George Founding Father Washington

[artimies7]

So here I am, bored and procrastinating, when I remembered that George Washington was elected president without being affiliated to any political party. How interesting, I thought.

In such a polarized political climate, with no bills of any significance being passed in Congress, Anonymous filling their fuel tanks for revolution, and the economy on the decline, would an unaffiliated president help the country?

The practical challenges are many, yes, but allow me the space to record the possible vote-gathering points.
-Clear perspective
-No one individual or collection thereof would have any more influence than the next
-Nobody telling him/her how to run the country
-Open discussion with all of Congress instead of just parts of it
-No previous stigma associated with his/her term(s)
-others?
~discuss

[BluePriest]

This stems from people not understanding the difference between a republican and democrat.

Cracked.com had a good article on this i wish i could find.

Ultimately, the only difference is that one believes in big government and 1 believes in small government. Thats where the term blue dog democrat and rhino republicans come from. Theres ideas such as abortion and gay marriage that we traditionally say 1 party supports and the other doesnt. These arent actually party issues though. This most recent election, for example was talked about as a liberal vs a conservative more than a republican vs democrat. Honestly the term republican and democrat is largly misleading. There are republicans that agree with gay marriage just like how there are democrats that believe abortion is wrong. If im remembering correctly (i could be wrong) I think in the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden said while he personally disagrees with abortion, its not a belief he would force on someone.

The whole party system as a whole needs to be demolished in my humble opinion. There was a lot of talk about Chris Christy joining the presidential primary, but he has a lot of views that dont go with the republican party. This system is nice because it helps the uninformed voters, but this system is bad because it helps the uninformed voters.

Its bad because people will see "R" or "D" and vote for the person, without knowing about what s/he believes.  This also causes the divide in the population like what we have today. Republicans believe that all democrats are big government, gay loving, pro abortion, big debt fools, and democrats think republicans are all abortion hating, small government, gay hating, anti abortion, stingy  fools. (note I know, no one is pro abortion, they are pro choice, im making a point here).

[eaglgenes101]

We don't need to go that far. We just need to break down the barriers that split the parties and let them see what they agree with.

[Belthus]

You have it backwards. George Washington was wildly popular first so he didn't need a party. However, once in office, he implemented the Federalist agenda, much to the chagrin of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.

In the beginning, the President and the Vice President were of different parties because the VP was simply the second highest vote-getter. This did not work and thus was changed to the current system.

The notion that getting rid of parties will make everything OK is naive. Deep divisions have always existed, in every time and place, except for occasional moments of unity, typically during a crisis. Conscious efforts to create unity are often bloody, repressive regimes. The fascist critique of liberal democracy was that democracy was contant arguing and no action. The fascists promised to crush their enemies utterly, and they did.

[artimies7]

You have it backwards. George Washington was wildly popular first so he didn't need a party. However, once in office, he implemented the Federalist agenda, much to the chagrin of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.

In the beginning, the President and the Vice President were of different parties because the VP was simply the second highest vote-getter. This did not work and thus was changed to the current system.

The notion that getting rid of parties will make everything OK is naive. Deep divisions have always existed, in every time and place, except for occasional moments of unity, typically during a crisis. Conscious efforts to create unity are often bloody, repressive regimes. The fascist critique of liberal democracy was that democracy was contant arguing and no action. The fascists promised to crush their enemies utterly, and they did.

Well, you know a better version of history than I do.

This ain't creating unity, it's not being affiliated with political parties. Note: for the most part, people are still party-tied, and we're not getting rid of them. But in this instance, the president doesn't get a party label, just a fantastic majority of votes.

[Belthus]

This ain't creating unity, it's not being affiliated with political parties. Note: for the most part, people are still party-tied, and we're not getting rid of them. But in this instance, the president doesn't get a party label, just a fantastic majority of votes.

That could happen, but then what? Either the new President sides with one party over another (like Washington with the Federalists), or nothing gets done because neither party is getting what they want.

[artimies7]

This ain't creating unity, it's not being affiliated with political parties. Note: for the most part, people are still party-tied, and we're not getting rid of them. But in this instance, the president doesn't get a party label, just a fantastic majority of votes.

That could happen, but then what? Either the new President sides with one party over another (like Washington with the Federalists), or nothing gets done because neither party is getting what they want.

Ooor, the American people could scream at Congress a lot and something would actually happen. Optimism, man.