Alex Jones and MTG tell it like it is, make the case we need a robust third party

[dblack]

I'm ready for ideology to take a back seat to consensus. I'll vote for whichever candidate pursues it most aggressively.

 

[cnm]

The (post 1998) GOP is "foreign agents working for Israel" = spot on truth

Lol. As though Schumer has not pledged his soul.

 

[dblack]

Lol. As though Schumer has not pledged his soul.

As though pointing to the other side absolves all accountability. All you're really saying when you do that is, "We're just as bad as they are."

 

[cnm]

Don't be so sure. Are the Democrats doing anything to be more attractive?

They appear to be fighting a rearguard action for the gerontocracy.

 

[cnm]

As though pointing to the other side absolves all accountability. All you're really saying when you do that is, "We're just as bad as they are."

In regard to Israel and America

 

[dblack]

Tell me, what positions would a third party take on issues like gun control, abortion, immigration, transexuals, etc.?

If they're smart, they make only minor moves on any of those, or ignore them entirely. There's just no consensus on those issues, and pushing that kind of social change on people isn't working.

 

[Mac1958]

If they're smart, they make only minor moves on any of those, or ignore them entirely. There's just no consensus on those issues, and pushing that kind of social change on people isn't working.

I suspect you won't agree with this, but one (1) third party presidential candidate I could REALLY get behind -- to the point of serious donations and time -- would, instead of listing out a "platform", describe exactly how they would facilitate individual task forces made up of the two parties. Every issue -- abortion, health care, budget, everything -- would be assigned a team made up of both parties.

Not that I would expect anything (although I would be quietly hoping). I would want to see that idea get out to the electorate to see how popular it would be.

The only things tribalism guarantees are wild swings back and forth, and decay.

 

[cnm]

I checked out Wiki. Interesting.

List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe if the Greens and the Libertarians merged there'd be total ballot coverage.

But I liked the confusion of the Libs' listed categories, where everything can/will clash with everything else.

• Right-libertarianism
• Economic liberalism
• Cultural liberalism

 

[dblack]

I suspect you won't agree with this, but one (1) third party presidential candidate I could REALLY get behind -- to the point of serious donations and time -- would, instead of listing out a "platform", describe exactly how they would facilitate individual task forces made up of the two parties. Every issue -- abortion, health care, budget, everything -- would be assigned a team made up of both parties.

Hmm... I guess. "Both parties" is the problem. What you describe sounds more like compromise than consensus. OR at least from my perspective. Compromise is - "we'll let you do your shitty things if you let us do our shitty things". Consensus doesn't mean we'll all agree. It merely means that if there isn't real, broad agreement on a matter, it shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

The only things tribalism guarantees are wild swings back and forth, and decay.

Exactly. Get 50.1% of the vote and slam their shit down everyone's throats. Then, the "other side" swings back in and does the same thing with different bullshit. Wash, rinse and, yes - "decay".

 

[cnm]

Anyway, until you get proportional representation any third party is even deader in the water than before the balloting problem.

 

[cnm]

It merely means that if there isn't real, broad agreement on a matter, it shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

I sort of thought public policy was about getting broad agreement on matters.

Oh well.

 

[Mac1958]

Hmm... I guess. "Both parties" is the problem. What you describe sounds more like compromise than consensus. OR at least from my perspective. Compromise is - "we'll let you do your shitty things if you let us do our shitty things". Consensus doesn't mean we'll all agree. It merely means that if there isn't real, broad agreement on a matter, it shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

There's one more possibility: Innovation. Something NEW. Smart business leaders create and monitor teams and hold them accountable when they want to innovate. They use experts.

Example: For health care, the politicians would just be there to keep everything moving and to be responsible for the finished product. I'd also want experts there: Providers, actuaries, health insurance companies, budget, tax, free marketeers, physical therapy, pharmacy, natural medicine. Hell, toss in a futurist and a couple of AI folks.

If we're stuck with two goddamn crappy parties, the least we can do is make sure they both have skin in the game so that they're not constantly sabotaging each other.

Steve Jobs: "We don't hire smart people and tell them what to do. We hire smart people and have THEM tell US what to do".

 

[HikerGuy83]

The biggest problem with the MAGA movement is the immorality. Trump is obviously a vile human being. And the vast majority of MAGA voters just do not care.

There are yackers and there are screechers.

No doubt which one you are.

 

[EMH]

No, you don't understand. Its the fringe issues that draw people to one party or the other. If you are pro abortion, you can forget about getting enough people to form a third party capable of winning. You certainly won't be drawing from the GOP, and why should the Democrats join you when their party already allows abortions?

The GOP is 27% of voters. Of that 27% there is an overwhelming majority that is pro life, never mind the evidence of human overpopulation, which requires an IQ over 5 and THEY DON'T HAVE THAT.


Face it, you hate truth, America, and all you care about is the ONLY ISRAEL MATTERS Party.