It’s official!!! Military is in control of the United States of America!!

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (112).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough.

I'll take some time to talk about this. - Yes I'm going to use the bullshit terms I just talked about. I'm lumping people together under those terms for simplicity.

There are divisive topics where a political party can't please everyone. It just can't be done. Abortion is a good example.

What will the Patriot Party's stance be on abortion?

If 100% against, they'll grab the far right on this topic, but lose many undecideds and all of the left.
Be kinda against, and they'll lose the far right for not being 100% against, and all the left for not being 100% for it.
Be kinda for, and they again lose the far right and the far left for not being 100% for or against.
If 100% for, and they loose all of the far right, some of the mid right.

But either way, the Dems and Repubs (D's and R's) won't let them have a kinda stance. People don't only vote for things, they also vote against things.

Abortion - The D's will force the P's to say they're 100% against abortion. That way everyone for abortion will vote D, and the voters against abortion will be split between P and R.

Meanwhile, the R's will force them to be 100% for abortion, so that the R's get all of the anti-abortion voters.

Another thing to take into consideration is if you drew a spectrum with left on one side and right on the other.

Left I------------I Right with 50% of the population right of center, and 50% left.

Lets do an example where Trump got twice as many votes as Biden. It would look like this

I----B------T-----------I

So, Trump was that far right wing, Biden was that far left wing compared to the voters. And the result can be drawn as

I----B---<>---T----------I Trump gets twice as much as Biden and wins 66% to 33%.

So where will the P's fit politically on the spectrum? If the P's are right in the center between the D's and R's in order to be a 3-way tie It'd need to look like this

I---D-------P------R---I

Which would result in I---D---< >---P---< >---R---I Each party has 33% of the vote.

But the thing is that the D's and R's don't have to be that far right and left. They just have to be the lesser evil to get votes. So what the D's and R's will do, is they will try to do this

I--------D--P--R--------I

The Democrats don't need to be extremely left wing. They just need to be the most left wing. Same with the Republicans.

Meanwhile, if the P's and R's compete for who is right wing, that'll result in the D's grabbing more of the center.

I----------D-----R--P---I Which will result in I----------D--< >--R-< >-P----I

So in a 3 party system, you need to be the furthest right or left party. And then get the other 2 parties to fight over who's the furthest on that side of the spectrum so you grab more of the center.

Now it is possible that Trump is purposely creating a small centerist party. One where the D's have 45% of the Senate and Congress while the R's have another 45%, and the P's have 10%. Then the P's (who won't be able to push anything themselves) do decide what the others pass.

But that also means the P's will need to compete for the leftist vote. With this I-----D-P-- The P's will need to try for I---P-D-- In order for the D's to take a stance where they I--D-P--

Does that make sense? The P's at times will need to act more virtuous more leftist than the D's in order to force the D's to take an even more virtuous leftist stance. Because if the P's only compete with the R's pushing each other further right, then the D's will just take all of the center.

Maybe. Or maybe the R's will turn into that 10% centrist party.

Or it's all rigged and this is all a show.

> However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough. I'll take some time to talk about this. - *Yes I'm going to use the bullshit terms I just talked about. I'm lumping people together under those terms for simplicity.* There are divisive topics where a political party can't please everyone. It just can't be done. Abortion is a good example. What will the Patriot Party's stance be on abortion? - If 100% against, they'll grab the far right on this topic, but lose many undecideds and all of the left. - Be kinda against, and they'll lose the far right for not being 100% against, and all the left for not being 100% for it. - Be kinda for, and they again lose the far right and the far left for not being 100% for or against. - If 100% for, and they loose all of the far right, some of the mid right. But either way, the Dems and Repubs (D's and R's) won't let them have a kinda stance. People don't only vote for things, they also vote against things. Abortion - The D's will force the P's to say they're 100% against abortion. That way everyone for abortion will vote D, and the voters against abortion will be split between P and R. Meanwhile, the R's will force them to be 100% for abortion, so that the R's get all of the anti-abortion voters. Another thing to take into consideration is if you drew a spectrum with left on one side and right on the other. Left I------------I Right with 50% of the population right of center, and 50% left. Lets do an example where Trump got twice as many votes as Biden. It would look like this I----B------T-----------I So, Trump was that far right wing, Biden was that far left wing compared to the voters. And the result can be drawn as I----B---<>---T----------I Trump gets twice as much as Biden and wins 66% to 33%. So where will the P's fit politically on the spectrum? If the P's are right in the center between the D's and R's in order to be a 3-way tie It'd need to look like this I---D-------P------R---I Which would result in I---D---< >---P---< >---R---I Each party has 33% of the vote. But the thing is that the D's and R's don't have to be that far right and left. They just have to be the lesser evil to get votes. So what the D's and R's will do, is they will try to do this I--------D--P--R--------I The Democrats don't need to be extremely left wing. They just need to be the most left wing. Same with the Republicans. Meanwhile, if the P's and R's compete for who is right wing, that'll result in the D's grabbing more of the center. I----------D-----R--P---I Which will result in I----------D--< >--R-< >-P----I So in a 3 party system, you need to be the furthest right or left party. And then get the other 2 parties to fight over who's the furthest on that side of the spectrum so you grab more of the center. Now it is possible that Trump is purposely creating a small centerist party. One where the D's have 45% of the Senate and Congress while the R's have another 45%, and the P's have 10%. Then the P's (who won't be able to push anything themselves) do decide what the others pass. But that also means the P's will need to compete for the leftist vote. With this I-----D-P-- The P's will need to try for I---P-D-- In order for the D's to take a stance where they I--D-P-- *Does that make sense? The P's at times will need to act more virtuous more leftist than the D's in order to force the D's to take an even more virtuous leftist stance. Because if the P's only compete with the R's pushing each other further right, then the D's will just take all of the center.* Maybe. Or maybe the R's will turn into that 10% centrist party. Or it's all rigged and this is all a show.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Most of this post example is old school thinking on how political parties ring their hands on how to vie for votes. You now seem less dimwitted than before however your line of thinking is no longer relevant. But take heart because the very thing (I assume) you wished for tired to manifest. True leadership. You speak of abortion...great example. Trump said no way will I support it. Plain as day, clear no grey area. As I said before i am on the fence when it comes to a 3rd party. My preference would have been to reform the GOP. Trump showed that it is not that hard to get the people's business done. You just need to work hard and stay focused and not worry which way the wind is blowing.

True leadership vs positional leadership. What is the difference? Positional leadership like Pelosi/McConnell just used/navigated the "machine" to achieve their status. Bravo for them but nothing gets done. Ironic is it not? That both the left and Trump followers want the system broken and rebuilt. Yet in there is where the stark differences reside. Some you have already mentioned. Do the positional leaders have "followers''?... Does Trump have followers? Is there a difference>?...I think you see my point. **Suggested reading: 21 Irrevocable rules of leadership by Maxwell. ** So while this is a interesting conversation I am thinking you are a closet skin head. Seen enough of your posts to surmise this. If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. No word games. Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. However it must have killed you what he did with Israel. But I say spot on True decisive leadership. oh....and i am not jewish. ...

What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. With the same decisive qualities as Trump. Fuck the consequences because they are not looking for a career in politics but rather to effect real change. ...and like you stated above that means smaller less intrusive Govt/regulations/taxes...etc.

There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader.

Also to counter your example above how many D's "Walked Away"....Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? ....True leaders have followers. Hand ringers do not.

Most of this post example is old school thinking on how political parties ring their hands on how to vie for votes. You now seem less dimwitted than before however your line of thinking is no longer relevant. But take heart because the very thing (I assume) you wished for tired to manifest. **True leadership**. You speak of abortion...great example. Trump said no way will I support it. Plain as day, clear no grey area. As I said before i am on the fence when it comes to a 3rd party. My preference would have been to reform the GOP. Trump showed that it is not that hard to get the people's business done. You just need to work hard and stay focused and not worry which way the wind is blowing. True leadership vs positional leadership. What is the difference? Positional leadership like Pelosi/McConnell just used/navigated the "machine" to achieve their status. Bravo for them but nothing gets done. Ironic is it not? That both the left and Trump followers want the system broken and rebuilt. Yet in there is where the stark differences reside. Some you have already mentioned. Do the positional leaders have "followers''?... Does Trump have followers? Is there a difference>?...I think you see my point. **Suggested reading: 21 Irrevocable rules of leadership by Maxwell. ** So while this is a interesting conversation I am thinking you are a closet skin head. Seen enough of your posts to surmise this. If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. No word games. Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. However it must have killed you what he did with Israel. But I say spot on True decisive leadership. oh....and i am not jewish. ... What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. With the same decisive qualities as Trump. Fuck the consequences because they are not looking for a career in politics but rather to effect real change. ...and like you stated above that means smaller less intrusive Govt/regulations/taxes...etc. There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader. Also to counter your example above how many D's "Walked Away"....Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? ....True leaders have followers. Hand ringers do not.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

>I am thinking you are a closet skin head...... If I am wrong then please plainly state you position.

Ethno-Nationalist. And because I'm White, and my goal is an ethnostate for me to live in. So a White Nationalist.

>Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to.

There are no superheroes. Everything has pros and cons. Everything.... EVERYTHING has both pros and cons. But yes, in the last 2 elections Trump appeared to many to be the lesser evil.

>it must have killed you what he did with Israel.

Wait...What? Are you saying that Trump was the controlled opposition? A Jewish puppet. You're probably right. At least he kept a war with Iran from happening too soon. Delayed Kurdistan from becoming the next welfare state for a few years.

>What we need is more outsiders running for all offices.

Yes. More people who aren't career politicians. That aren't people who are where they are because they were pushed into that position by other career politicians.

>There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader.

I disagree. The only way that that would ever happen is if every MSM outlet and major website was taken out.

We laugh at leftists and sheep who live in their echo chambers, in their little bubbles. But.... we also live in echo chambers. We avoid dealing with the brainwashed, and they avoid dealing with us. There's a lot more of them than we realize.

>Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic?

Yes he did. And that type of support would have grown exponentially if the Covid crap didn't happen.

But at the same time, while Romney got 6% of the black vote, Trump got 8% against Hillary. And then Trump got (I can't find the numbers now) I think it was 12% against Biden. But that still means that over 85% still voted for Biden.

So yes, Trump doubled the Republican's black vote over Romney. A 100% increase. That's true. But it was so small to begin with that while Trump gained 100% more, the Dems only lost 6%. And still more than 85% voted against Trump. (Yeah, ok. Those are the rigged numbers. But still, Trump never came close to grabbing 50%.)

But the unemployment rate - Like him or not, Trump did that right.

>>I am thinking you are a closet skin head...... If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. Ethno-Nationalist. And because I'm White, and my goal is an ethnostate for me to live in. So a White Nationalist. >>Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. There are no superheroes. Everything has pros and cons. Everything.... EVERYTHING has both pros and cons. But yes, in the last 2 elections Trump appeared to many to be the lesser evil. >>it must have killed you what he did with Israel. *Wait...What? Are you saying that Trump was the controlled opposition? A Jewish puppet.* You're probably right. At least he kept a war with Iran from happening too soon. Delayed Kurdistan from becoming the next welfare state for a few years. >>What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. Yes. More people who aren't career politicians. That aren't people who are where they are because they were pushed into that position by other career politicians. >>There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader. I disagree. The only way that that would ever happen is if every MSM outlet and major website was taken out. We laugh at leftists and sheep who live in their echo chambers, in their little bubbles. But.... we also live in echo chambers. We avoid dealing with the brainwashed, and they avoid dealing with us. There's a lot more of them than we realize. >>Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? Yes he did. And that type of support would have grown exponentially if the Covid crap didn't happen. But at the same time, while Romney got 6% of the black vote, Trump got 8% against Hillary. And then Trump got (I can't find the numbers now) I think it was 12% against Biden. But that still means that over 85% still voted for Biden. So yes, Trump doubled the Republican's black vote over Romney. A 100% increase. That's true. But it was so small to begin with that while Trump gained 100% more, the Dems only lost 6%. And still more than 85% voted against Trump. (Yeah, ok. Those are the rigged numbers. But still, Trump never came close to grabbing 50%.) But the unemployment rate - Like him or not, Trump did that right.

parent
link