New Third Party Forming: #Unity2020

Yes, I agree with anit-war platforms.

I made a post about America being on the verge of a Civil Culture war. So, your response about foreign war without a legal declaration is unrelated to that? Maybe that's where I got lost on the train of thought.

 

Trump was fine with foreign agents in his government.

How better for him to keep his lines with Putin open?

Another face to face with Putin where only the Russian government knows what was said is an laternative, I guess.

 

About the only not career politicians in DC is Trump and they can't stand it.

 

Well, I wish I could say that Gabbard is great on Second Amendment issues, but that would not be reflective of her record. Regretfully, her voting record is as bad as Nadler or Swalwell, although to her credit, she hasn’t trafficked in the smears that Swalwell has.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/tu...emable-on-the-second-amendment/#axzz6SEM8p3gi

 

The right seemed to have something of a love affair with her because of her anti-war message, and Fox had her on several times. "Anti-war" seemed to be the only message the public was getting. I once heard her say something about spending less on defense and spend the money to "save the planet"....figured she leaned more Green Party/Socialist than anything.

 

I liked her because she kept sticking her thumb in the eyes of the other Democrat contenders.

 

That was appreciated, especially after Hitlery tried to call her a Russian asset. LOL

 

And the NEXT Day...He Backed Out...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A GOP political consultant and one of President Donald Trump’s harshest Republican critics has backed out of a six-figure agreement to lobby against potential U.S. sanctions on Russia’s nuclear energy industry.
John Weaver said in comments on his Twitter page Thursday that his decision to work for the U.S. subsidiary of a Russian uranium services company was a “mistake” because it could distract him from “playing any role” to ensure Trump serves only one term.

https://apnews.com/f789b4a43d4b4fc6b5c845aa3ee4fb9b

Why do RWs (Like Duncan) feel the need to spread this sort of BS?

 

And Trump has been knocked back several times on his supposed 'immunity'. One can claim anything they want, but it doesn't mean it exists.

Which works from many directions. The House checks the Senate, and both check the POTUS. Even with some agreeing with the POTUS, I would be interested in what checks and balances have been 'removed'.

 

True. That's why we have courts.
But, until court rules on a claim of executive privilege - individually, on the merits of the specific claim - it legally stands.

 

I agree. However, those claiming that he has over-ridden C&B, seem to think there is some sort of omnipotence.

 

They simply do not understand the process. This may be deliberate.

 

Unfortunate that the willful blindness is based on a venomous hatred and the wish to undermine at all costs.

I don't like Trump as a person, nor have I voted for him. But, he is POTUS, and has exercised the same authority and prerogatives (EO) as any POTUS before him, yet suddenly it's evil.

 

How does our country start a trade war and impose sanctions without congressional approval?

 

I don't think he's over-ridden them.
I think the coward congress has been giving up their power over the years so they don't have to vote on tough legislation and possibly risk re-election.
They are rendering themselves useless, IMO.

 

No, not suddenly it's evil.
8 yrs there was constant crying about obama's EOs. But that was his only option.
As it is tRUMPs.
Congress doesn't do anything.

 

At least you are engaging on policy! That's something.

Healthcare: He actually tried to replace Obamacare in 2017, but it fell through for exactly the reasons I've articulated in this thread; Trump was basically a third party candidate running against both parties. He was advised by Paul Ryan to tackle healthcare first, instead of infrastructure, which is what Trump wanted. Unfortunately Trump took Ryan's bait and ended up wasting several months on proposals that were never going anywhere.

Immigration: You claimed that his policies would be a "human rights fiasco" and racist. That's not really a critique, that's more of an anguished wail. Could you give some substantive criticisms to his immigration proposals?

 

To the third party notion. We already functionally have a third party. Most of the Republicans and many Democrats are members of what I call the “Elitist” party. Call it what you will, but it’s membership is due to the environment the party’s work within.

Until we clean-up our system predominantly campaign finance which is driven by our economic structure nothing changes.

I don’t believe “moderate” exists in the political science realm and think “Centrist” is another silly term utilized. One either has an idea or they don’t. It doesn’t matter what spectrum it falls within.

From my perspective what we really need is a Conservative party. No. The GOP is not conservative. It’s morphed into this nativist, nationalist, populist, anti-science hybrid.

I see this third party notion as nothing more than a silly vanity project.

 

Such is the thought process that hinders it's growth.

While I agree regarding campaign finance and the absurdity of what is pent for a campaign, laws regarding contributions, it has become the stumbling block for many potential candidates.

Voters have allowed it, complained about it, and STILL vote the duopoly, justifying it by acceptance.

 

Trump has defeated checks and balances quite thoroughly.

The court decisions just haven't made any difference. He's been quite effective with his rotating cabinet of unconfirmed toadys and his stonewalling.

Republicans have shown NO interest in the law, and that has made it easy for Trump to simply run out the clock.


What do you think will happen when he leaves office?

When Nixon left office, Ford gave Nixon unconditional pardon on all acts Nixon committed OR MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED!

What do you think Trump will work out for when HE leaves office? Would Republicans object to him giving himself such a pardon?

 

Idea does sound intriguing....but adding more characters might just add more drama.

 

I do not agree that Trump tried to replace our healthcare system. The fundamental problem was the he believed the HE was the guy who knows all healthcare. That does NOT lead to any solution. Ever.

And, your idea that he isn't the Republican party doesn't wash. You can aruge about how we got here, but there is no Republican party other than Trump and whatever he decides on a day to dayy basis. He doesn't even consult our military!!

Immigration??? Good lord! Just look what has gone on. He's kidnapped children and eliminated all tracking such that the parents will NEVER find their children. Today he has children sleeping on concrete with an inadequate thin blanket.

He assaults those who came here as babies and are now in our universities, yet he wants to deport them to some foreign country where they have NO connection.

ALL of this continues today. And, it is a humanitarian travesty.

 

I am all for a viable 3rd party - but this is hardly a platform in of itself. The public is hungry for an Anti Establishment message - not maintaining the current corrupt crop of clowns - but having them agree a little more.

The fact of the matter is that Red and Blue Establishment does agree on many things - many of them bad for the people and bad for the nation - but you don't hear about these things much. What we hear about is the "Hot Button" issues - the areas where the various Establishment interest disagree.

That is not where the Devil is found - the Devil is found in the areas where there is agreement - all this platform does is ensure more of the same with respect to the non hot button status quo issues that the Big Money interests care about.

 

Your assuming that Trump has done something to be pardoned for: That may or may not be. But who do you think would be pardoning him? The supposition that he would be 'pardoning himself' is a bit far fetched. Nixon resigned. Trump has not, so there is no parallel at the moment.

 

How about no parties which would enable our elected politicians to do what they feel is right.