New Third Party Forming: #Unity2020

I would insist on a continued anti-war combination.

 

Indistinguishable from any other leftist.

 

Well, that may be the end of that idea. Even Centrist Conservatives are not going to go for a Presidential "team" where both don't support the Constitution in full.

 

That's really meaningless.

The issue isn't really the president at all.

The problem is how congress works.

And, our system is not open to having more than two parties.

Congress CAN work. Even under our last preseident we saw that the top most policy issues could be addressed in a serious way by bipartisan committees.

Today, the Senate is not even slihtly interested in minority participation in ANY decision.

And, that is what doesn't work.

We need a president who wants to make our government work for all America and has experience in doing that.

And, we need congressional leadership that understands that bills have to be created in a bipartisan manner.

Making some new party solves neither of those.

 

don't see it happening, I just see them either pulling voters from one party or the other, thus the remaining one winning by default

 

The existing parties are solidly against giving up any power whatsoever, and will make sure that any third party doesn't see the light of day. Unless you've got a brilliant plan that corrects the issues with the existing duopoly, we are going to continue seeing both parties scraping the bottom of the barrel in a power struggles that does nothing to benefit the country or it's citizens.

 

Two co-equals equally in charge and with equal authority that agree on everything -- it worked for Lewis & Clark (still Lewis was Jefferson's No. 1 first pick and could have pulled "hand picked first and in charge" over Clark but didn't) and there's not much to argue about out in remote physical reality betwixt two genius, expert outdoorsmen, frontiersmen. I'm not aware of that kind of co-equal authority working since then.

 

Every last elected representative we have supports the constitutuion in full.

There are sound reasons for disagreeing on the specifics of how it may be applied as we face serious issues.

Everybody in the USA knows that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for thinking that the gun laws for someone in Wyoming have to be the same as for someone in inner city Chicago.

 

I would love to see a third party work in the US. It would totally depend on the policy positions of the candidates but I would be open to the idea.

 

Well, this congress has REPEATEDLY given up power to the president. Congress has gone so far as to relinquish the checks and balances that our founders claimed to be absolutely required - the checks and balances claimed as one of the serious adances of our form of government!

The issue of multiple parties does end up like you suggest. But, it's not as nefarious as that.

We have multiple Libertarian party members in congress.

But, they can't be a Libertarian party.

 

Which would be a fair election. I've voted 3rd Party for the last 3 elections. Republicans say I'm pulling a vote from the Republican. Democrats say I'm pulling a vote from the Democrat. They can't both be right. In fact, they are both wrong. A vote for a Dem is a vote for a Dem. A vote for a Rep is a vote for a Rep. And a vote for someone else is not a negative vote for either party; it's a vote for a third candidate. As long as everyone complains that our government is broken, but fails to get out of the 2-party-only mindset, then where we are today is where we always will be. Unhappy with government.

 

I've suspected that Trump, as a businessman, did some sort of marketing research and found some political positions that were under served by the political system even though they were popular. Getting tough with illegals, limiting legal immigration, and getting tough with China all have seemed to have polled consistently well, but there was no party or political alliance that supported them, leaving it to Trump to pick up those positions off the floor and run with them.

As you said, there are "many issues which the majority of all voters would like addressed" but the political system, and therefore most regular politicians in both parties, have no interest in them and they go unaddressed.

 

Trump didn't have to do much marketing research. He actually plagiarized Ted Cruz's Immigration and Middle-East ISIS platforms. Cruz just wasn't getting one minute of media time, and Trump sold Cruz's platform better with wall-to-wall coverage than Cruz could do. They differed on the Chinese tariff plank. Trump's pro-tariff platform was very similar to Bernie Sanders' support for protectionist trade tariffs.

Trump was just the best salesman of all the most popular ideas, thanks to $2B in free media coverage, mainly from left-wing outlets. Pretty amusing.

 

OK that's dark.

 

The President doesn't have the power to remove the checks and balances. I think you are giving Trump more 'power' then he actually has.

But why can't there be a Libertarian President? Because the both the right and the left will not relinquish the power. It's going to take enough people having had enough of the governmental BS to actually find a way to change the duopoly. At the rate the government is currently going, there will be too many people beholden to the government for their very livelihood for there to ever be a true method of voting for the best candidate, rather than the least of evils.

 

OK I think you are wrong on that. I've never heard Cruz give anything but standard GOP establishment boilerplate during his Presidential campaign. And you'll have to remind me what he said about ISIS that Trump plagiarized. Did Cruz argue the middle east wars were a mistake?

 

For a third party to succeed and win the presidency they're going to have to run the most charismatic and likeable candidate ever. Only then will people take a chance and risk their precious vote. A tremendously great platform with a dull, ordinary candidate will always be a disaster.

 

But its not about the distance apart, so much as it is about their degree of passion about the distance that is. In other words do they put their ideological vision into a larger perspective, and are they willing to supplant the ideological impact of legislation to larger imperatives occasionally. I want them to look at a bill to see the impact on unequal wealth distribution, and certainly see what it will do to poor, middle class and wealthy Americans. I want them to look at what it does to the markets, to businesses, consumers, and unions etc, but that does not mean that once in awhile there are not larger issues on the table. Its an important issue, but it cannot be the soul criteria.

 

I'd also point out that during the terms of the last president the two major issues addressed by congress were addressed in bipartisan committees.

And, the results were not particularly to the liking of the president, who signed one and would have signed the other.

 

Of course you didn't hear him. He did not get two minutes of media time. LOL Only people who were Cruz supporters and/or people who followed all the Republican candidates through the primaries know what happened. Media allowed Trump to suck all the air out of the room and gave none to competitors. They did that because, early in the primaries, polling showed Trump to be the only Republican candidate who could not beat Clinton. All the rest polled to beat her.

You know, Cruz is in his Senate seat because he ran his first state campaign on a "Build the Wall" (in Texas) and strict immigration law enforcement campaign. He was a political outsider (Tea Party darling), hated by the GOP establishment RINO's. When he started his presidential campaign he expanded his "Build the Wall" platform nationwide....before Trump ever jumped in as a candidate. On the Middle East war and ISIS, Cruz campaigned on "Carpet Bombing" the heck out if ISIS and getting our men out of endless, useless war over there. Trump's wiping out ISIS campaign was close to word-for-word Ted Cruz, but Cruz said it first.

Cruz is a good sport today and supporting Trump for the most part because Trump is implementing the Ted Cruz platform. (Except foreign trade tariffs which Cruz is opposed to, but Sanders should be happier than he'll admit on that topic.)

 

She's signed/supported every banner bill ever put in front of her.

Sadly.

I really want to like Tulsi.

 

Great post, and I want to reply as the Syndicalist that I am. The answer is that we all have our eyes glued to the Presidency as "the prize", but without Congressional support the Presidency is a de-facto puppet.(which suits someone like Joe Biden just fine but it's a reflection of the sad state of affairs that the most powerful agency in America is the SCOTUS.).

We also see the incredible power vested in Governorships, as well as state/local representation. Essentially, for a true third party revolution we have to plant the seed at lower seats, to have the governorships in our hands and then representatives/Senators, and only after we've taken over those factors, can we use the Presidency the way it needs to be used.

 

Okay
I type slowly
for those that don't "get it"
as reading. I have the same deficiency

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER CENTRIST
moderate / moderate POLITICAL PARTY.
We got 2. 2 as 1. "RepubloCrats". Centrist upon centrist for decades.
Reagan and Trump a wonderful time. Although I disliked Reagan as governor.
WE NEED DON'T CENTRIST, MODERATES, WHO OFFER? ? ?
than to support big business profits when you boil down their policies.
Medical Care for working Middle Class, premiums charged against Welfare Class.
Oh, Isn't ObamaCare wonderful.


Get It Or Not
Gimmie an ole time Populist.
Not RepuloCrats.

Oh for a Huey Long. Assassinated by . . . .

​

Really


Moi

Don't ize
​

 

I did not say the president has that power. I said congress is giving him that power - repeatedly and in several ways.

But, it IS a fact that Trump does cliam TOTAL IMMUNITY to all checks and balances. In fact, he sees his justice department not as an upholder of the law for the people of America, but as his own personal power of legal defense.

And, our partisan Republican supreme court backs him in that.

Our founders stated that this form of government could not succeed without these checks and balances.

And, our own government does NOT support new countries from establishing our form of government BECAUSE it is too likely that the checks and balances will not be enough to prevent the president from becoming the dictator.

WE demonstrate that we KNOW the direction our government is taking will fail.

 

Plans relating to such have been drafted and finalized. Everything of relevance has been accounted for and factored in. There is but one more piece of business in need of being attended to. Once such has been done, such will ultimately be implemented.