• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters.

I could easily see Trump launching a more combative pseudo-party within the Republican party, very much like the Tea Party. They might challenge traditional conservatives in primaries and try to throw their weight around as a block-vote, should they achieve enough victories for this to be effective.
 
No Other said:
Can you enlighten me and tell me what I thought?
Click to expand...

Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists."

No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party.

Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists."

No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party.

Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.
Click to expand...

Sure, I wasn't saying it's a bad thing. You can say a lot of negative things about the Tea Party (mostly that they were just a thinly veiled racist backlash to Obama), but you can't say the tactics didn't work.

Compare that to the Libertarian party, a third party with a long history of mostly no electoral accomplishment.

The progressives aren't a third party because they want to actually have a chance to accomplish something. The Tea Party revolution showed that working from within the party, through primary challenges and forming a sub-party within the party, is the practical route.

Trump is talking about forming a true third party, by some reports. It's a hopeless endeavor, unless enough conservatives leave that they become the new home of the majority of conservatives.

There's already a core of politicians that could form the MAGA sub party within the Republican party. The Q congresspeople, the recent MAGA types, etc. Seems Trump's political ambitions would probably be better served just forming a camp within the camp rather than a true third party.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
you are illustrating my point nicely.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future.

Dave
Click to expand...

oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.
 
dasmiller said:
I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I've been a functional Democrat (at the national level) for many years now because the Republicans have gone kinda crazy. I'd much prefer to be choosing between two decent, responsible parties. Currently, I find myself choosing between, "Eh, maybe," and "Oh, God, not that!"

I remember being very pleased about the 2008 Presidential election because I liked both McCain and Obama*. I think that's how our elections should always be, and I'd be thrilled to see the U.S. get back to that.

*Neither were perfect, and I can point out things that I consider serious lapses by both of them. But I don't think it's realistic to expect un-flawed candidates. Or people in general.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and nothing about 2012 even really sticks out in my mind for the sort of rancor we've seen since. We went in just those few short years from McCain's (referring to Obama)
He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President, If I didn’t think I’d be one heck of a better President I wouldn’t be running, and that’s the point. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful, and let’s make sure we are. Because that’s the way politics should be conducted in America.
Click to expand...
to Trump's "you'll be in jail" and leading chants of "lock her up!" against Clinton.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again.
Click to expand...
Snide comment noticed and understood. What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum.
 
Delvo said:
People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart.

Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how if both parties are already the same (your assertion) , one of the two identical parties fracturing would be bad for the remaining party? Seems to me that a fracture would actually create a party that is actually different from the 2 parties you claim are the same now, thus creating actual competition.

Of course, not many of us think the 2 parties are the same. In fact, you previously claimed that the US would be better re-electing Trump, which certainly implies that you also don't think both parties are just like each other. Hmmm, a quandary.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.
Click to expand...

Because it was never about fiscal conservatism.

We heard a lot about increasingly open white nationalism from the tea party turned MAGA block, and that's really what they were always about. Fiscal restraint was just useful PR for their obstinance to the Obama administration.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.
Click to expand...

To poke at this... We did? The Tea Party was one of the notable factors that prevented the Republicans from actually getting anything of note done while the Republicans had the House in the first 2 years, then faced irrelevance when Democrats had the majority in the House, so they simply don't get much attention now... because of their current irrelevance and because Trump's been hogging the news space. They haven't gone away, at last check.

As SuburbanTurkey notes, though, it was only ever really about fiscal conservatism superficially. That was a rallying cry, but it very quickly became evident that that's not what they were actually about.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I could see Trump doing that - as retaliation on republicans for inssuficiently supporting his coup efforts. In this case, that third party never was intended to win anything, just drag republicans down with them.

Unfortunately, it is kinda unlikely.

The Great Zaganza said:
It's far more likely that the Democrats will split ... and that might not be a bad thing for them.
Click to expand...

They will split only if republicans cease to exist somehow. It would be nice to have actually lefty party in USA, though. It is also kinda unlikely.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters.

I could easily see Trump launching a more combative pseudo-party within the Republican party, very much like the Tea Party. They might challenge traditional conservatives in primaries and try to throw their weight around as a block-vote, should they achieve enough victories for this to be effective.
Click to expand...

Trump would want a third party for one reason and one reason alone - so he can have rallies.
 
Trump doesn't want a political party; he wants a cult which worships him and gives him absolute and unquestioning power. He can't go back to real estate. It's too boring now. He's tasted real power and he's addicted to it. His NPD won't be satisfied with anything less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom