patrick.net

As a Southerner that heard the mantra the South Will Rise Again, growing up in South Carolina during the Reagan years.

It was Democrats that wore those hats.

In fact! It was Carter's Presidency that gave rise to that Mantra.

"Many" is a lie.

Wrong: in addition to GOP and stupid racist donkeys we have Greenies and Commies. That makes it a 4-party system. So your wish is granted. Happy now?

Well, Democrats are currently splintering into the normal pandering DNC (Killary, Kamala, etc), and the Islamo-Socialist wing of the DNC (Occasional Cortex, Sanders, Omar, etc).

If we moved to a Ranked Voting system, 3rd parties would have a fighting chance.

I'd also be for using Ranked Voting combined with a popular vote BUT ONLY if the voter fraud could be stopped. Popular vote right now would be a disaster because of vote-harvesting areas of some states.

Goran_K says

Well, Democrats are currently splintering into the normal pandering DNC (Killary, Kamala, etc), and the Islamo-Socialist wing of the DNC (Occasional Cortex, Sanders, Omar, etc).

So maybe 3 major parties?

Republican
Democratic
Democrat-Socialists

HeadSet says

Goran_K says

Well, Democrats are currently splintering into the normal pandering DNC (Killary, Kamala, etc), and the Islamo-Socialist wing of the DNC (Occasional Cortex, Sanders, Omar, etc).

So maybe 3 major parties?

Republican
Democratic
Democrat-Socialists

No matter how the parties are named or created - the shit eventually (and rather quickly) settles into effectively two-party system.

Europe uses 5 to 12 parties to make sure the Establishment wins.

All you need is the other 4 parties to be beholden to the Establishment then that one pesky party trying to do the People's will, is guaranteed to never win elections.

Democrats love the sound of extra parties now, but I had to fist fight a table full of Liberals during the 2008 election, when I told them I voted for Nader.

Yeah, left are famous for hating and burning the books:

Hugolas_Madurez says

Yeah, left are famous for hating and burning the books:

Yup. Collectivism will always result in book burning, and eventually people burning. Today this is embodied by the intersectionalist left, as well as the extreme right.

The problem is intersectionality is being pushed as moral righteousness (think 1930's weimar germany).

Whereas the right has no issue whatsoever in drawing a circle around right wing collectivists and saying GTFO to those assholes. The left cant seem to get enough of their own toxicity. This is why the KKK has a few thousand members whereas antifa has a few thousand chapters and potentially millions if active supporters. It's absolutely gross.

Individualism is the answer, but the left will call you nazi (again think 1930's weimar germany out of control righteousness).

A 3 party system. Let's get away from 2.

Then you support Howard Shultz 2020 running as an independent?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Yams N' Guns

Is this the name of the party?

HeadSet says

Then you support Howard Shultz 2020 running as an independent?

Ahahahaha!
Way to troll him!

We need to go to a 1 party system.

epitaph says

We need to go to a 1 party system.

Already there - DemoPublican. This party supports wide open borders and huge oppressive government. Trump came in and annexed the Republican wing of the Demopublican party and is trying to make changes such as shrinking government and closing the free flow of illegals.

Looks like Republicans were for immigration before they were against it.

Republicans and Democrats have always been for unfettered illegal immigration. Votes and cheap labor. Trump is the only President in years that actually wants to stop it.

And by the way, that quote was from Robert E Lee, a Democrat who led a war against the Republicans who wanted to end slavery.

epitaph says

We need to go to a 1 party system.

We already have it in CA.

Hugolas_Madurez says

epitaph says

We need to go to a 1 party system.

We already have it in CA.

We already have it in the USA.

Think Harlem Globetrotters vs Washington Generals... it just looks like there's two teams (when it's just entertainment for the masses).

We don't need more parties as much as we need more politicians who actually understand the Constitution. As it is, half the DNC doesn't even think the Constitution is a valid document anymore.

SunnyvaleCA says

If we moved to a Ranked Voting system, 3rd parties would have a fighting chance.

I'd also be for using Ranked Voting combined with a popular vote BUT ONLY if the voter fraud could be stopped. Popular vote right now would be a disaster because of vote-harvesting areas of some states.

Jill Stein (Green Party nominee) campaigned on ranked choice voting, i.e. 1st and 2nd choice. She reasoned that would allow people to vote their hopes instead of merely their fears. 2016 showed the need: each major party nominated a candidate with majority disapproval, and campaigned largely on demonizing the other party's nominee. Ranking two choices would be ideal. Ranking 3 or more can lead to theoretical problems that mathematicians can argue against, and logistical complications. Ranking two is easy and reliable, and would incentivize all parties towards candidates and policies that are at least tolerable to more voters.

We have already an unlimited number of parties.

As for the popular vote, the main issue with NPVIC is that it has no defense against fraud. Fraud can result from ballot stuffing, or the easily hacked paperless ballot machines that control already more than 20% of votes. Those proprietary, paperless machines have no accountability at all: it is clear they can be hacked, and there is no way to know if they were or not.

I want a new party. I call it the "You've Gotta Be Shitting Me" party.

MrMagic says

Hugolas_Madurez says

epitaph says

We need to go to a 1 party system.

We already have it in CA.

We already have it in the USA.

I disagree. If this was the case and two parties were just "two sides of the same coin", why won't they "maintain the appearances" in CA?

Just too early to tell and all predictions are absurd at this point. Schulz is suffering another case of 'billionaire manifest destiny' to use his money to trumpet. I would say, 'move along here, nothing to see yet'.

Kamala or Warren neck and neck with Trump? Booosheeeyat!

They probably will run him in swing and red states because they think he can take conservative votes.

Hugolas_Madurez says

I disagree. If this was the case and two parties were just "two sides of the same coin", why won't they "maintain the appearances" in CA?

Any chance a Blue state like CA is offsetting a Red state(s) somewhere else? In the end, it's a sum of the individual states.

OccasionalCortex says

They HAVE to know that Schultz will split the anybody-but-Trump vote, thus guaranteeing a Trump re-election victory.

Any chance, after the field thins out, he could flip to a Democrat, just like Bernie did? CNN giving him exposure to help that transition?

Give him early exposure and let him burn out ... early.

Or, maybe CNN is just after eyeballs/profits. Whatever brings in the viewers. Shults is a breadth of fresh air generally, and especially compared to CNN's 90%+ Trump bashing.

I watched part of it. It was great. It was filled with lefties who want him to agree with Ocasio Cortez's proposals. The left is truly pushing hard to go batshit crazy. It's funny to read the comments on it. Just a ton of liberals screaming he is out of touch.

He started talking about the real question should be how we lower taxes on the middle class and the host immediately cuts him off and asks how much he as a billionaire should be paying. They are all more concerned with taxing wealthy people than lowering their own costs.

Why would CNN run a Howie Schultz Town Hall? To let the AOC crowd get a go at him to expose Schultz as an evil billionaire. Maybe exposing Schultz early on to such attacks will convince him to drop out before Schultz gets any traction and confidence.

I fully endorse a FortWayne party. You can be my first minion Elgatouno.

MrMagic says

Hugolas_Madurez says

I disagree. If this was the case and two parties were just "two sides of the same coin", why won't they "maintain the appearances" in CA?

Any chance a Blue state like CA is offsetting a Red state(s) somewhere else? In the end, it's a sum of the individual states.

Maybe, but it seems odd they keep the appearances of two-party system at federal level while not bothering at the state's. This is one sloppy conspiracy...

read my lips

They evolved.

http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery

You have to remember that eugenics was the science de jeur. Scientists were obsessed w genetic differences between races. Blacks were legitimately seen as half retarded by educated westerners.

In these deeply racist times, Lee beautifully expresses his empathetic sentiment for blacks, and complete disapproval of slavery.

Considering England outlawed slavery only 20 years earlier, general Lee expected slavery to end by political means. He rightfully considered the peaceful, yet longer route as preferable to a civil war. It is also difficult to suggest the north had righteous goals, considering Lincoln neither freed their own slaves NOR the slaves of southerners who were loyal to the north. "On September 22, soon after the Union victory at Antietam, he issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the rebellious states “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

RE Lee was a great man. It is both absurd and innacurate to judge a letter written from husband to wife in the 1850's by todays PC moral standard. If the congressman doesnt want this piece of history, I'd gladly accept it into my own library.

HEYYOU says

"When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases."

And circles are round!

The democrats/left are made up of 1. well off idiots 2. poor idiots 3. govt. workers 4. foreigners who can vote

Most of the above have envy for anyone who is able to succeed, and whom they perceive as having characteristics they wish they had. The envy becomes dislike and therefore they slightly hate the people who have an affinity for Shultz or Trump.

Michael Moore for example doesn't envy my wealth, he is rich; he envies my appearance because I'm not a fat slob who could work in a circus.

Foreign females I know who got here via marriage to an American male have a little envy for anyone who was actually born here. They also are ignorant about how the govt. actually gets its money.

Poor people obviously envy and dislike the wealthy and successful; they also vote their pocketbooks or wallets. I know some of them, and they really think it's unfair I have more than they do; but they don't want to admit it's brains and self-discipline that distinguishes me from them.

I know so many people around who may bitch about Trump and his ilk, but I notice they are cautious about it around me because I am the one who can potentially "help" them. it's interesting.

I on the other hand have a different form of Tourette;s; I say whatever the fuck I want to because I don't need a job.

RE Lee was a great man.

Fully agree. I was just showing the absurdity of the poster who put a quote by Lee to assert Republicans were for immigration. Lee did quite a bit for Virginia after the War.

HeadSet says

RE Lee was a great man.

Fully agree. I was just showing the absurdity of the poster who put a quote by Lee to assert Republicans were for immigration. Lee did quite a bit for Virginia after the War.

Yes the OP is indeed absurd.

Trump wants to increase immigration. Legal immigrants are employed, responsible adults AKA good americans.

HEYYOU says

I'm wondering what could happen between now & the 2020 election.
"Just my imagination
Running away with me"

So what are you implying? Are you planning to run in 2020 as well?

SJWs heads explode at Schultz.
Neoliberals love him.

Let the great Divide Begin.

Go Schultz Go!