Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

Doh! I overlooked the obvious starting point. Good call! Will it be the Judean People's Front...or the Popular Front of Judea?

Is Bob Barr still alive? Seriously. I know Roseanne Barr is...

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

Which is great, until you get around to topics that actually do involve money (taxes, funding, etc). At which time, people tend to act on a very personal basis and become very concerned over their money, as well as other people's money. Maybe if you can come up with a society where there is no money then your plan could get going. So how do we do that?

Vote for Ivy

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

I don't see why it's inherently corrupt for a third party to get its "angel financing" from a group of "reasonable centrist and wealthy people." I always thought that the basic tenets of the Third Party that folks on this board seem to coalesce around are (a) fiscal responsibility/spending reduction, (b) entitlement reform, (c) avoidance of unnecessary "foreign entanglements," and (d) government out of our bedrooms. If such a party receives the benevolence of, say, the Coke Sisters, and it gets on the ballot in all 50 states as a result, what's the problem?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

Which is great, until you get around to topics that actually do involve money (taxes, funding, etc). At which time, people tend to act on a very personal basis and become very concerned over their money, as well as other people's money. Maybe if you can come up with a society where there is no money then your plan could get going. So how do we do that?

Are you saying that, because people tend to "vote their wallets," and people's economic circumstances vary greatly, it wouldn't be worth pursuing the formation of a Centrist UniGanny Party?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

I don't see why it's inherently corrupt for a third party to get its "angel financing" from a group of "reasonable centrist and wealthy people." I always thought that the basic tenets of the Third Party that folks on this board seem to coalesce around are (a) fiscal responsibility/spending reduction, (b) entitlement reform, (c) avoidance of unnecessary "foreign entanglements," and (d) government out of our bedrooms. If such a party receives the benevolence of, say, the Coke Sisters, and it gets on the ballot in all 50 states as a result, what's the problem?

Sign me up.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Which is great, until you get around to topics that actually do involve money (taxes, funding, etc). At which time, people tend to act on a very personal basis and become very concerned over their money, as well as other people's money. Maybe if you can come up with a society where there is no money then your plan could get going. So how do we do that?

Are you saying that, because people tend to "vote their wallets," and people's economic circumstances vary greatly, it wouldn't be worth pursuing the formation of a Centrist UniGanny Party?

I think as I always have - the two parties we currently have, or the ones we used to have historically, are large enough in scope that a third party can never last for long outside of them as the overlap between the third party and an existing one is sufficient enough to render the third party redundant, if not right away then after a short while. Wow, long sentence.

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

I don't know about the Green Party but with respect to the Libertarian Party the answer is "no." There's no way Libertarian principles can be considered "centrist" in today's context.

I think they're (we're) generally correct. I think that in the "center" of today's political/philosophical framework is the wrong place to be. I think our culture is way off track. But Libertarianism is not, right now, near the "center."

JohnStOnge wrote:

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

I don't know about the Green Party but with respect to the Libertarian Party the answer is "no." There's no way Libertarian principles can be considered "centrist" in today's context.

I think they're (we're) generally correct. I think that in the "center" of today's political/philosophical framework is the wrong place to be. I think our culture is way off track. But Libertarianism is not, right now, near the "center."

So you think we are a center-left/progressive country?

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

We already have one truly centrist party. Why would we want another?

EWURanger wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Random thoughts/questions.

1. If people want to form a truly "centrist, common-sense" third party, how should it be done? Start from within an existing third party and build out, or start from scratch?

2. If the former, is it really possible to put all centrists within a libertarian or green framework?

3. If the latter, starting from scratch, is it really feasible to put all so-called centrists together? Don't most of them really lean left or right? May be the same question as #2.

4. How finance it? Are there disillusioned centrist billionaires just waiting to write a check, or is it more of a Bernie Sanders $27 a pop thing?

5. How develop a "ground game" with enthusiastic grassroots activists and candidates for state and local office?

We already have one truly centrist party. Why would we want another?

And what, pray tell, is that party?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think the far more likely scenario is a splinter from of one of the two major parties and most likely the Republicans. A fiscally conservative, common sense party based on reason rather than emotion (whiny, soft liberals) that kicks the culture warriors to the curb. It would already have a start on financial backing as there are many reasonable and centrist wealthy people. It could also steal from the existing pool of political operatives and infrastructure.

And therein lies the problem. It would more than likely still operate under the premise of pay to play. You won't see real change until the corruption is diminished.

The Kalmunist Party of America on the other hand, would be founded on the principles of getting money out of politics and democracy. It would welcome folks from across the spectrum from Buddy Romer and Bob Barr to Jill Stein and Joseph Stiglitz! It would win the endorsements of both Reason Magazine and Utne Reader! It would be based on ideas rather than the divine right of the dollar! It's tent would by YUGE!!!

Which is great, until you get around to topics that actually do involve money (taxes, funding, etc). At which time, people tend to act on a very personal basis and become very concerned over their money, as well as other people's money. Maybe if you can come up with a society where there is no money then your plan could get going. So how do we do that?

It's the use of money to manipulate policy, silly. It's why the two parties are so similar in many regards. It's why money and special interests typically win over the desires of the public. Our politics is not about what a majority of the people want on a "personal basis".

Boy did you miss the point on this...as you always do.

Ivytalk wrote:

EWURanger wrote:
We already have one truly centrist party. Why would we want another?

And what, pray tell, is that party?

Duh...the GOP.

Gil Dobie wrote:Vote for Ivy

You know he was splitting that little Texan wide fucking open after she joined the show.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Which is great, until you get around to topics that actually do involve money (taxes, funding, etc). At which time, people tend to act on a very personal basis and become very concerned over their money, as well as other people's money. Maybe if you can come up with a society where there is no money then your plan could get going. So how do we do that?

It's the use of money to manipulate policy, silly. It's why the two parties are so similar in many regards. It's why money and special interests typically win over the desires of the public. Our politics is not about what a majority of the people want on a "personal basis".

Boy did you miss the point on this...as you always do.

I'm never really put off by you thinking I'm missing the point - when we start agreeing is when I'll start to get concerned. What, pray tell, desires of the public are not being met? What great public want, something that everyone apparently wants, is being thwarted by the evils of "special interests" and money? Certainly there are more people with more access to the workings of government, no one would argue otherwise, and certainly some people have taken advantage of their proximity to power to help themselves, no one would argue against that either. There will always be malfeasance and self-interest in anything involving people. But where the Progressive movement, the one you so ardently embrace from your distinctly well left of center position, has so consistently missed the mark is in the complete lack of actual ideas to somehow remedy the failings of government. You rail against the way things are and then come up short on the suggestions on how to improve it. When we've talked about the economy, you want to erect a virtual wall around the country and demand huge access fees for other countries to do business with us. Very Trump of you actually. When it comes to politics, you seem to think that self interest and wrongdoing are only present when money is involved and that the removal of money, if such a thing were possible, would solve all the ills we have. But money to be elected, while certainly significant, is just a drop of water in a vast ocean that is our economy - people will still push for their own self interests after all the electioneering is done. For me, I'd rather focus on the ideas and things we can do to ensure people's well being in their everyday lives - you go right on hyperfocusing on the minutia of election financing since that allows you the luxury of continuing to defend a Progressive movement that has few ideas outside of being upset about things.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's the use of money to manipulate policy, silly. It's why the two parties are so similar in many regards. It's why money and special interests typically win over the desires of the public. Our politics is not about what a majority of the people want on a "personal basis".

Boy did you miss the point on this...as you always do.

I'm never really put off by you thinking I'm missing the point - when we start agreeing is when I'll start to get concerned. What, pray tell, desires of the public are not being met? What great public want, something that everyone apparently wants, is being thwarted by the evils of "special interests" and money? Certainly there are more people with more access to the workings of government, no one would argue otherwise, and certainly some people have taken advantage of their proximity to power to help themselves, no one would argue against that either. There will always be malfeasance and self-interest in anything involving people. But where the Progressive movement, the one you so ardently embrace from your distinctly well left of center position, has so consistently missed the mark is in the complete lack of actual ideas to somehow remedy the failings of government. You rail against the way things are and then come up short on the suggestions on how to improve it. When we've talked about the economy, you want to erect a virtual wall around the country and demand huge access fees for other countries to do business with us. Very Trump of you actually. When it comes to politics, you seem to think that self interest and wrongdoing are only present when money is involved and that the removal of money, if such a thing were possible, would solve all the ills we have. But money to be elected, while certainly significant, is just a drop of water in a vast ocean that is our economy - people will still push for their own self interests after all the electioneering is done. For me, I'd rather focus on the ideas and things we can do to ensure people's well being in their everyday lives - you go right on hyperfocusing on the minutia of election financing since that allows you the luxury of continuing to defend a Progressive movement that has few ideas outside of being upset about things.

Your JSO length reply suggests you ARE concerned about agreeing with me here.

Google Princeton study on political outcomes for starters. I'll reply to the other jibberish in your post when I have time.

BTW, Ganny, I'm not concerned in the least when I find myself agreeing with you. I appreciate your posts in general. You challenge my thinking which is a good thing.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm never really put off by you thinking I'm missing the point - when we start agreeing is when I'll start to get concerned. What, pray tell, desires of the public are not being met? What great public want, something that everyone apparently wants, is being thwarted by the evils of "special interests" and money? Certainly there are more people with more access to the workings of government, no one would argue otherwise, and certainly some people have taken advantage of their proximity to power to help themselves, no one would argue against that either. There will always be malfeasance and self-interest in anything involving people. But where the Progressive movement, the one you so ardently embrace from your distinctly well left of center position, has so consistently missed the mark is in the complete lack of actual ideas to somehow remedy the failings of government. You rail against the way things are and then come up short on the suggestions on how to improve it. When we've talked about the economy, you want to erect a virtual wall around the country and demand huge access fees for other countries to do business with us. Very Trump of you actually. When it comes to politics, you seem to think that self interest and wrongdoing are only present when money is involved and that the removal of money, if such a thing were possible, would solve all the ills we have. But money to be elected, while certainly significant, is just a drop of water in a vast ocean that is our economy - people will still push for their own self interests after all the electioneering is done. For me, I'd rather focus on the ideas and things we can do to ensure people's well being in their everyday lives - you go right on hyperfocusing on the minutia of election financing since that allows you the luxury of continuing to defend a Progressive movement that has few ideas outside of being upset about things.

Your JSO length reply suggests you ARE concerned about agreeing with me here.

Google Princeton study on political outcomes for starters. I'll reply to the other jibberish in your post when I have time.

No, I just type really fast and I don't go back and edit message board posts, hence my extended replies. You'll have to send me the link - having to google on my own sounds like work and I already have enough of that.

kalm wrote:BTW, Ganny, I'm not concerned in the least when I find myself agreeing with you. I appreciate your posts in general. You challenge my thinking which is a good thing.

I agree, agreeing just to agree is silly. I like contrarian ideas, more fun that way. And how dare you compare me to JSO.

Ivytalk wrote:

EWURanger wrote:
We already have one truly centrist party. Why would we want another?

And what, pray tell, is that party?

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

EWURanger wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And what, pray tell, is that party?

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

This x a million.

Meanwhile, the electorate remains signicantly to the left of the politicos.

EWURanger wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And what, pray tell, is that party?

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

Yeah. A shift to the right. That's why government welfare programs are exploding, social issues (gay marriage & other GLBT issues, abortion rights, equal opportunity, etc., etc.) are all moving left (not that that's a bad thing), and an avowed socialist is one of the last 3 left standing for President of the United States (that IS a bad thing).

If that's your definition of a "shift to the right" you might want to look up that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

clenz wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Vote for Ivy

You know he was splitting that little Texan wide **** open after she joined the show.

Don't **** with Texas! That Horshack laugh would drive him nuts.