70% of conservatives would join a Tump-led third party.

[GMCGeneral]

Even Democrats are capable of being right about something. It isn't LIKELY, but it can happen.

A little ambiguous isn't it ?
What's the point ?

The point is that no third party, no matter who heads it up, is going to draw enough people right off the bat to beat Democrats in elections. All it's going to do is split the Republican side of the vote. And since we have a winner-takes-all system rather than a Parliamentary system, that guarantees that Democrats win every election until such time as the new party can build enough support to beat them, if it ever can. It's basically trying to change horses mid-stream, and accomplishing nothing but dumping yourself into the water.

The only time it really worked against the Democrats was in 1980 when John Anderson ran as an independent against Carter and Reagan.

 

[easyt65]

Even Democrats are capable of being right about something. It isn't LIKELY, but it can happen.

A little ambiguous isn't it ?
What's the point ?

The point is that no third party, no matter who heads it up, is going to draw enough people right off the bat to beat Democrats in elections. All it's going to do is split the Republican side of the vote. And since we have a winner-takes-all system rather than a Parliamentary system, that guarantees that Democrats win every election until such time as the new party can build enough support to beat them, if it ever can. It's basically trying to change horses mid-stream, and accomplishing nothing but dumping yourself into the water.

That has been the case thus far....but Americans have been more and more awakened to the fact that The 2 Political Parties in this country are being led by lying, corrupt, se;f-serving, criminal, treasonous leaders who are becoming more and more socialistand tyrannical.

The Democrats are openly Socialist now with no attempt to hide it any more.

The GOP is once again being 'led' by Washington Establishment / status quo / go along to get along cucks who have settled back into their passive / subervient roles, willing to allow the Democrats to do anything they want as long as they can keep their jobs as paid politicians.

 

[bendog]

Any "conservative" who would follow Trump is not a conservative. They are simply retarded.

Trump is about as conservative as the tassels on a stripper's tits.

Then perhaps you can tell us what President led more conservatively than President Trump. Just because one doesn't claim conservatism doesn't mean they are not.

Any "conservative" who would follow Trump is not a conservative. They are simply retarded.

Trump is about as conservative as the tassels on a stripper's tits.

f

Then perhaps you can tell us what President led more conservatively than President Trump. Just because one doesn't claim conservatism doesn't mean they are not.

HW was the last to address deficits, but I'd concede that the gop senate's move for a supply side tax cut was to create growth, but it failed to create enough to evens set off for reduced revenue.

Trump just spends without any reference to debt. He calls himself the "king of debt." He wanted to ******* buy Greenland

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Doubling the federal deficit in his first two years, with a Republican Congress, is your idea of a conservative.

Very interesting.

I didn't say everything he did was conservative, but he was more conservative than even Ronald Reagan.

Trump cut taxes especially on businesses. He got rid of much of Commie Care--a government healthcare system run down our throats. He did wonders on the border, strongly supported our Border Patrol and ICE. Many of the police unions supported Trump on his stance of law and order. He strongly supported our military which is one of the largest spending parts of the Republican bill. He created a policy that for every new business regulation made, two had to be removed in it's place. He is a proponent of pro-life.

 

[bendog]

Even Democrats are capable of being right about something. It isn't LIKELY, but it can happen.

A little ambiguous isn't it ?
What's the point ?

The point is that no third party, no matter who heads it up, is going to draw enough people right off the bat to beat Democrats in elections. All it's going to do is split the Republican side of the vote. And since we have a winner-takes-all system rather than a Parliamentary system, that guarantees that Democrats win every election until such time as the new party can build enough support to beat them, if it ever can. It's basically trying to change horses mid-stream, and accomplishing nothing but dumping yourself into the water.

The only time it really worked against the Democrats was in 1980 when John Anderson ran as an independent against Carter and Reagan.

I never thought of Anderson as really taking away from Carter. Interesting.

 

[Faun]

It would be a wonderful thing to see an uprising third party in the United States with Donald Trump or whoever.

Yes, he should absolutely do that.

 

[Faun]

It would be a wonderful thing to see an uprising third party in the United States with Donald Trump or whoever.

There's one problem. do you want to see long term Democrat entrenchment? Because that's what you're going to get if you split the GOP. I think retaking the GOP should be the priority.

Split the party.70% of the republicans---bringing along independents and even many dems------Trump party would be stronger than the GOP party.

LOLOL

Trump couldn't beat Biden... BIDEN, with 94% of the Republican vote -- how the **** do you think he can win with only 70% of the Republican vote??

And again, that's BIDEN, the worst candidate Democrats have put up since Dukakis.

 

[bendog]

Doubling the federal deficit in his first two years, with a Republican Congress, is your idea of a conservative.

Very interesting.

I didn't say everything he did was conservative, but he was more conservative than even Ronald Reagan.

Trump cut taxes especially on businesses. He got rid of much of Commie Care--a government healthcare system run down our throats. He did wonders on the border, strongly supported our Border Patrol and ICE. Many of the police unions supported Trump on his stance of law and order. He strongly supported our military which is one of the largest spending parts of the Republican bill. He created a policy that for every new business regulation made, two had to be removed in it's place. He is a proponent of pro-life.

It is the antithesis of conservatism from Cal Coolidge through HW to even suggest that one person should pay more for something inorder for another person to earn more. Thats actually govt controlling markets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point is that no third party, no matter who heads it up, is going to draw enough people right off the bat to beat Democrats in elections. All it's going to do is split the Republican side of the vote. And since we have a winner-takes-all system rather than a Parliamentary system, that guarantees that Democrats win every election until such time as the new party can build enough support to beat them, if it ever can. It's basically trying to change horses mid-stream, and accomplishing nothing but dumping yourself into the water.

Exactly. The only way for it to work is if each side divided up into two parties, and we had four running instead of the usual two. On the right we can divide up between the RINO's and the Trump party. On the left, they can divide between the establishment and socialists. I would love to see election results under that system.

Except the Democrats aren't going to do that. Whatever differences they might have privately, when the call to arms sounds, they all snap to like good little Borg drones and march in the same direction. I don't respect that about them, but I can recognize how dangerous it makes them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is the antithesis of conservatism from Cal Coolidge through HW to even suggest that one person should pay more for something inorder for another person to earn more. Thats actually govt controlling markets.

What does that have to do with my comment? The system we have is when one person is paid more, the other person has to pay more.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

It would be a wonderful thing to see an uprising third party in the United States with Donald Trump or whoever.

There's one problem. do you want to see long term Democrat entrenchment? Because that's what you're going to get if you split the GOP. I think retaking the GOP should be the priority.

YEP......PROG Demonincrats don't need any more advantages, they've already infected all media & education, and they exploit everything for any reason.

The black community should know this best but as a whole they've been taught to look into the wrong direction. The left's convinced all their kind the same, it's more blacks receive special attention because THEYRE DIFFERENT in PROG-think. Speak of, when's the next riot planned, 2022?

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, because anybody that proves something against your beliefs is racist.

People who've done the actual studies have found that black fathers are just as likely as white fathers to be involved in their kids' lives.

Massive bullshit. White women at a good percentage are the most laziest individuals in the world. They do not know how to take care of home. They do not cook or cook well. They do not clean or clean well. They live off of protections from the western world. But that is slowly collapsing.

Wow. Misogyny much?

A party that is just set up to elect Democrats would be wonderful news to no one but Democrats

It might be wonderful news to Republicans who need to purge their party of the toxin of Trump. yes, they might lose an election or two, but in the long run, they'd come out stronger. Eventually, those Trump Cultists would come back, but they'd come back chastened.

For instance, Ross Perot did draw a lot of the Crazies out of the GOP for two cycles. But the GOP came back stronger afterwards.

So let's say Trump starts a Third Party. It might do well for one cycle in 2024. He'll still lose, because he always loses the popular vote. By 2028, Trump will be in his 80's and not able to run again. His useless kids won't have the same impact. But the GOP will have the ability to draw a line between Trump's racism and themselves, and afterwards be able to say in good conscience they got that out of their system.

Kind of like the Democrats were able to do when they exiled George Wallace and his supporters in the 1970's.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly. The only way for it to work is if each side divided up into two parties, and we had four running instead of the usual two. On the right we can divide up between the RINO's and the Trump party. On the left, they can divide between the establishment and socialists. I would love to see election results under that system.

Not really. The results would be.

Someone would barely win enough states to get to 270 with a combination of unlikely states. So you might see weird results like Vermont going Republican and Montana going Democrat, but you wouldn't see much of a split.

Or.

The Trump and Socialist parties will win enough states to throw it into the House, and people will realize that's a thing that could actually happen. So let's say that the Democrats get first place, the Socialists get third, the Trumpsters come in third and the RINO's come in fourth.

The RINO's would be eliminated, because only the top three could be considered. So the GOP Congressional delegations would be forced to either vote for the Democrat or vote for Trump after purging him from the party.

Or we could do something as breathtakingly rational as having direct elections, with a runoff if no one gets 50%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. The results would be.

Someone would barely win enough states to get to 270 with a combination of unlikely states. So you might see weird results like Vermont going Republican and Montana going Democrat, but you wouldn't see much of a split.

Or.

The Trump and Socialist parties will win enough states to throw it into the House, and people will realize that's a thing that could actually happen. So let's say that the Democrats get first place, the Socialists get third, the Trumpsters come in third and the RINO's come in fourth.

The RINO's would be eliminated, because only the top three could be considered. So the GOP Congressional delegations would be forced to either vote for the Democrat or vote for Trump after purging him from the party.

Or we could do something as breathtakingly rational as having direct elections, with a runoff if no one gets 50%.

Nobody would be able to make it to 270, so it would be a winner take all like it is now. The party with the most EV wins the election. What may happen is something like the non-socialist Democrats leaving to join the RINO party. Look at how favorably the Democrats were talking about Kasich when he ran for the Republican nomination. They still like him today. People may leave the RINO party for the less radical Democrat party. We just don't know.

For most of us party folks, we just have to accept the good with the bad. I disagree with things in the Republican party, but not nearly as much as I disagree with the Democrat platform, so in spite of my many disappointments of the RNC, I have to vote for them. Having four parties would give us the opportunity to vote for candidates we have more in common with. The new Patriot party would be designed around the views of President Trump: Strong support of our military and police, tough on immigration and the border, favoring our businesses with taxes and regulations thus making new jobs possible, just everything he's done for this country when he was President. I wouldn't leave the Republicans unless the Democrats divided their party as well. If we had four parties, I would leave the Republican party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People who've done the actual studies have found that black fathers are just as likely as white fathers to be involved in their kids' lives.

Being involved with their kids lives is not the same as being a full-time parent in the household. In most cases, the court allows the father to have custody on weekends, and the mother gets them for the week. This is because usually, the father does not live in the same school district or city as the mother.

When we were kids, that was the beginning of single-parent homes, just not to the degree we have today. I had friends that never got into trouble, and friends that were always in trouble. The kids who were always in trouble came from single-parent homes. In fact my best friend as a young teen is in prison for murder today, and will likely spend the rest of his life there. He actually killed two or more women, but the other murder I know about can't be proven. We didn't have DNA back then.

 

[my2¢]

Dependending on his health in 3 years, Trump could likely buy the Libertarian nomination with far greater ease than Hillary bought hers in 2016. Given the thought I'd have to wonder if (1) he could be that pissed off at the GOP if the party doesn't get solidly behind him and (2) if he'd really get conservatives to cross over to a Libertarian ticket which so far they've avoided?

 

[kaz]

Yes, because anybody that proves something against your beliefs is racist.

People who've done the actual studies have found that black fathers are just as likely as white fathers to be involved in their kids' lives.

Massive bullshit. White women at a good percentage are the most laziest individuals in the world. They do not know how to take care of home. They do not cook or cook well. They do not clean or clean well. They live off of protections from the western world. But that is slowly collapsing.

Wow. Misogyny much?

A party that is just set up to elect Democrats would be wonderful news to no one but Democrats

It might be wonderful news to Republicans who need to purge their party of the toxin of Trump. yes, they might lose an election or two, but in the long run, they'd come out stronger. Eventually, those Trump Cultists would come back, but they'd come back chastened.

For instance, Ross Perot did draw a lot of the Crazies out of the GOP for two cycles. But the GOP came back stronger afterwards.

So let's say Trump starts a Third Party. It might do well for one cycle in 2024. He'll still lose, because he always loses the popular vote. By 2028, Trump will be in his 80's and not able to run again. His useless kids won't have the same impact. But the GOP will have the ability to draw a line between Trump's racism and themselves, and afterwards be able to say in good conscience they got that out of their system.

Kind of like the Democrats were able to do when they exiled George Wallace and his supporters in the 1970's.

Yes, if you want insights into someone, ask someone who truly hates them. Give me some examples of people who hate your guts and what you have learned from them about who you truly are before you waste your time telling me who Republicans really are, fascist

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dependending on his health in 3 years, Trump could likely buy the Libertarian nomination with far greater ease than Hillary bought hers in 2016. Given the thought I'd have to wonder if (1) he could be that pissed off at the GOP if the party doesn't get solidly behind him and (2) if he'd really get conservatives to cross over to a Libertarian ticket which so far they've avoided?

I'm a conservative Republican, and I'd vote Libertarian if not for their stance on drugs and weak defense of our country. These are two issues Trump is strongly against. They are also pro-choice because they are for less regulations and pretty much have the stance to let people do whatever the hell they want. Trump would never join that party.

 

[kaz]

Dependending on his health in 3 years, Trump could likely buy the Libertarian nomination with far greater ease than Hillary bought hers in 2016. Given the thought I'd have to wonder if (1) he could be that pissed off at the GOP if the party doesn't get solidly behind him and (2) if he'd really get conservatives to cross over to a Libertarian ticket which so far they've avoided?

I'm a conservative Republican, and I'd vote Libertarian if not for their stance on drugs and weak defense of our country. These are two issues Trump is strongly against. They are also pro-choice because they are for less regulations and pretty much have the stance to let people do whatever the hell they want. Trump would never join that party.

Note the price is higher for our war on drugs than the benefit. You know Janice Joplin did not binge when she died, she took the same amount of drugs she normally did. But he had gotten a high potency batch and it killed her. That still happens today. We fund organized crime. Drugs cause our inner cities to be shooting galleries. Now China is behind fentanyl as you must have heard. And for what benefit do we do that? None. No one lets government decide what we put in our own bodies. Which is yet another downside, teaching people our laws have no moral backing.

Libertarians have that right.

As for defense, it's true that Libertarians would pull back from foreign wars in foreign countries, but other than the anarchists we would in my view be stronger than Republicans about those to attack us. We'd be all for killing people who are trying to kill us

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Note the price is higher for our war on drugs than the benefit. You know Janice Joplin did not binge when she died, she took the same amount of drugs she normally did. But he had gotten a high potency batch and it killed her. That still happens today. We fund organized crime. Drugs cause our inner cities to be shooting galleries. Now China is behind fentanyl as you must have heard. And for what benefit do we do that? None. No one lets government decide what we put in our own bodies. Which is yet another downside, teaching people our laws have no moral backing.

Libertarians have that right.

As for defense, it's true that Libertarians would pull back from foreign wars in foreign countries, but other than the anarchists we would in my view be stronger than Republicans about those to attack us. We'd be all for killing people who are trying to kill us

The problem is in some cases, if you don't get them before they get you, you will end up losing. 911 is a perfect example of that. We pretty much ignored them even after their first attempt to take down the WTC. Look at what Iran is up to. Countries get nukes as a threat to any other country who might want to use nukes to attack them. Iran wants to get nukes to be the attacker. They anxiously await for the end of the world so that the seventh Imam will rise. Wars for oil? Sure they were, but we depend on energy to sustain our economy and way of life.

Yes, drugs are what causes gang violence in Democrat run cities, but if it were made legal, do you think that would actually stop? Do you think illegal pot sales stopped in states that have legal marijuana? Many years ago when we were debating about having a state lottery, they promoted that it would end mafia gambling. They passed the lottery, and the mob used the state picked numbers for their games, and paid out a higher amount than the state for winning. All these years later, they are still doing the same.

You will never stop drug usage, but you can slow it down by keeping it illegal.