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

Establishment Dems vs the progressives. Republican Lite vs. femasexuals. Identity politics at its worse.

I had to look up what "intersectional feminism" means. It scares me.

Fienstein not getting the backing of the party at the California Convention made me laugh. But careful what you wish for?

"I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

I might vote straight libertarian from now on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/us/p ... d=fb-share

I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

Or two or three.

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

I agree and I think they would do well overall. But unfortunately I do not think they will be allowed to get that far due to the people that have a vested interest in keeping us in a 2-party system.

kalm wrote:
I might vote straight libertarian from now on.

Butt out. There ain’t room in my party for the two of us.

Oh, and “worst.”

Spoiler: show

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

While I agree in principal, the two major parties have so rigged the rules in the House and Senate that a third party would simply be a blocking movement unless they could capture a majority. The party ruling those institutions hand out committee assignments and control the agenda...

Good idea though...

Looks like the Donks are going to elect their Donald Trumps to state legislatures and to congress.

kalm wrote:Establishment Dems vs the progressives. Republican Lite vs. femasexuals. Identity politics at its worse.

I had to look up what "intersectional feminism" means. It scares me.

I tell you, I've been hearing that stuff for 3-4 years now from the women's studies friend I have on FB. And now you hear the kids saying stuff like that over and over again as they've been knee-deep in that stuff for years now. I see it being pushed further and further to the extreme with no concern to build a consensus. If you disagree with any of it then you're the enemy. It's like Kramer refusing to wear the ribbon.

So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

AZGrizFan wrote:So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

Whenever JSO assures anything you should bet heavily on the opposite happening. The stronger he feels about it the more likely the exact opposite will happen.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

Whenever JSO assures anything you should bet heavily on the opposite happening. The stronger he feels about it the more likely the exact opposite will happen.

St. Onge’s Law. Sort of like Murphy’s Law.

AZGrizFan wrote:So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

Feinstein isn’t very left at all.

Both parties have moderates that could make up a third party (mainly in the Senate).

I think people like Graham, Corker, and Collins would rather be in a party with Warner, Manchin, Tester, etc. and vice versa. They don't agree on everything - but, I think they'd rather work with each other than the fringe on the left or the right.

The biggest problem is in the House. Every state is so damned gerrymandered - you either have to move as far to the left or as far to the right as you can. You're more vulnerable to getting primaried than someone from the other party running against you. The House is an absolute shitshow.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

Or two or three.

Why we need to consider a switch to a Parliamentarian government.

AZGrizFan wrote:So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

mainstream establishment down the line

houndawg wrote:

kalm wrote:


Or two or three.

Why we need to consider a switch to a Parliamentarian government.

It's not a panacea, just a different way of rearranging the chairs on the deck of a sinking ship (no, I'm not a Russian bot btw). There's plenty of room in a duopoly of political parties to achieve the same thing you get with a multi-party parliament. And besides, the things that really hurt us now are the lack of ideas. Adding more parties with no ideas doesn't help that.

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

You had in 2016 - Hillary.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So exactly what happened to the Conks is now happening to the Donks. And yet JSO ASSURES us that the end of the Conk party is near...When FEINSTEIN isn't left enough for you, you've got real issues. FFS

Feinstein isn’t very left at all.

Correct - there are far more moderates in the Democratic Party than there are in the GOP.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

You had in 2016 - Hillary.

Maybe one that wasn't so deeply corrupt would be good.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

You had in 2016 - Hillary.

But maybe not one the entire country hates?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I'd love to see a viable third party centrist alternative for the 60-70% of the voting public who probably identify that way.

You had in 2016 - Hillary.

Half the country despised her. Even my Liberal Catholic wife refused to vote for her.

We normally cancel each other out every election nationally, But I voted for Johnson and she voted for...let me collect my self here, ... Trump!

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

You had in 2016 - Hillary.

Maybe one that wasn't so deeply corrupt would be good.

Show me the corruption.


Go ahead, I'll wait. And verified - not kook sites like infowars or FoxNews

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:


Why we need to consider a switch to a Parliamentarian government.

It's not a panacea, just a different way of rearranging the chairs on the deck of a sinking ship (no, I'm not a Russian bot btw). There's plenty of room in a duopoly of political parties to achieve the same thing you get with a multi-party parliament. And besides, the things that really hurt us now are the lack of ideas. Adding more parties with no ideas doesn't help that.

A wider spectrum gets heard and has some real input greater than zero; and just having a broader spectrum of parties increases public participation and buy in. Most all the countries with higher life expectancy and lifestyle than we do have Parliaments.

Pwns wrote:Looks like the Donks are going to elect their Donald Trumps to state legislatures and to congress.

You mean Al Sharpton? That's pretty close to the analog. When the Democrats nominate Al Sharpton as their Presidential candidate you can say they went off the rails as far as the Republicans did in nominating Trump. And then they'd have to rally behind him in the general election to REALLY go as off the wall as the Republicans did.

Otherwise I once again say it'd be good if we had the "instant primary" voting so that people could vote for whoever they REALLY want without worrying about the "who really has a chance to win?" thing.