I see posts here and elsewhere which talk about the republicans and the democrats and seem to start with the premise that these two parties actually have content. For example, a poster will say candidate x is not a real republican or democrat or that they betray some party principle or another.
I would suggest that the parties have no actual content as such but rather are mere anachronisms which exist as vehicles for some groups and many individuals to pursue whatever they deem appropriate.
Think of the parties as mere vehicles, as rickshaws if you will. They have no particular place they want to go because they have no mind of their own. Whoever wants to go some place will hop on one of them, pay the price, and ask to go there. Maybe they get there, maybe somebody else pays a better price or persuades the fellow pulling the rickshaw that going up this street rather than that one would be advantageous.
One of our two rickshaws has a sturdier axle and tires and the other is more opulently appointed but neither has a mind of its own and both are subject to the whims of the person paying the fee and the person pulling the rickshaw.
Appeals to party principles, largely by people with no fixed principles, are hot air aimed at raising more money for the fee or at perhaps convincing the driver to go this way or maybe to convince the driver that he should take the day off and let somebody else do the pulling.
Anyway, listening to the pols these last six decades convinces me that they are almost all without merit or virtue and little that we blame them for or credit them for is due to their good efforts or the value of their party's principles.
I don't think of the parties as actual entities as such anymore but rather as competing monkey islands with the inhabitants slinging zhit at one another and in time switching over to sling such material at the other island.
Rickshaw or monkey island, either way it is easier to understand the hyped blather. Right now, Ted Cruz, Constitutional Scholar's proposal to have retention elections for the SC is my favorite piece of flying zhit.
I would suggest that the parties have no actual content as such but rather are mere anachronisms which exist as vehicles for some groups and many individuals to pursue whatever they deem appropriate.
Think of the parties as mere vehicles, as rickshaws if you will. They have no particular place they want to go because they have no mind of their own. Whoever wants to go some place will hop on one of them, pay the price, and ask to go there. Maybe they get there, maybe somebody else pays a better price or persuades the fellow pulling the rickshaw that going up this street rather than that one would be advantageous.
One of our two rickshaws has a sturdier axle and tires and the other is more opulently appointed but neither has a mind of its own and both are subject to the whims of the person paying the fee and the person pulling the rickshaw.
Appeals to party principles, largely by people with no fixed principles, are hot air aimed at raising more money for the fee or at perhaps convincing the driver to go this way or maybe to convince the driver that he should take the day off and let somebody else do the pulling.
Anyway, listening to the pols these last six decades convinces me that they are almost all without merit or virtue and little that we blame them for or credit them for is due to their good efforts or the value of their party's principles.
I don't think of the parties as actual entities as such anymore but rather as competing monkey islands with the inhabitants slinging zhit at one another and in time switching over to sling such material at the other island.
Rickshaw or monkey island, either way it is easier to understand the hyped blather. Right now, Ted Cruz, Constitutional Scholar's proposal to have retention elections for the SC is my favorite piece of flying zhit.
