot buy it. Did you not know because it never caused you harm?

???

Yes, you are. Yes, I am, Yes, We the people are." We Americans have all been held in a united state as republican at birth, be it hostile witness or not it is not something of only these modern times, and we are all at liberty to prove this legal fact, or some other fact has cause harm by way of connection to established justice. It cannot be a trail in County, State, Federal municipality as it is out of their jurisdiction it is an Armed Service or tribunal matter that may be appealed after by the Supreme Court.

I am sorry but the idea of a two party system was never fact as constitutional Article IV, Section IV was never changed after its ratification. Making targeting democratic and republican preliminary elections a test on connection to established justice.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
You are making a classic schoolboy error, John. Look, it's very simple.

No, it is not simple, it is a quite complex situation as state laws have been written which create obstacles to have political figures cleared of accused wrong. The festering accusations are also a problem which must be addressed as a violation of introduction of fact to the United States Constitution.