Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[Foxfyre]

Nothing I said there was any of them but ALL under Trump. I can back all that up. You can only point vaguely to the left and make declarations. It was Trump that directly said that the constitution needs to be suspended. It was Trump who went to foreign allies and demanded announcements about investigations. Not investigations mind you, ANNOUNCEMENTS about investigations. It was Trump that said he wanted, and still does, to expand libel laws so people could not attack him in the news. He stands for protectionism, not the left anymore. It is slickening that the left is now the party of free trade. As far as I know, there are zero democrats that have demanded loyalty from any of their political appointees, something Trump has done multiple times. Loyalty to HIM, not the nation. Again, a fact and not the democrats. It is Trump who broke the idea that the president should be accountable to the law. That is no longer the case. Had our current SCOTUS existed during Watergate, Nixon would have not resigned and there would have been no investigation because he would have been immune.

Ya, tell us again how it is not Trump that stands counter to everything the nation stands for.

Sorry fox, standing behind Trump is a clear and unequivocal indication of a outright hatred of our nation and everything it stands for. Even if his supporters have no idea that is the case.

Please do back it up then. But use credible sources, unedited comments, full context. If you do, I think you'll find you don't know anything about Donald Trump and you're dead wrong. Just because the left spews hateful rhetoric and propaganda and dutifully repeats the assigned talking points does not make it true.

 

[FA_Q2]

They've chosen their politics over their religion.

That's actually fine and all, but they clearly want to combine the two going forward. A Theocracy Lite™.

Looks like we may find out.

Christian nationalism is gaining ground lately but we are talking bout a sliver. The vast majority still see religion as being separated from country. At least as far as I can tell.

There are few things more destructive than marrying the power of politics with power over your soul.

 

[FA_Q2]

Please do back it up then. But use credible sources, unedited comments, full context. If you do, I think you'll find you don't know anything about Donald Trump and you're dead wrong. Just because the left spews hateful rhetoric and propaganda and dutifully repeats the assigned talking points does not make it true.

We can start with Trump telling the DOJ to lie to support political interests.

Trump to DOJ last December: 'Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me' | CNN Politics

Trump pressured top Justice Dept. officials to falsely declare the election "illegal" and "corrupt" despite finding no evidence of widespread voter fraud

www.cnn.com

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

 

[Delldude]

Nothing I said there was any of them but ALL under Trump. I can back all that up. You can only point vaguely to the left and make declarations. It was Trump that directly said that the constitution needs to be suspended. It was Trump who went to foreign allies and demanded announcements about investigations. Not investigations mind you, ANNOUNCEMENTS about investigations. It was Trump that said he wanted, and still does, to expand libel laws so people could not attack him in the news. He stands for protectionism, not the left anymore. It is slickening that the left is now the party of free trade. As far as I know, there are zero democrats that have demanded loyalty from any of their political appointees, something Trump has done multiple times. Loyalty to HIM, not the nation. Again, a fact and not the democrats. It is Trump who broke the idea that the president should be accountable to the law. That is no longer the case. Had our current SCOTUS existed during Watergate, Nixon would have not resigned and there would have been no investigation because he would have been immune.

Ya, tell us again how it is not Trump that stands counter to everything the nation stands for.

Sorry fox, standing behind Trump is a clear and unequivocal indication of a outright hatred of our nation and everything it stands for. Even if his supporters have no idea that is the case.

Sorry, Pal.........you're just recycling old debates that have already been hashed out here previously.

 

[Foxfyre]

We can start with Trump telling the DOJ to lie to support political interests.

Trump to DOJ last December: 'Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me' | CNN Politics

Trump pressured top Justice Dept. officials to falsely declare the election "illegal" and "corrupt" despite finding no evidence of widespread voter fraud

www.cnn.com

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

You are reporting what never-Trumpers/TDS afflicted sources are saying Trump said and not providing any context in which he said it if he actually did. Context is everything. And without it there is very seldom any honesty at all.

I could go through your posts and cherry pick this or that line out of its full context and make you look like the most stupid or dishonest or dangerous or clueless person on the planet. I won't do that to you. And nobody should be doing it to others, even politicians that they hate.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are reporting what never-Trumpers/TDS afflicted sources are saying Trump said and not providing any context in which he said it if he actually did. Context is everything. And without it there is very seldom any honesty at all.

I could go through your posts and cherry pick this or that line out of its full context and make you look like the most stupid or dishonest or dangerous or clueless person on the planet. I won't do that to you. And nobody should be doing it to others, even politicians that they hate.

I provided the context, a meeting with the top DOJ officials who all said they would quit after him replacing the top DOJ official because he refused to lie. The replacement being selected because he would lie and one that had zero qualifications because, as one of my other statements pointed out, Trump wants loyalty to him and not loyalty to the nation. It is all there. Not one person making a claim. Not just claims either. There was PHISICAL EVIDENCE that this is what happened.

You stamping your foot and demanding that the all the top DOJ officials were just lying and threatening to quit over.... well you did not give any alternatives so threatening to quit in a vacuum for no reason because that makes sense just affirms what I stated.

Finally, you demanding that these guys were 'never trumpers' is just a knee jerk reaction. These were not never Trumpers, some were Trump appointees.

 

[Delldude]

I provided the context, a meeting with the top DOJ officials who all said they would quit after him replacing the top DOJ official because he refused to lie. The replacement being selected because he would lie and one that had zero qualifications because, as one of my other statements pointed out, Trump wants loyalty to him and not loyalty to the nation. It is all there. Not one person making a claim. Not just claims either. There was PHISICAL EVIDENCE that this is what happened.

You stamping your foot and demanding that the all the top DOJ officials were just lying and threatening to quit over.... well you did not give any alternatives so threatening to quit in a vacuum for no reason because that makes sense just affirms what I stated.

Finally, you demanding that these guys were 'never trumpers' is just a knee jerk reaction. These were not never Trumpers, some were Trump appointees.

100 ex Trump administration officials say He's an OK dude.

 

[Foxfyre]

I provided the context, a meeting with the top DOJ officials who all said they would quit after him replacing the top DOJ official because he refused to lie. The replacement being selected because he would lie and one that had zero qualifications because, as one of my other statements pointed out, Trump wants loyalty to him and not loyalty to the nation. It is all there. Not one person making a claim. Not just claims either. There was PHISICAL EVIDENCE that this is what happened.

You stamping your foot and demanding that the all the top DOJ officials were just lying and threatening to quit over.... well you did not give any alternatives so threatening to quit in a vacuum for no reason because that makes sense just affirms what I stated.

Finally, you demanding that these guys were 'never trumpers' is just a knee jerk reaction. These were not never Trumpers, some were Trump appointees.

What somebody else says somebody says is not context when you don't have the entire pertinent conversation. Most especially when it is a biased source reporting what somebody else says somebody says.

That is why hearsay evidence is disallowed in court.

 

[FA_Q2]

What somebody else says somebody says is not context when you don't have the entire pertinent conversation. Most especially when it is a biased source reporting what somebody else says somebody says.

That is why hearsay evidence is disallowed in court.

None of that was hearsay.

You see, I actually put up and you cannot refute anything whatsoever. You have brought nothing to the table. You just reject anything that goes against your narrative as false because... because... nothing.

Why were the DOJ officials training to quit in mass? Because nothing. Why are the notes on the conversation not evidence? Because... nothing. Why are Trump appointed officials PRESENT testifying otherwise? Because hearsay even though that is not hearsay. Context was given. You complained no context. Testimony of people there was given. You claim hearsay. People at the DOJ put their jobs on the line for this and you just blatantly ignore it.

Give me more than nu uh. That is just not sufficient.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of that was hearsay.

You see, I actually put up and you cannot refute anything whatsoever. You have brought nothing to the table. You just reject anything that goes against your narrative as false because... because... nothing.

Why were the DOJ officials training to quit in mass? Because nothing. Why are the notes on the conversation not evidence? Because... nothing. Why are Trump appointed officials PRESENT testifying otherwise? Because hearsay even though that is not hearsay. Context was given. You complained no context. Testimony of people there was given. You claim hearsay. People at the DOJ put their jobs on the line for this and you just blatantly ignore it.

Give me more than nu uh. That is just not sufficient.

Show me how you know it wasn't hearsay. Show me the video. Show me the audio. Show me the full context of the conversation. Unless you have that, you have nothing but your own bigotry and TDS.

 

[sartre play]

Been thinking about the 3rd party thought.
Really the better plan would be for WE THE PEOPLE to demand that Our party of Choice, got way way more honest.
Not Caught in this intense angry hateful trap of POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.
afraid SOMETHING really bad is going to happen to AMERICA
before we get out of this mess.

 

[Curried Goats]

What somebody else says somebody says is not context when you don't have the entire pertinent conversation. Most especially when it is a biased source reporting what somebody else says somebody says.

That is why hearsay evidence is disallowed in court.

Yeah.... you don't seem to understand what hearsay is. Eyewitness testimonies are first hand accounts of people's experiences. If you think that is hearsay then any victim of a crime or robbery who testifies that the defendant told them to get on the ground or hand over their money would fall under your definition.

 

[FA_Q2]

Show me how you know it wasn't hearsay. Show me the video. Show me the audio. Show me the full context of the conversation. Unless you have that, you have nothing but your own bigotry and TDS.

The video and audio? You are just running away now. Proof and evidence is not base on having video and audio evidence. If that were true then no one would ever get convicted of murder, almost no one is caught on that evidence.

We have first hand testimony, we have written notes, we have multiple accounts, we have official records for replacing the people refusing to lie. We have TONS of evidence. I asked for you to bring something to the table more than nu uh and you come back with another nu uh. You have explained none of the evidence. None of it. You have given no reason that mass resignations were coming in the DOJ. You have given no explanation why written notes of the conversation that were not created for evidence back up the testimony. You have given no reason that people present have testified under oath to all of these things. And all of this would be more than sufficient to convict someone of a crime in any court.

 

[sartre play]

The current situation in this country does not support a third party. People who are ignorant talk about the "duopoly" when the fact that it exists is precisely because of the polarization in this nation. There are literally hundreds of policies and proposals by the Democrats that are an antithesis to our form of government and the beliefs of the average American. To a lesser extent, the Republicans hold a few views that also run counter to the best interests of the people. That is why elections have come down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. I believe that few of your average voters agree with everything pushed by one party or the other.


Personally, I am a conservative, but I hold some views that conservatives do not and often call me a liberal, because liberals have cornered the market in those areas. When it comes to the topic of education, I tend to the middle ground. I do not support the efforts of liberals in the teacher's unions trying to influence curriculum because when I was teaching, that was unheard of. I strongly oppose conservative efforts to defund public education to provide vouchers because of all the inherent abuses and inequities in their programs. I was a teacher and administrator for 21 years and I find fault with almost every politician who pontificates on education, because most of them are not educated in education, and could not find their ass with both hands.


Abortion is another topic where both sides seem to have it wrong because of the divisiveness. I happen to like Trump's position of this because it seeks a middle ground. Only the fringe liberals who support abortion on demand for the entire pregnancy are the extremists, but they have significant numbers.

The biggest issue is that third parties cannot gather enough voters in that middle ground to even be competitive, as most mainstream politicians hold one or more extremist's view. Solve that problem and you might have a chance at a valid third party or a replacement for the current extremes. The idea of s true duopoly in this country is ridiculous by any measure.

You state that there are hundreds of Democratic policies that are bad for our government.
Could you offer up one or two of those policies for debate here?

Also for balance maybe some one could offer up one or 2 Republican policies
Actual debate could be so much more helpful, than just 1 sided political propaganda.

 

[sartre play]

My question exactly. There are very few policies espoused by Cackles McKneepads that I could ever support. The third party to gain my vote would be more moderate but still more conservatives than anything liberals support.

So why not work for your party too become more moderate,
while also being more conservative than many things purposed by Democrat's???

 

[sartre play]

And there is the rub.

It is human nature to desire to be taken care of instead of pursuing freedom.

How does one fight human nature?

AM I missing something? Why would it be called( being taken care of)?
would you NOT expect our UNITED STATES gov, too step in and help
When Any state in the union needs disaster help?

 

[dblack]

You state that there are hundreds of Democratic policies that are bad for our government.
Could you offer up one or two of those policies for debate here?

Maybe better for another thread, but my biggest complaint with Democrats is their campaign to replace equal rights with "equity". It's a bad idea, one that I think we'll all come to regret, not just conservatives.

 

[sartre play]

I have not done a damn thing, this is all on you and your fellow duopoly cult members. This is not the result of one party and only one party, this was a group effort.

And every time you voted for your beloved GOP you were giving them your stamp of approval to keep doing what they were doing

Agree, this mess we are in was not created by one party, And the other party does no harm.
Takes two to tango.

 

[dblack]

As others have said, the problem is not that we need a third party but that the current system does not allow a third party.

What we need is to rethink how the basis how our voting system works. Such is disincentivized though and I do not know how we can possibly change it.

Ranked choice voting is the most promising reform on the horizon. It does away with the spoiler effect and nullifies the fear-mongering.

The two vested parties naturally oppose it, but at the grassroots level - where you politic with your neighbors and not raging populists - it's happening.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ranked choice voting is the most promising reform on the horizon. It does away with the spoiler effect and nullifies the fear-mongering.

The two vested parties naturally oppose it, but at the grassroots level - where you politic with your neighbors and not raging populists - it's happening.

I agree with this. You know I am not as hopeful that it will bring about the needed change as you are but I do think it is not only a step in the correct direction but also a NESSISARY step.

I would also like to see states apportion their votes by their respective elections rather than WTA elections but the incentives just are not there. The EC will likely be eliminated in all but name before that happens as they are pretty close to being able to do that already. They are 70 percent there in eliminating the EC but that last 30% is going to be tough to get. That is less ideal IMHO but better than the WTA system we have now.