• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Set Trump Aside?

There is no room for bigotry and racism in the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan.

How much bigotry and racism is going on these days in the party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Harry Reid?

Remember when Reid said that Obama could gain acceptance because he didn't speak with a "negro dialect"?

Remember when Hillary Clinton said that Gandi used to own a gas station?

Remember when Al Sharpton said that white people were cave dwellers, and Socrates was a " homo"?

Lol, there's a lot of selective memory going on when it comes to prejudice in this country.
 
How much bigotry and racism is going on these days in the party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Harry Reid?

Remember when Reid said that Obama could gain acceptance because he didn't speak with a "negro dialect"?

Remember when Hillary Clinton said that Gandi used to own a gas station?

Remember when Al Sharpton said that white people were cave dwellers, and Socrates was a " homo"?

Lol, there's a lot of selective memory going on when it comes to prejudice in this country.

I'd never vote for them anyway so I won't bother defending them.
 
COMMENT (and maybe a question for Abba):

The Third Party "solution" always mystifies me. I cannot understand why people would think that candidates and movers in a "third party" will be any less influenced by money that WILL attempt to influence anyone and everyone.

To suppose that the candidates of "third parties" are more honest, or less subject or influence, or less inclined to think first of self, family, and ambition...and secondly to "the people" than the folk involved with the major parties...

...seems incredibly naive.

What am I missing here?

The third party hope is that they will be different. That's all they have! Ask any one of their groups and they all think it's better than any other group. Ask any people running super pacs and they say their super pac is better than any other. Ask anybody looking to change the country and they say their change is better than anybody else's. Heck Trump said in his speech that his change WILL BE better than Obama's!!!! He actually went out and said that. After Obama, I learned to be very weary of any politician promising that type of all around change... It ain't going to happen!

In fact, if you look into it, whether it's due to low funding or desperation, third parties or their candidates are usually the ones who get into trouble. They are just lucky enough to not have a huge media presence that will make their stories known and their supporters are definitely not going to bring up how their guys constantly break campaign finance laws...
 
Last edited:
That's fine, but your statement was still false.

After the Goldwater disaster there was a purge of the nutty Bircher conservatives in the GOP and the only hope the GOP has is that happening again. This nation is less and less conservative by the day. We tried your way for 40 years and the results are not acceptable
 
The third party hope is that they will be different. That's all they have! Ask any one of their groups and they all think it's better than any other group. Ask any people running super pacs and they say their super pac is better than any other. Ask anybody looking to change the country and they say their change is better than anybody else's. Heck Trump said in his speech that his change WILL BE better than Obama's!!!! He actually went out and said that. After Obama, I learned to be very weary of any politician promising that type of all around change... It ain't going to happen!

In fact, if you look into it, whether it's due to low funding or desperation, third parties or their candidates are usually the ones who get into trouble. They are just lucky enough to not have a huge media presence that will make their stories known and their supporters are definitely not going to bring up how their guys constantly break campaign finance laws...

We agree there, Mod.

Most third party presidential wanna-be's get almost no scrutiny. No use giving them any extra publicity challenging them.
 
Why do we need a new party? The American people have proven they are too ****ing stupid to handle two parties, we need "The Party" with various candidates competing to see which can offer the masses the most free ****. The "conservative" party just nominated a big government, self identifying democrat... and the masses of stupid cheered.

Trump has offered to deport a bunch of people and built wall, and make Mexico pay for it. That would actually be free stuff.
 
Trump has offered to deport a bunch of people and built wall, and make Mexico pay for it. That would actually be free stuff.

Trump has offered that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy too, you really think his word means anything?
 
Trump has offered that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy too, you really think his word means anything?

No he didn't.
 
No he didn't.

"(Cruz’s) father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody even brings it up," Trump said on Fox and Friends on the morning of the critical Indiana primary. "What was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible."
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim linking Ted Cruz's father and JFK assassination | PolitiFact

I believe the term here is...

icon175x175.jpeg
 
Doh!
Yes, you have pawned yourself.

He clearly did not say or even intimate what you said he did.
"Trump has offered that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill Kennedy too,"

No where did he say he helped kill him.
So you pawned yourself and showed you like to spin reality.

He clearly did. However I don't expect anything but semantic flailing from you, a witless endevour that only amuses the one instigating it. Thus I shall decline from further discussion of this with you. It is obvious you are merely here to enrage the dimwitted that miss what you are doing.
 
Should Republican leadership set aside all primary and caucus results, set aside Donald Trump, and start fresh at the Cleveland convention to select a Presidential and a Vice Presidential nominee? This could quite possibly split the GOP and make a Democrat Presidential victory more probable, but it would at least spare the Republicans the dishonor of nominating Trump. And yes, it would be possible within the party's rules. If Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were to decide on such a course of action, a Presidential campaign season already the strangest in my experience would enter more uncharted territory. Your thoughts?

I don't know. While I can't stand the guy, setting all primaries aside would be as despicable as the Dems superdelegates pledging before the elections.
I don't care if these elitists think they know better. Looking at just the last few elections make me think they don't have a clue.
This country is by the people and for the people. Let the people decide.
 
What do you think upset the establishment more?

Trump ranting about the judge or Trump saying the U.S. was broke?

Calm
 
We agree there, Mod.

Most third party presidential wanna-be's get almost no scrutiny. No use giving them any extra publicity challenging them.

Third parties are actually pretty childish when you get down to it and Trump embodies that entire message. I think Trump's real support among everyday average voters is minuscule compared to Clinton's political network of donors and staffers who can actually get out the vote. But after 2016, I will never underestimate the power of idiots. I've seen the man on the street segments that the late night comics do and everyone knows Trump is running. That's scary.
 
After the Goldwater disaster there was a purge of the nutty Bircher conservatives in the GOP and the only hope the GOP has is that happening again. This nation is less and less conservative by the day. We tried your way for 40 years and the results are not acceptable

Since I have no party affiliation, "my" way has never been tried.
 
Since I have no party affiliation, "my" way has never been tried.

If you mean anarchy (or Libertarian), I think Somalia is a pretty good approximation. You strike me as more of a neocon though. You are certainly a corporatist in your denial of AGW..
 
If you mean anarchy (or Libertarian), I think Somalia is a pretty good approximation.

why do so many people assume libertarian = anarchy. anarcho libertarians are a small fringe subset of libertarian.
 
why do so many people assume libertarian = anarchy. anarcho libertarians are a small fringe subset of libertarian.

Really? What governmental measures do you favor then? The only difference is connotation, with libertarian sounding far more positive than anarchy. Otherwise they are the same.
 
If you mean anarchy (or Libertarian), I think Somalia is a pretty good approximation. You strike me as more of a neocon though. You are certainly a corporatist in your denial of AGW..

I am an Independent so I don't have to have stupid discussions about what I should believe. If you really must have a label you can call me an empiricist.
 
Really? What governmental measures do you favor then? The only difference is connotation, with libertarian sounding far more positive than anarchy. Otherwise they are the same.

it would be a long list to go through everything. To be clear I'm not a member of any party. but I would consider my ideology liberartian-esque.
More toward the lines of classic to neo classic liberalism. in the vein of Adam Smith, John Lock toward Hayek and von Mises.
But not of the Rothbard Anarcho flavor of libertarianism. I could throw out a lot of names but they might not mean much.

So basically individual freedom and liberty, I am a proponent of free markets.. but.. I do realize some controls are necessary. I believe that government should only be in place to fulfill its constitutional duties and should be as small as it can be and still fulfil those duties. I also understand that some social programs are necessary even if if they are very undesirable. I would just promote developing alternatives if and when possible and seek to minimize those programs.
Social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and all the rest are the business of the individual, I think government should have little involvement and neither to promote nor to ban such things and they should be allowed as long as they don't hurt anyone else or force anyone else to become involved.
That's a very short summary obviously but might give you an idea.
 
Because the electoral system we use requires a 51% of electoral votes to win or the election is void and more than 2 parties make that difficult. We need to change it to a straight majority vote before we can have more than 2 parties.

And that's why I'm opposed to the electoral college.
 
And that's why I'm opposed to the electoral college.

Would you consider the congressional district method of allocating EVs, as we still have in NE and ME, which was much more predominate before the Civil War.

GOPs in Pennsylvania toyed with this idea after taking over PA in 2010 to split the EVs that DEMs took in 2008 in winner-take-all. They backed off under National House pressure that feared the potential of losing House seats .
 
Would you consider the congressional district method of allocating EVs, as we still have in NE and ME, which was much more predominate before the Civil War.

GOPs in Pennsylvania toyed with this idea after taking over PA in 2010 to split the EVs that DEMs took in 2008 in winner-take-all. They backed off under National House pressure that feared the potential of losing House seats .

I actually like the idea of a popular vote for President, with a runoff election between the two candidates who got the larges percentages of votes.
 
If you mean anarchy (or Libertarian), I think Somalia is a pretty good approximation. You strike me as more of a neocon though. You are certainly a corporatist in your denial of AGW..

No, it isn't. Somalia is a handful of dictators and warlords forcing their will on the masses through violence and oppression. Despotism and Libertarianism are clearly different things, and neither of them are anarchy.

It might also interest you to know that opinions on climate change and opinions on economics are different things.
 
Back
Top Bottom