If there was ever a year a third party could make traction... (2 Viewers)

[tenordas]

surely this is it.

One party is running a man half the country hates - no, despises, the other is running a woman even most of the other politicians in her own party can't stand.

Where are you Libertarians? Green Party? Hello?

I thought 2016 was a real shot, but the two most viable third parties both put up unelectable morons.

All one of them needs is someone actually viable and IMHO they could sway a lot of people away from these two...

 

[MT15]

That's why Trump tried to bribe Kennedy to drop out of the race and then endorse Trump.

If the polls continue to show this trend I would expect Kennedy to drop out well before the election. He’s almost entirely a Trump campaign op the way it is. His running has Roger Stone/Steve Bannon’s fingerprints all over it.

I’m not even sure he can get on the ballot in a significant number of states. I’ve read about more than one state finding enough fraudulent signatures to put his place on the ballot in jeopardy.

 

[LA - L.A.]

If the polls continue to show this trend I would expect Kennedy to drop out well before the election. He’s almost entirely a Trump campaign op the way it is. His running has Roger Stone/Steve Bannon’s fingerprints all over it.

I’m not even sure he can get on the ballot in a significant number of states. I’ve read about more than one state finding enough fraudulent signatures to put his place on the ballot in jeopardy.

Reports are that Kennedy told Trump to stuff himself, right before Trump's advisor's rescinded Trump's bribe because it was very likely illegal.

I think Stone and Bannon thought they could manipulate Kennedy as a useful idiot, but found out that Kennedy has just as big a narcissistic ego as Trump and that Kennedy has all the money he needs from his VP running mate.

 

[samiam5211]

I know what you're talking about.

That's what I'm talking about too. With your system across the 50 states, candidates A & B, or
B & C, or C & D, or D & E could win state primaries. Their could easily be 4 or 5 different combinations of candidates on general election ballots across the 50 states.

Then in the general election A could win some states, B could win some states, C could win some states, D could win some states, E could win some states. For every different candidate past two candidates that wins a state, the chances increase that no candidate will get 270 EC votes and then the House of Representatives would get to choose the president by a simple majority.

There wouldn’t be state primaries for President. Nothing in the constitution requires state primaries for President.

Nothing in the constitution says that states have control over primaries for President.

 

[Heathen]

Let's start with a reminder of of you're original statement, "One can understand that the right wishes to institute christofascism and that the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement."

Right.

I was aware of that. I was also aware of this from your own quote from that article:
So some Democratic operatives did that and other Democratic operatives fought against it. Those actions were not the actions of the Democratic Party as a party. Was the Saints organization at the time that the Saints won the Super Bowl in large part to blame for Darren Sharper's sexual assaults that took place while he was on the team that won the Super Bowl? The answer is of course, hell no.

The fact that it happens at all, and to the tune of $53 Million (at least in 2022, I haven’t found reliable 2023 data yet) is massively problematic. Were you aware this happens and is a newer tactic?

It is, in fact, directly assisting far right extremists, many of whom espouse christofascism. Democrats are playing a risky game that involves helping the very folks they claim to be bringing on the end of democracy.

And not just in some small, isolated incidents. In huge state races that could decide congressional make up in battleground states. If this doesn’t trouble one as a Democrat, and as a citizen of this nation…I don’t have much else to say.

The fact that other Democrats have spoken out against it doesn’t resonate with me. Doesn’t make it any better. What would make it better would be taking a party stance against funding the efforts of the far right.

Will they do that? They should.

So your proclamation that "the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement" of christofascism is at best a hyperbolic inaccuracy.

It’s my opinion. I stated that “one” (me or anyone else) could have said view.

Some Democrats certainly did do some things that helped some christofascists, but the Democratic Party is not, in any reasonable or rational way, in large part to blame for the advancement of christofascism in American. The large part of that blame falls squarely and solely on the christofascists.

Most of it does, of course.

But my argument is that the Democratic Party has played a big part in the expedited extremist far right narrative as of late.

 

[LA - L.A.]

First you say this:

You are talking about the general election here...I am talking about primaries.

Now you say this:

There wouldn’t be state primaries for President.

Make up your mind please.

If there are no state primaries, that would mean several candidates, including same party redundancies, would be on the general election ballot in each of the 50 states and the ballots would vary across the 50 states, just like it does now.

If each state did a ranked choice vote rather than a first past the post vote, then odds are more than 2 candidates would win some of the states and get some Electoral College votes. If more than 2 candidates get Electoral College votes, then it's highly likely no candidate gets the 270 votes to win the election.

If no candidate gets 270 votes to win the election, then the House of Representatives gets to pick the president by a simple majority vote.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The fact that it happens at all, and to the tune of $53 Million (at least in 2022, I haven’t found reliable 2023 data yet) is massively problematic. Were you aware this happens and is a newer tactic?

I already told you I knew it happened. I also told you it wasn't the actions of the Democratic Party like you proclaimed. It was the actions of some Democrats. Many Democrats fought against it.

It is, in fact, directly assisting far right extremists, many of whom espouse christofascism. Democrats are playing...

Some Democrats, not the Democratic Party like you keep falsely proclaiming.

The fact that other Democrats have spoken out against it doesn’t resonate with me.

That's obvious and the reason is obvious. You have to ignore that fact, because you want to keep falsely proclaiming that blame is on the whole Democratic Party instead of just those Democrats who acted that. You generalize so you can demonize the entire Democratic Party with blame, when it's just the actions of some Democrats.

 

[Heathen]

Yes, you said that there are many other reasons, but you haven't stated or shown any other reasons.

Another is the democrats known incompetence when it actually comes to getting things done. The fact that Roe was overturned, a move by religious extremists, was arguably as a result of a party that allowed R’s to make up and take ground time and again.

As an example.. surely you remember Clinton’s milquetoast, pushover position on abortion - about being willing to compromise on a middle ground restriction with Republicans. Biden confirmed the very man hell bent not just on making abortion illegal, but coming after gay rights, and more..

These decisions and moderate positions enable the extremists to make up ground.

Do you want more examples? Do you think these are unfair or disagree with the premise? If so, why?

You've only gave that one example that you say supports your proclamation that that the Democrat Party is in large part to blame for the advancement of christofascism People usually lead with their best example. If that's the best you've got, then you don't really have anything that supports your proclamation.

Let’s review the history of this discussion once more:

I said that the Democratic Party is complicit in what I believed was in quite a significant degree in the rise of extremist right wing ideology in the party - christofascism.

One example that I gave was that Democrats have verifiably spent tens of millions of dollars helping prop up extremist right wing candidates in hopes that voters would ultimately choose the less crazy option. A possible VP pick for Harris has done this.

And.. hold on, let me read your words back to you:

“You don’t have anything that supports your proclamation”.

It very much seems that I do.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Another is the democrats known incompetence when it actually comes to getting things done.

That's certainly your subjective opinion. It's not a fact though and there's nothing directly tying any so called "incompetence" to helping advance christofascism.

The fact that Roe was overturned, a move by religious extremists, was arguably as a result of a party that allowed R’s to make up and take ground time and again.

Again, that's certainly your subjective opinion. It's not a fact though and there's nothing directly tying any of it to helping advance christofascism.

As an example.. surely you remember Clinton’s milquetoast, pushover position on abortion - about being willing to compromise on a middle ground restriction with Republicans.

Again, that's certainly your subjective opinion. It's not a fact though and there's nothing directly tying any of it to helping advance christofascism.

Biden confirmed the very man hell bent not just on making abortion illegal, but coming after gay rights, and more.

Again, that's certainly your subjective opinion. The fact is that Biden's vote was not a deciding vote in any of those votes. Not surprised you singled him out though. There's nothing directly tying any of it to helping advance christofascism.

These decisions and moderate positions enable the extremists to make up ground.

Again, that's certainly your subjective opinion. It's not a fact though and there's nothing directly tying any of it to helping advance christofascism.

Do you want more examples?

Factual example, sure. More of your subjectively opinionated proclamations, no.

Do you think these are unfair or disagree with the premise?

I think they are subjective opinionated proclamations and that you have not provided anything to reasonably support any of them.

Let’s review the history of this discussion once more:

When you can't be honest with yourself you can't be honest with others. You actually said this:

You most certainly did not say this:

"...the Democratic Party is complicit in what I believed was in quite a significant degree in the rise of extremist right wing ideology in the party - christofascism."​

You said nothing like that at all. You're trying to rewrite the actual discussion.

Why do guys like you always try spinning the actual history of the discussion by paraphrasing rather than quoting? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

And.. hold on, let me read your words back to you:

“You don’t have anything that supports your proclamation”.

And you still haven't shown anything objective that supports your proclamation that, "the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement" of christofascism.

All you've shown is that you are very angry, opinionated and are prone to jumping to conclusions without anything to support those conclusions other than your subjective opinions.

 

[Heathen]

I already told you I knew it happened. I also told you it wasn't the actions of the Democratic Party like you proclaimed. It was the actions of some Democrats. Many Democrats fought against it.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here by saying it wasn’t the Democratic Party. No clearly it’s not the chair of the DNC allocating for spending money on boosting right wing extremists. But it’s many notable Democrats regardless. That’s a big deal.

And yes, it is, despite what you may continue to claim, a form of direct evidence to my earlier statement. Not in totality (and you know I never claimed as such) but a piece of evidence nonetheless.

Some Democrats, not the Democratic Party like you keep falsely proclaiming.

I didn’t say the entire Democratic Party, and you know that. I gave evidence to the claim that the party was responsible in some tangible way in promoting extremism.

That's obvious and the reason is obvious. You have to ignore that fact, because you want to keep falsely proclaiming that blame is on the whole Democratic Party instead of just those Democrats who acted that. You generalize so you can demonize the entire Democratic Party with blame, when it's just the actions of some Democrats.

Maybe asking clarifying questions instead of jumping straight in to the practice of generalizing yourself is a better option here.

Here’s an example to get you started:
“Are you saying the entirety of the party is to blame for ways that you claim democrats have emboldened right wing extremists?”

Here’s my answer: No. But some of them are, and it’s a dangerous trend that could lead to big consequences. Much bigger than you seem to think.

 

[Heathen]

You said nothing like that at all. You're trying to rewrite the actual discussion

Ah - so we're back to the accusation game, LA?

I must ask - do you care more about framing me for what you think I represent in your head, or about having an open discussion?

In no point in this conversation have I tried to backpedal on what was said or rewrite anything. Here are the two quotes:

1. One can understand that the right wishes to institute christofascism and that the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement of christofascism.

2. The Democratic Party is complicit in what I believed was quite a significant degree in the rise of extremist right wing ideology in the party - christofascism.

I understand that you may not agree with this theme.

I don't understand you truly thinking that the two statements are wildly different in their premise, such that you'd need to accuse me of being untruthful.

Why do guys like you always try spinning the actual history of the discussion by paraphrasing rather than quoting? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Purposefully misquote something that I said 2 pages earlier to try to spin the history - because I didn't repeat the same opinion over the aforementioned 2 pages. You're quite the sleuth, I must say.

And you still haven't shown anything objective that supports your proclamation that, "the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement" of christofascism.

This just isn't true.

I've mentioned a few topics already that you've ignored with the copy/paste statements in your last post.

But heres one we can discuss:
Roe v Wade and how that was handled during the years Democrats had a congressional majority - which is one big reason why a christofascist future in terms of women's rights is a possibility.

 

[Dragon]

You're not serious saying that, are you?

Have you seen the compound where he lives? Do you know his insane net worth? Do you know that he and his wife illegally write off the insane speech fees they receive? Have you not seen the videotape of him bragging about getting the inspector who was investigating him and his son fired by threatening not to give the money to that country until they fired him?

Please, Biden is a poster child for politicians who play the money game. He has been in the pockets of corporations and other countries his entire career.

That is Trump propaganda...


Try dealing in facts. This is how Biden earned his money and no not from foreign agents buying above market price "condos" in real estate or paying millions to stay in hotels owned by a candidate


https://www.politico.com/story/2019...15-million-after-obama-administration-1404153

 

[samiam5211]

First you say this:


Now you say this:


Make up your mind please.

If there are no state primaries, that would mean several candidates, including same party redundancies, would be on the general election ballot in each of the 50 states and the ballots would vary across the 50 states, just like it does now.

If each state did a ranked choice vote rather than a first past the post vote, then odds are more than 2 candidates would win some of the states and get some Electoral College votes. If more than 2 candidates get Electoral College votes, then it's highly likely no candidate gets the 270 votes to win the election.

If no candidate gets 270 votes to win the election, then the House of Representatives gets to pick the president by a simple majority vote.

I’m not going to do this. There is no way you don’t understand what I’m saying, but your responses suggest that you have no idea what I said.

 

[SaintForLife]

That is Trump propaganda...


Try dealing in facts. This is how Biden earned his money and no not from foreign agents buying above market price "condos" in real estate or paying millions to stay in hotels owned by a candidate


https://www.politico.com/story/2019...15-million-after-obama-administration-1404153

Your post is Biden propaganda. Should we list all the money Hunter made in Ukraine, from China or any of the other jobs that he was hired for despite Zero previous experience and he made big money?

10% for the big guy is Joe Biden.

 

[samiam5211]

Your post is Biden propaganda. Should we list all the money Hunter made in Ukraine, from China or any of the other jobs that he was hired for despite Zero previous experience and he made big money?

10% for the big guy is Joe Biden.

Go ahead. No one cares. It’s made up nonsense.

Biden isn’t on the ballot anyway.

 

[SaintForLife]

Go ahead. No one cares. Biden isn’t on the ballot.

Biden is the current President.

 

[MT15]

Your post is Biden propaganda. Should we list all the money Hunter made in Ukraine, from China or any of the other jobs that he was hired for despite Zero previous experience and he made big money?

10% for the big guy is Joe Biden.

No, you are spreading a lie about that email. The writer of the email said it didn’t refer to Joe, a fact which you and everyone else who isn’t interested in truth keeps ignoring. You want to smear Joe with what Hunter did so bad that you will repeat lies even after you know they are lies.

Joe’s tax returns are public and have been for decades. If any of what you say is true, why couldn’t Comer and Jordan prove any of it?

 

[samiam5211]

Biden is the current President.

one of the few true statements you’ve posted here.

 

[coldseat]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here by saying it wasn’t the Democratic Party. No clearly it’s not the chair of the DNC allocating for spending money on boosting right wing extremists. But it’s many notable Democrats regardless. That’s a big deal.

And yes, it is, despite what you may continue to claim, a form of direct evidence to my earlier statement. Not in totality (and you know I never claimed as such) but a piece of evidence nonetheless.



I didn’t say the entire Democratic Party, and you know that. I gave evidence to the claim that the party was responsible in some tangible way in promoting extremism.



Maybe asking clarifying questions instead of jumping straight in to the practice of generalizing yourself is a better option here.

Here’s an example to get you started:
“Are you saying the entirety of the party is to blame for ways that you claim democrats have emboldened right wing extremists?”

Here’s my answer: No. But some of them are, and it’s a dangerous trend that could lead to big consequences. Much bigger than you seem to think.

The ones who have played the biggest role in the spread of Christofascism are Conservative Christian religious churches and Republicans. They are the ones that have been preaching for it to be a dominant force in our politics.

You can make the arguments that Democrats have contributed to it in the way you've laid out, but what Democrats have done doesn't convince anybody to follow a christofascist world view. If anything, Democrats have spent copious amounts of time warning against it. Just look at how they've correctly tied Project 2025 and christofascism to Republicans and Trump and warned the electorate of its dangers.

I hear/see people all the time complaining about how it doesn't matter who the president is and who is in office (not saying this is you). They go on and on about how even though Biden won, Roe v. Wade was overturned and all on the conservative wins at the SC. It make me pull my hair out because these people don't connect direct dots from one point to the other. The state of the SC is a direct results of Hillary's loss. One election changed the course of history for 20 years. The same people who complain about this the most now are the ones who either wouldn't vote for Hillary out of protest or just didn't vote. And that's fine, that's their choice. But elections do have consequences.