New Third Party Forming: #Unity2020

Hmmm

 

How do you get rid of political parties?

 

Yep...just like the hippies back in the 60's.
Grow their hair long...sit on the grass...smoke a little of it...
I vote for that

 

❓~ What name will this 3rd party have... I am thinking ' Disgustcarats ' .

 

To be an improvement, it is an absolute requirement that the party finds experts who believe government can work and are dedicated to that end.

 

What's stopping him from pardoning himself?

 

LOL!

 

While I totally agree, it will never happen. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there's one thing both parties agree on, it's no viable third party will ever rise. Although a majority of Americans agree on this. 57% say a viable or major third party is needed.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Neither party represents the average American anymore. There's a bit of hope in that 6% of Americans voted third party in 2016, some 9 million people whether than choose between Trump and Clinton. Compare that to 2012 when 1.5% did, 2008 when 1.2% voted third party and 2004 when 1.0% did. Then there is the fact that both major parties are shrinking while independents are increasing. Back in 2006 the electorate was made up of 37% Democrats, 31% Republicans and 30% independents. Today those numbers are 31% Democrats, 25% Republican, 40% independents.

We can throw in the fact that 56% of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party vs 61% of the Republican Party. Neither party is liked much. But the political reality is there is no where else to go. Perhaps this is why we elect a Republican President in G.H.W. Bush, followed by a Democratic one in Bill Clinton. Then a Republican on in G.W. Bush followed by democrat Obama and now Republican Trump soon it seems to have Democrat Biden. We just want the one in power out, then the one replaced him with, we want out in the next election.

Same for Congress, 1994 we gave congress to the Democrats after 40 straight years of Democratic control and 58 out of 62 going back to 1932. Then in 2006 we put the Democrats back in, in 2010 we gave the House back to the Republicans followed by the senate in 2010. Then we went back to a democratic house in 2018 and most likely a Democratic senate in 2020. Whichever major party is in power, we just want to replace them. It's not that we like the other party any better, but that is the only way we can voice our frustrations with both major parties is by replacing them with the other. This is the evil of our two party system. No third choice to try to keep both honest and working for the average American, they only work for their shrinking base and forget all about the other 70% of Americans or America as a whole. These, neither party represents anymore.

 

Republicans and Democrats alike will look at it as a spoiler. Cynics will call it an attempt to sway the election in favor of the other guy.

 

A quality congress works in a bipartisan way.

Under Obama, healthcare and immigration were both created in bipartisan committees where members of both parties were free to report on progress, etc.

This has been the case under other presidents, too. It's not specific to Democratic leadership.

The whole idea of congress was as a body that would work together to create legislation that is superior because of the breadth of representation, etc.

If we want congress to work, then we need to insist on it working.

If all we want is party power plays, then it's going to be another total failure like we've seen the last several years.

Also, we have to move back toward respecting the rule of law.

 

Someone else's words, but better said than I:

“When a president pardons another person for a federal crime, he is in fact executing the law—the law of the Constitution’s pardon power—despite the fact that he is relieving that person from the execution of the federal penal code,” Bobbitt wrote. “But when the president pardons himself, he assumes a power that is incompatible with, rather than a supplement to, the application of the federal criminal law. That is because as chief law enforcement officer, he could put himself beyond the applicable law simply by withholding his consent to his prosecution by the department he controls while he is president—and then assure himself that he could not be convicted after his term ended—or after impeachment—because he could pardon himself prospectively.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ts-probably-not-legal-experts-say/ar-BB15sSoJ

 

That's all fine theory - but until it gets tested in the courts, that's all it is.

 

Well, your words could be applied to virtually anything then. Shall we all run amuck and test all laws in the court?

The basis is sound. I don't think you'll get far with the theory, unless there are those who are desperate to believe.

 

That's how theories are applied to legal issues.
You can argue the "can't pardon himself" theory all you want, but if he does it, and a court doesn't overturn it, the theory - however sound - doesn't mean anything.

 

This is another argument that he can indeed pardon himself.

And, by the Nixon/Ford precedent he could pardon himself from all known cases, but also from all other possible cases that might be discovered into the future.

Trump uses the powers of government as a dictator would. Those arms of the executive branch are being wielded to favor himself, his reelection, his financial benefit, his position of being above all law, his ability to make decsision even on such issues as our military without consult even of the military, etc.

This is the reason that the USA does NOT help other new nations adopt our form of government. Our system is fragile. It does not have the means of preventing dictatorship that parliamentary systems have.

 

Amen.

This administration is all about attempting to see how much they can ignore the law, especially when it comes to their own personal agrandizement.

We need an administration that is in favor of the rule of law.

 

We clearly disagree on the Trump/GOP connection. Remember this headline?

30 Republican Senators Would Vote to Impeach Trump' If Vote Was Secret

We will never know for sure. If only senators weren't worried about those pesky voters! But I've seen almost 4 years of sabotage from within GOP ranks. In a sense you are right that in a way, Trump is the Republican Party now, but only in the sense of voters. The permanent party establishment is probably just as anti Trump as they've always been. It even has it's own set of Never-Trumpers. Have there been any Never-Bidens? Never-Obamas?

You used so much hyperbole that it was hard to parse your immigration complaint. Illegals, when they bring children creates a mess for us since we don't know that they are actually their children. The border patrol did a pilot program of DNA matching and determined that about 30% of the children shared no DNA with their "parents." Obviously having government documentation like a passport would help but that sort of thing seems suspiciously absent.

So that's why we have a mess with children. We can either not care and facilitate human trafficking or we do something. You would prefer to do nothing since it's more important to get as many over the border as quickly as possible. But given that they are the ones that are illegal, the inconvenience is going to have to rest with the illegals.

And considering the "kids in cages" go back to the Obama era with no serious outrage on this forum, it's hard to take your complaints seriously since the real issue is that Trump actually tried to do something about illegals. If you are worried about the "humanitarian travesty," try to devise a humane system to getting these kids back to their home countries (and for many, back to their parents) as rapidly as possible.

 

Never seen BS piled so high, one of the most Orwellian threads yet, on this board,, and that's saying alot!... There is no way there will ever be unity.. the Left will not allow it.. look at what they do to the opposition party, everytime..
I'd contend that if W Bush merely a had a "D" by his name, he'd have been the most beloved Democrat President ever.
BTW I think we have a third party (second party?!).... the Tea Party as embodied by the Trump voters.

 

A lot of our problems is congress has ceded many of its constitutional powers either to the administration, to other government agencies and department. One big problem today is members of congress of the same party as the president have become more part of the president's administration than of the institution of congress. When a Democrat is president, Democrats in congress want to give him more power and everything he wants, the same for Republicans in congress when a Republican is president. Both parties forget they're not going to hold the presidency forever and that power ceded remains gone forever.

The only way to ensure congress doesn't give more power to the president is to keep either the house or the senate in the control of the opposing party of the president. When one party has the presidency and controls both houses, congress bows down to every whim of the president. The checks and balance envisioned by the framers no longer exists.

The constitution requires congress to declare war if this nation is to go to war. When was the last time congress did so? 5 June 1942. Truman never did ask congress for a declaration of war against North Korea, he didn't even ask for authorization. A precedence was set. Being the Democrats were in control of congress, congress never pushed him and gave Truman carte blanche. LBJ ask for and received the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for North Vietnam's attack on one of our destroyers. Congress thinking they were only authorizing retaliatory action. But LBJ used it to fight the entire Vietnam War. Again with the Democrats in control of congress, very few spoke out against LBJ and his use of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to fight that war, at least in the beginning. Only when Republican Nixon did the Democrats become more adamant about it, finally revoking the resolution. Obama bypassed congress altogether with his Libya campaign, stating the UN had authorized it and that was enough. Oh well, so much for the Constitution.

So in a way, when we elect a president we are electing a dictator for four years. Especially if both chambers of congress are controlled by the party of the president. Could a president remain in office after his term has expired, whether defeated or at the end of his two term limit? A lot of republicans expressed fears Obama would try to do just that. Now it's the Democrats turn. I don't think our military would let him or any president do that. Our military for the most part is apolitical. Any president is commander in chief only until noon time on the 20th of January. At which time he ceases having any authority over the Military.

I don't think we're as fragile as you think we are. No president has ever tried to stay or remain in office after his term. Unlike the German Army who swore an oath to Hitler, our military swears an oath to the Constitution. Never to an individual. To obey the rightful orders from the CINC, but their rightful only when he is CINC, not after.

 

The problem is that is pretty much exactly what is happening.

We've seen that over and over again with subpoenas, with rewarding with pardons th convicted felons who lie for the president, etc.

Our law, all of it, is only as good as our willingness to demand that it be followed.

And, I just don't see ANY of that from the Republican party today. Trump has them cowed. I don't actually believe Republicans are that opposed to the rule of law, but but over the last few years they certainly have proven they will not stand up for it.

 

There is one conservative party with two criminal wings.

This will solve nothing.

 

Yup.

The two conservative crime parties have a lock on the whole thing.

Democrips and Republibloods.

No 3rd party is viable in going up against these two powerful sociopathic entities, or rather two wings of the same sociopathic entity.

 

Platforms aren't policy.

Both crime parties tell whatever lies they feel they need to, and then work solely to enrich/empower themselves and their affiliates/cronies.

This isn't going to change.

Also, keep in mind that both parties are wildly conservative as well as wildly criminal; liberal doesn't exist anymore, and never really did - it was always just a slightly different brand of conservative. Pepsi, not Coke.

Of course the Pepsi Conservative (conservative Democrat) crime wing has been behaving in a particularly deplorable fashion of late...

 

You’d have better luck abolishing political parties.