Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[Harpy Eagle]

What's your point again because you haven't defined what freedoms you're talking about. The freedom to deny gays and black people service? Is that one of them?

Its your argument, you don't want to be more specific? Maybe that's why people are weary of you?

It is my view that anti-discrimination laws apply only to the Government, not to private entities. I understand this is not a wide spread view and as such would probably not make it part of a platform if I were to start a 3rd party.

I gave you some examples of freedoms that we do not have in the US that other countries do.

Those are just a start. But in our country the people that support most of those freedoms do not support smaller Govt and less spending.

And this is the only responsible thing to do fiscally or is this just like your opinion?

Of course it is just my opinion, you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you.

But it is more or less a moot point as while people talk about the debt and spending, they never base their votes on it...there are always things they find more important. This is true of both sides.

 

[Curried Goats]

Those are social issues, Moral choices,
getting better people who strive for a more HONEST government.

They're also political issues.

Not a government bought buy the BILLIONS spent, or the propaganda LIES told.

What? That isn't answer how you Kumbaya gays and people who thinks God hates gays.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Tell us, @dblack @Harpy Eagle how do you sell Humberto, Guadalupe and their litter of six on the importance of fiscal responsibility, how do you get them to support the idea of them getting less free shit? How do you sell Humberto and Guadalupe on the idea that we need a smaller less invasive government when they need government at every turn?

Stop giving them free shit, then they will understand.

Why is this so complicated for you?

 

[rampart]

Maybe. What we do know is that constitution can be amended, changed and ratified. It is a basis for all things, but still imperfect. Yet, the people have the power to toss out the gov't, if a time comes, when the gov't no longer serves the people. But the people don't care, because the federal gov't has become too big, too powerful, and the gov't relies on political ignorance.

how would you change the constitution? does an immune kamala harris sound good?

no democracy depends on "political ignorance.". one reason we tend to value education

 

[dblack]

Go ahead and explain it, I'm not wasting my time if you don't know what you are talking about.

So you don't know how it works. Yet you were criticizing it anyway because your party told you to. Lovely.

 

[Curried Goats]

It is my view that anti-discrimination laws apply only to the Government, not to private entities. I understand this is not a wide spread view and as such would probably not make it part of a platform if I were to start a 3rd party.

So you want people to have the freedom to deny gays and blacks service. That's a more honest argument then saying you're for freedom! as if that tells us anything.

And no, I don't see that being a very popular proposal. See what happens when you start getting into policy that goes beyond some general agreement that you don't like things as is?

I gave you some examples of freedoms that we do not have in the US that other countries do.

And?

Those are just a start. But in our country the people that support most of those freedoms do not support smaller Govt and less spending.

So then your problem is lack of political support? Maybe work on that instead of crying about the duopoly.

Of course it is just my opinion, you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you.

But it is more or less a moot point as while people talk about the debt and spending, they never base their votes on it...there are always things they find more important. This is true of both sides.

Because maybe they have other priorities? Ever thought of that?

 

[Billiejeens]

And what a fuck up that has been. All arising from the corruption of policies to give the slave states a position of power.

They actually lowered the power of the slave states.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you want people to have the freedom to deny gays and blacks service. That's a more honest argument then saying you're for freedom! as if that tells us anything.

and the freedom to deny whites and straight people as well. Yes.

I do not support doing such things and would never go to a place that did, but there is nothing in the Constitution that supports laws against it by anyone but the Govt.

Freedom is not always pretty.

And no, I don't see that being a very popular proposal. See what happens when you start getting into policy that goes beyond some general agreement that you don't like things as is?

Which is why I would not expect it to be a part of any parties platform. It is just my own personal view.

So then your problem is lack of political support?

Yes, we have already established this.

Maybe work on that

I have tried, but it is useless in our country.

about the duopoly.

The duopoly is part of the problem. Think about this, Congress has an approval rating that almost never gets out of the teens. Yet these same people will win reelection at a greater than 90% rate in any given election. The only explanation for this is blind partisanship.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

LOL Attacking the Capitol and trying to lynch the VP because your guy lost is how they put "people and our constitution first"?

Now tell us how the orange rapist, racist, pussy grabber is the second coming of Jesus.

They had a real working gallows and everything! Pence was lucky to get out alive!

 

[jc456]

True but only one Party is recruiting desperate, needy thirdworlders by the tens of millions to help push a larger more invasive government.

even republicans balked at tariffs, because they really don't understand or play stupid to the sheep. tariffs is the only way to keep jobs and bring them in. Want to sell in our country, build a plant here and build it here.

 

[Curried Goats]

and the freedom to deny whites and straight people as well. Yes.

Okay. It's just not a very popular political stance. Maybe that's your problem?

I do not support doing such things and would never go to a place that did, but there is nothing in the Constitution that supports laws against it by anyone but the Govt.

Freedom is not always pretty.

Freedom is also some generic term you throw out that doesn't actually mean anything. You don't want people to have the freedom to sit at whatever lunch counter they want. Allowing freedom in one direction can restrict it in another.

Which is why I would not expect it to be a part of any parties platform. It is just my own personal view.



Yes, we have already established this.



I have tried, but it is useless in our country.



The duopoly is part of the problem. Think about this, Congress has an approval rating that almost never gets out of the teens. Yet these same people will win reelection at a greater than 90% rate in any given election. The only explanation for this is blind partisanship.

That's because those polls are about the feelings of the entire country where as they run for reelection in their own counties. Moron. The approval among their constituents is a different metric.

 

[jc456]

Reality isn't a fence.

That's why we need trained choice voting.

Maybe voters aren't as stupid as you think. I'd they are, we're screwed anyway. That's the fundamental flaw of democracy. Garbage in, garbage out

that's called the media, and again, who owns them? facts cucks like you fail to acknowledge and makes you look stupid.

 

[jc456]

Freedom is also some generic term you throw out that doesn't actually mean anything. You don't want people to have the freedom to sit at whatever lunch counter they want. Allowing freedom in one direction can restrict it in another.

like allowing males into women locker rooms and competing in women sports.

 

[dblack]

that's called the media, and again, who owns them?

Stockholders? What's your point? You never seem to actually have one.

 

[Curried Goats]

like allowing males into women locker rooms and competing in women sports.

There there...

 

[Skylar]

Is it time for a legitimate third party?

• Too much political divide on issues that could have a common middle ground?
• Our 2 current parties drive their own agenda, while the a unheard majorities voice is left unheard, seen, or advised.
• In today's political climate, how would a third party get a voice? We are not asking for a seat at the table, but rather, a voice that can be heard. Then let the dominoes fall.
• George Washington warned of political parties subverting the people and leading to despotism. This board that example where many on here, express desire to remove the other in totality.
• From Washington - "...The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
  
  All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
  
  However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion".
  
  Farewell Address (1796) | Constitution Center

  National Constitution Center Historic Documents Library record for Farewell Address (1796)

  constitutioncenter.org
• The above is where we are today. Do you disagree?
• Recent Gallup Poll (take it for what it's worth says that support of a third viable party is up 63%
  • Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
• And, maybe there is another option; no parties, purely a stance and position.
• Has the country outgrown our political party system?

What would its policies be?

 

[cnm]

They actually lowered the power of the slave states.

What MAGAt rubbish. The whole electoral college bullshit was a dance to satisfy the slaver states' paranoia and economic self interest. It's why so many early presidents were Southerners.

 

[Billiejeens]

What MAGAt rubbish. The whole electoral college bullshit was a dance to satisfy the slaver states' paranoia. It's why so many early presidents were Southerners.

You've never heard of the 3/5 compromise?

 

[jc456]

Stockholders? What's your point? You never seem to actually have one.

funny how you avoid the truth.

 

[cnm]

even republicans balked at tariffs, because they really don't understand or play stupid to the sheep. tariffs is the only way to keep jobs and bring them in. Want to sell in our country, build a plant here and build it here.

So, what then?

You're going to stop selling in other countries?

Short memory to have forgotten the piles of soy and maize so soon.