Third Party Let's finally talk about it.

[Shadowferal]

If Trump has proved anything or Bernie is that you really DO NOT need Funny or Super PAC's have proved that.


You need sustainability, you need candidates who aren't out of their fucking mind, you need people if they don't have money willing to put in the work, and mind. People need to be energized by the message and brought together by core beliefs. You can't buy or sell that in the traditional sense, I mean you can Trick people to a degree.

But Bottom line is that the only excuses for why there isn't a third party of any kind are excuses.

This last presidential race cost over 7 billion. How is this okay? And don't think for a moment this money came from Joe Average and his little nickel and dime donation at tax time.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, it absolutely is.



No... the fact that you take people trying to explain how third parties function, as some sort of attack, is amateur hour.



Show it... present it...

- - - Updated - - -



You have to understand... basic reality is an affront to these people... you need to filter everything through Twitter bullshit.

True


Which is why I’m trying to actually talk about a legitimate third party and what that looks like in terms of core values and organization.

Separate reality from fiction. Even if most don’t believe one is needed. This discussion is about the realities of how.

That’s why I stated the criteria which is:

A National organized party.
Qualified Candidates on the local level.
Community by community door by door connecting.

- - - Updated - - -

This last presidential race cost over 7 billion. How is this okay? And don't think for a moment this money came from Joe Average and his little nickel and dime donation at tax time.

Then why didn’t Jeb Bush win. He over spent everyone in 2016. And Trump and Bernie raised a fraction of that.

Between a strong grass roots campaign to national press everyday for Trump for free.

Again it’s not money.

[Kathranis]

I don't see how a third party can realistically be effective without reforms to campaign law and changes to our electoral systems. The Republican and Democratic parties have such a huge advantage in infrastructure and funding.

I also don't see either party splitting in a meaningful way, despite their already fractured nature. They have a hard enough time retaining power as it is.

Now, if we talk hypothetically about the electoral college being eliminated? Maybe. The Republican party would become far less of a threat in national elections and would frankly need to transmute into something different. And then you might see the formation of a more centrist party, with progressives gradually shifting to a new party platform.

[Shadowferal]

True


Which is why I’m trying to actually talk about a legitimate third party and what that looks like in terms of core values and organization.

Separate reality from fiction. Even if most don’t believe one is needed. This discussion is about the realities of how.

That’s why I stated the criteria which is:

A National organized party.
Qualified Candidates on the local level.
Community by community door by door connecting.

- - - Updated - - -



Then why didn’t Jeb Bush win. He over spent everyone in 2016. And Trump and Bernie raised a fraction of that.

Between a strong grass roots campaign to national press everyday for Trump for free.

Again it’s not money.

The money is still a problem.
Or are you actually saying campaign finance reform isn't needed?
O wait...you really believe that a business or country isn't going to collect when that investment shows a win?

[Felya]

The money is still a problem.
Or are you actually saying campaign finance reform isn't needed?
O wait...you really believe that a business or country isn't going to collect when that investment shows a win?

The recource of lobbying that doesn’t get results, is to switch who is being lobbied. See NRA in the 90s...

[Milchshake]

I was specifically talking about the DSA...

So was I...
That weird feeling, of walking backwards. Get used to it

Dark money groups, also known as 501(c)(4) groups, can receive unlimited donations (like super PACs) but do not have to disclose their donors.

https://www.dsausa.org/chapter-oc-faq/#levels
1 Democratic Socialists of America
Q: Is DSA a 501c3 or 501c4?
A: DSA is a 501c4. There is a second organization, Democratic Socialists of America Fund, which is a 501c3 and does educational work. Sometimes DSA makes a request for a grant from the DSA Fund to cover 501c3 permissible educational projects by DSA. There is also a federal PAC called DSA PAC.

Dont worry, there's other socialist parties out there:

• Socialist Alternative
• Socialist Workers’ Party
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Bernie's Socialist Party of Just Him

Again my point is.

If we get total transparency a lot of people will get butthurt when they find out were they're favorite ant-establishment party is getting money. Like that Weed Party being a front for the establishment.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't see how a third party can realistically be effective without reforms to campaign law and changes to our electoral systems. The Republican and Democratic parties have such a huge advantage in infrastructure and funding.

I also don't see either party splitting in a meaningful way, despite their already fractured nature. They have a hard enough time retaining power as it is.

Now, if we talk hypothetically about the electoral college being eliminated? Maybe. The Republican party would become far less of a threat in national elections and would frankly need to transmute into something different. And then you might see the formation of a more centrist party, with progressives gradually shifting to a new party platform.

But they don’t Democrats and Republicans are just as vulnerable and held to the same rules and standards.

Changing laws against Super PACs etc is a separate issue.


And NO, Money isn't enough to win and election. Money didn't get Jeb Elected and Bernie and Trump spent considerably less especially since neither took special interest money.

- - - Updated - - -

The money is still a problem.
Or are you actually saying campaign finance reform isn't needed?
O wait...you really believe that a business or country isn't going to collect when that investment shows a win?

No campaign finance reform is for sure a problem but it would still be a problem with a 3rd or even 4th party.

It has nothing to do with the lack of success of third parties.

Third parties generally don’t work right now because.

1. They’re not willing to do the work from a local level up.

2. They aren’t organized because being too far extreme causes that.

3. Support means giving Time, Money or best Mind.

4. Because 3rd parties are generally lead by unlikable, unrealistic lunatics and goofballs.


Seriously I a libertarian candidate reaching out to groups that want the truth about UFO,Big Foot etc.

These aren’t real issues.

[Ivanstone]

Money didn't get Jeb Elected and Bernie and Trump spent considerably less especially since neither took special interest money.

Did they? Both had some success by being the other sides devil. Bernie is an actual socialist and got plenty of free demonization from the media for it. Air time ain’t cheep but if you don’t mind a few flimsy insults it can work for you.

Trump’s an even more extreme example of that. He got skewered for being a racist blowhard but instead of tolerating the abuse he used it to say that there’s a conspiracy against him. Which then caused even more media criticism, which created even more “free” ads. Meanwhile some people are gonna lap all of Trump’s shit up regardless of where it comes from. Your average dimwit conservative gets most of his news from Fox but they also need the criticism from other sources to “prove” that their hero is in the right. A hero is defined by their enemies after all.

[Shadowferal]

Pfft...Bernie was never going to get elected because the two biggest fundraising organizations needed to be won over; RNC and the DNC.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Pfft...Bernie was never going to get elected because the two biggest fundraising organizations needed to be won over; RNC and the DNC.

This is misguided. I am not saying you are all wrong but you see this from the wrong perspective. Bernie didn't win in part because of money that is true, because as we both know Money has influence, but as I just explained it can also backfire, saturate any market and over kill people on a message people can see that for what it is too, to a degree.

No Bernie's problem came in a few waves.

1. He was a socialist, which is why I LOVED HIM, he came across honest and sincere, and I believed everything he had to say and still do.

2. He tried to be too many things to too many people, and it was a again an honest and sincere attempt the problem is the people he would reach out too weren't worth him.

3. Going after Hillary and I don't mean politically he had every right to tear her to shreds on that, but when he started nipping at her even after his loss and even after her loss me and many like myself felt attacked. Take that for what you will, but I fought HARD for Bernie harder than anyone I ever supported, I convinced others to vote for Bernie in the Primaries. I was there, People loved Bernie, but as hard as I fought he DID NOT have the voted. Keep in mind I live in Minnesota, but he wasn't winning by the Margins he needed to against Hillary, the Trump did in Red States The reason why see 1, 2.




Yet in spite of the Truths he lost and the absolute passionate but somewhat lunatic fringe Bernie Bros which I really didn't blame Bernie as much for as I did the Atmosphere of Trump. The Push back was absolutely misguided and hostile towards Bernie's own party members.

For everything Bernie did to help Democrats some of his supporters thanks to a lot of BS from the Alt-Right nearly destroyed the DNC that is a fact. Those wounds weren't as fatal as I and many thought they were going to be, they DID heal, even if it's only temporarily


And the truth is Since 2016 Bernie and many of those who supported him treated the DNC more like a Coalition rather than a party. People seen and also resented that too.


All the while the point is that Bernie probably would have been better off as a Third Party, his problem was and is that he and his supporters think like you, tried to leap frog over the work, tried to use the party simply as a vehicle and if failed.

That is why Bernie failed and the Truth is Trump did the exact same thing with the Republicans except now right now he is successful. So unlike many times in the more recent history both the left and right and maybe center are looking to reshuffle and possibly a new party or more. So as I said it had NOTHING to do with Money.



And if that's Too Long Did Not Read here is the short.



Bernie didn't win because while people loved him and his ideas and supported him, Bernie Supporters spent more time ripping apart and fighting with the Party that brought them to the dance in the first place, so when it came down to selling his brand Democratic Socialism, he had burned as man bridges and started as many fires with those who would have already supported him in order to reach out to those on the right that were never going to and only spoke favorably of Bernie because the Alt-Right was Happy about the chaos he was creating on the left to give Trump the WIN!

That's why Bernie lost, you had a Third Party Candidate in one of the Two main parties that despite possibly intentions nearly destroyed the fucking party. With in fighting, baseless accusations and political attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they? Both had some success by being the other sides devil. Bernie is an actual socialist and got plenty of free demonization from the media for it. Air time ain’t cheep but if you don’t mind a few flimsy insults it can work for you.

Trump’s an even more extreme example of that. He got skewered for being a racist blowhard but instead of tolerating the abuse he used it to say that there’s a conspiracy against him. Which then caused even more media criticism, which created even more “free” ads. Meanwhile some people are gonna lap all of Trump’s shit up regardless of where it comes from. Your average dimwit conservative gets most of his news from Fox but they also need the criticism from other sources to “prove” that their hero is in the right. A hero is defined by their enemies after all.

You are hitting the right bells yes, but NO money wasn't a factor for Bernie or Trump and neither particularly took special interest money. In the case of Trump they simply didn't need to.

Party of the thing with Trump was he didn't just happen, he was created, He was every bit a product of the Media as anything else, and he used that, all the jokes, lampooning and constant demonizing Trump or Ridicule it eventually lead to what would be eventually an embrace he never had before and it was all for FREE!


Ross Perot who was a third party candidate, he was pretty much the same as Trump exactly, the only difference was he ran as a Third Party candidate twice, he got in on the debates and thanks to Ross Perot Clinton Beat George Bush Sr.

The 2nd time around the RNC learned their lesson and he has less of an impact because Clinton was ultimately successful as President in his first term and there was no way he was going to lost to fucking Bob Dole. But the damage had been done.

The same as with Ralph Nader in 2000, who ran as a Green Party Candidate, and basically did to Gore what Perot did to Bush Sr.


Call it what you will but through the lens of objective optics what we have today is also a result of that a coalition if you will.


Much in the same way say the Tea Party was on the right, you had Bernie Bros or Progressives on the left.



Again none of the above had to do with Money, or the Rules, while yes it's truth that there is a lot of regulation and red tape to get on the ballot and run in many instances, the truth of the matter is it SHOULD!

Otherwise you get Ex Porn Stars, and washed up Actors, and The Terminator running for Governor. Or in Minnesota an Ex Pro Wrestler as Governor. Jesse the Body Ventura also ran as an Independent and WON.

But again as I said the same problems persisted. Which is Politics and People is rough and it is much easier to sit and bitch and complain about it all being unfair rather than putting in the work, NOT HARD WORK, but work required to do as I said.


Bernie and Trump were Organized because they used Established parties as a Vehicle without having to do ALL the hard work themselves, and even then some didn't even bother to fucking show up at all for all the protesting.

Bottom line.

It takes Organization.
It takes vetting quality candidates.
It takes doing the work Money, Mind or Time best if it's all 3


Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but it's important to know why either happens realistically, it takes making connections and actual people willing to put in for the fucking cause.

The Formula above applies for ALL Democrats, Republicans or any Third Party.


Think I am wrong go ahead and do the research yourself look at the candidates that really ran the last 10 years, they are a fucking joke, only slightly better than ex porn stars and pro wrestlers.

- - - Updated - - -

being serious for a moment, half the issue with america is both major parties are long over due a major split.

the US and UK systems are vastly different but they do have one thing in common, the are adversarial and they tend to devolve towards a two party system, but for some reason in the UK we have never gotten as bad as america, and thats because over time the large parties have had many small and a few major splits that bring the system back to being properly multi party, even labour as a reletivly new party has had i think 2 major splits in its short life time and multiple smaller splits.

Not really, YOU COULD be right, but I wouldn't run away with this. The reason being is WHY would a caucus or voting block split, because I can tell you living in both the U.S and Canada and voting both, more parties doesn't necessary equate to better results politically in fact I believe you are in the U.K, I think you know aswell it can be another kind of hell.

A mix between worthless do nothing coalitions, to partisan bickering to even more division in the long run.



If the Split is based on REAL fundamental differences that amount to more than a hissy fit YES you are correct and could be, and it appears that is the case to some extend here in the U.S, however having experience with this personally I can also tell you that is the long way around in many ways too. Especially if it's for silly differences as opposed to deep fundamental differences.

Being Liberal or Conservative in and of itself is NOT enough, because if you can in your life fine any two Liberals or Conservatives that agree on everything, I would like you to then point me in the direction of where I might be able to find unicorns because I am going to take some photos and make a mint.


Politics in general is always about working together with others who you dislike or even hate to get something for everyone and finding common ground without selling out or giving up as little as possible.

More Parties aren't going to solve that problem or make it better unless it's for the right reason, just like NO Parties is also not a way to go, for the same reason otherwise you end up with Chaos and only ever opportunist rising to the top. Which is exactly how we get dictators or monarchs


And if Political Parties begin to act like No Parties like say Communism, same difference.

[Felya]

Lmao dude go back and read what you've said, you treated me like trash from out the gate for saying "seriously" apparently.

I treat you like trash, by responding with “super serial”, when asked if I was serious about third party candidates sharing a stage with two major parties? I also provided a picture... how mistreated did that make you feel?

Show you what you literally just said? Like you wont even read what you wrote, you attack me right out the gate and you want me to treat you that way?

Yes, show me what you claim I said... show me where I quoted Ben Shapiro...

What you need to understand is many of us live in countries with democracies that function much better, due in part, to the fact that we dont let 2 parties almost completely dominate and toss the country around like their football.

What you don’t understand is that we did have third party share a stage with two major parties... less than 30 years ago. I listed both, the rhetorical and procedural reasons why it hasn’t happened since. Want to talk about democracy in your country... start a thread, I am sure I can find something to call it shitty.

Anyway let's recap what's happened here.

Indeed... are you going to quote me and Ben Shapiro?

I said seriously, you replied "Yes... super serial...

Reality... scary... sorry..."

That’s not Ben Shapiro... That’s a South Park impression of Al Gore... lol

Which is clearly not you engaging in good faith and going straight for insults. You then turn around and hold me to a higher standard. Absolute garbage. You're clearly upset about something else or you confused me with another person because you never even tried to talk to me as an equal. Or maybe this is just how you treat people who see american democracy as deeply flawed.

What insult? You got so insulted by me making fun of Al Gore, that you need to make shit up? Well... be prepared... you will find this video super insulting... lol

[Monster Hunter]

This is misguided. I am not saying you are all wrong but you see this from the wrong perspective. Bernie didn't win in part because of money that is true, because as we both know Money has influence, but as I just explained it can also backfire, saturate any market and over kill people on a message people can see that for what it is too, to a degree.

No Bernie's problem came in a few waves.

1. He was a socialist, which is why I LOVED HIM, he came across honest and sincere, and I believed everything he had to say and still do.

2. He tried to be too many things to too many people, and it was a again an honest and sincere attempt the problem is the people he would reach out too weren't worth him.

3. Going after Hillary and I don't mean politically he had every right to tear her to shreds on that, but when he started nipping at her even after his loss and even after her loss me and many like myself felt attacked. Take that for what you will, but I fought HARD for Bernie harder than anyone I ever supported, I convinced others to vote for Bernie in the Primaries. I was there, People loved Bernie, but as hard as I fought he DID NOT have the voted. Keep in mind I live in Minnesota, but he wasn't winning by the Margins he needed to against Hillary, the Trump did in Red States The reason why see 1, 2.




Yet in spite of the Truths he lost and the absolute passionate but somewhat lunatic fringe Bernie Bros which I really didn't blame Bernie as much for as I did the Atmosphere of Trump. The Push back was absolutely misguided and hostile towards Bernie's own party members.

For everything Bernie did to help Democrats some of his supporters thanks to a lot of BS from the Alt-Right nearly destroyed the DNC that is a fact. Those wounds weren't as fatal as I and many thought they were going to be, they DID heal, even if it's only temporarily


And the truth is Since 2016 Bernie and many of those who supported him treated the DNC more like a Coalition rather than a party. People seen and also resented that too.


All the while the point is that Bernie probably would have been better off as a Third Party, his problem was and is that he and his supporters think like you, tried to leap frog over the work, tried to use the party simply as a vehicle and if failed.

That is why Bernie failed and the Truth is Trump did the exact same thing with the Republicans except now right now he is successful. So unlike many times in the more recent history both the left and right and maybe center are looking to reshuffle and possibly a new party or more. So as I said it had NOTHING to do with Money.



And if that's Too Long Did Not Read here is the short.



Bernie didn't win because while people loved him and his ideas and supported him, Bernie Supporters spent more time ripping apart and fighting with the Party that brought them to the dance in the first place, so when it came down to selling his brand Democratic Socialism, he had burned as man bridges and started as many fires with those who would have already supported him in order to reach out to those on the right that were never going to and only spoke favorably of Bernie because the Alt-Right was Happy about the chaos he was creating on the left to give Trump the WIN!

That's why Bernie lost, you had a Third Party Candidate in one of the Two main parties that despite possibly intentions nearly destroyed the fucking party. With in fighting, baseless accusations and political attacks.

- - - Updated - - -



You are hitting the right bells yes, but NO money wasn't a factor for Bernie or Trump and neither particularly took special interest money. In the case of Trump they simply didn't need to.

Party of the thing with Trump was he didn't just happen, he was created, He was every bit a product of the Media as anything else, and he used that, all the jokes, lampooning and constant demonizing Trump or Ridicule it eventually lead to what would be eventually an embrace he never had before and it was all for FREE!


Ross Perot who was a third party candidate, he was pretty much the same as Trump exactly, the only difference was he ran as a Third Party candidate twice, he got in on the debates and thanks to Ross Perot Clinton Beat George Bush Sr.

The 2nd time around the RNC learned their lesson and he has less of an impact because Clinton was ultimately successful as President in his first term and there was no way he was going to lost to fucking Bob Dole. But the damage had been done.

The same as with Ralph Nader in 2000, who ran as a Green Party Candidate, and basically did to Gore what Perot did to Bush Sr.


Call it what you will but through the lens of objective optics what we have today is also a result of that a coalition if you will.


Much in the same way say the Tea Party was on the right, you had Bernie Bros or Progressives on the left.



Again none of the above had to do with Money, or the Rules, while yes it's truth that there is a lot of regulation and red tape to get on the ballot and run in many instances, the truth of the matter is it SHOULD!

Otherwise you get Ex Porn Stars, and washed up Actors, and The Terminator running for Governor. Or in Minnesota an Ex Pro Wrestler as Governor. Jesse the Body Ventura also ran as an Independent and WON.

But again as I said the same problems persisted. Which is Politics and People is rough and it is much easier to sit and bitch and complain about it all being unfair rather than putting in the work, NOT HARD WORK, but work required to do as I said.


Bernie and Trump were Organized because they used Established parties as a Vehicle without having to do ALL the hard work themselves, and even then some didn't even bother to fucking show up at all for all the protesting.

Bottom line.

It takes Organization.
It takes vetting quality candidates.
It takes doing the work Money, Mind or Time best if it's all 3


Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but it's important to know why either happens realistically, it takes making connections and actual people willing to put in for the fucking cause.

The Formula above applies for ALL Democrats, Republicans or any Third Party.


Think I am wrong go ahead and do the research yourself look at the candidates that really ran the last 10 years, they are a fucking joke, only slightly better than ex porn stars and pro wrestlers.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really, YOU COULD be right, but I wouldn't run away with this. The reason being is WHY would a caucus or voting block split, because I can tell you living in both the U.S and Canada and voting both, more parties doesn't necessary equate to better results politically in fact I believe you are in the U.K, I think you know aswell it can be another kind of hell.

A mix between worthless do nothing coalitions, to partisan bickering to even more division in the long run.



If the Split is based on REAL fundamental differences that amount to more than a hissy fit YES you are correct and could be, and it appears that is the case to some extend here in the U.S, however having experience with this personally I can also tell you that is the long way around in many ways too. Especially if it's for silly differences as opposed to deep fundamental differences.

Being Liberal or Conservative in and of itself is NOT enough, because if you can in your life fine any two Liberals or Conservatives that agree on everything, I would like you to then point me in the direction of where I might be able to find unicorns because I am going to take some photos and make a mint.


Politics in general is always about working together with others who you dislike or even hate to get something for everyone and finding common ground without selling out or giving up as little as possible.

More Parties aren't going to solve that problem or make it better unless it's for the right reason, just like NO Parties is also not a way to go, for the same reason otherwise you end up with Chaos and only ever opportunist rising to the top. Which is exactly how we get dictators or monarchs


And if Political Parties begin to act like No Parties like say Communism, same difference.

Its a combination of system, parties, convention and culture.

In the UK a hung parliment is general a bad thing, it means a coalition and little getting done. In the U.S its analogous to when a party has only 2 of the goverment institutions so your right in thinking that way for us, our system, our culture.

But you need to step back a bit, theres 2 forms of republican democracy (including constitutional monarchy because functionaly there the same)

Adversarial and coalition.

We as in uk, USA, canada e.t.c live in Adversarial systems, it why at least in the UK and canada our parliment has benches opposing each other, these adversarial systems, promote, by there method of elections , large broad church parties, and we know to well the downsides of that is a stifaling of voices with the parties from knternal factions not in power, infighting e.t.c

Now if we look at Scandinavian democracy and germany, they have systems that most of the time always return hung parliments, yet they have much less issues than we do, that because each faction of dems and republicans under there system would be its own party, there views would be aored in the highest chamber tje same as any other and they get there by porpotunal representation, parties make goverments only throigh alliances with other parties, this mandares compromises and Dialoge and it also means no party is ever big enough to feel safe enough (like the cons in the UK now) to ignore the people, any one right wing in American for example who right wing for economic reasons has to either vote trump, vote against there economic values or abstain, but in those nations theres always an adjasent party to change support to, yes it will probly end up in coalition with the party you left, but it will rain in that party to form a coalition or neither will win, like how the lib dems rained in camerons cons in the 2010s.

To see the benefit of these systems you need to take a big step back and see a whole dofferent way of doing democracy than what we are used to here and in the u.s, a system where people views are perportuanly represented and a system where loosing the primarys or party leadership dosnt mean you're political belifs are shelved till next time theres an internal shuffle.

Politics in general is always about working together with others who you dislike or even hate to get something for everyone and finding common ground without selling out or giving up as little as possible.

Exactly, but our systems punish that mentality, other better sytems reward and promote it, thats what im really getting at.

What we have now is a winner takes all issue, where a minority political view can by internal politics of a party come to have the power of a whole wing of politics.

Ubder coalitions and porpurtunal representation, minority views get heared in parliment at the front with every one else, but they dont ever come to have the full power of a whole wing unless there view is of that porportion of the people. No one get burried like the bernie sanders supporters and corbynites are now but also no far left or far right wing ever holds a whole wing and its voting power to ransom.

[Felya]

No its more the "reality scawy" part that came across as you trying to insult me

I said scary... and I seem to be in point. You are not acting insulted by reality...

I wasnt saying that was a Shapiro quote, I never watched south park? It really just looks like you were being a dick, even if you for some reason felt the need to randomly quote southpark.

Let’s check who was being a what... Where is that Shapiro quote?

You keep talking about uniting the left and this is how you behave. Gl getting people to mindlessly support democrats this way.

Indeed... after insulting me for several posts, you are now insulted because I said “serial”... this is a joke...

I'm pretty sure is ben Shapiro's slogan. So. Good for you. When you weaponize his rhetoric against leftists I'm sure you must be doing the right thing

Are you serious?

My government sucks too yes? They mostly do? But the American government is a massive imperial force, we arent in the same ball park, shit we arent even really playing the same game

Where you from... Let me care about your country, as much as you care about US. Where you from?

- - - Updated - - -

Damn I really upset you the other night.

No its more the "reality scawy" part that came across as you trying to insult me

This is called projecting... Just... FYI...

[sandstill]

A third party will never get anywhere with the EC in place.

I constantly hear this argument. I don't think historically it is borne that out much, third parties have exerted considerable influence on major parties.

But even if that were not the case the argument tends to work on the assumption that it is 1980 forever. Times change. We have the internet now. You can get millions of views with the right pitch with no expenditure. You can raise millions if people support you. The same barriers to entry don't exist that prevented third parties. That's an enormous change from the days when parties had to start out with ten people in a bar or something and relied on pamphlets to spread their message.

We are actually only one clever marketing campaign away from a completely new party taking major office in an advanced industrialized state.

[Kokolums]

When trust collapsed in America in the 1860s, we actually saw third and fourth parties form. The result was that in the 1864 election campaign, 2 parties merged with Lincoln's GOP to form the National Union Party, which then won the election. If a serious third party emerged in America, expect the same thing to occur: either the democrats or republicans would merge with it long before the election.

This sort of happened in the 1990s as well. Ross Perot created the Reform party. The popular issue driving it was a balanced budget. As result, both the democrats and republicans added a commitment to a balanced budget to their party platforms, which sucked the air out of the Reform party and killed it.

[postman1782]

When trust collapsed in America in the 1860s, we actually saw third and fourth parties form. The result was that in the 1864 election campaign, 2 parties merged with Lincoln's GOP to form the National Union Party, which then won the election. If a serious third party emerged in America, expect the same thing to occur: either the democrats or republicans would merge with it long before the election.

This sort of happened in the 1990s as well. Ross Perot created the Reform party. The popular issue driving it was a balanced budget. As result, both the democrats and republicans added a commitment to a balanced budget to their party platforms, which sucked the air out of the Reform party and killed it.

Will basically never happen, not with the Republicans now.

[beanman12345]

Will basically never happen, not with the Republicans now.

So, like every kokolums posts.

[PACOX]

The "good and sensible" party in the US threatened to fundamentally alter the makeup of the federal government because it got outmaneuvered - which began because they couldn't win elections due to being viewed as weak/lackluster by voters. The other party strategically aims for control critical parts of the government so that it can straight up ignore written law.

Neither of these monoliths are going to let 3rd parties in. They maintain the charade of being mortal enemies but will quickly ally with one another if truth challenge, be it a third party or the people, threatened their power. And they have plenty of loyalist stooges who will do their bidding with nothing more but a sticker and a nod in return. The only real 'third party' in the US right now are Independents, who aren't organized or even of similar ideology so without some of the strength to enact a policy like the actual parties. Independent/NPAs do force the parties to shift as each party tries to devise a strategy that will pull more from the block than the other.


IDK if I want to see what would collapse the two parties of today but it won't be nice.

[Felya]

When trust collapsed in America in the 1860s, we actually saw third and fourth parties form. The result was that in the 1864 election campaign, 2 parties merged with Lincoln's GOP to form the National Union Party, which then won the election. If a serious third party emerged in America, expect the same thing to occur: either the democrats or republicans would merge with it long before the election.

None of this is true...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_P...United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

- - - Updated - - -

I only returned insults after your initial post which was not the "serial" part but the reality scary bit, which you really can't claim wasnt a dig unless you are woefully unaware of how your actions are percieved by other people.

You got insulted, by me pointing out that your “are you serious” comment is ignoring reality? That made you feel insulted? lol

I mean if you were saying facts dont care about your feelings ironically that's fine, but I'm pretty sure you were earnestly trying to shut down my opinion that having a handful of third party candidates doesnt mean the Democrats and republicans Republicans tolerate their precence. Can you think a bit critically about what it means to regurgitate that shit?

Ironically? No, I said it because you are upset over facts. You are no different than Ben Shapiro going off on a British conservative, simply because he asked him about something he wrote. Third party sharing a stage with main two parties is a fact, something you shouldn’t need to ask if I was serious. I explained that the two party system keeps third parties down through browbeating, with the only systematic limitation being a specific number of signatures, to be on the ballot in every state election.

I live in Seattle... just north of here, Everett elected a socialist in 2016... Not a democrat claiming to be socialist, but a socialist. It helps to understand reality, instead of thinking it’s not serious, then getting upset because facts are simply facts. How can you seek a solution, when you don’t think the actual problem is serious?

Why care about my country? It's not trying to drag the rest of the world down with it, do you not understand what is at stake here? Like it or not what America does impacts the rest of the world. This shit is so creepy btw, the "I'm forcing myself onto your side, btw where do you live?"

That’s great... What country are you from? Let’s see what I can learn... last time similar happened... I learned that EU big oil, actually resides in Brussels. Making anyone complaining about US energy demands, a bit of a hypocrite, when they live in the EU capital of big oil. So... where you from? Let me scrutinize the impact of your country, on the rest of the world. (I hope it’s England lol)

Gross.

What?

I've been open about how pissed off I am at you being an impotent liberal. Just because you're not honest about your feelings doesnt mean I'm not.

That’s actually a great observation... I am not a liberal, so being an impotent one, is completely understandable. 93/93

[Felya]

I wasnt ignoring reality though? You think sharing a literal stage means that they play fair? How have you continuously ignored that?

Play fair has no meaning... Do you mean the browbeat, as I said or do you mean something else? If you are not ignoring reality, please specify the mechanism by which they are not being fair. Don’t even bother respond with shit like ‘now you say the system is fair’... you’ll be just proving my point.

You quote ben Shapiro and use his rhetorical tactic and I'm the one who is like ben Shapiro.

I talk really fast, so you can’t catch my lying and misrepresentation of facts? Are you sure? I don’t think you understand what his rhetorical tact actually is... or... prove me wrong. What is his rhetorical tact?

Really not keen on respecting boundaries are you lol? It's not england so you can jack it to some other idea tonight.

No, not a fan of boundaries... I’m the sort to break barriers, for no reason, but their existence. Bull in a China shop style... What secret country are you from? Svenborgia?

Edit: Fine... don’t say the country... let it be like Trump’s tax returns and I’ll just assume anything I want... and... I must say... The actions I am assuming of your country are absolutely horrifying... I totally get why you keep it a secret...