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

[Valcazar]

Looking at post 78, it seems time to stop.
Base concepts of human language and communication seem to be beyond LaRue's grasp and he also appears to have not read the thread or have any interest in reading the thread.
(For instance, the discussion between Pleasure Hound and I - particularly post 30.)

I've given him his own thread to go talk specifically about parties and motivation and what might happen in the near political future, and that discussion can happen there.

 

[JohnLarue]

Looking at post 78, it seems time to stop.
Base concepts of human language and communication seem to be beyond LaRue's grasp and he also appears to have not read the thread or have any interest in reading the thread.
(For instance, the discussion between Pleasure Hound and I - particularly post 30.)

I've given him his own thread to go talk specifically about parties and motivation and what might happen in the near political future, and that discussion can happen there.

That is the sound of you crying uncle

I've given him his own thread

WTF
Your superiority complex needs a jolt of reality
You do not give out threads
and most certainly not to avoid being called out on a thread you started

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

you posted that , so you own it and need to defend your position

odd how you did not mention structural issues when you first labelled others as idiots
The structural issues excuse only surfaced after it was pointed out to you how far the democrats had drifted left and caused the current political polarization

you admitted the current situation is dysfunctional yet you call those that view it as unsustainable as 'idiots'
you did not give this enough thought , got called out on it and now you are running away

If you are going to run away, do it permanently
I have had enough of your half assed , half explained jabs / insults
run away now

 

[Valcazar]

That is the sound of you crying uncle

WTF
Your superiority complex needs a jolt of reality
You do not give out threads
and most certainly not to avoid being called out on a thread you started

It's a public board. Anyone can give out threads.
It's really quite easy to do.

you posted that , so you own it and need to defend your position

I did.
I'll repeat it since you are having trouble.
The Forward party is an idiotic third party bit. It is just as idiotic as the Unity'08 bit and whatever the silly group in 2012 was called.
The Forward party is even dumber than those since it literally has announced it has no policies.
But the press just *loves* the "new centrist unity party" storyline so it will get coverage and lots of people who don't understand the structural issues involved really think "a third party is what we need to fix everything" is just a magical panacea.
The people running the Forward party are hoping that those people don't notice how dumb the whole approach of the Forward party is and contribute money and make Andrew Yang feel important.

odd how you did not mention structural issues when you first labelled others as idiots
The structural issues excuse only surfaced after it was pointed out to you how far the democrats had drifted left and caused the current political polarization

Because I've talked about the structural issues before and because people should know it by now.
And I started talking about structural issues before I ever responded to you, in response to other people.
I also included it in my response to you, specifically because your idea that the motivation was what mattered about the long term viability of a third party is wrong and irrelevant to the point that the dream of "a third party" that sticks around is silly unless the systemic issues working against it are addressed.

you admitted the current situation is dysfunctional yet you call those that view it as unsustainable as 'idiots'

No. I said that the people who are pushing the Forward party and think it will go anywhere are idiots.
I never said that viewing the US system with all its many flaws as unsustainable makes you an idiot.
Without a massive fix to the Constitutional structure in the US, its continuance as a functional democracy is unsustainable in my view.

you did not give this enough thought , got called out on it and now you are running away

No.
I've thought about this a great deal.
That you haven't and can't even be bothered to read the thread or understand that the discussion isn't about your fixation on motivation or the evils of the Democrats means it isn't worth continuing to waste time repeating the same things endlessly.

 

[JohnLarue]

It's a public board. Anyone can give out threads.
It's really quite easy to do.

No anyone can start a thread if they want
They are not given permission to start one by you

The fact you do not understand the difference speaks volumes

I did.
I'll repeat it since you are having trouble.
The Forward party is an idiotic third party bit. It is just as idiotic as the Unity'08 bit and whatever the silly group in 2012 was called.
The Forward party is even dumber than those since it literally has announced it has no policies.

Hmm

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

no mention of the forward party in your original post
you attacked the idea of a third party , while ignoring the political polarization issue

Because I've talked about the structural issues before and because people should know it by now.

Too funny
you have spoken... therefore others should know it by now.
Your over inflated self importance is comical

History has shown the disasters of socialism / communism, many times over, yet some just do not listen and continue to push this nightmare
People should know it by now

And I started talking about structural issues before I ever responded to you, in response to other people.
I also included it in my response to you, specifically because your idea that the motivation was what mattered about the long term viability of a third party is wrong and irrelevant to the point that the dream of "a third party" that sticks around is silly unless the systemic issues working against it are addressed.

you still do not get it
the long term viability of a third party is irrelevant if it accomplishes the goal of reduced political polarization
specifically forcing the democrats to step back towards center

No. I said that the people who are pushing the Forward party and think it will go anywhere are idiots.

actually you did not

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

I never said that viewing the US system with all its many flaws as unsustainable makes you an idiot.

dismissing the possibility of a third party reducing political polarization does

Without a massive fix to the Constitutional structure in the US, its continuance as a functional democracy is unsustainable in my view.

you still do not get it
the long term viability of a third party is irrelevant if it accomplishes the goal of reduced political polarization
specifically forcing the democrats to step back towards center

No.
I've thought about this a great deal.

Apparently not

That you haven't and can't even be bothered to read the thread or understand that the discussion isn't about your fixation on motivation or the evils of the Democrats means it isn't worth continuing to waste time repeating the same things endlessly.

There you go again
Trying to ring fence/ control discussion
What is it about the left always trying to control others?
it is fascinating yet very disturbing

 

[Valcazar]

No anyone can start a thread if they want

Glad you have figured that out.

Hmm

no mention of the forward party in your original post

LOL.
Johnny.
Do you not know how the internet works?
When someone posts and includes a link, they are referencing the link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/27/forward-party-new-centrist-third/

Like I said.
The reason this discussion isn't particularly useful is because you either don't read or don't understand the thread.

you attacked the idea of a third party , while ignoring the political polarization issue

Because my issues with a third party existing for any length of time in a first past the post single-member system (especially one with the additional quirks of the US) is that a third party is almost always non viable and when it is viable, it is for only a short time before it replaces one of the existing parties or is absorbed by it. People like the "Forward" party are counting on people not understanding that in order to exploit their dissatisfaction with the system. Worse still, the particular structural issues involved means that the third party is more likely to damage the cause it claims it wants to help, which makes that exploitation even more destructive and tragic.

History has shown the disasters of socialism / communism, many times over, yet some just do not listen and continue to push this nightmare
People should know it by now

Exactly. Something you think of as obvious is something you feel you don't have to repeat.
That is often an error, and then you go and explain yourself further in additional discussion.
Or, you decide you've been over this too often and it would be a waste of time to do remedial teaching.
That's all very normal.

you still do not get it
the long term viability of a third party is irrelevant if it accomplishes the goal of reduced political polarization
specifically forcing the democrats to step back towards center

I do get that is what you consider important about a third party.
It's also largely irrelevant to what I want to talk about and to what my criticisms are.
That you can't seem to understand or accept this and have reached your "Johnny LaRue cuts and pastes the same thing again and again" stage is why I intend to drop the thread and move on to something else.

That this infuriates you isn't actually something I care about.

 

[Valcazar]

People starting to notice that Idiotic third party is full of idiots.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1558964169243648000

 

[JohnLarue]

Glad you have figured that out.

Too bad you have not figured that out
Otherwise you would not be stating nonsense like

"I've given him his own thread"
a thread is not yours to grant, give, bequeath etc

I suspect it was a Freudian slip driven by your overinflated opinion of yourself, & your obvious control issues

LOL.
Johnny.
Do you not know how the internet works?
When someone posts and includes a link, they are referencing the link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/27/forward-party-new-centrist-third/

Like I said.
The reason this discussion isn't particularly useful is because you either don't read or don't understand the thread.

Again you do not get define the subject matter for a thread

Because my issues with a third party existing for any length of time in a first past the post single-member system (especially one with the additional quirks of the US) is that a third party is almost always non viable and when it is viable, it is for only a short time before it replaces one of the existing parties or is absorbed by it. People like the "Forward" party are counting on people not understanding that in order to exploit their dissatisfaction with the system. Worse still, the particular structural issues involved means that the third party is more likely to damage the cause it claims it wants to help, which makes that exploitation even more destructive and tragic.

Again you miss the bigger issue of political polarization while you dither with "structural issues" & irrelevant long term viability
You are a fool if you do not recognise continued political polarization will be far more destructive and tragic than anything caused by "structural issues"

Exactly. Something you think of as obvious is something you feel you don't have to repeat.
That is often an error, and then you go and explain yourself further in additional discussion.
Or, you decide you've been over this too often and it would be a waste of time to do remedial teaching.
That's all very normal.

Ah no
history should be obvious,

History has shown the disasters of socialism / communism, many times over, yet some just do not listen and continue to push this nightmare
People should know it by now

However here we are with wack jobs promoting the failed experiment again

What you failed to recognise is the distinction between people being expect to know via proven history and people being expect to know because you have spoken

Because I've talked about the structural issues before and because people should know it by now.

was that another Freudian slip driven by your overinflated opinion of yourself, & your obvious control issues ?

I do get that is what you consider important about a third party.
It's also largely irrelevant to what I want to talk about and to what my criticisms are.

Again, what part of 'you do not control opinions predictions or discussion" is confusing you?

That you can't seem to understand or accept this and have reached your "Johnny LaRue cuts and pastes the same thing again and again" stage is why I intend to drop the thread and move on to something else.

What in the world is wrong with you?
I am under zero obligation to to accept your attempt to control the discussion

That this infuriates you isn't actually something I care about.

Oh but yes you do
20+ posts of you trying to ring fence the discussion pretty much proves that

like I said before

If you are going to run away, do it permanently
I have had enough of your half assed , half explained jabs / insults

So if you are truly ambivalent, there will be no more of those half assed , half explained jabs / insults.
Correct?

re: infuriates
you got the cause of that wrong as well
hint: 'you do not control opinions predictions or discussion"
I strong suggest you take a real hard look at that

 

[Frankfooter]

Too bad you have not figured that out
Otherwise you would not be stating nonsense like
"I've given him his own thread"
a thread is not yours to grant, give, bequeath etc
I suspect it was a Freudian slip driven by your overinflated opinion of yourself, & your obvious control issues
Again you do not get define the subject matter for a thread
Again you miss the bigger issue of political polarization while you dither with "structural issues" & irrelevant long term viability
You are a fool if you do not recognise continued political polarization will be far more destructive and tragic than anything caused by "structural issues"
Ah no
my statement should be obvious,
However here we are with wack jobs promoting the failed experiment again
What you failed to recognise is the distinction between people being expect to know via proven history and people being expect to know because you have spoken
was that another Freudian slip driven by your overinflated opinion of yourself, & your obvious control issues ?
Again, what part of 'you do not control opinions predictions or discussion" is confusing you?
What in the world is wrong with you?
I am under zero obligation to to accept your attempt to control the discussion
Oh but yes you do
20+ posts of you trying to ring fence the discussion pretty much proves that
like I said before
If you are going to run away, do it permanently
I have had enough of your half assed , half explained jabs / insults
So if you are truly ambivalent, there will be no more of those half assed , half explained jabs / insults.
Correct?
re: infuriates
you got the cause of that wrong as well
hint: 'you do not control opinions predictions or discussion"
I strong suggest you take a real hard look at that

What the heck are you guys talking about?

 

[Valcazar]

What the heck are you guys talking about?

LaRue doesn't like that I don't have interest in what he has to say and that he can't make me have interest.
You know how it goes.
It's fine.
If the Forward party does more silly things, I might post it here since it is on topic, but there's not much else of interest to discuss.

 

[Valcazar]

An interesting interview with Yang about the Forward Party.

In it, he seems to say that in fact the Forward Party is a one-issue party and that party is electoral system reform. Specifically he is pro ranked choice.
But, as always, he doesn't come out and say that up front. It's hidden beneath his wobbly back and forth about having no policies.
It leads to the question of whether he thinks hiding the ball here is good strategy or he is just not good at communicating.

 

[Frankfooter]

An interesting interview with Yang about the Forward Party.

In it, he seems to say that in fact the Forward Party is a one-issue party and that party is electoral system reform. Specifically he is pro ranked choice.
But, as always, he doesn't come out and say that up front. It's hidden beneath his wobbly back and forth about having no policies.
It leads to the question of whether he thinks hiding the ball here is good strategy or he is just not good at communicating.

Hmm, considering that most Americans are worried about the end of democracy, he may have an issue.
But I expect that the issue is partisan fear from both sides that the other party will destroy democracy, not that they need a third choice.

Majorities in both parties say democracy in danger of collapse: poll

Majorities of Democratic and Republican respondents in a new poll said that they think U.S. democracy is in danger of collapse. The Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of all of those …

thehill.com

 

[Valcazar]

Hmm, considering that most Americans are worried about the end of democracy, he may have an issue.
But I expect that the issue is partisan fear from both sides that the other party will destroy democracy, not that they need a third choice.

Majorities in both parties say democracy in danger of collapse: poll

Majorities of Democratic and Republican respondents in a new poll said that they think U.S. democracy is in danger of collapse. The Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of all of those …

thehill.com

Lots of people in the US say they want a third party, but I don't think that's tied to the "end of democracy" worry.

 

[Frankfooter]

Lots of people in the US say they want a third party, but I don't think that's tied to the "end of democracy" worry.

You're probably right.

 

[WyattEarp]

the republicans need a different leader than Donald Trump

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.

Unfortunately, Schumer and Pelosi found Trump so offensive they would not work with him. I'm not sure Pelosi can afford to work with a Republican President. She is quite beholden to the House Progressives. Boehner and Ryan were more aware of this problem with the extreme House members on their side.

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.

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.

 

[WyattEarp]

you lack the stones to make a logical argument

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.

I'm afraid Valcazar has picked up some bad habits on TERB because he finds more kindred spirits here. I apologize to the spirit world for the analogy, but I could not find a better phrase.

 

[WyattEarp]

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.

Yes, I concur. We have seen several "celebrity" type businessmen put their toe in the water offering civility, competence and other good things. They quickly find that without taking strong positions they cannot generate support.

I think of Matthew McConaughy recently. From what we know, he was considering running for Governor in Texas based on his immense popularity there. His political confidantes probably told him his hypothetical 70% approval rating or whatever drops to around 45-50% as soon as he takes positions. If he doesn't take positions, no one will vote for him.

 

[WyattEarp]

Lets just hope the right wing splinters into two parties, the racist Christian Nationalists vs conservatives.

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

 

[mandrill]

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.

Unfortunately, Schumer and Pelosi found Trump so offensive they would not work with him. I'm not sure Pelosi can afford to work with a Republican President. She is quite beholden to the House Progressives. Boehner and Ryan were more aware of this problem with the extreme House members on their side.

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.

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.

Let's have your detailed proof of Schumer and Pelosi "refusing to work with Trump"?

Give me bills and actual events. Not just generalizations.

 

[WyattEarp]

You have to work extremely hard to build a system that doesn't result in political parties.
It's almost impossible to do.

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.