Issues on which I disagree with the right

[Meister]

You brought it up, but yes - let's not bother discussing the Brandon administration. I didn't vote for them, I assume you didn't either. They suck. We need a better plan. Trumpsterism ain't it.

Trump would never win a popularity contest, and foreign heads of state may not have liked Trump.
But, make no mistake, they did respect him and deservedly so, he wasn't weak. He had the economy
going in the right direction, even with all the media and democrat distractions. Trump's biggest problem?
He wasn't a politician.

 

[Jets]

So, disagreeing with the right is ok with the exception of the former POTUS…

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough. But winning people over with pablum is an empty victory. If we don't have real consensus behind our goals, they won't survive. Tricking people into voting for you, with populist horseshit, won't produce the mandate needed to do anything useful with your victory.

Who said anything about tricking people?....Once again, you're reading your cognitive distortions into my narrowly focusred point.

I doubt we'll win at all. But it's not Rand and Hayek holding us back. It's not our dedication to our principles. It's a population of amoral people who want to be slaves.

Oh....They're too stupid to recognize that freedom has something in it for everyone.....Blame the customer...How delightfully snobbish.

Ever given a moment's thought to the possibility that you're too stupid to explain that to them?

 

[Oddball]

So, disagreeing with the right is ok with the exception of the former POTUS…

If that's all you're getting out of this thread, then you need to just go back to your Legos.

 

[dblack]

I do not particularly like Trump, but he is the closest to a third party there is.

Hmm.... I'd say an actual third party is closer to a third party. Not sure what you mean.

We need to end the partisan primary, go with open elections, and get rid of all the partisan polarization.

The parties will have some process for determining their nominee. And really, it's their business. The only election reform on the horizon that makes sense to me is ranked choice voting. Everything else is either too much to hope for, or not enough to matter.

I would prefer a candidate like Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard, but I will take someone like Trump over people like Hillary or Biden, who deliberately harmed millions of people.

I won't "take" a shitty candidate. Period. If the best our fucked up system can produce is candidates like Biden or Trump, we've already lost. The "privilege" of choose between them is worthless.

 

[Rigby5]

I do believe the numbers and policies that the right was touting before the pandemic speaks volumes
for itself. I hope that, "other guys", BS was put to bed for you.

I am far left, but there are people on the right I can respect much more than most of the democrats.
Most of the democrats are not left or right, they are just corrupt and evil.
We did not get the War on Drugs from the right, but from Biden and Clinton.
I will take any Libertarian over Biden or Clinton, any day.

Political parties mean nothing.
Anyone selecting a candidate based the party they belong to, is not just an idiot, but irresponsible.
For example, while I am far left, we could certainly do much better if we again had some politicians like Everette Dirksen.

 

[Jets]

If that's all you're getting out of this thread, then you need to just go back to your Legos.

Oh Please, nihilists are a waste of of time. Go pound sand.

 

[jc456]

Marriages should just be contracts, and enforced like any other contract. The specifics of the contract should be up to those who sign it.

it was my understanding that marriages are contracts today.

 

[jc456]

You'll win what you want to get if you fight...People want fighters, not bookworms and policy wonks.

.Are you really so fucking dense as to not recognize that?

Trump took on both parties. I call that a fighter.

 

[Meister]

I am far left, but there are people on the right I can respect much more than most of the democrats.
Most of the democrats are not left or right, they are just corrupt and evil.
We did not get the War on Drugs from the right, but from Biden and Clinton.
I will take any Libertarian over Biden or Clinton, any day.

Political parties mean nothing.
Anyone selecting a candidate based the party they belong to, is not just an idiot, but irresponsible.
For example, while I am far left, we could certainly do much better if we again had some politicians like Everette Dirksen.

I don't have a party, but, for the last 14 years I've voted against the democrats.
The last democrat I voted for was Walt Minnick, and ended up regretting that vote.
There is no perfect party, and a third party would get tainted once the Lobbyists
got a hold of them.

 

[Rigby5]

Hmm.... I'd say an actual third party is closer to a third party. Not sure what you mean.

The parties will have some process for determining their nominee. And really, it's their business. The only election reform on the horizon that makes sense to me is ranked choice voting. Everything else is either too much to hope for, or not enough to matter.

I won't "take" a shitty candidate. Period. If the best our fucked up system can produce is candidates like Biden or Trump, we've already lost. The "privilege" of choose between them is worthless.

What I mean is that while there are third parties I like, such as socialists, green party, etc., they do not have any possible chance and are a waste of a vote
While as bad as Trump is, he is much better than what the democratic party in general represents.
Hillary is tainted by her support for every single war one could imagine, to the point I suspect she would have attacked Iran if elected.
Biden is tainted by his 1994 Federl Crime bill, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, Ukraine corruption, etc.
About the only democrats I would vote for are Sander, Warren, or Gabbard.
They rest are as bad or worse than Trump.

Anyone who votes based on party is really irresponsible.

And NO, the parties do NOT have any right to determine who runs.
That prevents anyone who might have bi-partisan appeal from even getting nominated, even though they would most likely be elected and be better representatives of the people.
Parties are NOT legal entities.
They should NOT exist or at least should not have any official role, like they illegally do now with primaries.
We should not be allowing parties to hijack our voting system with their primary corruption.
Instead we should have an open election with all the candidates, who voters rank, so run offs from a tie can be eliminated.

 

[jc456]

Hmm.... I'd say an actual third party is closer to a third party. Not sure what you mean.

it's obvious you don't believe in a third party. It's just a line for you. If you don't think Trump was a third party candidate and winner, just highlights the point that you are being a blind individual with absolutely no thought. The fact Trump took on both Parties in his inaugural speech should have led you to the point that he was a third party winner. And yet you discard him as something else. Not sure what that is in fact.

 

[dblack]

Who said anything about tricking people?....Once again, you're reading your cognitive distortions into my narrowly focusred point.

That's the nature of populism. Herding the dummies. Maybe you don't think of that as tricking them - but if we resort to Trumpster tactics, do you really think we'll be winning hearts and minds? Or will we just be stirring up the mob?

Oh....They're too stupid to recognize that freedom has something in it for everyone.....Blame the customer...How delightfully snobbish.

Yes. When it comes to Trumpster populism, I'm an uber-snob.

Ever given a moment's thought to the possibility that you're too stupid to explain that to them?

Yup. And it's not a possibility, it's the obvious truth. That's why I'm not running for office. But that's exactly what we need in a leader. We need someone who can make the case for liberty, who can and will explain to people that free shit isn't free, that using the law to force your preferences on others will bite you in the ass (when it's turned against you), that to have the freedom to do what you want, you must accept others' rights to do what they want.

Despite my ranting about idiots, I don't believe Americans are too stupid to understand this. But the people who fall for the populist spin are. Which is why I think adopting their tactics would be a terrible idea. Even if it produced a nominal "win".

 

[Rigby5]

Trump took on both parties. I call that a fighter.

Yes.
I think Trump is a liar and manipulator, but also I think he also represents an opportunity for badly needed change.

 

[Meister]

it's obvious you don't believe in a third party. It's just a line for you. If you don't think Trump was a third party candidate and winner, just highlights the point that you are being a blind individual with absolutely no thought. The fact Trump took on both Parties in his inaugural speech should have led you to the point that he was a third party winner. And yet you discard him as something else. Not sure what that is in fact.

Yup, probably why both parties hated him and half of the voters voted for him. He really was a close as what we could get to a third party.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't have a party, but, for the last 14 years I've voted against the democrats.
The last democrat I voted for was Walt Minnick, and ended up regretting that vote.
There is no perfect party, and a third party would get tainted once the Lobbyists
got a hold of them.

That is my point.
We can essentially eliminate parties, and we should.
Just eliminate primaries, have open elections.
To prevent the need for run offs from a close vote, then have all voters rank all candidates on ballot.
Essentially they would then get to vote against those they dislike.
Works all over the rest of the world.

 

[Rigby5]

That's the nature of populism. Herding the dummies. Maybe you don't think of that as tricking them - but if we resort to Trumpster tactics, do you really think we'll be winning hearts and minds? Or will we just be stirring up the mob?

Yes. When it comes to Trumpster populism, I'm an uber-snob.

Yup. And it's not a possibility, it's the obvious truth. That's why I'm not running for office. But that's exactly what we need in a leader. We need someone who can make the case for liberty, who can and will explain to people that free shit isn't free, that using the law to force your preferences on others will bite you in the ass (when it's turned against you), that to have the freedom to do what you want, you must accept others' rights to do what they want.

Despite my ranting about idiots, I don't believe Americans are too stupid to understand this. But the people who fall for the populist spin are. Which is why I think adopting their tactics would be a terrible idea. Even if it produced a nominal "win".

While populism is dangerous, it really is exactly what is supposed to happen in a democratic republic.
If what the majority wants is a bad idea, then it is up to the more intelligent representatives to explain to them why.
It is not the role of the representatives to by-pass populism.

 

[Meister]

That is my point.
We can essentially eliminate parties, and we should.
Just eliminate primaries, have open elections.
To prevent the need for run offs from a close vote, then have all voters rank all candidates on ballot.
Essentially they would then get to vote against those they dislike.
Works all over the rest of the world.

How does that work in China and Russia?
Not sure I would be willing to leap into that type of election.
It seems the rest of the world for the most part are electing
dictators, authoritarians, totalitarians.

 

[jc456]

Yes.
I think Trump is a liar and manipulator, but also I think he also represents an opportunity for badly needed change.

well again, Trump being a liar one can't prove. If you wish to say that Trump exaggerates or embellishes a moment, fair also. But liar, nope. He gave 80 million americans a voice that no other politician could ever give them. Ron Disantis is the closest Conservative out there today to Trump. Xiden and his likes are still optioning for demofks same old same old boring platform.

 

[Meister]

While populism is dangerous, it really is exactly what is supposed to happen in a democratic republic.
If what the majority wants is a bad idea, then it is up to the more intelligent representatives to explain to them why.
It is not the role of the representatives to by-pass populism.

Fully disagree with your take on this. Populism is dangerous and it very likely will take away representation
of less populated states. When do you think that a party other than the democrats will win Ca. again?
Our FF's were smart enough to protect 'We the People' from an overbearing government.