Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Centrists aren't real

Andrew Yang's ideas are as childish as Elon's, they're just not shitty and racist

This is exactly what I don’t get. We lambast the two party system we’ve self imposed via a 200 year coalescence, but then in the next breath say “only left or right is real, a third option isn’t real”.

ideas that aren’t evil and racist, but are different and you disagree with them, doesn’t mean they are inherently stupid or wrong necessarily. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Agree. But we eat our own. We need to instead support (former) Democrats who for one reason or another disband. And when I say support I don’t mean vote or fund, but acknowledge a shift change and ideology difference and recognize that a defection from the big tent is actually a good thing. It’s good for Democrats who don’t need distraction and internal strife, it’s good for voters to have more options, and it’s good for democracy.

When Andrew Yang tried to spin off one, it gets met with the worst kind of derision and mockery and personal attacks to the man. The same man whom many were at least somewhat agreeable to when he was on the (D) team.

When Musk talks about creating a third party…. Okay, I’ll concede that point. You can’t decouple the disaster that is Elon Musk from his advocacy of a 3rd party and his scorn for pushing for a 3rd party was mostly warranted.

I find it very funny how you constantly play the reasonable maybe-not-even-a-conservative-anymore, then your proposed solutions are always like "everyone left of the nazis should split instead of unify against the nazis."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

This is exactly what I don’t get. We lambast the two party system we’ve self imposed via a 200 year coalescence, but then in the next breath say “only left or right is real, a third option isn’t real”.

ideas that aren’t evil and racist, but are different and you disagree with them, doesn’t mean they are inherently stupid or wrong necessarily. 

I'm not sure anyone wants a centrist third party, which is why it's never succeeded. I think people want parties to the left or right of the Democrats and Republicans.

Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not sure anyone wants a centrist third party, which is why it's never succeeded. I think people want parties to the left or right of the Democrats and Republicans.

I'm actually responding to YOUR post, which you said, and I'll quote:

Quote

This country needs more than two viable parties in the worst way.

So what do you mean, if not have 3 parties-- left, central, right. Call it what you want, how do you envision it since you said it? Heck, have the progressives be the New Democrats, call the old Democrats the Central Blue Dogs (bonus points because they don't want to legalize cannibus but will CBD) and the GQP stays the right wing lunacy party.

Posted
49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I find it very funny how you constantly play the reasonable maybe-not-even-a-conservative-anymore, then your proposed solutions are always like "everyone left of the nazis should split instead of unify against the nazis."

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, as I'm obviously agreeing with what at least 7 other people have posted or cosigned, which is having more than 2 parties is good for voters and in the long run good for representative democracy. You seem to disagree? You think a two party system is optimal or what?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I'm actually responding to YOUR post, which you said, and I'll quote:

So what do you mean, if not have 3 parties-- left, central, right. Call it what you want, how do you envision it since you said it? Heck, have the progressives be the New Democrats, call the old Democrats the Central Blue Dogs (bonus points because they don't want to legalize cannibus but will CBD) and the GQP stays the right wing lunacy party.

Viable parties to the left and right of Democrats and Republicans. That's what I would like.

But I know it's impossible in our winner take all system, so I know it will never happen. We're stuck with two.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Viable parties to the left and right of Democrats and Republicans. That's what I would like.

But I know it's impossible in our winner take all system, so I know it will never happen. We're stuck with two.

Firstly, I'm not so sure you can even get further right than modern day Republicans. A third party would either be a Republican Lite (hence I used the word centrist) or even more conservative Democrats (hence I used the word centrist). Literally I'm asking, especially you who deign to skewer me for using the word centrist and suggesting a third party in the middle of the two we have existing, what other conceivable option(s) are there for party expansions?

If you expand to the left of the legacy D's, you have made the legacy D's defacto Centrists.

If you expand to the left of the legacy GQP's, you have made the new party defacto Centrists. (I'm assuming it's an impossibility to have a viable party be further right than modern day GQP fascists).

Posted
3 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Firstly, I'm not so sure you can even get further right than modern day Republicans. A third party would either be a Republican Lite (hence I used the word centrist) or even more conservative Democrats (hence I used the word centrist). Literally I'm asking, especially you who deign to skewer me for using the word centrist and suggesting a third party in the middle of the two we have existing, what other conceivable option(s) are there for party expansions?

If you expand to the left of the legacy D's, you have made the legacy D's defacto Centrists.

If you expand to the left of the legacy GQP's, you have made the new party defacto Centrists. (I'm assuming it's an impossibility to have a viable party be further right than modern day GQP fascists).

I'm weary of centrism mainly because it favors the status quo, which means centrism is conservative.

Having said that, I don't believe there are any conceivable options under our current political structure for extra-party expansion. The best I can hope for is that the Democratic Party itself moves further to the left.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

It's going to take some sort of cataclysmic catalyst for any third party to have a viable chance at election success. And by catalyst, I mean nothing short of WW2/Great Depression sort of suffering, where everyone feels the pain, regardless of where they fall on the wealth spectrum (who am I kidding the 1% will always live a life of luxury, even if they're ruling over the ashes). I don't see any other route for a 3rd party to come to national prominence.

Posted

But yes, the entire Democratic Party apparatus, from leadership, to marketing, to strategists, even to fundraising needs to be excommunicated. This is the party that managed to lose to Trump, twice. You know that lifelong politicians across the globe have been shaking their head in dismay at the party's results when running against the embarrassment that is the current GOP.

Saw an article earlier that Kamala isn't going to run for Gov of CA, which makes all signs point to her making another run for President. Any money spent on that campaign may as well be lit on fire. How the people in charge of the party aren't laughing her out of the room with this idea to run again says everything we need to know about the party's future. What's that famous Jeff Daniels quote?

You know why people don't like liberals? Cause they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?

Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'm weary of centrism mainly because it favors the status quo, which means centrism is conservative.

Having said that, I don't believe there are any conceivable options under our current political structure for extra-party expansion. The best I can hope for is that the Democratic Party itself moves further to the left.

 

Then why, my dear David, do you two hours ago say "Our country needs more than 2 parties". What's a solution to get to 3 (or more!) parties?

Posted

This is the sort of thing the Ds need to run on.   GOP just voted down the Honest Act and people are pissed, especially when these are the reasons GOP Senators are giving for voting against it.

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'm weary of centrism mainly because it favors the status quo, which means centrism is conservative.

The Office Thank You GIF

Centrist positions are conservative. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Chult86 said:

But yes, the entire Democratic Party apparatus, from leadership, to marketing, to strategists, even to fundraising needs to be excommunicated. This is the party that managed to lose to Trump, twice. You know that lifelong politicians across the globe have been shaking their head in dismay at the party's results when running against the embarrassment that is the current GOP.

Saw an article earlier that Kamala isn't going to run for Gov of CA, which makes all signs point to her making another run for President. Any money spent on that campaign may as well be lit on fire. How the people in charge of the party aren't laughing her out of the room with this idea to run again says everything we need to know about the party's future. What's that famous Jeff Daniels quote?

You know why people don't like liberals? Cause they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?

Thank you for the dumbest thing I’ve read this week

Posted
2 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I certainly wouldn't assume that Kamala not running for gov means she will run for Pres, at all.

Her political career was a sacrificial lamb to save Brandon from 400+ electoral vote humiliation.

Posted
3 hours ago, Chult86 said:

What's that famous Jeff Daniels quote?

You know why people don't like liberals? Cause they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?


*A character Will McAvoy, played by Jeff Daniels, written by Aaron Sorkin.

Posted
3 hours ago, Chult86 said:

But yes, the entire Democratic Party apparatus, from leadership, to marketing, to strategists, even to fundraising needs to be excommunicated. This is the party that managed to lose to Trump, twice. You know that lifelong politicians across the globe have been shaking their head in dismay at the party's results when running against the embarrassment that is the current GOP.

Saw an article earlier that Kamala isn't going to run for Gov of CA, which makes all signs point to her making another run for President. Any money spent on that campaign may as well be lit on fire. How the people in charge of the party aren't laughing her out of the room with this idea to run again says everything we need to know about the party's future. What's that famous Jeff Daniels quote?

You know why people don't like liberals? Cause they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?

LOL, hell no.  Those people are looking at all the morons that voted for Trump as irredeemable assholes and shaking their heads.  Nobody is like. 'damn, the Dems should have been more strategic with blah blah blah'. 

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Thank you for the dumbest thing I’ve read this week

exactly

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Covri said:


*A character Will McAvoy, played by Jeff Daniels, written by Aaron Sorkin.

Imagine quoting fucking newsroom and feeling like it’s insightful 

Edited by hobbes2702
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Then why, my dear David, do you two hours ago say "Our country needs more than 2 parties". What's a solution to get to 3 (or more!) parties?

That's just me lashing out at a feckless Democratic Party that routinely moves to the middle when it gets spooked politically. 

  • Like 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Imagine quoting fucking newsroom and feeling like it’s insightful 

That opening scene was the highest point in that show lol. Aaron thought he was back then just made meh after that for hours and hours. Once you lose the fastball…..

Posted
1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL, hell no.  Those people are looking at all the morons that voted for Trump as irredeemable assholes and shaking their heads.  Nobody is like. 'damn, the Dems should have been more strategic with blah blah blah'. 

yep... the rational world looking at America now:

RDT_20241227_1843377324063035725614943.jpg.2d2cf5d5044f1947e2542ac225ae188b.jpg

 

also lol at Kamala running again

yea-k.gif.7556ed7156da9410746446ee10696849.gif

 

Posted
On 7/26/2025 at 3:08 PM, Ted Lange said:

 

It’s not hard to figure out… the Republicans hate the Dems and most Dem-leaning voters are disgusted by our feckless cowardly pro-genocide pro-billionaire milquetoast limousine liberal excuse for an opposition party when our institutions are being dismantled and they’re building concentration camps. Who’s left to say nice things about them? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It's just so obvious to anyone paying any attention, and probably also to those who don't pay a whole lot of attention, that the Democrats are liars. When they refuse to do something good (taxing the rich, medicare for all, making immigration easier and less barbaric), they tell everyone that they are following the wishes of their constituents and need to preserve their political capital for more important things. Which is an obvious lie because these things consistently poll incredibly well, and we already know that these "moderates" don't exist would never reward a Democrat for behaving like Manchin or Sinema.

But at the same time, they are clearly willing to do unpopular things so long as those unpopular things align with the priorities of wealthy donors and lobbyists. And when they're criticized for these unpopular things, they tell everyone that they are "standing up for" what they (claim to) believe. So, they are willing to exhaust their political capital, but only when it serves special interests. Never when it serves ordinary people. Which is why the Democrats are hated even more than a pedophile who's trying to reenact the Holocaust.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's just so obvious to anyone paying any attention, and probably also to those who don't pay a whole lot of attention, that the Democrats are liars. When they refuse to do something good (taxing the rich, medicare for all, making immigration easier and less barbaric), they tell everyone that they are following the wishes of their constituents and need to preserve their political capital for more important things. Which is an obvious lie because these things consistently poll incredibly well, and we already know that these "moderates" don't exist would never reward a Democrat for behaving like Manchin or Sinema.

But at the same time, they are clearly willing to do unpopular things so long as those unpopular things align with the priorities of wealthy donors and lobbyists. And when they're criticized for these unpopular things, they tell everyone that they are "standing up for" what they (claim to) believe. So, they are willing to exhaust their political capital, but only when it serves special interests. Never when it serves ordinary people. Which is why the Democrats are hated even more than a pedophile who's trying to reenact the Holocaust.

And progressives have no choice but to vote for them unless they want to help Republicans by voting for a third party.

It sucks.

Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And progressives have no choice but to vote for them unless they want to help Republicans by voting for a third party.

It sucks.

This just isn't true. They could vote for someone else, but people like you say this dumb shit. Everyone wants another party that isn't full of shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true. They could vote for someone else, but people like you say this dumb shit. Everyone wants another party that isn't full of shit. 

Who benefits from progressives voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader?

Posted
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true. They could vote for someone else, but people like you say this dumb shit. Everyone wants another party that isn't full of shit. 

It is true in some races (giant douche vs. turd sandwich general elections of which there are many especially in Texas) but I agree with your broader point that we need a party that isn't full of shit. The question is whether to form a new one like Corbyn is doing in the UK and AMLO did in Mexico or to try and take over an existing party like what happened with the republicans here.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Who benefits from progressives voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader?

The status quo

It all needs to be burnt to the ground.

Posted
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true. They could vote for someone else, but people like you say this dumb shit. Everyone wants another party that isn't full of shit. 

it's true insofar that it's exactly what has happened to date. but what is not true is that the two-party system cannot be upended with the creation of a viable third party. the problem is one hasn't presented itself yet. what we've been given over time are offshoots or extreme detractors from the two main parties. what we need is another party that isn't trying to be what the other two aren't, but tries to be the best parts of the two and pick up what they both lack. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who benefits from progressives voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader?

I agree with you that it's stupid to waste your vote on third party candidates in general elections. But one must ask why this even happens? Did the Democrats squander an opportunity to build credibility? Why do so many people stay home or throw their votes away?

Posted
59 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder why they're so unpopular.

It's a mystery.

 

 

To keep score

IN FAVOR OF CONTINUED ARMS SALES TO A MILITARY COMMITTING GENOCIDE (at worst) OR ETHNIC CLEANSING (at best):
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Cort Booker (D-NJ)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
John Fetterman (D-PA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
Alex Padilla (D-CA)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

DID NOT VOTE:
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)

Posted

Slotkin got destroyed by Krystal Ball over Israel.

Fucking Cortez Masto is why we have Emil Goddamned Bove with a lifetime judicial job

Posted

Term limits

Max age limits

Citizens United Tossed

All investment activity frozen upon assumption of office

Ranked choice voting  

Political service should look something like going to work in the soup kitchen 

Do all of that and both parties probably start looking a lot better  

Would all have to change at the point of a gun at this point though so it’s the dismal tide 

 

Posted
40 minutes ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true. They could vote for someone else, but people like you say this dumb shit. Everyone wants another party that isn't full of shit. 

Sure, they could, but what would that accomplish? The system is set up for duopoly in every way. All it does is aid the opposition. I'd love more than 2 parties but it just isn't realistic right now.

Posted (edited)

There’s a decent shot the next Democratic Presidential Primary election will involve Senators from the above list or the following, and the decision to keep giving arms to Israel will absolutely influence my vote, just as the vote to support Bush's invasion of Iraq did.

Right now, I'm becoming a big fan of Chris Murphy.

VOTED TO NOT GIVE ARMS TO THE IDF:
Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Andy Kim (D-NJ)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Ben Luján (D-NM)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Tina Smith (D-MN)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Raphael Warnock (D-GA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

political prospects should have hudl reels. Can't say I've seen much of Murphy but I like that he voted against arming IDF and that he's from a safe seat.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

 

and citizens united made it even worse

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

One way to think about it is that the Electoral College system, itself, is one big gerrymander. The elections ARE rigged.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

We don’t need a third party. We just need one party to have serious primary challengers next year.

I think there is enough anger within the Dem base for it to happen. We can’t just accept whomever the Party anoints. Looking at you, Colin.

Posted (edited)

Until we get rid of the electoral college and implement multimember districts not based on gerrymandering, third parties ain't gonna happen

 

except as a spoiler for the party they siphon a few votes off of

Edited by Grande Mart
added another thought
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Corruption is so deeply ingrained in the American electoral system that you'd have to blow everything up and start from scratch for a 3rd party to have a legit chance. 

I'm still convinced the electoral college is the most harmful apparatus in our national politics, and it will continue to prevent any progress being made. Truly the stupidest shit I've ever seen. 

 

 

Mexico was corrupt as hell and they managed to do it.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Grande Mart said:

Until we get rid of the electoral college and implement multimember districts not based on gerrymandering, third parties ain't gonna happen

 

except as a spoiler for the party they siphon a few votes off of

 

One pet idea that I've held for the past 20 years and think could get the ball rolling on some reforms would be to increase the number of representatives, which used to happen regularly with each Census as the nation's population grew. Congress capped the number of House seats at 435 in the 1920s. So, when the nation was founded, the typical rep served 35,000 people. By 1910, that had grown to 1 rep per 210,000, while in 1950 it was 345,000. In 2000, it had risen to 650,000, and today, it stands at over 760,000.

Adding a bunch of seats would break up these massive districts that allow our unrepresentative State legislature (which has the same population growth problem) to manipulate these massive districts that span from Denton to Dalhart or San Antonio to El Paso, that emphatically do not represent "communities of interest" while also increasing the cost of elections and almost guaranteeing that your representive does not have you and your neighbor's best interests in mind.

I don't know if the Texas Constitution allows for an expansion of the State Lege, but the US Congress absolutely could pass a law allowing expansion to happen. 



×
×
  • Create New...