Idiotic Third Party Bid in the US hopes people don't notice they are idiots.

[Butler1000]

What continues to amaze me is the sense of entitlement of Democratic Party supporters that their party deserves the vote no matter what they do in office. That there is always an excuse but there is no other choice.

Thereby perpetuating their feckless incompetence in actually passing anything resembling progressive legislation that wi have a rsall impact on struggling peoples lives in both the short and long term.

They actually blame voters that they don't support them enough when its their job to prove themselves worthy of voter support. Not expect it.

 

[Frankfooter]

What continues to amaze me is the sense of entitlement of Democratic Party supporters that their party deserves the vote no matter what they do in office. That there is always an excuse but there is no other choice.

Thereby perpetuating their feckless incompetence in actually passing anything resembling progressive legislation that wi have a rsall impact on struggling peoples lives in both the short and long term.

They actually blame voters that they don't support them enough when its their job to prove themselves worthy of voter support. Not expect it.

Nothing will be good enough for you.
Even if Bide put universal health care in place, resigned and ordained Sanders as emperor you'd say he didn't go far enough.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550097932321447936

 

[y2kmark]

As the Koch’s and Coors proved… much easier to buy off the politicians you need.

It's failure to stay bought that often creates issues, just saying...

 

[y2kmark]

What continues to amaze me is the sense of entitlement of Democratic Party supporters that their party deserves the vote no matter what they do in office. That there is always an excuse but there is no other choice.

Thereby perpetuating their feckless incompetence in actually passing anything resembling progressive legislation that wi have a rsall impact on struggling peoples lives in both the short and long term.

They actually blame voters that they don't support them enough when its their job to prove themselves worthy of voter support. Not expect it.

WOW, just WOW! Blatant transference epitomized! You have just defined the modern Republican party. Good job, pal!!!

 

[Valcazar]

I am glad that no one here seems to take the "Forward" party seriously.
A party dedicated to the idea that a party shouldn't have any policies or values shouldn't be taken seriously.

That people don't understand why the US system is stuck as a two party one (and why Canada an the UK are effectively two party systems as well) shouldn't surprise me, I guess.

Then there is the split about why people want a third party.

LaRue says he wants a third party to "reduce polarization". In the end he doesn't care if a third party stays, he just doesn't like the current set up. This is the way third parties function in a system like the US, so while I think his description of what that would look like is implausible, it could happen.

While third parties are very hard to get off the ground in such a system, they can appear and either force a realignment of the major parties or actually replace one if the situation is right.
I'm not arguing against that or against the idea that anyone should launch such a party. I'm just pointing out that if you have no policies at all you aren't likely to do well unless you have some incredibly charismatic leader/candidate and if your policies are just "what one of the other parties is already doing, but with me in charge" you aren't likely to get anywhere. You need something that truly marks you as a different path and it has to be one lots of people actually want.

Others here seem to want a third party to stick around - to offer "more choice" or whatever. This is what I have been trying to explain won't happen. The best you can hope for is a third party that becomes a regional third party - one state or region having a two party system with a different set of two parties than we see in the rest of the country. (This is sort of what goes on in Vermont with Sanders - he and the Democrats have agreed that as long as he wins the Democratic primary, he can reject their nomination but they won't run anyone against him in the general. The general then becomes a two-party race - Republican and Bernie Sanders.)

People who want more than two parties for real and in a durable way need to be working on electoral reform. Without significant change there, it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Butler1000]

WOW, just WOW! Blatant transference epitomized! You have just defined the modern Republican party. Good job, pal!!!

The GOP has no interest in passing anything good. And clearly state that. The Democrats state they do. And then when they are in power don't and blame right wing members of their own party for it. Thats what happens when its the same donors calling the shots.

 

[poker]

I am glad that no one here seems to take the "Forward" party seriously.
A party dedicated to the idea that a party shouldn't have any policies or values shouldn't be taken seriously.

That people don't understand why the US system is stuck as a two party one (and why Canada an the UK are effectively two party systems as well) shouldn't surprise me, I guess.

Then there is the split about why people want a third party.

LaRue says he wants a third party to "reduce polarization". In the end he doesn't care if a third party stays, he just doesn't like the current set up. This is the way third parties function in a system like the US, so while I think his description of what that would look like is implausible, it could happen.

While third parties are very hard to get off the ground in such a system, they can appear and either force a realignment of the major parties or actually replace one if the situation is right.
I'm not arguing against that or against the idea that anyone should launch such a party. I'm just pointing out that if you have no policies at all you aren't likely to do well unless you have some incredibly charismatic leader/candidate and if your policies are just "what one of the other parties is already doing, but with me in charge" you aren't likely to get anywhere. You need something that truly marks you as a different path and it has to be one lots of people actually want.

Others here seem to want a third party to stick around - to offer "more choice" or whatever. This is what I have been trying to explain won't happen. The best you can hope for is a third party that becomes a regional third party - one state or region having a two party system with a different set of two parties than we see in the rest of the country. (This is sort of what goes on in Vermont with Sanders - he and the Democrats have agreed that as long as he wins the Democratic primary, he can reject their nomination but they won't run anyone against him in the general. The general then becomes a two-party race - Republican and Bernie Sanders.)

People who want more than two parties for real and in a durable way need to be working on electoral reform. Without significant change there, it just isn't going to happen.

I agree with this... but I will go further.

Everybody thinks they understand politics better than most people. (Myself included.) In fact, the voters seem dumber and much more misinformed these days.

I find very few politicians get "voted in" per say. Rather, its we vote politicians out.

In Canada we voted Harper out, and the monkey in the suit who got in just happened to be Trudeau. The US did not want Hillary, and Trump got in (yes, there is more to the Trump thing, but I digress... the 8+ year coordinated attacks on the Clinton's when Hilary was in the Obama Admin worked) ....and then they voted Trump out, and Biden got in. Could have anybody.

Bottom line... negative ads, slander, character assasination as a strategy to create uninformed disenfranchised voters is far more effective that good ideas and sound policies. How do you support a party that uses pretend stories of child molestation as tool to get elected? Yet dumb voters are happy to accept those so called truths.

George Carlin got it right. Education will never get any better.

 

[Frankfooter]

I am glad that no one here seems to take the "Forward" party seriously.
A party dedicated to the idea that a party shouldn't have any policies or values shouldn't be taken seriously.

That people don't understand why the US system is stuck as a two party one (and why Canada an the UK are effectively two party systems as well) shouldn't surprise me, I guess.

Then there is the split about why people want a third party.

LaRue says he wants a third party to "reduce polarization". In the end he doesn't care if a third party stays, he just doesn't like the current set up. This is the way third parties function in a system like the US, so while I think his description of what that would look like is implausible, it could happen.

While third parties are very hard to get off the ground in such a system, they can appear and either force a realignment of the major parties or actually replace one if the situation is right.
I'm not arguing against that or against the idea that anyone should launch such a party. I'm just pointing out that if you have no policies at all you aren't likely to do well unless you have some incredibly charismatic leader/candidate and if your policies are just "what one of the other parties is already doing, but with me in charge" you aren't likely to get anywhere. You need something that truly marks you as a different path and it has to be one lots of people actually want.

Others here seem to want a third party to stick around - to offer "more choice" or whatever. This is what I have been trying to explain won't happen. The best you can hope for is a third party that becomes a regional third party - one state or region having a two party system with a different set of two parties than we see in the rest of the country. (This is sort of what goes on in Vermont with Sanders - he and the Democrats have agreed that as long as he wins the Democratic primary, he can reject their nomination but they won't run anyone against him in the general. The general then becomes a two-party race - Republican and Bernie Sanders.)

People who want more than two parties for real and in a durable way need to be working on electoral reform. Without significant change there, it just isn't going to happen.

Seems like the GOP is really way more interested in making the US a one party system.

GOP inches toward convention to rewrite Constitution with fringe ideas

The effort is "well-funded," partially through cryptocurrency.

www.salon.com

 

[Valcazar]

Seems like the GOP is really way more interested in making the US a one party system.

GOP inches toward convention to rewrite Constitution with fringe ideas

The effort is "well-funded," partially through cryptocurrency.

www.salon.com

They want a "managed democracy" like Orban.
Then it really will be the system Butler is convinced already exists and he will be happy.

 

[Frankfooter]

They want a "managed democracy" like Orban.
Then it really will be the system Butler is convinced already exists and he will be happy.

I think that's more of what jcpro wants, doesn't butler still really want that accelerationist fantasy where the GOP destroys the country so that a socialist/Sanders dream state can rise in its ashes?

 

[Valcazar]

I agree with this... but I will go further.

Everybody thinks they understand politics better than most people. (Myself included.) In fact, the voters seem dumber and much more misinformed these days.

I find very few politicians get "voted in" per say. Rather, its we vote politicians out.

And that also is part of the system as it stands.
Anyone who thinks you can "vote someone in" in a FPTP system (especially in a Presidential system with the problems the US has) on anything but very rare occasions is delusional.
The voting methods don't allow you that option on most occasions.
It's why people talking about how they won't vote for people unless they are perfect or have "earned their vote" in a two party system are political idiots or are actively agents for the opposite side they claim to support.

 

[Valcazar]

I think that's more of what jcpro wants, doesn't butler still really want that accelerationist fantasy where the GOP destroys the country so that a socialist/Sanders dream state can rise in its ashes?

Given how he talks about Canadian politics, probably not.
He comes off as quite Conservative/center right when it is a vote that actually affects him.

But yes, he does seem to subscribe to the "things will get worse before they get better, but that's good because hard times make for strong men, so we should work to make things as bad as possible so that a strong man will rise and lead us to renewal".

The fact that this is primarily a fascist myth and Butler's repeated comments that the problem is that the voters won't vote for the things he wants and so their votes shouldn't count is one of the reasons I suspect he will happily go with the flow if Johnny LaRue and jcpro and company get what they want.

 

[Frankfooter]

Given how he talks about Canadian politics, probably not.
He comes off as quite Conservative/center right when it is a vote that actually affects him.

But yes, he does seem to subscribe to the "things will get worse before they get better, but that's good because hard times make for strong men, so we should work to make things as bad as possible so that a strong man will rise and lead us to renewal".

The fact that this is primarily a fascist myth and Butler's repeated comments that the problem is that the voters won't vote for the things he wants and so their votes shouldn't count is one of the reasons I suspect he will happily go with the flow if Johnny LaRue and jcpro and company get what they want.

He did actually use the term 'accelerationist' and I called him out on it.
So he put me on ignore.

Its still there and is really the only way to make sense of his posts, between his claims to support Sanders and universal health care above all but his defence of rump as a way to tear it all down.

 

[JohnLarue]

LaRue says he wants a third party to "reduce polarization".

you left out the part about stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism

In the end he doesn't care if a third party stays, he just doesn't like the current set up.

it is not working

This is the way third parties function in a system like the US, so while I think his description of what that would look like is implausible, it could happen.

So after all is said and done you finally realise your initial position was incorrect

stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time.

 

[Valcazar]

you left out the part about stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism

Fair enough.
LaRue claims he wants a third party to "reduce polarization" and "stop the march towards economic suicide via socialism".

So after all is said and done you finally realise your initial position was incorrect

No.
"Stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time" is 100% correct.
That you think this means "all third parties are bullshit" is your problem.

 

[JohnLarue]

Fair enough.
LaRue claims he wants a third party to "reduce polarization" and "stop the march towards economic suicide via socialism".

No.
"Stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time" is 100% correct.
That you think this means "all third parties are bullshit" is your problem.

You don't even understand what you think, so don't try to tell me what I think.

You drew your conclusion based upon your perception of systems / structural issues , without considering the motivation for a 3rd party
you also drew on history despite knowing the current dysfunctional polarization is at its greatest extreme in over 160 years. This is quite dangerous
The two party US govt is not working well due the big step to the left by the democrats

Decreasing the political polarization and stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism are anything but stupid objectives

you will have to agree with the former
you will reject the latter as dictated by your ideology.
Despite the long history of socialist train wreck economies
Despite the painful inflation you are now experiencing

 

[Butler1000]

Given how he talks about Canadian politics, probably not.
He comes off as quite Conservative/center right when it is a vote that actually affects him.

But yes, he does seem to subscribe to the "things will get worse before they get better, but that's good because hard times make for strong men, so we should work to make things as bad as possible so that a strong man will rise and lead us to renewal".

The fact that this is primarily a fascist myth and Butler's repeated comments that the problem is that the voters won't vote for the things he wants and so their votes shouldn't count is one of the reasons I suspect he will happily go with the flow if Johnny LaRue and jcpro and company get what they want.

FDR. Nuff said

 

[Valcazar]

You drew your conclusion based upon your perception of systems / structural issues , without considering the motivation for a 3rd party

The motivation has no bearing on the structural issues I'm talking about.
The system will settle down into a two party system after the disruption of a third party challenger.
The motivations driving the third party don't matter to that.
(Although they can matter to how successful that third party is at either re-shaping or displacing one of the current duopoly.)

you also drew on history despite knowing the current dysfunctional polarization is at its greatest extreme in over 160 years. This is quite dangerous
The two party US govt is not working well due the big step to the left by the democrats

I agree it is not working well, although we disagree as to the cause.
That gives room for a third party can break through as a replacement or cause a re-alignment.
It also means lots and lots of bullshit third parties are going to try and take advantage of the moment and accomplish nothing but distract people with bullshit.

Decreasing the political polarization and stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism are anything but stupid objectives

I didn't say they were.
I said that saying your party's entire raison d'etre is just "take the politics out of politics" is stupid.
The Forward party is stupid and isn't going to go anywhere, just like "Unity08" and "AmericansElect" and the "AllianceParty" (or that other Unity party they stole their slogan from).
A party dedicated to "preventing socialism" at least has a useful mission statement, but there are probably a half-dozen parties that already have that as a mission, including the Republican party.

 

[JohnLarue]

The motivation has no bearing on the structural issues I'm talking about.
)

again with the structural issues
motivation has 100% bearing on all political changes
yet you ignore it

The system will settle down into a two party system after the disruption of a third party challenger.

Again, if it results in a less polarized political environment, and stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism then mission accomplish

The motivations driving the third party don't matter to that.

100% wrong
Do you think a rejection of the far left by centralist democrats would resume the same path of destruction a few years latter?

I agree it is not working well, although we disagree as to the cause.

an excellent example of you not explaining yourself
Am I expected to guess what you think is the cause?

That gives room for a third party can break through as a replacement or cause a re-alignment.

that is not aligned with "Stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time"

I

t also means lots and lots of bullshit third parties are going to try and take advantage of the moment and accomplish nothing but distract people with bullshit.

A group of centrist democrats alarmed by the spiral of their party into the lunacy of socialism would not be a bullshit third party

I didn't say they were.
I said that saying your party's entire raison d'etre is just "take the politics out of politics" is stupid.

taking the socialism & incompetence out of democrat politics is most certainly a worthwhile endeavor

The Forward party is stupid and isn't going to go anywhere, just like "Unity08" and "AmericansElect" and the "AllianceParty" (or that other Unity party they stole their slogan from).
A party dedicated to "preventing socialism" at least has a useful mission statement, but there are probably a half-dozen parties that already have that as a mission, including the Republican party.

I am sure the wigs said something similar about the republicans in 1850

There has to be a number of centralist democrats who are alarmed by

1. the hard turn left
2. AOC & the other three nutjobs
3. Sleep Joes brutal performance
4. Their hopes for re-election going down the crapper

 

[y2kmark]

FDR. Nuff said

The Repugs were really afraid of FDR. They offered Smedley Butler (a 2X Congressional Medal of Honor winner and recognized veterans leader at the time) a lot of money to head the bonus army and manage FDR for them. He blew the whistle (very loudly) and the powerful right wing press labeled him as a lunatic. All involved claim it never happened. Historians, however, think otherwise...