Two-Party Anger and Gridlock? Solution: Four Parties - Republicans, Democrats, Classical Liberals, Progressives (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Something I've been thinking about for a while now.

It seems that with all the contentiousness about a myriad of issues both social and economic, it would behoove the US of A to split into four parties. The breakdown of the parties seems obvious to me. I would divide them into the following groups: Trump Republicans could be the working class, unwoke, anti-immigrant, isolationist foreign policy folk that are given to watching Fox News and OAN. Classical Liberals would be the laissez-faire economic types who are slightly hawkish on foreign policy, yet more liberal on social issues while still not willing to cede that much in the way of social issues. Democrats could be the party of Biden and infrastructure, neoliberal on many issues while also preaching a restrained military reach. Progressives are the last party, but the only way in which I can think of describing them is in pure epithet form, so I won't bother. You know who you are and what you stand for.

It seems to me like political energies would be better spent forming real coalitions with real legislation at stake rather than two incoherent parties that exist only to frustrate each other. This way, accurate and proportional representation of the electorate in regard to the issues would be more likely to be the case, as no longer would you have silent senators or congressmen afraid of alienating their constituency for the sake of their party and vice-versa. It would localize politics much more, leading to instances where you'd likely have a much more accurate pipeline of people to their representatives. You'd also harness the majoritarian feature of our system by harnessing the energies of politics, making it so that strange bedfellows could indeed be that for a piece of legislation, rather than having to adhere to the incoherent ideologies that now spark the parties' energies.

Seems like so much gridlock is a function of these competing intra-party principles rather than impulses towards the will of the majority of people. Just a thought. What say you?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm not sure those groupings necessarily are the right ones, but we definitely need a multi-party environment with coalitions and real legislation aimed at solving real issues.  We are losing to China because they don't get bogged down by the politics-driven distraction from real issues that we face here.

 

[dkp993]

While I agree with the multi party premise I don’t really see where the classic “fiscally conservative socially liberal” (liberal by 10 yrs ago standards at least) fit in your examples.  

 

[timschochet]

It hasn’t seemed to work well in Israel. And it failed in Weimar Germany as well. Perhaps my examples are somewhat too limited; I’m not sure. But too many political parties seems to lead to extremism and chaos. 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

While I agree with the multi party premise I don’t really see where the classic “fiscally conservative socially liberal” (liberal by 10 yrs ago standards at least) fit in your examples.  

How so?  It's listed explicitly in the OPs post.

 

[dkp993]

How so?  It's listed explicitly in the OPs post.

Where?  Classic liberals?  Fiscally conservative isn’t “laissez-faire economic types”.  

So Democrats then? Biden isn’t fiscally conservative. 

And certainly not the party of Trump or Progressive.  

So what am I missing?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Where?  Classic liberals?  Fiscally conservative isn’t “laissez-faire economic types”.  

So Democrats then? Biden isn’t fiscally conservative. 

And certainly not the party of Trump or Progressive.  

So what am I missing?

I would absolutely call "laissez faire economic types" fiscally conservative.  

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laissezfaire.asp#:~:text=The driving principle behind laissez,part of free-market capitalism.

 

[dkp993]

I would absolutely call "laissez faire economic types" fiscally conservative.  

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laissezfaire.asp#:~:text=The driving principle behind laissez,part of free-market capitalism.

 
I guess it’s my interpretation/understanding of the term “laissez-faire”.  I always understand that term to mean “laid back” or “casual”.  Never knew it the term was applied to an actual economic principle.  Learn something new every day.  

 

[rockaction]

 
I guess it’s my interpretation/understanding of the term “laissez-faire”.  I always understand that term to mean “laid back” or “casual”.  Never knew it the term was applied to an actual economic principle.  Learn something new every day.  

Yeah, "laissez-faire" as a prhase, which I believe started in the economic realm, means that the government generally does not intervene in the economy. In the modern sense, think Republicans before Trump. One thing: The modern, pre-Trump version of Republicans, were not as dogmatic about government intervention in the economy as traditional laissez-faire proponents, because they would pretty much okay the welfare state in its conception if not practice, whereas traditional laissez-faire proponents would have a huge problem with it. But I'm thinking of a party that definitely keeps government transfers of wealth from one person or entity to another to a minimum.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, "laissez-faire" as a prhase, which I believe started in the economic realm, means that the government generally does not intervene in the economy. In the modern sense, think Republicans before Trump. 

Do you mean nearly 100 years before Trump? Because you gotta go back to Calvin Coolidge to find a major Republican figure who did not believe the government should intervene in the economy (and even he didn’t practice what he preached…) 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

 
I guess it’s my interpretation/understanding of the term “laissez-faire”.  I always understand that term to mean “laid back” or “casual”.  Never knew it the term was applied to an actual economic principle.  Learn something new every day.  

Well, as the father of two 12-year olds it's a rare day when anyone learns something new from me, so thanks for making my day.    

Sadly, the only new thing I learned today was the existence of some crappy new, overproduced pop song.

 

[rockaction]

Do you mean nearly 100 years before Trump? Because you gotta go back to Calvin Coolidge to find a major Republican figure who did not believe the government should intervene in the economy (and even he didn’t practice what he preached…) 

One thing: The modern, pre-Trump version of Republicans, were not as dogmatic about government intervention in the economy as traditional laissez-faire proponents, because they would pretty much okay the welfare state in its conception if not practice, whereas traditional laissez-faire proponents would have a huge problem with it

 

[rockaction]

It hasn’t seemed to work well in Israel. And it failed in Weimar Germany as well. Perhaps my examples are somewhat too limited; I’m not sure. But too many political parties seems to lead to extremism and chaos. 

I think it depends on the nature of the ideas that are floating around at the time. In America, the Overton window is still pretty narrow. It's hard to find a fascist or communist among the political class. In fact, throwing the epithet around seems to be enough to show how widely discredited both positions are; so no, not Weimar. Modern Israel I cannot comment on because I don't know enough about it. I do know that in the U.S. there would likely have to be a coalition formed to resolve who the President is, but these new coalitions, or party-splintering, might serve as a check on extremism. I'm not sure what form the coalitions would take, or if they would manifest before or after the presidential election -- that's for savvier wonks. But keep in mind this: In 2024, we could very well have a Trump/Harris election, which would be at the exact fringes of each party, and thus, really the respective Overton window of the American electorate. This can't be a desirable thing for other than strict adherents to the new party configurations.

 

[RCon]

It hasn’t seemed to work well in Israel. And it failed in Weimar Germany as well. Perhaps my examples are somewhat too limited; I’m not sure. But too many political parties seems to lead to extremism and chaos. 

It works in lots of places.  There's real evidence that our two-party system is creating the divide here.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-two-party-system-is-wrecking-american-democracy/

In my mind, the issue isn't "would more parties be beneficial", as that's already settled.  The issue is how do we convince/coerce the two parties that make the rules to move away from a system that benefits them greatly?

 

[Navin Johnson]

It hasn’t seemed to work well in Israel. And it failed in Weimar Germany as well. Perhaps my examples are somewhat too limited; I’m not sure. But too many political parties seems to lead to extremism and chaos. 

Are you saying 4 is not the number or any number not 2?  FWIW, Germany is running relatively well these days with 7.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Progressives should have their own party as they are dividing what we view as the typical Dem party.   They never will though as they would fail on their own and need the rest of the party to have any kind of success.

 

[djmich]

IMO, the only way we get a legitimate 3rd party is through the cult of an individual(s).  I can't see grassroots being effective in this environment.

As an example, Donald Trump can draw a lot of votes...even if he didn't run as a republican.  Because he is so divisive I don't think he'd be successful, it has to be somebody cut from largely "the center" and/or highly popular across a broad spectrum of voters (it todays world that could be a tik tok celebrity and not entirely about politics).

So the good element of that is that I think it is more possible than we give it credit for because we are such a "celebrity" society.  Also, it is possible but less likely that person will be extreme.

The bad element is that I'm not sure that person would be necessarily the most qualified and perhaps most concerning would be that for the winning candidate there is a good chance it would be more about the candidate than the policy and there is an element of authoritarian risk with that (again, think Trump winning under his own party).

Who could that be today?

 

[Thunderlips]

IMO, the only way we get a legitimate 3rd party is through the cult of an individual(s).  I can't see grassroots being effective in this environment.

As an example, Donald Trump can draw a lot of votes...even if he didn't run as a republican.  Because he is so divisive I don't think he'd be successful, it has to be somebody cut from largely "the center" and/or highly popular across a broad spectrum of voters (it todays world that could be a tik tok celebrity and not entirely about politics).

So the good element of that is that I think it is more possible than we give it credit for because we are such a "celebrity" society.  Also, it is possible but less likely that person will be extreme.

The bad element is that I'm not sure that person would be necessarily the most qualified and perhaps most concerning would be that for the winning candidate there is a good chance it would be more about the candidate than the policy and there is an element of authoritarian risk with that (again, think Trump winning under his own party).

Who could that be today?

Donald Trump

If 2016 went down differently and Trump A)doesn't go up against Clinton B) doesn't inspire (for lack of a better phrase) fringe Right jabronis  and C) tones down his personal attacks he could have built a coalition in the Center that would have pressured both the RIght and Left. I thought Trump was going to into his term holding the Republicans feet to the fire as often as he would the Left; that the "dealmaker" would have been able to consistenly thread the needle in regards to working with either Party at times and going against each Party while not alienating either Party.

 

[djmich]

Donald Trump

If 2016 went down differently and Trump A)doesn't go up against Clinton B) doesn't inspire (for lack of a better phrase) fringe Right jabronis  and C) tones down his personal attacks he could have built a coalition in the Center that would have pressured both the RIght and Left. I thought Trump was going to into his term holding the Republicans feet to the fire as often as he would the Left; that the "dealmaker" would have been able to consistenly thread the needle in regards to working with either Party at times and going against each Party while not alienating either Party.

I agree, its a long time ago but I had a lot more hope for Trump as an agent of positive change.  He had the ingredients I described above.  He failed...bigly.

Why is A) a factor for you?

 

[RCon]

IMO, the only way we get a legitimate 3rd party is through the cult of an individual(s).  I can't see grassroots being effective in this environment.

I disagree with this pretty strongly.  Anything built on individual personality will be A) temporary, and B) limited to the office in question.  We saw this in action with Ross Perot.

Legitimate additional parties will require structural changes to our electoral and representation systems.  Those systems are, today, designed to enforce a two-party system.  Structural changes need to occur at the local and state levels to make third parties viable.

 

[Thunderlips]

I agree, its a long time ago but I had a lot more hope for Trump as an agent of positive change.  He had the ingredients I described above.  He failed...bigly.

Why is A) a factor for you?

Clinton/Trump was the epitome of the old school days when each side chose their champion to  fight to the death; and that was set up as a clash of ideology.  Clinton was a "rock star" candidate. She was the face of the "First Woman President" movement, she was a throwback to the better times under her husband, she was an extremely qualified candidate and she had a strong core of rabid followers.  If it wasn't Clinton, I don't think the narrative would have reached the levels of "good v. evil" that both sides portrayed. That hatred bred malice on both sides post election. 

 

[djmich]

I disagree with this pretty strongly.  Anything built on individual personality will be A) temporary, and B) limited to the office in question.  We saw this in action with Ross Perot.

Legitimate additional parties will require structural changes to our electoral and representation systems.  Those systems are, today, designed to enforce a two-party system.  Structural changes need to occur at the local and state levels to make third parties viable.

Yah, I don't disagree in terms of long term sustainability.   But where is this most likely to "ignite" from?  While admittedly not educated on this front (interested in anything you have to share), I see no grass roots efforts gaining meaningful traction.

It appears we need a hail mary, I don't see blocking and tackling working.  To your point, whoever that hail mary is...there is a whole separate question of do they build out something that is repeatable or long term.

 

[RCon]

Yah, I don't disagree in terms of long term sustainability.   But where is this most likely to "ignite" from?  While admittedly not educated on this front (interested in anything you have to share), I see no grass roots efforts gaining meaningful traction.

It appears we need a hail mary, I don't see blocking and tackling working.  To your point, whoever that hail mary is...there is a whole separate question of do they build out something that is repeatable or long term.

One issue third parties have in gaining traction is the chicken/egg problem.  Many people don't want to "throw away their vote" on a candidate/party with no chance at winning (think Gary Johnson in 2016), even though that candidate is their most preferred.  In other words, I won't vote for my preferred candidates because they can't win, but they can't win because I won't vote for them.  Ranked choice voting solves that problem.  This is something that will have to be implemented slowly, locally, and most likely via grassroots campaigns.

Similarly, proportional representation is a structural change I'd like to see.  Consider a hypothetical location (state, county, whatever) where there are 3 parties, 50 representatives, and 100K voters.  Today, we split those voters up into 2K groups with individual representatives for each group (i.e. winner-take-all representation).  If every single 2K group finished at 1200 votes for (the candidate representing) party A, 600 votes for party B, and 200 votes for party C, we would end up with 50 reps from party A, despite 30% and 10% of the population preferring party B and party C, respectively.  Complete proportional representation would aggregate the votes and reallocate the representation such that we end up with 30 reps from party A, 15 reps from party B, and 5 reps from party C.  This is also something that would have to be pushed from the ground up, in small locales, eventually making its way to state-level, and finally national representation.

 

[Doug B]

While I agree with the multi party premise I don’t really see where the classic “fiscally conservative socially liberal” (liberal by 10 yrs ago standards at least) fit in your examples.  

The scheme needs a fifth party, anyway, to be a truly coalition-based system. Call the fifth party The Neo-Rockefellers. The party's symbol could be the rhinoceros (own it and invite the Tea Partiers to sit-and-spin).

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It works in lots of places.  There's real evidence that our two-party system is creating the divide here.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-two-party-system-is-wrecking-american-democracy/

In my mind, the issue isn't "would more parties be beneficial", as that's already settled.  The issue is how do we convince/coerce the two parties that make the rules to move away from a system that benefits them greatly?

Gerrymandering and lack of rank-choice-voting are perpetuating the divide.

 

[RCon]

Gerrymandering and lack of rank-choice-voting are perpetuating the divide.

Certainly.  However, as mentioned, both of those things benefit the two majority parties, and the two majority parties write the rules, making them difficult to change.

 

[Manster]

It feels like we've reached a breaking point.  The leftist, or progressive movement...... whatever you wanna call it, has reached the point of "by any means necessary" to get, and keep power.  The elite of this movement know better for all, so here we are....

I predict buyers remorse will be very high amongst the left, at least those who think for themselves......but how will the young who are being brainwashed to be entitled victims be convinced?  It's prolly too late.

 

[dkp993]

IMO, the only way we get a legitimate 3rd party is through the cult of an individual(s).  I can't see grassroots being effective in this environment.

As an example, Donald Trump can draw a lot of votes...even if he didn't run as a republican.  Because he is so divisive I don't think he'd be successful, it has to be somebody cut from largely "the center" and/or highly popular across a broad spectrum of voters (it todays world that could be a tik tok celebrity and not entirely about politics).

So the good element of that is that I think it is more possible than we give it credit for because we are such a "celebrity" society.  Also, it is possible but less likely that person will be extreme.

The bad element is that I'm not sure that person would be necessarily the most qualified and perhaps most concerning would be that for the winning candidate there is a good chance it would be more about the candidate than the policy and there is an element of authoritarian risk with that (again, think Trump winning under his own party).

Who could that be today?

The Rock. 

 

[dkp993]

It feels like we've reached a breaking point.  The leftist, or progressive movement...... whatever you wanna call it, has reached the point of "by any means necessary" to get, and keep power.  The elite of this movement know better for all, so here we are....

I predict buyers remorse will be very high amongst the left, at least those who think for themselves......but how will the young who are being brainwashed to be entitled victims be convinced?  It's prolly too late.

While I think I fundamentally agree with your statement how is it any different from the Trump right?  They are still peddling election fraud BS, have fantasy’s of Trump back in office soon and oh yeah this little thing called 1/6 happened.  

I was completely convinced your second statement would happen to Trump follows post election, unfortunately that has not at all been the case.  So I’m less convinced now it would happen to the woke left either. 

 

[Manster]

While I think I fundamentally agree with your statement how is it any different from the Trump right?  They are still peddling election fraud BS, have fantasy’s of Trump back in office soon and oh yeah this little thing called 1/6 happened.  

I was completely convinced your second statement would happen to Trump follows post election, unfortunately that has not at all been the case.  So I’m less convinced now it would happen to the woke left either. 

You mean kinda like the lefties who had it out for Trump based on how he talked?  He could've cured cancer and it wouldn't have mattered.......people have dug in on all sides for their own reasons

 

[Godsbrother]

It feels like we've reached a breaking point.  The leftist, or progressive movement...... whatever you wanna call it, has reached the point of "by any means necessary" to get, and keep power.  The elite of this movement know better for all, so here we are....

I predict buyers remorse will be very high amongst the left, at least those who think for themselves......but how will the young who are being brainwashed to be entitled victims be convinced?  It's prolly too late.

You realize the GOP is guilty of the same, don't you?   

 

[jon_mx]

Something I've been thinking about for a while now.

It seems that with all the contentiousness about a myriad of issues both social and economic, it would behoove the US of A to split into four parties. The breakdown of the parties seems obvious to me. I would divide them into the following groups: Trump Republicans could be the working class, unwoke, anti-immigrant, isolationist foreign policy folk that are given to watching Fox News and OAN. Classical Liberals would be the laissez-faire economic types who are slightly hawkish on foreign policy, yet more liberal on social issues while still not willing to cede that much in the way of social issues. Democrats could be the party of Biden and infrastructure, neoliberal on many issues while also preaching a restrained military reach. Progressives are the last party, but the only way in which I can think of describing them is in pure epithet form, so I won't bother. You know who you are and what you stand for.

It seems to me like political energies would be better spent forming real coalitions with real legislation at stake rather than two incoherent parties that exist only to frustrate each other. This way, accurate and proportional representation of the electorate in regard to the issues would be more likely to be the case, as no longer would you have silent senators or congressmen afraid of alienating their constituency for the sake of their party and vice-versa. It would localize politics much more, leading to instances where you'd likely have a much more accurate pipeline of people to their representatives. You'd also harness the majoritarian feature of our system by harnessing the energies of politics, making it so that strange bedfellows could indeed be that for a piece of legislation, rather than having to adhere to the incoherent ideologies that now spark the parties' energies.

Seems like so much gridlock is a function of these competing intra-party principles rather than impulses towards the will of the majority of people. Just a thought. What say you?

Why can't we just split everybody up into race, gender, and sexuality lines and make everyone hate each other like the Democrats want to do?

 

[Manster]

You realize the GOP is guilty of the same, don't you?   

The difference is the left has the resources.  They control social media which is everything now

 

[yak651]

Yes please!  Problem I see is what side is going to chance it the first time?  If some R's deflect to a more moderate choice may hand the election to D's if they stand strong.  Same opposite direction.  Last 2-3 elections I always voted 3rd party but this year I didn't because I didn't want to "waste" my vote in an important election.

 

[yak651]

The difference is the left has the resources.  They control social media which is everything now

I see opposite, when people share links on FB and many times here it's from far right sites I have never heard of before that "linkage".  Most "left" sources are typical MSM.

 

[Manster]

I see opposite, when people share links on FB and many times here it's from far right sites I have never heard of before that "linkage".  Most "left" sources are typical MSM.

I'm talking about the people who run big tech and their political leanings

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Yes please!  Problem I see is what side is going to chance it the first time?  If some R's deflect to a more moderate choice may hand the election to D's if they stand strong.  Same opposite direction.  

Exactly. Whoever does it first loses the next election cycle. Nobody in modern politics would ever chance that.

 

[yak651]

I'm talking about the people who run big tech and their political leanings

I find this take odd as up until after the election Zuckerberg allowed Trump and others to state lies with no repercussions.  Same with Twitter, it took forever to get fact checking of tweets.   I believe the "uproar" about "canceling" the voices of conservatives is due to the fact they were allowed to say whatever they wanted for so long with no accountability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/technology/facebook-political-ads-lies.html 

 

[Manster]

I find this take odd as up until after the election Zuckerberg allowed Trump and others to state lies with no repercussions.  Same with Twitter, it took forever to get fact checking of tweets.   I believe the "uproar" about "canceling" the voices of conservatives is due to the fact they were allowed to say whatever they wanted for so long with no accountability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/technology/facebook-political-ads-lies.html 

Pay wall....

Also, the "swamp" is real and it is both parties.  They have perfected the art of lying to get votes........I'm more interested in the overall direction of our country.....we live in weird times

 

[jon_mx]

I find this take odd as up until after the election Zuckerberg allowed Trump and others to state lies with no repercussions.  Same with Twitter, it took forever to get fact checking of tweets.   I believe the "uproar" about "canceling" the voices of conservatives is due to the fact they were allowed to say whatever they wanted for so long with no accountability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/technology/facebook-political-ads-lies.html 

Lol...'allowed to say whatever they wanted...'   As if they live in a free country which values and guarantees free speech.  Those idiots. 

 

[timschochet]

Any study of our history shows us that: 

1. We’ve successfully thrived with a two party system. 
2. Both parties move continuously to the left. The Republicans are successful, at times, of slowing things down, sometimes for decades, but they’re rarely ever able to move things in the other direction. 
3. There is always a radical, leftist movement in the Democratic Party. This movement gets very loud at times but is never able to take over the Democratic Party. Their most popular ideas usually get absorbed into the mainstream, often years after they are first pushed for. 
4. Once a leftist idea is absorbed into the mainstream, it becomes part of the status quo that conservatives will then defend against further leftist ideas that would threaten it. 
 

Rinse and repeat. The ONLY change to this formula is the new populist movement on the right that rose with the Tea Party and Trump. And it remains to be seen if this is a lasting thing  or not. 
 

The two party system isn’t going anywhere. 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Why can't we just split everybody up into race, gender, and sexuality lines and make everyone hate each other like the Democrats want to do?

I’ve never seen my views more accurately represented than in the quoted post.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The two party system isn’t going anywhere. 

Over 98% of the vote in the 2020 presidential election.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Donald Trump

If 2016 went down differently and Trump A)doesn't go up against Clinton B) doesn't inspire (for lack of a better phrase) fringe Right jabronis  and C) tones down his personal attacks he could have built a coalition in the Center that would have pressured both the RIght and Left. I thought Trump was going to into his term holding the Republicans feet to the fire as often as he would the Left; that the "dealmaker" would have been able to consistenly thread the needle in regards to working with either Party at times and going against each Party while not alienating either Party.

Without Twitter and thin skin Trump could have been a very good POTUS as he was a Democrat for most of his life and could have worked both sides.  Just did not work out. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

i see where you're going, but it seems the wrong direction.

there is certainly more than one Republican Party now, but the absolute lack of stones still being shown by anti-Trump GOPers almost disqualifies them from entity status...

as for Democrats, well, it's always been that way, just magnified & made worse by the need of the media and kneejerk podpeople to group EVERYONE who disagrees with them as being of the same party. we've never been on the same page - pinkos, nannygoats, racentrics, peaceniks, treehuggers, handslappers, antifas (media invention), mellows only gravitate to the Democratic Party as their political organ because agreeing aint their strong suit. we hop on The Machine when it's time to go downtown is all. Joe Biden doesnt represent any of us, he's only who we settled on. we had 750 candidates, shouted for 6 months, then the labor & teachers' unions paid everybody to shut up and put the most-known, least-hated among them up to face the Grinch. splintering further is only going to make the money matter more, as if it needs our help in that regard...

we dont need to refine our definitions, we need representation of the voice of regular folk against those who have bought the system. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE is just barely still bigger than money and it wont be long before it isnt. we dont need more differences, but one big reason to put away our identities in the name of the common good.

 

[Thunderlips]

Without Twitter and thin skin Trump could have been a very good POTUS as he was a Democrat for most of his life and could have worked both sides.  Just did not work out. 

That's an interesting thought..... was his Twitter usage a net postive for him?  Were more turned off by his Twitter personality than turned on? And could he have captivated his more rabid fans as much just operating thru traditional media channels/debates? I'd imagine that he, thru the first election process, would have had a bit tougher time winning the Primary without Twitter.......but if/once he got in and became President.....the lack of Twitter would have helped him.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

That's an interesting thought..... was his Twitter usage a net postive for him?  Were more turned off by his Twitter personality than turned on? And could he have captivated his more rabid fans as much just operating thru traditional media channels/debates? I'd imagine that he, thru the first election process, would have had a bit tougher time winning the Primary without Twitter.......but if/once he got in and became President.....the lack of Twitter would have helped him.  

I agree.  Twitter helped him at first but led to his demise.

 

[rockaction]

pinkos, nannygoats, racentrics, peaceniks, treehuggers, handslappers, antifas (media invention), mellows only gravitate to the Democratic Party as their political organ because agreeing aint their strong suit.

That is indeed how I would describe the Progressive Party, only it seems less of a disservice when I let you do it. And I'd disagree that the Antifas are a media invention, but of course. They seem awfully around and about. Saw them at a punk show about two years ago before BLM and Antifa were nearly synonymous. Hardly a threatening bunch, but they had put the Molotov cocktails down and screamed along to some punk rock. Lots of budding anti-fascists in the crew that night. They're skinny lads.

 

[wikkidpissah]

what bothers me most about them is that there are no quit movements, as there's always been in leftist/anarchist tradition. as convenient as is our modern connectivity, it's really a sucker play, designed to program a prurience into our interactions. before i go into a long, nutty rant about its limitless limitations, allow me to just froth mildly but seriously that, without a corner of our population that refuses to get played, all outsider action comes pre-neutered. the turbulence of truly independent spirit must be felt unsupported to fully flower. Even Christ said, "Wherever two or three are gathered in My Name, I am with them" for revolutionary fervor lies in opposing right after believing, not getting likes from like-minded in Bolivia & Bosnia. from cellular to cystic has infected thought gone...