2018 Mid-Term Elections

[TheReal_ND]

We can't all perceive ourselves as an oppressed minority, if we do shit like "math" in politics. We each need to stay on our voting plantations, and be fighting for our individual freedoms, as part of a massive 100-million-member outcast group.

#3rdPartyOrCollapseYourCall

Abhors "extremist" on both sides, talks about the viability of a 3rd party, sure. Does Ranch dressing come with that word salad? Folksy witticism 0/7.

Is a third party “extremist” to you? Like those crazy radicals in every-other-democratic-system-on-earth?

Third party in America is not extremist. They are the opposite of extremist in regards to being a force for change. They can only sap any real strength for change from one or another party. Usually third party in America detracts votes from the right because the right depends on the advantage of consolidation while the left can rely on numerical advantage. This is usually the case world wide in every democracy actually and that's my next point. A third party yields representation at a parliamentary level in most other democracies which on the surface seems good but the function in terms of productivity is the same. The smaller coalitions will eventually form blocks for one wing or the other and again, leftists hold numerical value in the size of their coalition. In America it is much more reversed to the point where a third party only serves to repress the vote and since we have a democratic Republic this will always end up in a winner take all situation for one or the other wing. You might be saying well how is this a disadvantage to any one party or another in this case? Again, being a winner take all system, a third party candidate attracts votes away from people in the middle. The left wing has tons of people on their side but the right wing has the advantage of the electoral college which gives rural people more representation. A third party in a rural district might pose little threat to the right wing but in districts that are close, they are inevitably pulling votes away from the middle that the right usually gets and the left seldom cares about. The one exception to this rule is possibly the green party that has been alleged to pull crucial numbers of votes away from hillary in tossup districts but this is likely more a case of hillary being so universally hated than an indication of a third party being any real threat to the left. At the end of the day Ross Perot gave the left a victory. Ron Paul decided to run Republican and even Trump realized early on a third party is a poor choice for affecting something appearing to be change.

[The Conservative]

You can’t make this shit up.

Cortez needs a handler worse than Trump does.

She thinks there are three chambers of the government.

President, senate and house.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/alex- ... overnment/

[TheReal_ND]

At least she refuses to recognize federal courts as being anything other than a shit show. The Senate is also kind of superfluous as it is. If we reverted back to the house electing senators and senators acting in place of the judicial branch like they were originally intended to, that would be really based.

[clubgop]

We can't all perceive ourselves as an oppressed minority, if we do shit like "math" in politics. We each need to stay on our voting plantations, and be fighting for our individual freedoms, as part of a massive 100-million-member outcast group.

#3rdPartyOrCollapseYourCall

Abhors "extremist" on both sides, talks about the viability of a 3rd party, sure. Does Ranch dressing come with that word salad? Folksy witticism 0/7.

Is a third party “extremist” to you? Like those crazy radicals in every-other-democratic-system-on-earth?

Just about every Anglo nation has broken down into a two party system but nevermind that, you think the green party in this country is centrist? Nope.
Constitutional? Nope.
Libertarian? Really?
Let me get this straight you get the vapors and head for the fainting couches because like a teenage girl you... just... cant... even... and admonish us for having elected a man who once hosted a reality tv show, but you expect us to take seriously a party that had at their national convention one of their competeing Presidential candidates run around stark naked and that's not a bit extreme? Really, bitch?

[clubgop]

At least she refuses to recognize federal courts as being anything other than a shit show. The Senate is also kind of superfluous as it is. If we reverted back to the house electing senators and senators acting in place of the judicial branch like they were originally intended to, that would be really based.

Did you read the constitution while high on meth? Senators were appointed by state legislatures of their particular state and the Judicial branch was always the judicial branch and Senators were never a judicial branch.

The next time you do cocaine find a clean sanitized surface. Not dirty dick's dirty dick.

[TheReal_ND]

At least she refuses to recognize federal courts as being anything other than a shit show. The Senate is also kind of superfluous as it is. If we reverted back to the house electing senators and senators acting in place of the judicial branch like they were originally intended to, that would be really based.

Did you read the constitution while high on meth? Senators were appointed by state legislatures of their particular state and the Judicial branch was always the judicial branch and Senators were never a judicial branch.

The next time you do cocaine find a clean sanitized surface. Not dirty dick's dirty dick.

Yes legislators should be the full extent of jewdiciary in our country.

[Speaker to Animals]

I would prefer none of that.

Instead of a pozzed federal government, I would prefer a confederal government that only dealt with the Mint (no funny money), foreign diplomacy and policy, and confederal defense. Instead of having some silly branches, there would be something similar to what Orson Scott Card described in the Ender Game series, with a Stratego council to deal with military, and a Hegemon to deal with foreign policy. Instead of just one Hegemon, make it a council as well. Go with the Heinlein principle of electing to the Hegemon from the ranks of veterans only (only veterans can vote or serve in the confederal government). The Stratego is sort of like the Pentagon, State, and IC rolled into one thing.

All the other shit is up to the states to figure out on their own. If they want to form sub-confederal unions of states to pool tax dollars into some kind of universal health care system, then fine. If they want to ban guns and force everybody to swear fealty to homosexual marriages, then fine. But the opposite is fine too.

You could conceivably divide red and blue America into two blocs of states that pool their resources at the sub-national level, but greater than the state level.

We'd probably have to spin off the major metropolitan areas as their own city-states. Most likely, these city-states would form their own sub-national bloc, with likely entire states like California, New York, etc. joining them.

[pineapplemike]

Abhors "extremist" on both sides, talks about the viability of a 3rd party, sure. Does Ranch dressing come with that word salad? Folksy witticism 0/7.

Is a third party “extremist” to you? Like those crazy radicals in every-other-democratic-system-on-earth?

Third party in America is not extremist. They are the opposite of extremist in regards to being a force for change. They can only sap any real strength for change from one or another party. Usually third party in America detracts votes from the right because the right depends on the advantage of consolidation while the left can rely on numerical advantage. This is usually the case world wide in every democracy actually and that's my next point. A third party yields representation at a parliamentary level in most other democracies which on the surface seems good but the function in terms of productivity is the same. The smaller coalitions will eventually form blocks for one wing or the other and again, leftists hold numerical value in the size of their coalition. In America it is much more reversed to the point where a third party only serves to repress the vote and since we have a democratic Republic this will always end up in a winner take all situation for one or the other wing. You might be saying well how is this a disadvantage to any one party or another in this case? Again, being a winner take all system, a third party candidate attracts votes away from people in the middle. The left wing has tons of people on their side but the right wing has the advantage of the electoral college which gives rural people more representation. A third party in a rural district might pose little threat to the right wing but in districts that are close, they are inevitably pulling votes away from the middle that the right usually gets and the left seldom cares about. The one exception to this rule is possibly the green party that has been alleged to pull crucial numbers of votes away from hillary in tossup districts but this is likely more a case of hillary being so universally hated than an indication of a third party being any real threat to the left. At the end of the day Ross Perot gave the left a victory. Ron Paul decided to run Republican and even Trump realized early on a third party is a poor choice for affecting something appearing to be change.

i agree that third party candidates can act as spoiler but i don't think it's the rule. perhaps if we had mandatory voting then it would make more sense but in a voluntary election there remain millions of uncast votes that could sway the polls. i think the way the vote totals are presented as a percentage of 100 suggests it's the full vote but in reality, what, something like only half of the public votes in the election? i guess i mostly don't like the argument that they take away votes from the two big parties, as if those parties are automatically entitled to my vote. reminds me of when tax cuts are paraded around like budget cuts, as if the budget exists without the taxes. i get the point, but it's just sort of putting the cart before the horse. i don't know. maybe mandatory elections would encourage third party votes? who knows, it's 7:30 am and i'm stoned

[clubgop]

Is a third party “extremist” to you? Like those crazy radicals in every-other-democratic-system-on-earth?

Third party in America is not extremist. They are the opposite of extremist in regards to being a force for change. They can only sap any real strength for change from one or another party. Usually third party in America detracts votes from the right because the right depends on the advantage of consolidation while the left can rely on numerical advantage. This is usually the case world wide in every democracy actually and that's my next point. A third party yields representation at a parliamentary level in most other democracies which on the surface seems good but the function in terms of productivity is the same. The smaller coalitions will eventually form blocks for one wing or the other and again, leftists hold numerical value in the size of their coalition. In America it is much more reversed to the point where a third party only serves to repress the vote and since we have a democratic Republic this will always end up in a winner take all situation for one or the other wing. You might be saying well how is this a disadvantage to any one party or another in this case? Again, being a winner take all system, a third party candidate attracts votes away from people in the middle. The left wing has tons of people on their side but the right wing has the advantage of the electoral college which gives rural people more representation. A third party in a rural district might pose little threat to the right wing but in districts that are close, they are inevitably pulling votes away from the middle that the right usually gets and the left seldom cares about. The one exception to this rule is possibly the green party that has been alleged to pull crucial numbers of votes away from hillary in tossup districts but this is likely more a case of hillary being so universally hated than an indication of a third party being any real threat to the left. At the end of the day Ross Perot gave the left a victory. Ron Paul decided to run Republican and even Trump realized early on a third party is a poor choice for affecting something appearing to be change.

i agree that third party candidates can act as spoiler but i don't think it's the rule. perhaps if we had mandatory voting then it would make more sense but in a voluntary election there remain millions of uncast votes that could sway the polls. i think the way the vote totals are presented as a percentage of 100 suggests it's the full vote but in reality, what, something like only half of the public votes in the election? i guess i mostly don't like the argument that they take away votes from the two big parties, as if those parties are automatically entitled to my vote. reminds me of when tax cuts are paraded around like budget cuts, as if the budget exists without the taxes. i get the point, but it's just sort of putting the cart before the horse. i don't know. maybe mandatory elections would encourage third party votes? who knows, it's 7:30 am and i'm stoned

That's a great tag line.

3rd party: For when you are stoned and cant be bothered.

That 100% line wont be as smart as you think it is when you sober up.

[pineapplemike]

cant sober up if you dont sober up