Forward Party

[Craig4]

I'm not ready to join the pig pile of hate or start warming up for the funeral dirge just yet. I've only know about this for two days. I'd like the see and hear more about it before I start lamenting its demise. A presidential unity ticket might be a realistic option. I could see a Whitman, Kinzinger ticket or a Whitman, Doug Jones ticket doing well.

They'd need a couple of Senate seats though to be effective in the presidency. Two king makers would do it. Angus King and Susan Collins might be wooable.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'm not ready to join the pig pile of hate or start warming up for the funeral dirge just yet. I've only know about this for two days. I'd like the see and hear more about it before I start lamenting its demise. A presidential unity ticket might be a realistic option. I could see a Whitman, Kinzinger ticket or a Whitman, Doug Jones ticket doing well.

They'd need a couple of Senate seats though to be effective in the presidency. Two king makers would do it. Angus King and Susan Collins might be wooable.

This is hardly the first "not one of the two major parties" to come along.

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

75% of the population may support each issue, but it's not necessarily the same 75% for each of them.

It would be nearly impossible, and certainly unrealistic, for there not to be a significant overlap. I won't speak for others, but from my perspective any candidate who was 75% on my top 2-3 items and then only hit 30-40% on the next 2-3 items would probably end up with my vote, as that would be head and shoulders above what any candidate has managed in the last 50 years or so.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

...it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

Whether they know it , or not, they are running 3rd party to influence of shift the agenda of one or both dominant parties, not making a serious effort to reform or change the current corporate duopoly, or realistically govern the nation.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

This is hardly the first "not one of the two major parties" to come along.

Yeah! Whatever happened to that ventriloquist dummy, the Howdy Doody looking Texan homunculus? Not the one who became president, the earlier one who tried but didn't make it.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

This says plenty about what Trump was willing to do to stay in power, but not much about his true political leanings - which are and always have been conservative.

He's relatively apolitical. Does Trump believe the average retard should have access to firearms? Does he actually care about abortion? Sam sex marriage?

Quote:

Why do I say that? The fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thought is empathy. Conservatives don't have it. They only care about themselves. Nothing that Trump did showed any shred of empathy. Where he espoused a liberal stance it was only because it might benefit him personally. Why did he even want to become president? To make America a better place - or to spite Obama, bask in the popularity, and monetize it?

Trump appealed to the Deplorables because his selfishness resonated with them. This explains his (and their) position better than any 'right' or 'left' label put on an issue.

I agree that Trump is temperamentally conservative, but I don't think the difference between liberals and conservatives is empathy and/or selfishness. I more or less buy into Jonathan Haidt's claims in The Righteous Mind, which says conservatives are inclined toward purity, in-group loyalty, and hierarchy. In his TED talk, Haidt gives the example of a dog. Liberals prefer a pooch who is friendly toward others and sees people as equals "because liberals like to say 'fetch -- please!'" Conservatives prefer a dog that is suspicious of strangers and fiercely loyal to the group. When it comes to White Nationalists, they're sometimes undeniably altruistic toward "their" people. There are religious conservatives who give to their church until it hurts.

Trump's famously germaphobic, so his disgust sensitivity probably inclines him toward conservatism. He also loves hierarchy -- seeing the world as winners and losers -- but exhibits almost in-group loyalty. He's comically narcissistic and opportunistic.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Not just Europe and not just them + other similarly advanced countries either; practically all American politicians are even substantially to the right of the American people.

Oh, I agree. In 2004, some political scientists made headlines for saying the presidential candidate most line with Americans' views of the issues was Dennis Kucinch.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You seem to have trouble dealing with the fact that most Americans are not as far to the left as you are.

The Democratic party as it is today consistently gets a majority share of the vote in nationwide elections. Their problems are not about policy, but rather demographics and competence. This effort would address either.

As to what people actually want this board on the whole is a font of the same sort of self-reflective cluelessness related to the above.

Originally Posted by Cain

Trump was the least conservative candidate in 2016. He was a Republican who said Social Security and Medicare would be unmolested. Wasn't he the only candidate who refused to sign Norquist's Tax Pledge? He held up a rainbow flag, declared NATO obsolete, and vowed not to get into more wars. He staked out a traditionally conservative, anti-corporate position on immigration and the southern border. By 2020, he was Mr. Conservative (who proudly wanted his signature on stimulus checks).

I mean, he gets it. Trump initially ran as the exact labor friendly populist as did Perot. Except that Trump was lying about caring about workers, had major party backing, and an even more anti-establishment electorate. Plus he didn't quit midstream.

Trump's approach is the approach to centrism that worked. That he lies about it constantly is besides the point.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am a "Centrist" who freely admits the GOP has gone stark raving mad.
I just don't think that to go bonkers in the opposite direction is a answer.

We get it, You're a political pacifist. You'll prevent any solution to a problem so long as you can't be blamed for creating the problem. If you saw a drowning man and your choice was to throw him a life preserver or an anchor, you'd look for a middle ground between the two.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Trakar

The more politically oriented, poverty stricken, third cousin of lord Elon.

How long before he has a show on CNN or MSNBC?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Donal

Quote:

I am a "Centrist" who freely admits the GOP has gone stark raving mad.
I just don't think that to go bonkers in the opposite direction is a answer.

We get it, You're a political pacifist. You'll prevent any solution to a problem so long as you can't be blamed for creating the problem. If you saw a drowning man and your choice was to throw him a life preserver or an anchor, you'd look for a middle ground between the two.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between policies and tactics.

It is quite possible for democrats to take both a moderate political stance (e.g. wanting improved health care without an all-government "bernie-care" program) but also be willing to engage in hard-ball tactics. You don't have to be a fan of far-left politics to think that the Democrats should (for example) use the nuclear option to fix the supreme court.

[Donal]

I 100% agree with that. there are plenty of Democrats who aren't super progressive but are fighters. They aren't afraid of being called "uncivil" and just plainly speaking the truth about the GQP. Stacey Abrams is a good example. He don't see her tucking tail and running or attacking progressives for the sake of seeming "moderate and reasonable". Gavin Newsome is starting to show some fire too. They may not agree with the progressives, but they aren't equating folks who want to give healthcare with the Proud Boys.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

This is extremely important.

If the Forward Party were really pushing for the breakdown of the two-party system, they would run in local elections with their primary focus being on a change to how congressional/electoral votes are portioned, such as a transition to rank-choice voting. Jumping straight into Congress or the White House (as we see so often with third parties) just looks like a vanity run without the celebrity.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Hardlinr ideologue hates moderates. What a surpriae.

ANybody who does not demand government seizure of all businesses is probably a corporate shill in your book.

Just in case you aren't aware, this type of rhetoric makes you look like the opposite of a moderate.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Quote:

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

This is extremely important.

If the Forward Party were really pushing for the breakdown of the two-party system, they would run in local elections with their primary focus being on a change to how congressional/electoral votes are portioned, such as a transition to rank-choice voting. Jumping straight into Congress or the White House (as we see so often with third parties) just looks like a vanity run without the celebrity.

I am not completely convinced that that would work.

Like it or not, a run for the presidency provides a lot of free publicity. If some new party decided to concentrate only on the local elections, would they get enough attention to win seats? Or would they appear as just some fringe party. A run for the presidency (even if not successful, at least one that gains some attention) would help down-ballot candidates.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You seem to have trouble dealing with the fact that most Americans are not as far to the left as you are.

Yea Regan was a RINO by any reasonable standard, why he would fit in with the democrats of today.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Delvo

What's the "bonkers" that anybody's going to the left? What are these "bonkers" extremist positions that people supposedly believe and are damaging the country by so viciously fighting for?

Universal health care. That commie Nixon supported it and he tried to defect to Red China.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Not just Europe and not just them + other similarly advanced countries either; practically all American politicians are even substantially to the right of the American people.

This makes the mistake that americans are a civilized people. They are not and need to be compared to similarly uncivilized people.

[seayakin]

Christine Todd Whitman was interviewed on NPR today. She said there goal is to get on state ballots. According to wikipedia, "Forward has one political party affiliate at the state level seeking to achieve ballot access and seeks to have affiliates with ballot access in 29 other states by 2023 and ballot access in all 50 states by 2024."

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by seayakin

Christine Todd Whitman was interviewed on NPR today. She said there goal is to get on state ballots. According to wikipedia, "Forward has one political party affiliate at the state level seeking to achieve ballot access and seeks to have affiliates with ballot access in 29 other states by 2023 and ballot access in all 50 states by 2024."

It is always good to have goals, the questions are, how likely are these goals to be achieved in the timeframes indicated, and what is the likelihood that this party won't be subject to capture and manipulation by Capital?

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Trakar

It is always good to have goals, the questions are, how likely are these goals to be achieved in the timeframes indicated, and what is the likelihood that this party won't be subject to capture and manipulation by Capital?

I think much of this is yet to be seen and they have much to prove at this point. I haven't read a lot of detail about the Forward Party to know if they have tried to respond to questions like these but it would be good questions for them.

I don't see any way a party can ignore the financial realities of running for office in the United States. I'm assuming that is what you meant by the "manipulation of Capital."

[shemp]

Why would any big money donors give them anything? They give to the two big parties to gain influence with those in D.C. who gets things done. The Forward Party has no reason for these donors to give them anything, and without that they can't mount any kind of serious campaign. I don't like this, it's just the reality of it.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by seayakin

...I don't see any way a party can ignore the financial realities of running for office in the United States. I'm assuming that is what you meant by the "manipulation of Capital."

I would have considered the direct funding/support of candidates more to be in the arena of "captured by Capital" manipulated is probably more in the realm of privately funded super PACs and party controlled but candidate distinct political groups (AKA DSCC, RSCC, DHCC, RHCC, state parties, various lobbyist/legislative policy groups etc.)

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by shemp

Why would any big money donors give them anything? They give to the two big parties to gain influence with those in D.C. who gets things done. The Forward Party has no reason for these donors to give them anything, and without that they can't mount any kind of serious campaign. I don't like this, it's just the reality of it.

These actors aren't strapped for cash and influence is their primary resource. It is cheap for them to addict/corrupt 3rd party candidates, you don't think they'll wait until after these candidates start getting re-elected before they do what they do, do you?

[I Am The Scum]

The recent raid on Trump's Florida residence has Yang yearning to establish his centrist creds

Quote:

It looks increasingly like the FBI raid was to find mishandled classified documents and not some other DOJ investigation which was my first thought. Mishandling documents doesn’t seem like raid material. It does however seem like excellent campaign material for Trump.

Quote:

I’m no Trump fan. I want him as far away from the White House as possible. But a fundamental part of his appeal has been that it’s him against a corrupt government establishment. This raid strengthens that case for millions of Americans who will see this as unjust persecution.

Quote:

Unfortunately I fear we will look back on this as a day that activated extremism and not the opposite.

That last one is particularly out of touch. By day he means today, August 9, 2022. The man is somehow tweeting from inside a decade-long coma.

[Venom]

Yang and Gabbard always do this very concerned routine whenever a Republican is the target. If a Democrat experienced this after inciting an insurrection a year earlier no doubt they'd be all about Law and Order. Slimeballs.

[Delphic Oracle]

Yup, classic concern trolling.

Also a way to seem to be both endorsing and denouncing the obviously opportunistic/irrational take at the same time.

Also another reminder that so many Americans have taken being upset about the reaction to a bad thing while ignoring the bad thing itself to a high art.

[Suddenly]

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

You sound positively (Ayn) Randian:

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”

[dudalb]

I have noted that right and left wing militants often hate each other a lot less then they both hate the moderates.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

What total B.S.

[JoeMorgue]

I mean if you just go outside, touch grass, and remember that the political spectrum doesn't actually exist as a real thing then.... what are we doing?

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Brainster

You sound positively (Ayn) Randian:

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

I see self styled moderates pushing back. I would modify your post a bit and use "neutrality" in place of centrism. Being neutral is the coward's way under the political conditions we see today. An objective observer I think would have to admit the Andrew Yang type neutrality on the divisive issues is cowardly or naive at best.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Venom

I see self styled moderates pushing back. I would modify your post a bit and use "neutrality" in place of centrism. Being neutral is the coward's way under the political conditions we see today. An objective observer I think would have to admit the Andrew Yang type neutrality on the divisive issues is cowardly or naive at best.

Nah, **** that. Why does appeasement always need to lean right? If they don't like what it says about them where they are, unable to choose between a party of howling sentient klan hoods snorting horse paste vs a party just trying to fix things, that's on them.

And that is where they are. If every current politician got hit in the hypotheticals and couldn't run such that choice was Andrew Yang or AOC (who triggers dudalb in particular), they'd vote Yang in a heartbeat. Cowardly, naive at best Yang. Because standing betwixt and not rocking the boat is more important to their egos than striving to make anything better.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

Yes, Yes, Yes.

I'm a realist and am often just as mad at my liberal no compromise compatriots as I am at right wing mad as a hatter Republican nutters.

There are times to hold your ground and there are times you know you are going to have to negotiate and compromise. The smart man knows the difference.

[Delvo]

That scenario of asking politicians to choose Yang or AOC is a perfect illustration of what's really wrong with this project. AOC actually does sometimes distinguish herself from both parties and resist what they're doing and try to get changes made to make things better. Yang & Gang are putting on a show pretending to go against the grain while actually falling thoroughly in line.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

Taxes = good and evil?
Social Safety Net = good and evil?
How about being fair to our LBGT brethren?

What issues are good and evil and black and white?

And even if you think something is immoral, isn't war and battle sometimes more evil? I've seen and read about many terrible awful wars whereas both sides thought Gott Mit Uns. Often IMV they were dead wrong.

Remember the lesson of Robespierre.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

Compromise as a tactic is fine. Compromise as a strategy, not so much...