The Rise Of A Third Party?

[icanthearyou 4,464]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-up-with-the-2-parties-a-group-of-centrists-rises-up-120032723.html

Perhaps a new party is on the rise?  A political party free from the corruptible, disingenuous nature of ideological idiocy?

The divide is contrived.  A people so divided that, there can be no civil discourse, no cooperation, no compromise,,,can not have a "government of the people".

There is no good/bad side to our current political environment.  The parties simply herd the sheep, divide the flock, undermine the government, undermine the country.  

Ideology?  In the context of "a government of the people", it is absurd.  In the absence of "a government of the people" it is corrupt.  We aren't just being corrupted politically.  We are being corrupted socially, morally, ethically.

Two flocks of sheep ignorantly, inanely, insincerely arguing over which is the best road to the same slaughter house.

 

[homersapien 11,531]

51 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-up-with-the-2-parties-a-group-of-centrists-rises-up-120032723.html

Perhaps a new party is on the rise?  A political party free from the corruptible, disingenuous nature of ideological idiocy?

The divide is contrived.  A people so divided that, there can be no civil discourse, no cooperation, no compromise,,,can not have a "government of the people".

There is no good/bad side to our current political environment.  The parties simply herd the sheep, divide the flock, undermine the government, undermine the country.  

Ideology?  In the context of "a government of the people", it is absurd.  In the absence of "a government of the people" it is corrupt.  We aren't just being corrupted politically.  We are being corrupted socially, morally, ethically.

Two flocks of sheep ignorantly, inanely, insincerely arguing over which is the best road to the same slaughter house.

 

I can obviously see why the Republican party could split, but I really don't see why the Democratic Party would.  There is no large, organized radical left cabal on the Democratic side.

[homersapien 11,531]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/the-gops-ideological-identity-crisis/521316/

The Republican Identity Crisis

A conservative by any other name would still be confused about where they fall on the ideological spectrum in the Trump era.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I can obviously see why the Republican party could split, but I really don't see why the Democratic Party would.  There is no large, organized radical left cabal on the Democratic side.

You do not see a profound difference between Sanders and Clinton?   You do not see how that translates into voting patterns?  You would not call that a stark contrast?  I think the party did split during the primaries.  

[homersapien 11,531]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

You do not see a profound difference between Sanders and Clinton?   You do not see how that translates into voting patterns?  You would not call that a stark contrast?  I think the party did split during the primaries.  

The factional differences in the Democratic party are typical and candidate-driven.

So no, I don't see anything like an enduring ideological schism.

 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The factional differences in the Democratic party are typical and candidate-driven.

So no, I don't see anything like an enduring ideological schism.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I do understand the basis of your viewpoint.

I think we may fundamentally disagree on the significance/meaning of ideological schism.  Well, we might agree but, the politically rabid in both parties might not.  Still, I find it difficult to look at the primary voting, the differences between Clinton and Sanders, and not see a significant division.  The party did in effect, split.  But yes, there is generally more congruence.   You have to admit, you did kind of move the old goalposts a bit by introducing the term "enduring ideological schism". 

[homersapien 11,531]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I respectfully disagree.  I do understand the basis of your viewpoint.

I think we may fundamentally disagree on the significance/meaning of ideological schism.  Well, we might agree but, the politically rabid in both parties might not.  Still, I find it difficult to look at the primary voting, the differences between Clinton and Sanders, and not see a significant division.  The party did in effect, split.  But yes, there is generally more congruence.   You have to admit, you did kind of move the old goalposts a bit by introducing the term "enduring ideological schism". 

You are the one who brought up the idea of the Democratic party actually splitting, so no, I don't "admit" to anything.

My point is, what is the ideological schism that exists in the Democratic Party that would cause such a split?   

Granted, such an issue existed the last time the party split apart (over civil rights) but I don't see anything that even approaches that.

Nor do I see anything on the Democratic side that approaches the general conflict between traditional conservatism vs. populist nationalism that is plaguing the 'GOP' since the Trump election.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are the one who brought up the idea of the Democratic party actually splitting, so no, I don't "admit" to anything.

My point is, what is the ideological schism that exists in the Democratic Party that would cause such a split?   

Granted, such an issue existed the last time the party split apart (over civil rights) but I don't see anything that even approaches that.

Nor do I see anything on the Democratic side that approaches the general conflict between traditional conservatism vs. populist nationalism that is plaguing the 'GOP' since the Trump election.

That is a lie.

I did not bring up ideological schism.  I think it is foolish though to assert that the party is unified.  You did follow the primaries?

You are aware of the unifying effect of having little to no power?  That should not be mistaken for true unity.

I think you are looking through a biased lens.

[DKW 86 7,486]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I can obviously see why the Republican party could split, but I really don't see why the Democratic Party would.  There is no large, organized radical left cabal on the Democratic side.

As a Bernie Sanders contributor, (I will show evidence if you want), I can assure you there is indeed a deep riff in the Democrat Party. There are those of us asking "Why even participate in the Democrat voting/nomination process when the PARTY is cheating to get their hand selected pol to get the nomination?" Perez made everyone resign for a reason, they were all tainted. From DWS to DBrazille etc. Stolen questions, ram-rodded votes in NV and elsewhere. Dont tell me there is hamony in the Dem side, there plainly isnt. There is a two sided schism. Progressive Voters and the old stale elitist corporatists like HRC. 

Dont get me wrong HRC would be a lot better than Trump, NO DOUBT. But Many think BS would have won easily. HRC had too many missteps and too many people at the party level dragging her across the finish line. Sorry, not buying it. Look at the Perez vs Ellison fight alone. There are some that think that the ancient ones HRC, Pelosi, Schumer need to step aside and get ready for fresh leadership. 

[DKW 86 7,486]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/the-gops-ideological-identity-crisis/521316/

The Republican Identity Crisis

A conservative by any other name would still be confused about where they fall on the ideological spectrum in the Trump era.

Can anyone define Conservative anymore? How do you as a "Christian Values Voter" defend supporting a schlepp like Trump? He is antithetical to everything a True Conservative Christian stands for. Divorce, Greed, Privilege, Bad businessman, etc. 

[homersapien 11,531]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

That is a lie.

I did not bring up ideological schism.  I think it is foolish though to assert that the party is unified.  You did follow the primaries?

You are aware of the unifying effect of having little to no power?  That should not be mistaken for true unity.

I think you are looking through a biased lens.

You implied the Democratic party is ripe for splitting into two separate parties, right after I said I don't see that happening. (Post #4)

But if you think I'm lying, there's no point in having this discussion is there?

Bye

[icanthearyou 4,464]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You implied the Democratic party is ripe for splitting into two separate parties, right after I said I don't see that happening. (Post #4)

But if you think I'm lying, there's no point in having this discussion is there?

Bye

You are correct.  There is no point.  You lied and, you continue to misrepresent my statements.

Post #2, so obviously YOU introduced the idea. 

[PUB78 1,365]

19 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Can anyone define Conservative anymore? How do you as a "Christian Values Voter" defend supporting a schlepp like Trump? He is antithetical to everything a True Conservative Christian stands for. Divorce, Greed, Privilege, Bad businessman, etc. 

I can only answer for myself, but I never was a Trump supporter. When he added Pence to his ticket, I held my nose and voted for him as at least there was a person on the ticket that represented "Christian values" and my values.

[alexava 6,973]

4 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I can only answer for myself, but I never was a Trump supporter. When he added Pence to his ticket, I held my nose and voted for him as at least there was a person on the ticket that represented "Christian values" and my values.

Does selling yourself out = Christian values? Pence is for sale and always has been. 

[homersapien 11,531]

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

You are correct.  There is no point.  You lied and, you continue to misrepresent my statements.

Post #2, so obviously YOU introduced the idea. 

I did not lie.  

I may have misconstrued the gist of what this thread was about and I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but that's not lying. That's a misunderstanding.  

You could have responded to post #2 to correct me if I was wrong in my interpretation.

I find this surprising.  I really thought you were better than this.  You sound like Rapture.

[PUB78 1,365]

14 hours ago, alexava said:

Does selling yourself out = Christian values? Pence is for sale and always has been. 

How could anyone, with any common decency or common sense, voted for Hillary Clinton?

[homersapien 11,531]

25 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

How could anyone, with any common decency or common sense, voted for Hillary Clinton?

Because, with all her faults, she would have made a far better POTUS than Trump.

The "common decency" crack is ironic:  "Grab 'em by the *****".  

[PUB78 1,365]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Because, with all her faults, she would have made a far better POTUS than Trump.

The "common decency" crack is ironic:  "Grab 'em by the *****".  

We must agree to disagree on this.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 hours ago, PUB78 said:

How could anyone, with any common decency or common sense, voted for Hillary Clinton?

Because when asked questions in debates, she actually had detailed answers and didn't revert to name-calling.  Whether or not you agree with her positions is not the issue.  It's that she actually detailed her positions and could tell you why.

More than anything, I voted for her over Trump because of his repeated incompetent answers during debates.  For goodness sake, the guy didn't know what the nuclear triad is (a very basic thing), and yet he's now in charge of the most powerful military in the world. 

[DKW 86 7,486]

On 4/3/2017 at 0:38 PM, homersapien said:

Because, with all her faults, she would have made a far better POTUS than Trump.

The "common decency" crack is ironic:  "Grab 'em by the *****".  

Sounds like something her husband would say to me and the rest of the world.

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Because when asked questions in debates, she actually had detailed answers and didn't revert to name-calling.  Whether or not you agree with her positions is not the issue.  It's that she actually detailed her positions and could tell you why.

More than anything, I voted for her over Trump because of his repeated incompetent answers during debates.  For goodness sake, the guy didn't know what the nuclear triad is (a very basic thing), and yet he's now in charge of the most powerful military in the world. 

Were those the questions she was given by Brazile prior to the debate to have a nice professional answer ready?

Third Party Please!

[homersapien 11,531]

52 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Sounds like something her husband would say to me and the rest of the world.

Were those the questions she was given by Brazile prior to the debate to have a nice professional answer ready?

Third Party Please!

Yeah, who could possibly anticipate what questions you might get in a presidential debate?   

[icanthearyou 4,464]

52 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Sounds like something her husband would say to me and the rest of the world.

Were those the questions she was given by Brazile prior to the debate to have a nice professional answer ready?

Third Party Please!

You realize, the same was done for Sanders, right?

[DKW 86 7,486]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, who could possibly anticipate what questions you might get in a presidential debate?   

Apparently HRC has to have Donna Brazile forward her the questions. Dont tell me it didnt help her against Bernie. Dont even try.

[DKW 86 7,486]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

You realize, the same was done for Sanders, right?

I have only heard that from HRC sources and dismissed it. With the vote rigging and the debate schedule and the emails all pointing to the DNC working in favor of HRC i kind of took it straight up that it was HRC only. Do you have a legitimate source proving Brazile gave Sanders the questions too? I mean even Brazile has stated that i was a mistake she will forever regret.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Sounds like something her husband would say to me and the rest of the world.

Were those the questions she was given by Brazile prior to the debate to have a nice professional answer ready?

Third Party Please!

I'm 100% with you.  She wasn't my first, second, or third choice.  But given the two main candidates, she became the only reasonable choice in my view.