Issues on which I disagree with the right

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".
Your low opinion of your neighbor is your undoing.

I believe you sputtered something earlier about becoming that which you hate?...Your attitude is exactly that of the uniparty fascists, who believe that the populace is too stupid to understand how wonderful and brilliant that they are.

It is you who has become what you profess to hate, not me.....I pity you.
 
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 voteus.
This. This delusional notion is killing us. Voting for a candidate who doesn't win isn't a waste. And claiming a given candidate "can't" win is soothsaying, even if all the mainstream media is saying it.
While as bad as Trump is, he is much better than what the democratic party in general represents.
I disagree. The most dangerous threat to our nation isn't socialism or fascism. Those are lurking, to be sure, but a more immediate danger confronts us in the complete lack of consensus. Our two-party death spiral is coming to fruition, and it's killing us. We need leaders, especially in the White House, who will represent the nation, and not just their party. In that regard, Trump is just as bad as Biden, if not worse. Trolling the enemy, deliberately pissing off everyone but your base, is his go to "leadership" style.
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.
It runs deeper than that. The ballot access laws, and reams of other regulation designed to thwart third parties, is a genuine barrier, but the nature of plurarlity elections will always devolve to the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils dysfunction. The inability of consensus seekers to get elected is baked into the system.
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.
Agreed.
 
Your low opinion of your neighbor is your undoing.

I believe you sputtered something earlier about becoming that which you hate?...Your attitude is exactly that of the uniparty fascists, who believe that the populace is too stupid to understand how wonderful and brilliant that they are.

It is you who has become what you profess to hate, not me.....I pity you.
Apparently you didn't read the last paragraph of my post.
 
Libertarian, eh? In this country the Libertarian Party has only received 2 electoral college votes in presidential elections. Both were from faithless electors.
Have you ever thought about that?
And the 2 corrupt parties that people keep voting for are the same 2 corrupt parties that have fucked up this country.

Why do you people think they can unfuck it?
 
Apparently you didn't read the last paragraph of my post.
Equivocation and qualification cannot negate all that came before......If you cannot express your values in ways which resonate with those you're speaking to, and are unwilling to exhibit the flexibility it takes to do so, the problem lies within you.

Blaming the customer is the behavior of a snob and makes you that which you profess to hate via inference, rather than just being up front and proclaiming yourself to be better than them at the outset.
 
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.
Populism is more than appealing to the majority. It's a reaction to perceived "elitism". Buts it makes a fundamental mistake. The real problem isn't elitism. Elitism just holds that the best and brightest should be in charge. But the political class, the statists who feed off society aren't, in any way, elite. They are not the best and brightest.

Regardless populism holds that elitism is the problem and, implicitly and explicitly, advocates for its opposite: the elevation of the 'common man'. It calls for outsiders and rabble rousers to take over and "shake things up". This might appeal to the "average joe", but ultimately it's just ignorant thrashing that plays into the hands of the statists.
 
Equivocation and qualification cannot negate all that came before......If you cannot express your values in ways which resonate with those you're speaking to, and are unwilling to exhibit the flexibility it takes to do so, the problem lies within you.

Blaming the customer is the behavior of a snob and makes you that which you profess to hate via inference, rather than just being up front and proclaiming yourself to be better than them at the outset.
Then go full Trumpster, if that turns you on. So much winning.
 
explain what that means?
It means the opposite of "elections have consequences". It means refusing to sign bills passed on a pure party line vote. It's means building consensus and passing laws that will have staying power - that won't just be reversed with the next partisan swing. It means the opposite of what we've had for decades.
 
It means the opposite of "elections have consequences". It means refusing to sign bills passed on a pure party line vote. It's means building consensus and passing laws that will have staying power - that won't just be reversed with the next partisan swing. It means the opposite of what we've had for decades.
I read this and i read blah, blah, blah, there's nothing there. Represent the nation is so expansive it isn't possible to filter to your view only!!! That's what you want, you want everyone to believe like you. just admit it.
 
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's what they don't get. Even in their best wet dream, if a third party candidate did make it let's say Congressman. Who would be willing to work with him? Very few from either side. That's why Trump ran as a Republican and Sanders as a Democrat. Neither would get any cooperation as an Independent or a Socialist. There is no possibility of them getting a damn thing done.
 
Yeah. You're a partisan. I'm sure it was all Greek to you.
No greek is a language, that was nonsense and isn't a language. Again, you want everyone to agree with you. sounds like you're partisan. I want people to educate themselves and spot the disingenuous fks that are all trending on line in here.
 
That's what they don't get. Even in their best wet dream, if a third party candidate did make it let's say Congressman. Who would be willing to work with him? Very few from either side. That's why Trump ran as a Republican and Sanders as a Democrat. Neither would get any cooperation as an Independent or a Socialist. There is no possibility of them getting a damn thing done.
that's the issue. I was ok with a third party president vs a congress fk.
 
This can be the start of debate, or just a bit of disclaimer for me.

I'm libertarian. As I predicted in the introductions thread, I seem to be disagreeing with progressives/leftists on here and thus may appear to some of you to be right-wing. So, here's where I'm not right-wing:

Pretty much any right-wing belief that opposes liberty or equality of opportunity, or that favors government involvement in areas in which the government should butt out.

So - even though I wish there were far fewer abortions, or even no abortions - I don't favor banning them.
If you were an unborn child, you would (if you could) vote differently

just sayin'
 
No. That's a lie, and proves you don't even comprehend the meaning of the word consensus.

Doesn't sound like you know what that means either.
Tell me what you think consensus represents?
 

Forum List

Back
Top