Author Topic: Evolution of the 3rd Party?  (Read 7999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2017, 10:14:58 PM »
Give me 3 current serving senators from your prospective new party

Moderate or Tea Party/Freedom Caucus Party?

Oh, I thought you were combining those groups for a party, that’s why I was interested

I feel like the Republican party is splitting. Tom Cotton is taking it one way while Rob Portman and Richard Burr are keeping it more moderate. I see the Republican party splitting into two separate parties.

I think that the pubs have some closet crats and bought and paid for types in their ranks right now, Bannon will probably put a dent in that in the midterms. After that the rest should straighten up or be removed in the following election.

I think we disagree on the specifics, but I feel like that's the new, third party. AKA Moderates.

Why would anybody want them, they’re losers

If you want Graham and McCain, you can have them, but what I think you aren’t factoring in is that the people we are talking about wouldn’t have got elected without the bogus R they put by their name

Sounds like you're supporting the OP. There should be a third party?

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2017, 10:20:25 PM »
Give me 3 current serving senators from your prospective new party

Moderate or Tea Party/Freedom Caucus Party?

Oh, I thought you were combining those groups for a party, that’s why I was interested

I feel like the Republican party is splitting. Tom Cotton is taking it one way while Rob Portman and Richard Burr are keeping it more moderate. I see the Republican party splitting into two separate parties.

I think that the pubs have some closet crats and bought and paid for types in their ranks right now, Bannon will probably put a dent in that in the midterms. After that the rest should straighten up or be removed in the following election.

I think we disagree on the specifics, but I feel like that's the new, third party. AKA Moderates.

Why would anybody want them, they’re losers

If you want Graham and McCain, you can have them, but what I think you aren’t factoring in is that the people we are talking about wouldn’t have got elected without the bogus R they put by their name

Sounds like you're supporting the OP. There should be a third party?

I support  you and like minded individuals going for it, but personally I favor Trump cleaning up the pubs.  Trumps platform couldn’t be better from my perspective.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 10:25:52 PM by gatoveintisiete »
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2017, 10:26:34 PM »
Give me 3 current serving senators from your prospective new party

Moderate or Tea Party/Freedom Caucus Party?

Oh, I thought you were combining those groups for a party, that’s why I was interested

I feel like the Republican party is splitting. Tom Cotton is taking it one way while Rob Portman and Richard Burr are keeping it more moderate. I see the Republican party splitting into two separate parties.

I think that the pubs have some closet crats and bought and paid for types in their ranks right now, Bannon will probably put a dent in that in the midterms. After that the rest should straighten up or be removed in the following election.

I think we disagree on the specifics, but I feel like that's the new, third party. AKA Moderates.

Why would anybody want them, they’re losers

If you want Graham and McCain, you can have them, but what I think you aren’t factoring in is that the people we are talking about wouldn’t have got elected without the bogus R they put by their name

Sounds like you're supporting the OP. There should be a third party?

I support you you and like minded individuals going for it, but personally I favor Trump cleaning up the pubs.  Trumps platform couldn’t be better from my perspective.

Fair. I'd prefer for people to be able to pick someone from between the two extremes of the spectrum.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2017, 10:28:12 PM »
The current election system will not allow 3 parties. I think it's possible to replace one of the 2 parties tho

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2017, 10:29:06 PM »
Or consume from within and occupy the skin.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2017, 10:31:01 PM »
The current election system will not allow 3 parties. I think it's possible to replace one of the 2 parties tho

Is this not our country's best chance to see a third party in our lifetime?

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2017, 10:36:40 PM »
I thought last election was the optimal time, but there are mechanisms specifically designed to squash third parties that have nothing to do with our electoral system. For example, the presidential debates are private. If you are not a Democrat or Republican, you’re not even allowed on stage unless you poll at something like 15%. Last time that happened was (surprise surprise) when Ross Perot was allowed to debate on stage. And he was not pulling nearly that high leading up to the debates.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »
I thought last election was the optimal time, but there are mechanisms specifically designed to squash third parties that have nothing to do with our electoral system. For example, the presidential debates are private. If you are not a Democrat or Republican, you’re not even allowed on stage unless you poll at something like 15%. Last time that happened was (surprise surprise) when Ross Perot was allowed to debate on stage. And he was not pulling nearly that high leading up to the debates.

I understand that. I'm strictly looking at the state of the Republican party as it currently stands. They want/need to break away from Trump. However, he has a strong base who could support their own third party (e.g. Freedom Caucus/Tea Party).

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2017, 10:45:47 PM »
Funny thing is though the Dems are the party in shambles with no visible Presidential prospect.  They have moved too far left and Trumps platform is frankly mainstream.
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2017, 10:49:24 PM »
Funny thing is though the Dems are the party in shambles with no visible Presidential prospect.  They have moved too far left and Trumps platform is frankly mainstream.

 :lol:

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2017, 11:17:02 PM »
Funny thing is though the Dems are the party in shambles with no visible Presidential prospect.  They have moved too far left and Trumps platform is frankly mainstream.

 :lol:

Without getting hysteric or hyperbolic, share just the things you disagree with in my last post and why,
I sincerely am interested
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2017, 11:35:44 PM »
Funny thing is though the Dems are the party in shambles with no visible Presidential prospect.  They have moved too far left and Trumps platform is frankly mainstream.

 :lol:

Without getting hysteric or hyperbolic, share just the things you disagree with in my last post and why,
I sincerely am interested

I find it funny when you see the democratic party in shambles when the people from the president's own party are turning on him. The president supporting opponents of republicans in the congress and senate. I don't recall ever seeing it.

Again, I see the Republican party breaking apart and this is why I believe this is the best chance for a third party to emerge in our lifetime.

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2017, 11:41:49 PM »
We talked about the faux pubs, but who leads the crat party and what policy are they pushing that gets bipartisan or mainstream support?
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2017, 06:05:39 AM »
Cruz will restore conservatives.  Berne will destroy Demz. 

Offline Phil Titola

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15255
  • He took it out!
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2017, 07:03:39 AM »
Stacked rankee voting is a good legit way to break up the two party system....so don't ever expect to see it.

Online Tobias

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29139
  • hypoclique lieutenant
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2017, 01:11:06 PM »
Breaking Up the United States

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2017, 02:41:56 PM »
Would probably be for the best.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2017, 07:30:16 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2017, 07:45:09 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2017, 08:11:58 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

I think as more and more people become disenchanted with the traditional parties it obviously creates an opening. Personally, I'd rather reform the GOP to be more conservative. I'm fine with two main parties as long as we have a robust system of primary elections and primary debates. Both are badly in need of an overhaul. The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

Of course, I'd be great with the Dems dividing into socialist and crony-capitalist parties because that would spell electoral doom for all liberals. And that's why both parties' retain much of their strength: the knowledge that failing to close ranks will only benefit the other party.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 08:15:32 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2017, 08:47:19 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

What issues did you have with the debates?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2017, 11:37:24 AM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

What issues did you have with the debates?

The questions and format were not designed to elicit substantive debate. Far too many questions were, frankly, a silly waste of time. They were also designed to encourage infra-fighting as opposed to focusing on which candidate could most effectively ecisverate the Dems.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2017, 11:41:38 AM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

What issues did you have with the debates?

The questions and format were not designed to elicit substantive debate. Far too many questions were, frankly, a silly waste of time. They were also designed to encourage infra-fighting as opposed to focusing on which candidate could most effectively ecisverate the Dems.

Presidential debates or nominee debates? I don't think the issue was so much the questions as Trump's answers had no substance.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 11:46:53 AM by bucket »

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2017, 08:47:20 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

What issues did you have with the debates?

The questions and format were not designed to elicit substantive debate. Far too many questions were, frankly, a silly waste of time. They were also designed to encourage infra-fighting as opposed to focusing on which candidate could most effectively ecisverate the Dems.

Presidential debates or nominee debates? I don't think the issue was so much the questions as Trump's answers had no substance.

Primary debates.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution of the 3rd Party?
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2017, 08:54:35 PM »
Practically speaking, we already have more than two parties. Both parties have multiple factions. Instead of a parliamentary system where two or more parties must coelesce to form a majority government, we winnow the various factions through a more elaborate system of primary elections, but that really isn't that dissimilar.

"Principled conservatives" (i.e. non-pragmatic) and "moderate Republicans" (i.e. all in favor of big government as long as they're in power) are butthurt because Trump's populist faction won, but that won't always be the case.

Socialists are butthurt that the Dems rigged the primary to defeat their choice, and they have every right to be pissed about that. But they fail to realize that Bernie would lose the general in a McGovern style landslide.

Sounds like we're in agreement. So the question is, is this not the best opportunity for a third party in our lifetime?

The GOP should start by ditching the main networks altogether when it comes to debates, and moving the early primaries to the true battleground states.

What issues did you have with the debates?

The questions and format were not designed to elicit substantive debate. Far too many questions were, frankly, a silly waste of time. They were also designed to encourage infra-fighting as opposed to focusing on which candidate could most effectively ecisverate the Dems.

Presidential debates or nominee debates? I don't think the issue was so much the questions as Trump's answers had no substance.

Primary debates.

Ya, probably shooting for ratings. It was entertaining though. Considering that Trump still couldn't answer basic questions.