Third party?

[Dans La Lune]

'Moderate Third Party'???

Dems are a moderate party. Biden has traditionally been a moderate, center-right Democrat. You can barely fit a piece of paper between the policies of some Dems and some Republicans.

Geezus H Christ.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't necessarily support a 3rd party than believe there may be one and then we shake down back to two parties. The Trump minions will not be followers of the GOP unless the party is more of Trumplicans than of Republicans. It's not like if Trump loses they all change their minds back to how the party was thinking before Trump, which is why those minions rejected the party and went for Trump. The Lincoln Reps would be that of the once more moderate GOP of the past and may siphon-off some Dems. The point is, the GOP is in a quandary. They can't survive being Trumplican, too RW, as long as the Dems stay closer to the center. Yet they lose the support of the Trumpsters if they go Lincoln Republican and don’t do their bidding. "Oh, what a world! What a world!"

The problem with your analysis, is that you are blatantly lying by saying Democrats are close to the center. There is no centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The Democrats are far left, they’re even fielding violent left shock troops in antifa and Black Lives Matter

 

[RetiredUSN]

I agree, the Libertarians are divided, but I think if a more concerted effort was made at unity, great things can be achieved.

Youre always gonna get someone who hates something, that is inevitable. What needs to be done is election reform so that the top two parties cannot spend willy nilly to keep 3rd parties out of debates and coverage. The MSM I think is the biggest obstacle.

I like a lot of what they stand for.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

'Moderate Third Party'???

Dems are a moderate party. Biden has traditionally been a moderate, center-right Democrat. You can barely fit a piece of paper between the policies of some Dems and some Republicans.

Geezus H Christ.

No, Biden has not been a traditionally moderate Democrat. He is nowhere near moderate. He is pretending to be now, but in reality he has shifted all of his political opinions with whatever the Democrats have wanted him to. Eliminating the oil industry is not a moderate position, taxpayer-funded post birth abortion is not a moderate position. Expanding and packing the supreme court is not a moderate position. Opening the border decriminalizing crossings and amnesty and 12, million illegals is not a moderate position.

 

[RetiredUSN]

'Moderate Third Party'???

Dems are a moderate party. Biden has traditionally been a moderate, center-right Democrat. You can barely fit a piece of paper between the policies of some Dems and some Republicans.

Geezus H Christ.

Biden isn't the issue here.

He'll be drooling all over Jill in a couple years while being spoon fed.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The problem with your analysis, is that you are blatantly lying by saying Democrats are close to the center. There is no centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The Democrats are far left, they’re even fielding violent left shock troops in antifa and Black Lives Matter

This is pure lunacy. Democrats have often been RIGHT of center. There's a small but growing progressive wing of the Democratic party, but they certainly ain't in control.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, Biden has not been a traditionally moderate Democrat. He is nowhere near moderate. He is pretending to be now, but in reality he has shifted all of his political opinions with whatever the Democrats have wanted him to. Eliminating the oil industry is not a moderate position, taxpayer-funded post birth abortion is not a moderate position. Expanding and packing the supreme court is not a moderate position. Opening the border decriminalizing crossings and amnesty and 12, million illegals is not a moderate position.

This is why centrism is a HORRIBLE strategy for the Democratic party. No matter how far right you are, Republicans will view you as an ultra-communist. Anyone who falls for this is a sucker.

 

[Logician Man]

The problem with your analysis, is that you are blatantly lying by saying Democrats are close to the center. There is no centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The Democrats are far left, they’re even fielding violent left shock troops in antifa and Black Lives Matter

Five positive claims in the above post. How many can you prove to be factual with verifiable, credible links? How many will be dismissed due to your inability to meet burden of proof?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is pure lunacy. Democrats have often been RIGHT of center. There's a small but growing progressive wing of the Democratic party, but they certainly ain't in control.

They are in full control, they’re driving the agenda, At the local level they’re installed DAs elected with Soros money, or eliminating cash bail releasing violent criminals on the street and prosecuting heroes like Kyle Rittenhouse. Their prosecuting police officers who did nothing wrong, they are not prosecuting rioters. None of this is a sign of political moderation. And right now the Democratic Party is openly saying that if they win based off of trumps popularity, they will immediately moved to add states to the union, legalize illegal aliens, and pack the Supreme Court to prevent them from losing another election. That’s not a sign of a party that’s confident of their ability to win on moderation

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is why centrism is a HORRIBLE strategy for the Democratic party. No matter how far right you are, Republicans will view you as an ultra-communist. Anyone who falls for this is a sucker.

I find it odd that you didn’t argue any of the actual points I made as to left wing extremism and democratic policy. There is no such thing as far right in the Democratic Party. I can think of exactly 2 senators who can be described as Centrist, And one will be defeated in a landslide this election.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I find it odd that you didn’t argue any of the actual points I made as to left wing extremism and democratic policy. There is no such thing as far right in the Democratic Party. I can think of exactly 2 senators who can be described as Centrist, And one will be defeated in a landslide this election.

You mean your bogus bullshit points? Which ones would you like to substantiate?

 

[GolfingChef]

Nope

3rd party doesn't change anything

Actually it does. Right now with 2 parties, both parties know no matter how badly they do, they will be back in power in a decade or so. There is no incentive to do the right thing knowing this.

A viable 3rd party would force both sides to work a little harder to get votes, it would require both sides to compromise more to get anything accomplished. Just imagine if the Senate were 40 Repubs, 40 Dems and 20 third party. Nothing becomes law without compromise working together.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Kinda tired of this argument because it is simply not true.

Vote your conscious and let the cards fall where they may. It's not like there really is a difference in the two parties. They are just vocal about different things and both want to increase the size of the government.

Frankly, the only people that argue there is no difference between the parties are almost always heterosexual, straight, privileged white men.

 

[GolfingChef]

the Republican Party is 97-98% pro Trump.

And if Trump loses the White House and the Senate, the Trump love will disappear. We are a fickle people and it is all about "what have you done for me lately".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right. Two viable options.

Which is what I said.

So again, how was I wrong? Or, are you trying to say there's only one viable option? Or that none are "viable" because they all suck donkey penis?

The key is recognizing (then changing) why only two options are “viable”. The most obvious is the EC implementation of winner take all, next is offering “straight ticket” voting and the lack of ranked choice voting.

There are other structural issues, such as “independents” caucusing with (essentially joining?) one of the two “viable” major parties once elected and the (internal government) power granted based (largely) on seniority.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Kinda tired of this argument because it is simply not true.

Vote your conscious and let the cards fall where they may. It's not like there really is a difference in the two parties. They are just vocal about different things and both want to increase the size of the government.

More specifically the power of the federal government, since it is not constrained to spending only what it dare ask for via taxation and has the (unlimited?) power to override lower level government actions (state/local laws).

 

[Dans La Lune]

And if Trump loses the White House and the Senate, the Trump love will disappear. We are a fickle people and it is all about "what have you done for me lately".

I'm wondering what brand of conservative ideology is left after Trump. They've already burned through all the ones I can think of. Bush was worshipped like a god until he wasn't. Then the Republican party, at time a neoconservative-learning party, abandoned neoconservatism over night and became libertarians. Except they weren't really libertarians, they were just anti-Obama government.

It's all a branding exercise. Conservatives have no real ideology beyond exploiting racism, religion, cultural bigotry, and religion hatred for personal gain. Think hard -- what does the conservative movement stand for at its core? Anyone who says smaller government should be laughed out of any serious political discussion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Be tired all you want. Doesn't change that it's the truth.

Incumbents typically have an advantage.
So a non-vote (which is pretty much what a third party vote is) typically benefits the incumbent.

Yep, incumbents have the power to keep the system (rigged?) favoring incumbents.

 

[Dans La Lune]

More specifically the power of the federal government, since it is not constrained to spending only what it dare ask for via taxation and has the (unlimited?) power to override lower level government actions (state/local laws).

Why do you care about government spending, specifically? Can you articulate it?

 

[GolfingChef]

Anyone who says smaller government should be laughed out of any serious political discussion.

The smart thing for them to do would be to get back to this, but they won't because there is no power in smaller government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There already is a bona fide legit 3rd party, which also is the 3rd largest party after the dems and repubs: the Libertarian Party.

Yep, which has majority power in exactly no city, county or state government. Income redistribution (aka “safety net”) programs, once established, have too much popular (political?) appeal to ever be removed - the best one could hope for is (slightly?) altering who “qualifies” to receive “free” (or heavily subsidized) goods/services.

 

[Mika-El]

Would you support a moderate third party? Lots of words about it repeated below.


And the idea keeps coming up when discussing either scenario: as a check on Democrats or a rejection of Trump in a second term.

Asked by Rick Newman at Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit this week about different scenarios for the Republican party, Fiorina gamed it out, saying that “every single one of the alternatives” is on the table.

“One of the things that I have said publicly and said to many of my colleagues is, we are not asked as citizens of this country to pledge allegiance to a party,” she said.

More: Watch the full interview with Carly Fiorina

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who challenged Donald Trump in the 2020 primaries and already voted for Biden, predicted a new party in a recent interview. “I think in January and February, frankly, whether Trump wins or loses, you're going to see an effort by moderate Republicans, joined by moderate Democrats, some practical libertarians, many environmentalists, the old Green Party, come together,” he said. “It'll be a new party.”

Another one of President Trump’s 2020 challengers, Joe Walsh, has said “the Republican Party is done. It’s breaking up before our very eyes.”

Well I enjoy Jesse Ventura's perspective on US party politics but with due respect to anyone that believes third parties will help needs to first try understand your electorate system. It was set up to allow smaller population state votes to counter balance large state population votes. As long as that is the way your system prevails, popular vote will be superceded by electoral college counts per state which hinders more than two parties.

Third party or no third party the US has an electrorate system and that is at the root of the traditional Republican-Democrat voting patterns. The more rural and less educated the voter is the more likely they vote Republican. The fact also is visible minorities have not voted Republican since Lincoln because of the perception that Republican policies are more in favour of wealthy people, i.e., more likely to push laws that favour them over poor minorities.

Those realities prevail. Your country is divided by wealth. Wealth or the personal amount of it more than anything seems to dictate whether people tend to Democrat or Republican even more than other characteristics such as gender, minority status.

Ventura of all the commentators makes some convincing arguments about injecting other parties but the US has never considered third parties anything but fringe crackpots. Its not helped by an idiot like Kayne West or in the past an extremist George Wallace whose then views are openly championed today by Trump. Ross Perot had an image problem. His voice (LBJ on helium) handicapped his attempts to provide an alternative candidate He could not shrugg that off or his politics which did not resonate with people who were not wealthy. Your country just does not like alternatives to the two party state the exception being Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do you care about government spending, specifically? Can you articulate it?

The government is a monopoly with the power to outlaw competition, compel spending (we call that taxation/regulation) and to elevate itself into being the single-payer (sole provider?) of any good/service. The federal government has the added ability to issue currency (create cash) and thus lend that to itself (or to anyone well connected, inviting corruption).

Nothing is criminal unless (and until) declared so by the government and only the government may initiate any criminal charge (absent government approval it remains forever merely an allegation of wrongdoing). That naturally creates the “just us” system whereby only the state can charge state paid agents (public employees - like police or prosecutors) with any crime. When monopoly power is coupled with defining what is (or is not) corruption we end up with campaign contributions not being seen as corrupt in the least (how dare anyone suggest otherwise? - please see the campaign finance laws that we have made for ourselves).

 

[Ikari]

I already vote 3rd party, I think we do have plenty of choices from within them. People just need to stop falling for the cycle of faux dichotomy and actually vote 3rd parties. Once a 3rd party starts gaining enough traction, it will naturally start to attract some more moderate views to the philosophy.

 

[jonny5]

I agree, the Libertarians are divided, but I think if a more concerted effort was made at unity, great things can be achieved.

Youre always gonna get someone who hates something, that is inevitable. What needs to be done is election reform so that the top two parties cannot spend willy nilly to keep 3rd parties out of debates and coverage. The MSM I think is the biggest obstacle.

Spending isnt really the problem. Dumb voters are, and what can we really do about that? Do we want govt to protect us from ourselves? To tell a private org (Debate commission) who they have to let into a debate? Who the media has to cover? That would not be libertarian.

However, I think govt should do thinks like not allowing ballots to favor parties or fund party primaries. Remove all labels from official documents. People can still organize as a party, choose someone among themselves to be on the ballot, spend all the want using their party label. But the party wont appear on the ballot.