Real 3rd Party Scare.

NiftyNiblick said:
At least 95% of people who want a third party don't know how to situate the proposed party ideologically.
They just don't want Democrats or Republicans.

There are conservatives not content with the Republican Party.

There are progressive liberals not content with the Democratic Party.

Their new parties would be completely different from one another.

Then of course, there are also brain-dead moderates far too timid to support serious change of any kind.

Perhaps we do need a third party, but if we do, we equally need a fourth and possibly fifth or sixth.

Still, how many stupid Americans understand that it we have multiple viable parties, ALL presidential elections going forward would be decided in the House of Representatives?

It doesn't matter if that's good or bad for the proposes of this discussion. For certain is that idiots don't take it into consideration.

They think that our constitution is the Bill of Rights and the other amendments.

The forget or never knew that the constitution is primarily a document defining how our government is supposed to work.

America's failure to properly prioritize GOOD education is one of the major issues causing the republic's collapse...which is quite clearly in progress right now.
Religious superstitions among the dimmer minds pose another major factor. They're not content to live by their inane beliefs but endeavor to force them into the laws of the land.

Although forums like this one aren't good for much more than venting, they certainly do reveal, in a frightening way,
how stupid so many Americans are.
Click to expand...

A most intriguing analysis. Thanks.
 
Taichiliberal said:
One disagreement.....the DNC and RNC both conspired to change the rules at the 11th hour to keep Nader from the final debate. There will always be a debate as to Nader's chances, but Nader himself stated that the opposing parties were afraid of the national narrative changing by his presence and speeches. Thus the old canard of blaming Nader for "taking votes away" from Gore has a serious flaw in it.
Click to expand...

Specific third candidates have nothing to do with ranking. Ranking allows more people to vote for those third party candidates. Consider Perot, who got 19% of the vote and Nader, 3%. Is there any doubt they'd have garnered more votes if people were allowed to rank versus "waste" their vote on a Third Party candidate?
 
Nomad said:
Been telling people that for years but they just shut their brains and yammer NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

I'm at the point now where, if the Republicans somehow nominated a sane centrist conservative against a Democrat progressive liberal ding-a-ling, I'd vote for the Republican.

Saw Maryland's Republican Governor on TV this morning. He sounds like a guy I could vote for and he's mulling over a possible run.
Click to expand...

Actually, the GOP gave Dennis Kucinich the heave ho for the like of the Orange Oaf. I would have voted for him over Hillary.
 
anonymoose said:
How do you feel about WOKE D.A.'S that are softer on criminals than they've ever been and actively try to imprison victims of crime that defend themselves, e.g., Jose Alba and Kyle Rittenhouse? Would you vote for these types over a tough-on-crime D.A. only because the woke d.a. is a democrat?
Click to expand...

As opposed to GOP legal eagles letting white collar criminals that cause the country's near economic downfall several times? Are you that naive to state that there were no conservative or republican D.A.'s that were "soft on crime"? Do I need to educate you? Rittenhouse....an out of state interloper enters a riotous situation with an illegally obtained weapon that he had no legal right to, misrepresents himself as having emergency medical experience and (self appointed) security for local businesses. He commits 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter, is NOT arrested on the spot and gets off in the courts. But that's okay with you, as you wail the MAGA buzzword "woke" to cover your oft vocal hypocrisy. GMAFB with your BS. Now, deal with the OP with some intellectual honesty or STFU!
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
One disagreement.....the DNC and RNC both conspired to change the rules at the 11th hour to keep Nader from the final debate. There will always be a debate as to Nader's chances, but Nader himself stated that the opposing parties were afraid of the national narrative changing by his presence and speeches. Thus the old canard of blaming Nader for "taking votes away" from Gore has a serious flaw in it.
Click to expand...

Specific third candidates have nothing to do with ranking. Ranking allows more people to vote for those third party candidates. Consider Perot, who got 19% of the vote and Nader, 3%. Is there any doubt they'd have garnered more votes if people were allowed to rank versus "waste" their vote on a Third Party candidate?
Click to expand...

You're missing or avoiding the point. By the rules, 3rd party candidate Nader had earned the right to be part of the Presidential debate. He got screwed....not that he would have won, but he would have changed the narrative for Gore and Bush https://gpus.org/other/press/pr_04_16_02.html
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're missing or avoiding the point. By the rules, 3rd party candidate Nader had earned the right to be part of the Presidential debate. He got screwed....not that he would have won, but he would have changed the narrative for Gore and Bush https://gpus.org/other/press/pr_04_16_02.html
Click to expand...

More correctly, I don't give a shit about the fact Nader got screwed, allegedly, by both parties. He barely got 3% of the vote. He'd have never have won regardless of what happened.

OTOH, the fact the DNC fucked over both Nader and Bernie is interesting, isn't it? Do you see the hands of the Clintons on that? LOL
 
Dutch Uncle said:
More correctly, I don't give a shit about the fact Nader got screwed, allegedly, by both parties. He barely got 3% of the vote. He'd have never have won regardless of what happened.

OTOH, the fact the DNC fucked over both Nader and Bernie is interesting, isn't it? Do you see the hands of the Clintons on that? LOL
Click to expand...

That's sad, my man. Because essentially you're ignoring the FACTS which deem the whole process corrupt and illegitimate based on a shadow of the old "it's Nader's fault that Bush won" bilge. Whether he would have won or not, he earned the votes and the right to be part of that debate. Those were the rules until the major parties changed the rules, as the court ruling points to in the link.

As far as Slick and Hillary are concerned, I have no doubt some nefarious finagling was done by them...one of the reasons why I didn't vote for the Slickster's 2nd term and did not vote for Hillary.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As opposed to GOP legal eagles letting white collar criminals that cause the country's near economic downfall several times? Are you that naive to state that there were no conservative or republican D.A.'s that were "soft on crime"? Do I need to educate you? Rittenhouse....an out of state interloper enters a riotous situation with an illegally obtained weapon that he had no legal right to, misrepresents himself as having emergency medical experience and (self appointed) security for local businesses. He commits 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter, is NOT arrested on the spot and gets off in the courts. But that's okay with you, as you wail the MAGA buzzword "woke" to cover your oft vocal hypocrisy. GMAFB with your BS. Now, deal with the OP with some intellectual honesty or STFU!
Click to expand...
So you are for protecting violent criminals and for prosecuting those victims of violent crime that defend themselves. Interesting.
 
Frank Apisa said:
One...the independent vote will NEVER unify under one individual, mostly because the independent vote normally splits among a liberal/conservative continuum.

Two...any independent candidate will sorely hurt either the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. Each independent candidate will draw almost exclusively from the Democratic Party vote or the Republican Party vote...and almost never equally from both.

The notion of independents getting together to solve the problems currently plaguing our nation is a pipe dream.

Right now people should forget about the candidate as an individual...and vote for the candidate(s) of the party they think best represents the direction in which they want our country to head. YOU WILL NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT, BECAUSE DOING THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE...but at least you will get a direction in which to head.

I am a registered Independent...and as I see it, as things stand today, I will vote for the Democratic Party candidates almost exclusively, because although I see the many faults of that party, it has become obvious to me (and should to you) that the direction the Republican Party has taken is much too similar to the direction of the Nazis of 1930's Germany.
Click to expand...
Frank's announcing he'll be voting against all Nazi's. Thats terrific news
 
anonymoose said:
How do you feel about WOKE D.A.'S that are softer on criminals than they've ever been and actively try to imprison victims of crime that defend themselves, e.g., Jose Alba and Kyle Rittenhouse? Would you vote for these types over a tough-on-crime D.A. only because the woke d.a. is a democrat?
Click to expand...

Kyle Rittenhouse?

Gimme a fucking break, A.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See, the major flaw in your analysis is that you don't see the wisdom of building a 3rd party from the ground up. No matter what state, you need the local Independents and people disillusioned with the Democratic Party to start organizing to vote in local party leaders that are NOT part of the political machine. If you are outnumbered by the Dem Party, then follow the example of the Tea Party and how they effectively took over the Republican Party narrative. That's how it's done.
Click to expand...

Dream if you want, Taich. You are free to do so...at least, for the moment you are. But let Trump or a Trump clone get into the White House...and America goes down the toilet.

The Republicans are going to do their very best to get a liberal firebrand running as a third party candidate. It works for them.
 
Taichiliberal said:
One disagreement.....the DNC and RNC both conspired to change the rules at the 11th hour to keep Nader from the final debate. There will always be a debate as to Nader's chances, but Nader himself stated that the opposing parties were afraid of the national narrative changing by his presence and speeches. Thus the old canard of blaming Nader for "taking votes away" from Gore has a serious flaw in it.
Click to expand...

Nader was a loser...and best for the country that he was. Nader DID take votes away from Gore...and anyone thinking that he did not has a serious flaw in their thinking.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
only low among lib'ruls.......conservatives are ecstatic.....
Click to expand...

In this case, "conservatives" = theistic autocrats.

Welcome to the American Inquisition which has as much to do with Jesus as the Spanish Inquisition.

This is about power, not God or Jesus Christ. Ergo, it's about Satan.

AvOe0FB.jpeg
 
Frank Apisa said:
Nader was a loser...and best for the country that he was. Nader DID take votes away from Gore...and anyone thinking that he did not has a serious flaw in their thinking.
Click to expand...

Nader did take votes from Gore just like Perot took votes from GHW Bush. That's why Third Party candidates don't work at the national level under the present system. IMO, allowing voters to rank their votes is better and nullifies the problem.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)
A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top