Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:39 pm
If third party candidates weren't an option, I would never vote again, on a side-note.
Your best bet is to reform it completely as opposed to running under a different name. Republicans in 2025 do not resemble Republicans in 2005 in the slightest.
Democrats are beyond reform. Look at the DSA - they just shepherd hopeful progressives into the party, and then defend Biden on national media and refuse to withhold votes from him when he sends weapons to Israel.
The Democratic Party is not the solution. So many people in rural counties across the country are likely never going to vote Democratic again, so why bother trying to rebrand poison?
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
i think there are a lot of people who see the fault with the democratic leadership, at least online. i don't know how that reflects in the day to day voters. but involvement in the communities and getting the word out may potentially be good for third parties. perhaps if enough of them win locally or state level, then that can insulate in some way against the bigger two parties.
i just want the lesser evil to have the broad power, while the third parties take a bigger hold and grow their influence.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
i think there are a lot of people who see the fault with the democratic leadership, at least online. i don't know how that reflects in the day to day voters. but involvement in the communities and getting the word out may potentially be good for third parties. perhaps if enough of them win locally or state level, then that can insulate in some way against the bigger two parties.
i just want the lesser evil to have the broad power, while the third parties take a bigger hold and grow their influence.
The right has no exposure to leftists so they think the Democratic Party is indistinguishable from them.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
i think there are a lot of people who see the fault with the democratic leadership, at least online. i don't know how that reflects in the day to day voters. but involvement in the communities and getting the word out may potentially be good for third parties. perhaps if enough of them win locally or state level, then that can insulate in some way against the bigger two parties.
i just want the lesser evil to have the broad power, while the third parties take a bigger hold and grow their influence.
Will the "Lesser Evil" stop attacking third party ballot access? They literally sued the Legal Marijuana Party off Minnesota's ballot because they didn't want votes to go to their nominee.
Because if not, I don't think it makes a ton of difference.
The Democrats functionally exist both to counter Republicans and to counter the left, so they really only represent a privileged class of culturally liberal voters.
Will the "Lesser Evil" stop attacking third party ballot access? They literally sued the Legal Marijuana Party off Minnesota's ballot because they didn't want votes to go to their nominee.
Because if not, I don't think it makes a ton of difference.
results may vary from state to state. i think colorado got legal weed from the lesser evil. but i could be wrong. i guess i could look into that deeper.
Headhunter wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:27 pm
The Democrats functionally exist both to counter Republicans and to counter the left, so they really only represent a privileged class of culturally liberal voters.
This.
And their outreach to the working class in rural counties is limited to non-existent, which isn't going to help down the line.
Headhunter wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:27 pm
The Democrats functionally exist both to counter Republicans and to counter the left, so they really only represent a privileged class of culturally liberal voters.
This.
And their outreach to the working class in rural counties is limited to non-existent, which isn't going to help down the line.
They would rather lose self-righteously than move toward working class voters they view as stupid and traitors. betrayed them
Lazerus wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:22 pm
Okay guys I'm done with these threads.
have fun.
You’ll be back.
Well I was trying my best to stay in the conversations but people stopped replying so I figured I'd bow out lol
I was going to reply to your 2004 presidential election point, but I couldn't find concrete approval ratings for Bush in 2004, so I moved on.
Sorry fam.
No worries. I was just using that as a reference point in the larger discussion. The Dems could have destroyed the GOP long ago if they wanted to but they're are too damn stupid to make it happen. in 2016 they chose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders who IMO was the better candidate to go against Trump. Now even if Sanders won it wouldn't have changed anything about the U.S., anything Sanders would try to accomplish would have found itself deadlocked in legal battles but it could have kept the Dems in control and prevented this MAGA shit from happening. So to your point earlier I agree, they made Trump happen.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
i think there are a lot of people who see the fault with the democratic leadership, at least online. i don't know how that reflects in the day to day voters. but involvement in the communities and getting the word out may potentially be good for third parties. perhaps if enough of them win locally or state level, then that can insulate in some way against the bigger two parties.
i just want the lesser evil to have the broad power, while the third parties take a bigger hold and grow their influence.
The right has no exposure to leftists so they think the Democratic Party is indistinguishable from them.
but the left still holds values that the right actively threatens, right? they should be able to recognize that.
Jigsaw wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:48 pm
In the way that parties always grow - increased education, increased outreach to the community, and growing an infrastructure.
My point is that it's just as difficult to do that under the GOP domination as it is a Democratic domination. Neither are allies to third party voters, which both have consistently shown.
Unless we slip into outright fascism - by which I partially mean the banning of political parties by the state - there's not a ton of difference in building a party under Republican leadership. In fact, it likely would be easier under Republican leadership, because people theorically see what a waste of time the Democratic Party is.
The bigger problem is apathy - people who have given up entirely on voting. I saw it after the 2016 Democratic Primaries, more after the 2020 Democratic Primaries. Instead of voting for solid third party candidates, plenty of people just don't vote at all. That's not an easy thing to combat, because I entirely understand where those people are coming from.
fair, i guess. i don't agree with trying to do it under conservative control. but that seems to be the only way you're wiling to entertain. so we're at a standstill, here. otherwise, i think we are more or less on the same page, about what it means to live under a conservative government vs. liberal or democrat government.
I don't care who's control it's done under, I just know it needs to be done. If Harris had won last year, I'd have the same exact viewpoint.
The main problem is that people think the Democrats are somehow trying to protect us from Trump and his government, and that's clearly not the case. Like I said earlier, Democrats enabled Trump; they have from the very beginning (remember, the Democrats wanted a candidate like Trump or Ben Carson to become the GOP nominee in 2016 because they thought Clinton would have an easier chance to defeat them).
Democrats are dangerous because they either have no idea what they're doing, or they know exactly what they're doing, and trying to fundraise off of it. Either way, they are roadblocks, not allies.
i think there are a lot of people who see the fault with the democratic leadership, at least online. i don't know how that reflects in the day to day voters. but involvement in the communities and getting the word out may potentially be good for third parties. perhaps if enough of them win locally or state level, then that can insulate in some way against the bigger two parties.
i just want the lesser evil to have the broad power, while the third parties take a bigger hold and grow their influence.
The right has no exposure to leftists so they think the Democratic Party is indistinguishable from them.
but the left still holds values that the right actively threatens, right? they should be able to recognize that.
We do. The Democrats also threaten those rights by being so damn enabling.
People who have the privilege to vote Democratic can continue to do so - I can't control that. But it's just not the solution, and it's not helping.
Lazerus wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 2:22 pm
Okay guys I'm done with these threads.
have fun.
You’ll be back.
Well I was trying my best to stay in the conversations but people stopped replying so I figured I'd bow out lol
I was going to reply to your 2004 presidential election point, but I couldn't find concrete approval ratings for Bush in 2004, so I moved on.
Sorry fam.
2004 is when Bush’s ratings started to dip but they held off Kerry with an overtly jingoistic campaign and once elected, there was immediate buyer’s remorse and his ratings continued to decline over that second term.
