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

[Frankfooter]

Clearly the meme posted by LaRue earlier and mocked by Valcazar is nothing more than conservative rhetoric.

The meme however makes some sense in that progressives generally have a view of politics as a march down a continuum that favors their politics. Certainly, the U.S. populace changes over time. But certainly, some voters will not follow the path along with the liberal party.

Hmm, that meme doesn't account for the MAGA movement, abortion banning, Christian Nationalism, book burning, tax breaks for the rich....
To you, that's no change at all? (ok, tax breaks for the rich really are the central platform and always have been)


Is that like arguing that PP is not any different politically than O'Toole?

 

[WyattEarp]

Hmm, that meme doesn't account for the MAGA movement, abortion banning, Christian Nationalism, book burning, tax breaks for the rich....
To you, that's no change at all? (ok, tax breaks for the rich really are the central platform and always have been)


Is that like arguing that PP is not any different politically than O'Toole?

I said the meme was "conservative rhetoric".

If one is a hardcore conservative, they are taking into account America First, unborn babies, God, not exposing very young children to sexual and political ideas, limited government and low taxes. It's all in your perspective and how you turn a phrase.

 

[WyattEarp]

The racist thing is part of Christian Nationalism, part of the Great Replacement nonsense pushed by Tucker C et al.
It was part of the mob there on Jan 6, with proud boys and oath keepers.

There's plenty of extremism on the Left and Right. The 2020 rioters in Portland and Seattle have views that the great majority of Americans do not share.

You are conflating different groups. Christian Nationalists do not necessarily condone the mob or the groups behind January 6. I also assure you not everyone in those groups is Christian.

Usually a racist is just a racist. If I were a liberal, I would also try to tag Christian Nationalists with that label.

 

[WyattEarp]

Well, your thesis is - as it often is - that the Democratic party has become extremist and cannot tolerate moderates. It's a position which I think is unfounded. The Democratic party is in fact a centre-right party in Canada or any other Western democracy.

If you follow the topic title and thread, LaRue has been trying to make this point in regards to Democrats and a third party movement. I have not.

On a not very subtle level, my post was critical of McConnell. I also mentioned that Boehner and Ryan had to deal with extremists in the Republican Party much like Pelosi does in the Democratic Party.

Now Frank is doing his usual thing where he tries to paint the Republican brand as extremists. Limited government philosophy has to be delegitimized.

 

[mandrill]

If you follow the topic title and thread, LaRue has been trying to make this point in regards to Democrats and a third party movement. I have not.

On a not very subtle level, my post was critical of McConnell. I also mentioned that Boehner and Ryan had to deal with extremists in the Republican Party much like Pelosi does in the Democratic Party.

Now Frank is doing his usual thing where he tries to paint the Republican brand as extremists. Limited government philosophy has to be delegitimized.

I don't read Frank's post as saying that. He's not discussing limited government. He's discussing the current GOP populist position on abortion, topics taught in publicly funded schools and loyalty to Trump.

Limited government is generally not what is happening with today's GOP. It's hard to perceive jailing doctors for administering drugs to pregnant women which might cause abortion to occur or instructing social workers to investigate trans positive parents as having aught to do with limited government. Indeed the term "government overreach" occurs to me.

I think that these are Frank's concerns.

 

[WyattEarp]

If you look at the 2020 Presidential election vis-a-vis the 2016 election, you can see the impact small third parties can have. The Green party candidate likely cost Clinton the election. In 2020, the already small Green party vote sunk enough to throw some battleground states back to the Democratic column.

While the Libertarian and Green vote was much lower in 2020, I don't necessarily think Libertarians drifted over to Trump. I would guess they just stayed home or even voted for Biden. In 2016, Libertarian Gary Johnson tripled his percentage take from 2012 (1% to over 3%). That could be explained by a Trump protest vote. The Libertarian vote in 2020 dropped to its normal level.

 

[mandrill]

There's plenty of extremism on the Left and Right. The 2020 rioters in Portland and Seattle have views that the great majority of Americans do not share.

You are conflating different groups. Christian Nationalists do not necessarily condone the mob or the groups behind January 6. I also assure you not everyone in those groups is Christian.

Usually a racist is just a racist. If I were a liberal, I would also try to tag Christian Nationalists with that label.

The folks occupying Portland and Seattle have nothing to do with the views of the majority of people who vote Democrat. I'm sure that we agree on that.

I'm not an expert on Christian Nationalists, but I believe part of the belief system is an inherent white supremacist viewpoint. I believe Valcazar knows far more than I on that topic.

 

[WyattEarp]

I don't read Frank's post as saying that. He's not discussing limited government. He's discussing the current GOP populist position on abortion, topics taught in publicly funded schools and loyalty to Trump.

Frank wrote: "ok, tax breaks for the rich really are the central platform and always have been". Limiting taxes and limiting government go hand in hand.

The political rhetoric around increasing taxes has to be the rich are not paying their fair share. Otherwise, it would not remotely be politically palatable in the U.S. The problem is that tax increases impact enough Americans that they typically become unpopular in practice.

 

[mandrill]

Clearly the meme posted by LaRue earlier and mocked by Valcazar is nothing more than conservative rhetoric.

The meme however makes some sense in that progressives generally have a view of politics as a march down a continuum that favors their politics. Certainly, the U.S. populace changes over time. But certainly, some voters will not follow the path along with the liberal party.

View attachment 168284

Again, what is the "continuum" in US liberal politics?

The US is far to the right of any other Western democracy in state funding for higher education, health care and a number of other areas. Is simply advocating that the US become more like France, Canada, Australia or the UK a "continuum heading towards extremism"?

It's pretty hard to paint it in those terms, isn't it? Unless you really enjoy absurd conservative rhetoric - which is truly what it is.

Tell me in what way the Democratic party of 2022 is more extreme than that of 2008?

 

[mandrill]

Frank wrote: "ok, tax breaks for the rich really are the central platform and always have been". Limiting taxes and limiting government go hand in hand.

The political rhetoric around increasing taxes has to be the rich are not paying their fair share. Otherwise, it would not remotely be politically palatable in the U.S. The problem is that tax increases impact enough Americans that they typically become unpopular in practice.

Frank said a lot of other things which were in line with how I read his posts. That may be inconvenient for your view of this thread.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

That is an interesting idea. But the repercussions would be interesting. A viable third party would likely scoop up votes from both parties. A centre right would hurt the GOP and help Dems, or vice versa if the new party's leanings were reversed. Who remembers Ross Perot? I wonder if Clinton would have won if Perot hadn't thrown his hat into the ring. He got nearly 20 million votes, about 18% support. Clinton won by just under 6 million votes...

Trump was praying for kayne to take votes from the dems but kayne proved only fit for the GOPee

 

[Valcazar]

I agree with you. Valcazar should make his points. Mocking your post is weak. This meme has been reproduced quite often. He shouldn't be surprised or disturbed by it.

It's LaRue.
There isn't any reason to take him seriously.
As for the meme - it's ridiculous and worthy of mocking, hence it gets mocked.

 

[WyattEarp]

Again, what is the "continuum" in US liberal politics?

The US is far to the right of any other Western democracy in state funding for higher education, health care and a number of other areas. Is simply advocating that the US become more like France, Canada, Australia or the UK a "continuum heading towards extremism"?

It's pretty hard to paint it in those terms, isn't it? Unless you really enjoy absurd conservative rhetoric - which is truly what it is.

Tell me in what way the Democratic party of 2022 is more extreme than that of 2008?

The Biden of 2022 is very different from the Clinton of 1992. For that matter, Biden of 2022 is different from the Biden of 1992.

The progressive continuum exists. We can argue policy, but we should agree on this.

Again, you seem to be sensitized by words that are not there. I haven't called the Democrats extremists.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank wrote: "ok, tax breaks for the rich really are the central platform and always have been". Limiting taxes and limiting government go hand in hand.

The political rhetoric around increasing taxes has to be the rich are not paying their fair share. Otherwise, it would not remotely be politically palatable in the U.S. The problem is that tax increases impact enough Americans that they typically become unpopular in practice.

Separate issue, but accurate.
The US has a massive divide between rich and poor, GINI, based on a tax system that is not very progressive vs other successful democracies.
Don't confuse making taxes more progressive with increasing taxes all around the board.

 

[Frankfooter]

I said the meme was "conservative rhetoric".

If one is a hardcore conservative, they are taking into account America First, unborn babies, God, not exposing very young children to sexual and political ideas, limited government and low taxes. It's all in your perspective and how you turn a phrase.

There is a new poll that suggests that the MAGA crowd that backs rump, his coup attempt and more extreme policies is really only about 10-15% of the US population.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/02/trump-republicans-biden-maga/

That segment of the population is likely higher than those that support PP and the freedom convoy here, but its largely the same demographic.


Its a small minority.

 

[Valcazar]

I think you need a Republican President who forces McConnell to compromise with the Democrats. I'm not a McConnell fan. Perhaps the same could be said of a Democratic President and Schumer.

Presidents have very little direct power over Senators.
Over House members either, but especially Senators.

I don't think the two party system is the sole factor for polarization. I think the construct of the legislature and the electoral system are also a factor. Our Federal political system was designed to make change a very slow process. We often have Presidents who do not control the legislative agenda. Instead of forcing compromise, we have had for many years obstruction from both sides. The favored strategy for the party out of power has been to wait an election cycle or two and be returned to power.

This is all true.
The US is particularly laden with veto points that can stop things and it makes pure obstructionism a much more available tactic than it would be in many other systems.
Like two parties though, this isn't in and of itself the cause of polarization, but it does help incentivize it.

It's hard to say if this polarization is the natural default for the U.S. system. It could just be the current state as long as the two parties have a rough balance of power.

Historically, it seems to have swung back and forth a few times.
There was even an time called "The Era of Good Feelings".
It looks more like a case where because the system allows you to be quite effective as a polarized opponent (provided you are fine with blocking things more than accomplishing things) then in cases where polarization is high or there is a particularly hot issue, the structure allows for a feedback loop where polarization is effective and that brings about more polarization.

 

[Valcazar]

Your understanding of U.S. politics is tethered to 1965. Politics in the U.S. and almost every Western nation is more nuanced than your ability to comprehend nuance.

In your defense, one of the key propaganda standards of U.S. progressives is that the U.S. has not changed since the 1960s.

Would it be clearer if I said the split is between the MAGA crowd and traditional republicans?

Up to this year I wouldn't have considered the MAGA crowd to be religious, but the shift towards Christian Nationalism seems to be happening in the wake of rump. Though they seem to be rallying back around his corruption with the DOJ/FBI actions, before that they looked to be moving on.

I think you should both go look at the Pew survey of the electorate I posted earlier in the thread that has basically 5 groupings within each party (one grouping being muddled middle/undecided type who range across the two party coalitions).

 

[Valcazar]

What Democracy doesn't have political parties? I seem to recall from my political science classes that coalitions and henceforth parties are a practical necessity in a thriving Democracy.

From what I remember, you have studied a lot of political science in your academics.

Even in our every day life, you can see the phenomenon of different types of individual coalescing into groups within institutions to gain power, advantage and to advance agendas.

It's basically impossible, I agree.
You can make systems where the advantages of joining a permanent party (as opposed to a more fluid set of coalitions) are less, but even then you are going to have them in some way.
You can make an election system that encourages many parties, making the power of any given party less.

But some form of grouping, coalition-building, and alliance construction is going to happen.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think you should both go look at the Pew survey of the electorate I posted earlier in the thread that has basically 5 groupings within each party (one grouping being muddled middle/undecided type who range across the two party coalitions).

Or you should check the WP numbers I posted about the MAGA numbers within the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/02/trump-republicans-biden-maga/

 

[mandrill]

The Biden of 2022 is very different from the Clinton of 1992. For that matter, Biden of 2022 is different from the Biden of 1992.

The progressive continuum exists. We can argue policy, but we should agree on this.

Again, you seem to be sensitized by words that are not there. I haven't called the Democrats extremists.

What is the continuum, Wyatt?

John Fucking Diefenbaker who ran as a pro monarchy Tory in 1958 had more progressive policies than Biden in 2020!