RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate

RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 4:44:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto "You should shut up - you didn't serve" future smear attack common from Rightists Bullshit. That is the province of the lefties on this board

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 4:47:37 PM)
For a true third party candidate it is nearly impossible to overcome Duverger's law

DarkSteven -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 5:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 There is going to be no viable 3rd party candidate anytime soon. It's going to take a special person who can captivate the attention of the masses for it to happen. I disagree with this. The level of discontent in the right of center socially moderate fiscal conservatives seems perfect for the emergence of a new political party. The response to the Presidents call for people to contact their Congress people showed a high level of discontent with the intransigence of the tea party types that seem to have a stranglehold on the Republican party. This upcoming primary season, where no candidate acceptable to the group will have any chance of winning the GOP nomination, just might be the figurative straw. I agree that the time is right for the moderates in the GOP to split off, possibly joined with some Dems and Libertarians. quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl IMO the best independent is Senator Bernie Sanders. He's against entitlements for the rich, against free trade deals and offshoring jobs, and for single-payer health care. He also has balls. Unfortunately, he probably couldn't win if he did run because he's unwilling to kiss corporate ass and accept bribes for campaign dollars. His unwillingness to compromise his values, which makes him the best choice, sadly keeps him down. I don't agree that the only prospects are those that are currently third party candidates. Should a third party become viable, expect it to field candidates that currently identify as Dems or Reps today.

slvemike4u -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 6:10:55 PM)
"What if I told you,that as a percentage of elected party officials in Congress ,more Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats" Firm What if I asked you what that means.....and phrased it in light of what came after....namely the Southern strategy ? What would you be suggesting your statement means in light of later events? Would it not be just as topical to state that Republicism also gave us Lincoln who freed the slaves....does that somehow mitigate all that has followed since 1964 ?

slvemike4u -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 6:13:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto "You should shut up - you didn't serve" future smear attack common from Rightists Bullshit. That is the province of the lefties on this board Bullshit,for no other reason above and beyond that it is pure bullshit.....not to mention a sweeping generalization that is simply......bullshit.

Fightdirecto -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 6:39:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Bullshit. That is the province of the lefties on this board I learned long ago about two incorrect stereotypes collectively held by the Right: 1. All American combat veterans, especially those who were Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs/Marine Force Recon, are politically conservatives. A false stereotype that American Rightists hold to as an article of faith. 2. Any American who expresses moderate or liberal political positions either never served in the military or if they say they did, they are lying - because all liberals and most moderates hate the United States. Another false stereotype. I've been hearing both of the stereotypes from American Rightists since before the end of the Viet-Nam War. Nixon was a would-be dictator far worse in actual practice than any false accusation ever made by Limbaugh, Beck or Alex Jones about President Obama.

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Nothing is wrong except your misuse of history, but that's nothing new, If you mean the Republicans ended the Vietnam war because Nixon was the President at the time you might be right. That would be ignoring things like Nixon being the one who escalated the bombings, Nixon was ready to move in Cambodia to support Nol, should I continue? Any reasons Nixon personally had for ending the war were purely to gain a political advantage over the democrats. LBJ was an idiot and much of the escalation lies at his feet. Large portions of the democratic party were in dispute with him over the war. When congress finally just had enough you should look back at the resolutions and who were supporting them. I thought the Church-Cooper Amendment was bi-partisan maybe you have a different historical take.. When Congress finally stood up it was pretty bi-partisan though many of the Republicans were considered "liberal" ones. Reagan ended what exactly? Maybe you should think about that for a bit. Really look at what happened in many places around the world and figure out what ended and what actually was won. I know the Republicans don't like to trace back how many of the worlds issues are fall out form Reagan. Saying Reagan ended the cold war is as empty a statement as Bush and the "Mission Accomplished". There is going to be no viable 3rd party candidate anytime soon. It's going to take a special person who can captivate the attention of the masses for it to happen. Ok, I get it. All Republicans throughout history were evil scumbags who impeded the glorious programs of the Democratic Party and only did any "good' when forced to by circumstances and Democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, would have accomplished much more, and we would be living in paradise on earth if not for the scheming, evil, mentally-deranged Republicans. Got it. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:48:38 PM)
Now come on Firm,that is a bullshit position,but since you posted it let us tweak it a bit and pose a question.Were we to reverse the parties in your last post....does that not sound like something Locked,RacistJim or Sanity could have posted?

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto FYI: I served with P Company, 75th U.S. Army Rangers, I Corps, Republic of Viet-Nam 1970-1971 and got my 2 Bronze Stars there (to preempt the anticipated "You should shut up - you didn't serve" future smear attack common from Rightists) shrug So it was it Agent Orange that made you into what you are today? You know, you can get VA benefits for that ... I have a pretty impressive military background as well, but I don't drag it out in some tangentially political debate in order to make some kind of "groovy point". Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now come on Firm,that is a bullshit position,but since you posted it let us tweak it a bit and pose a question.Were we to reverse the parties in your last post....does that not sound like something Locked,RacistJim or Sanity could have posted? Sure it would, mike. Because all I did was translate what fl was saying, but making it more obvious. He attempts to cloak his ideological hatred with big words and long sentences, but it's pretty easy to see. All I did was hold a mirror up to his face. Firm

imperatrixx -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:53:32 PM)
-FR- Okay, I'm sorry, but two things. Maybe I'm just young (30 in a couple years) but if the idea of something "recent" that the Republicans did was end the Vietnam War...way before I was born...that's not exactly going to impress me much. And secondly...the guy who did that was Nixon. The guy who resigned in scandal. It's not that impressive to say "well we haven't really done anything great in your lifetime, but your parents might remember that the guy who got impeached got us out of Vietnam."

BamaD -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:57:39 PM)
A strong conservative thrid party would get Democrats elected. A strong liberal third party would get Republicans elected .

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 7:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Sorry, but neither of today's parties have anything whatsoever to do with the situation 200 years ago, 160 years ago, or 100 years ago. Quit asking others what they believe and ask yourself why the Republican party of today has gone so against their original principles. Otherwise, why have both modern day Republicans and Democrats gone completely 180 degrees in opposition to what Theodore Roosevelt or his distant cousin FDR did in breaking up oligarchies that made American democracy not actually properly called democracy anymore? This is the situation we find ourselves in today, but unlike back then, people are more cheaply bought, so then the virus is more deeply insinuated, and one person alone cannot fight the flood of corporate media and effectively corporate congress and regulatory agencies' calumny, of which is taken by the populace as 'truth' and so firmly entrenched. Some people are screaming for more liqueur as we speak, between bouts of vomiting. Ed, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I only made a couple of points in response to Moonheads flighty and base canard about the Republican Party not having done anything in the last 160 years. If you have ever read much of my detailed political discussions with people who have a clue (which leaves Moon out), you'll discover that I generally am a classical liberal with a small twist. I just hate to see all the hate and bullshit spewed out by the predominately lefty posters in the forums. Sometimes I simply like to tweak their brains a bit and watch them gyrate all over the place. I have some quite interesting and civilized discussions with the ones that are interesting and civilized. The others I ignore sometimes. Or tweak, when the mood takes me. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now come on Firm,that is a bullshit position,but since you posted it let us tweak it a bit and pose a question.Were we to reverse the parties in your last post....does that not sound like something Locked,RacistJim or Sanity could have posted? Sure it would, mike. Because all I did was translate what fl was saying, but making it more obvious. He attempts to cloak his ideological hatred with big words and long sentences, but it's pretty easy to see. All I did was hold a mirror up to his face. Firm So are you agreeing that same mirror could be held up to the posters I mentioned(wtf throw willbur in there too) ? I'm sure you would agree that none of it,no matter what side of the aisle it comes from is intelligent nor helpful.....certainly not conducive to actual conversations [:)]

slvemike4u -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:06:28 PM)
By threat Firm I posted a few other response in response to some posts of yours...and I would certainly be interested in your replys...though I think what you just wrote to Edwynn answered one of them.

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto I learned long ago about two incorrect stereotypes collectively held by the Right: 1. All American combat veterans, especially those who were Rangers/Special Forces/SEALs/Marine Force Recon, are politically conservatives. A false stereotype that American Rightists hold to as an article of faith. 2. Any American who expresses moderate or liberal political positions either never served in the military or if they say they did, they are lying - because all liberals and most moderates hate the United States. Another false stereotype. I've been hearing both of the stereotypes from American Rightists since before the end of the Viet-Nam War. There are military people who are scumbags, too. I know. I've met a few. I've even commanded a few in combat. That being said, the majority of military, and ex-military generally are conservative, in many respects, even if not lefties. I've seen numbers of about 60-80%, depending on several factors. Some, however, are disillusioned, or become disillusioned after they get out. It happens. Senator John Kerry was in the military. And the brown navy unit he was in was considered a pretty "elite" unit, for the place and time. But he was a scumbag then, and a liberal now. I think you are pretty much a self-important, smug, lefty vet, who trades on his military experience in order to advance his particular ideology. No different from the people you are secretly laughing about who consider that you might be a conservative (since you served in an "elite military unit" and all). In fact, I'd bet you like to "keep secret" your military background from such people so that you can later attempt to knock them (figuratively) on their feet, when you attack them. You know what I mean ... deceive them, then stab them in the back ...? I'm glad I never served with you. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now come on Firm,that is a bullshit position,but since you posted it let us tweak it a bit and pose a question.Were we to reverse the parties in your last post....does that not sound like something Locked,RacistJim or Sanity could have posted? Sure it would, mike. Because all I did was translate what fl was saying, but making it more obvious. He attempts to cloak his ideological hatred with big words and long sentences, but it's pretty easy to see. All I did was hold a mirror up to his face. So are you agreeing that same mirror could be held up to the posters I mentioned(wtf throw willbur in there too) ? I'm sure you would agree that none of it,no matter what side of the aisle it comes from is intelligent nor helpful.....certainly not conducive to actual conversations [:)] I agree that when anyone starts saying "all" of any group, or even the majority, are "such and such", it is not productive to a good conversation. Regardless of whether it is on the right, left, or middle. That is the point I was making, with fl. He's an ideologue who does that, but he attempts to cloak it. All I was doing was removing the cloak for all to see. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u By threat Firm I posted a few other response in response to some posts of yours...and I would certainly be interested in your replys...though I think what you just wrote to Edwynn answered one of them. mike, I'm going through the threads now, before Treasure and I go to bed, in order to respond to anything I see. If you have some specific thread you wish to see my response in, please link, or cmail me. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:20:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx Okay, I'm sorry, but two things. Maybe I'm just young (30 in a couple years) but if the idea of something "recent" that the Republicans did was end the Vietnam War...way before I was born...that's not exactly going to impress me much. And secondly...the guy who did that was Nixon. The guy who resigned in scandal. It's not that impressive to say "well we haven't really done anything great in your lifetime, but your parents might remember that the guy who got impeached got us out of Vietnam." I was responding to Moon's accusations that, basically, the Republican Party had done nothing since its inception. He didn't like the slavery thing, so I moved it up a little closer. I really don't have any interest explaining 160 years of partisan politics to him. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 8:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u "What if I told you,that as a percentage of elected party officials in Congress ,more Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats" Firm What if I asked you what that means.....and phrased it in light of what came after....namely the Southern strategy ? What would you be suggesting your statement means in light of later events? Would it not be just as topical to state that Republicism also gave us Lincoln who freed the slaves....does that somehow mitigate all that has followed since 1964 ? Some interesting points mike. I'd have to go back and find my sources about the civil rights and Republicans. I am mainly talking about in the 60'S, and surrounding the several Civil Rights Acts pre- and post 1964. However, I think that the more important issue is the one about the so-called "Southern Strategy" that many on the left like to trot out. In effect, trying to say that all the Southern racists Democrats were courted by the GOP, and therefore the Democrat Party's stain of racism left that party, and was inherited by the Republicans. It's been a while since I reviewed it, but my recollection was that most of the Democratic politicians didn't convert to Republican (some did: Storm Thurmond is an example), but the reason that the majority of the South is Republican today occurred over time, as the old "racist" Democrats retired, or moved on. Does that answer your question? Firm

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02