Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wherein stanky explains his political dyspepsia:
#1
There's a mes of voices i find myself more or less aligned with.
Their critical focus is not on Trump, even though they all hate him...their focus is on the corruption of the dnc.
And the need for a viable 3rd party.

The obsession with bringing down Trump always exposes the corruption of the other team. It happened with Hillary. It's happening with Biden. It's happening with Warren.  As it should.

Why can't we have a third party?

Because our rulers won't permit it.
They are fine with the one party system, in its two flavors...dems and pubs.

This innate corruption is so well established that we decide who qualifies for a spot on the debate stage by the amount of money they raise.
We may as well decide our elections on the money alone.It's a very reliable parameter.
Reply
#2
What sort of corruption does Liz Warren have hanging around her neck outside of stretching the truth regarding her 'native american' heritage? Hillary: That's a given. Biden: Maybe. But Warren?
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#3
https://twitter.com/i/status/1184536552342544384
Ask not what is the problem but, rather, where is the lesion.
Reply
#4
Mammon 2020.
"Who's with me?." - stanky
Reply
#5
(10-18-2019, 04:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  Why can't we have a third party?

Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, the Greenmunists...

You can have a third party, just nobody votes for them.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#6
Ii agree with that 3rd Party opinion Stanky.

We've got a couple polling well enough to be a nuisance to the major players, 7 to 11% depending on where and when the elections are.
They sprang from opposite poles oddly enough so both are really just catchments for the bailing, more extremist voter base of both sides.  

The Consos (Liberal/Nationals) are not right enough for One Nation voters and Labor's not left enough for the Greeniacs. 
There is also a couple of budding Parties which may fit that middle ground,  their policies and agendas are more 'reality' grounded than the other two.

Neither poll well enough yet to make a difference,  however there's one ... this will make you cringe... The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party that is getting some air lately.  

It was formed decades ago as the Shooters and Fishers Party, in protest against the ridiculous interference in rural matters by the clueless city Greens which wanted to ban ALL guns, even on farms, and also ban recreational fishing... everywhere!

It's not as Americans may presume a form of NRA right to bear arms outfit, far from it.  Shooters here has a far different connotation and is only labelled "Right wing" by the Left wing media.  It's Centrist and it's policies aimed at pragmatic farming types which are far lefter than US farmers in the  bible belt are portrayed.  Different species entirely.  It is too narrowly focused to ever be a major player on the world stage, but it shows signs of keeping things a little more balanced domestically.

It was realised recently that all the members were from the farming community and that they were getting the spillage of people who were finally realising that the old "Country Party", now the Nationals, were more interested in representing big automated agriculture, and mining leases, than they were in the actual small holdings farmers who were their voter base.  So the Party added 'Farmers' to it's registered name and it's shot up in the polls.  (excuse the unintentional pun.)

It's  VERY popular in the outer rural regions as despite it's name it's manned entirely by people with interests in the agricultural sector who understand the need for guns on farms.  The Fishers part is fairly moot now and they should drop it.   They have a better grasp, and better policies, than the Nats who are aligned in the Conso coalition and being hijacked by conservative, business interests.  

The SFFP won't however ever garner much support in the cities for obvious reasons.

Maybe there's a Party over there that could rejig, broaden, and modernise it's policies and harvest that 'spillage' from the majors?   Forget the Greens, they're poison ivy dressed up as meadow daisies.

Any other small Parties which aren't one man bands with a reasonably pragmatic set of policies that could be polished up a bit and appeal to more than a very narrow range of interests?


You do need a Central/3rd party.  We had a good one,  The Australian Democrats.  It's slogan was "Keeping the bastards honest!"  And it did!

But when it's founder left the scene the scatterbrains took it over and it drifted too far left and everybody stopped voting for it as it became meaningless and useless to everyone.

Politics seems to go ever thus doesn't it?
Reply
#7
(10-18-2019, 10:17 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(10-18-2019, 04:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  Why can't we have a third party?

Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, the Greenmunists...

You can have a third party, just nobody votes for them.

It's more complex than that.
The media monopolies won't allow them a voice; the arcane debate rules prevent them from appearing; innate corruption in the 2 party system foils them at every turn. Even the internet is leaning towards censorship with demonetizing and spam bots.
Ros Perot managed a decent showing, but only because he was a billionaire. We actually have several parties, technically.
But they have no voice.
Reply
#8
(10-18-2019, 07:15 PM)sparks Wrote:  What sort of corruption does Liz Warren have hanging around her neck outside of stretching the truth regarding her 'native american' heritage?  Hillary:  That's a given.  Biden:  Maybe.  But Warren?

She was a Reagan republican up until 1996. She has a honesty problem that goes beyond the Pocahontas issue. I'll dig up some dirt for you shortly.
Reply
#9
(10-19-2019, 07:20 AM)stanky Wrote:  But they have no voice.

Yet, wasn't it only days ago you were telling me how there's a grassroots movement?

The Russian Revolution occurred in a time of no internet at all and almost no newspapers or phones.

The French Revolution pre-dated mass communication by over a century.

I repeat - the problem isn't lack of ability to communicate ideas, it's wage slavery. Nobody has the time or ability to give a fuck.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#10
... or they're really not hurting as much as they did in Russia or France ... yet. ?

... Or they're not as pissy as the Poms? They even rebel against the "rebellion". you saw what the 'working class' Pom thinks of people telling them what do, especially if they delay the trains.

They look ready to mix up the system with some dodgy voting next time their parliament is game enough to have an election.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)