BNP Nick Griffin Question Time pt 1 of 7
Category: Political Parties | Dec 11, 2009 |
Political Parties in India have lost grounds
The people of India shall be facing difficulties in casting their votes in general elections of 2009 because all the political parties and alliances have got no point with them with which they shall be approaching the voters and getting their votes. The BJP had a point with them and that point-Hindutiva has lost grounds because the Hindus are with Congress too and very few Hindus shall be casting votes to the BJP because they know that if Hindutva comes to India, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Christians shall not be happy and they shall start separation movements and then there shall be disturbance in India. Peace is the final target of the voters of India because if peace is there, they shall go ahead and if there is disturbance, they shall not go ahead.
There is an other movement and some people are planning to have a third front. If they want that as third front be formed, they should try to unit the Dalits, the Sikhs, The Muslims and the Christians and if Communists too join with them, they shall form a strong third front and once they are established on throne, then the whole future shall be with them. But here too the Lefts who are not one shall be hesitating with the Sikhs, the Muslims and the Christians and if they join with them, they shall not acceptable to others because they do not believe in God and the people who do not believe in God shall not be acceptable in India..
Therefore, the people of India shall be facing a difficulty this time because none of the parties who had been ruling India could solve the problems of the people of India. They are still illiterate, they are still unemployed, they are still poor, they are still without suitable living accommodation, they are still beggars, they are not in a position to send their small children to schools, they are still wearing rags, they are still starving and in spite of all efforts made so far, the government could not write off these problems of the people of India.
This time too the political parties and alliances are not giving to the people of India some methods with which the political parties and alliances shall be writing off these problems of the people of India.
Time is still with the parties and alliances and they must come forward with some points which they shall follow during the coming tenure. If they want, they must induct some experts and with their help they must draw policies and those policies be placed before the people. And at the same time the people of India must come forward with points which could give new directions to the political parties. The people are masters of this country and therefore it is their duty to bring out the points for the help of the governing parties. Something should be done this time, because the people of India have already wasted about six decades under the slogans given by the political parties and this time the parties shall give wrong slogans to the people to get their votes. Therefore, this time all must try to come forward with new outlook and at least they must stop wasting time from this general elections.
Watch the video related to political parties
story of an innocent student Dileep who comes to Jaipur to study. Against a backdrop of local political intrigue, the film begins with a Rajput conglomerate gaining strength as Dukey Bana and a few ex-Royals convince a reluctant Ransa to contest for the college elections on behalf of the Rajputana party; Ransa and Kiran battle it for General Secretary’s post. Dileep finds himself trapped in political maneuvers and realises that this is not what he had wanted. It dawns on him that he is …
Help answer the question about political parties
What were the first political parties in the United States, and why were they formed?What were the first political parties in the United States, and why were they formed?
I did the same picture but with charcoal x)
It didnt came out right though:s
lovely work^^
dude! ur a genius! i think i officially love u. and i also think u must be some alien with phenomonal artistic ability not available here on earth….but im cool with that
For the beginnings of political parties in the Anglo-American context, a good place to start is with Stuart England. In the reign of Charles I, you had distinct political factions: the "Court" faction and the "Country" faction competing in elections for the Commons. In the course of the English Civil War and its aftermath, a significant number of followers fled to the colonies. The influence of the "Court" party in the U.S. can be seen in the nickname for the University of Virginia — the Cavaliers. Meanwhile, the influence of the "Country" party was strongest in New England. Three major streets in New Haven are named after the individuals responsible for the execution of Charles I.
It doesn't mention them at all. It doesn't say they are required or disallowed, doesn't make them legal or illegal.
I guess you could argue it's an extension of freedom of assembly.
It wasn't entirely politician's fault, the early American people would label groups of politicians supporting ideas and this started the process of political parties.
As many as we want.
Most of the US political parties are listed in the link below..
Too much to list as an answer.. .. but great reading..
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Sigh…same here.
No, not at all. I said “what if” =D
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted a government in which the states were given power, and the Anti-Federalists wanted a more centralized government.
George Washinton, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall were Federalists.
Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and George Mason were Anti-Federalists
OMG!!!! THIS IS AWESOME!!!! so realistic….almost like a photo….
Some of us are not tied to a political party—–we do our best to either vote for the lesser of evils or when we hit the jack-pot and find a candidate that best represents our best interests—unfortunatly there has been less of the latter in recent cycles.
They spend money on many things.
TV and Radio advertising.
Newspaper advertising.
Campaign mailings.
Paying people to make phone calls to encourage voters to vote for their candidates.
Signs to put up at polling places and on people's yards.
Here is an interesting blog:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/011940.html
There are a number of politicians that do vote on issues independantly of the parties platform, they are a memeber of the party as that is the party which represents there view on the majority of issues. But nothing says you have to vote along the parties platform.
The origins of a competitive two party system in the US can be found in the institutional design: 1) Electoral College 2) single candidate district 3) President and Vice-President, and also 4) disputes around revolving issues like the ratification of the Constitution in 1797-89 and Jay Treaty that split factions, political symbols and groups supporting them. From another perspective, the interests and symbols were already divided and grouped in slave states and non-slave states.
1) Electoral College – The contest for the Presidency, the requirement of an absolute majority in the Electoral College, and the rule that each state would have a single vote in the runoff in the House of Representatives (Hough).
2) Single Candidate District- Districts that elect only one candidate and that do not require a runoff if the leading candidate doses not have a majority. Single member districts without a runoff tend to produce two-party competition , for the formation of the third party usually has the result of splitting the vote on its part of the political spectrum and giving victory to those most different from the vote. Each state had the incentives to ensure that it casts all its electoral votes for one candidate (Hough)
3) President and Vice-President- both are crucial offices that could not be selected by negotiation with the legislative. (McCormick)
4) Jay Treaty of foreign policy- the debate in 1794-1795 marked an important stage in the intensification and/or formalization of factional and party struggle (J.Charles,1961) As J.Charles argued, the Jay Treaty "altered party alignments and caused each group to close ranks" as a reaction of this debate, the losers made a coalition into the party they called Republicans and the conservatives did the same and coalesced into the Federalist Party. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported a pro-France line and Hamilton and Jay a pro-Britain policy and this was used as a symbolic issue to get support.
I wish you well in trying to achieve your goal but I truly believe that you have the losing side.
The Founders not only didn't want political parties (or as they called them factions) but they fear them as instruments which would destroy the republic that they had created. Time is proving their fears correct.
Political parties having nothing to do with democracy, rather, political parties work to garner power unto the party over all else. Power exercise through an increasingly strong general government at the expense of State rights and the rights of the individual.
A good example of my point is the Republican Party's forcing through the application of the 14th Amendment in 1868 when it never met Constitutional requirements for ratification except through force applied through military of reconstruction. This was justified by the 1869 case of Texas v. White which opined that the federal government could do this by right of conquest. In other words at the expense of a constitutional republic and its democratic processes.
Hm…that you did, that you did.
Is it really that hard to beleive someone has tallent?
I always find myself speechless every time I see your work. I always rate it 5 stars. You’re quite talented. Keep up the beautiful job. ^_^V
Stunning.