New Third Party Forming: #Unity2020

Times are different with swift information available on the internet. What never worked in the past, doesn't mean it won't work in the near future.

What if all Centrists and almost all Republicans voted for this party? They would win the election. Democrat and Republican "official" candidates lose.

 

A viable third party would be awesome, yet, despite all the TDS no one on the left can actually point out a single thing that Trump has done to hurt this country yet the list of things Obama did to harm us is as long as your arm, One party is an absolute danger to this country, riots anyone? So it would be super dangerous for anyone that wants peace and safety to dare not vote republican in this upcoming election, that is the cold hard fact.

What have the democrats done for us
1. Gave a leg up for Iran to get the bomb
2. Put men pretending to be women in restrooms with our daughters
3. Allowed men to compete on women's sports teams with awful results.
4. Enable and encourage riots and lawlessness
5. Use the power of the government IRS, FBI, NSA to attack political opponents
etc, is this what liberals truly want for this country,. Wake the F up.

 

One vote already - Thanks LoneStarGal

Working on the party platform but prima nocta will definitely be included IF Golem is ok with it.

 

You are good, but do you have another choice please? Perhaps FreshAir?

 

You go first. Show us all how it's done.

 

Lengthy maybe but also intelligent and thought provoking. We tend to agree more on some items then others but nothing that is a show stopper.

 

Unless he disagrees on prima nocta I'm sticking with Golem

 

Yikes!

 

If they run A - B - A - B, then A cannot be VP for B's 2nd term.
Also, if at any time A and B disagree about a decision, whoever actually holds the office of the President makes the final call.

 

Me and SMOD 2020.

With my running mate's personality, he'll be the moderate Republican and I'll look like a moderate liberal.

 

They can run:

A-B
B-A
A-B
B-A

Yes, at any irreconcilable difference, the person who is officially President at that time does get to have his or her way on the decision.

 

[Laughs in Kanye West]

 

Once A has served 2 terms, he is ineligible to be VP.

So, the strength of the plan depends fully on the commitment to compromise by the parties involved.
Good luck.

 

It all comes down to who they put forward as a candidate, as you've already noted. For any 3rd party to be considered viable, the presidential candidate has to have a solid record and character. The only successful 3rd party candidate in my lifetime who made it all the way to the debates was Ross Perot on his Reform Party ticket. He lost to Bill Clinton. Americans, at least in the early 90's, may have wanted change but when it came time to pull the lever, for the most part they voted along party lines.

A 3rd party would need to have the right elements in place, the stars would truly need to align in such a particular way where the message and the messenger are propelled into the public consciousness to actually be effective. I think it's still too early to tell whether or not a 3rd party can do anything different than what either party currently does. We seem to still be operating under the myth of a "perfect candidate". No such beasts exist.

 

Part of the problem is that we are putting too much emphasis on ideology. Why preclude people that are a little further than centrist? its not like Congress is moving just because a President does. Ideology needs to be a smaller part of the conversation.

 

Where is that term limit? I'm not saying you are incorrect. I don't know that answer. I thought the only restriction is 2-terms for a President, and am unaware (or ignorant) on VP restriction.

Yes, there has to be a commitment to compromise, which is why the "ideal" candidates have to be people of reason with the ability to negotiate. Very likely, one person would probably be the stronger/better negotiator, so you are correct in that any deals may be lop-sided and not 50/50.

 

Amendment 12, last line:
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
If you have served 2 terms, you are ineligible.

Right.

 

The further apart they are, the more they end up completely divided and fighting, which is exactly the political problem Weinstein is trying to attack. I expect Weinstein still has some of that "Peace, Love, Drugs" hippie flower-child idealism in his head from the days when everyone was singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke teach the world to sing," in perfect harmony.

Kumbaya!

 

the country is divided 50\50, if either part loses votes, the other wins

 

So they could serve 12 years - A is prevented from a second term as VP, but being VP in the middle does not disqualify A from being a 2-term President. (?)

A-B
B-A
A-B

 

Correct. 4th term is B-C.

 

But if a 3rd Party ever won, both parties lose, and probably lose rather equally. Example: 30/40/30.

But under this new party's proposed construction, a Republican-ish and a Democrat-ish candidate each wins.

 

A very interesting Idea.

As for my 'Dream Team': Rand Paul and any Lib/Dem that opposes new gun control laws (if you can find one... I couldn't).

 

One thing I admire about Rand is he works well with Trump and there have been no new wars.

 

What is Tulsi Gabbard's 2A position?