Marvin...so we are back to the Biden passes a law. So again i ask you. Please show me where this is/ Sauce please no more bullshit. RE: 3rd party. Here I am on the fence. But let me ask you. If a 3rd party rises how many Patriots would join it? It seems that you want civil war before testing the water. So Marvin how much water is there?
>Please show me where this is/ Sauce
Source? Is that what you're asking for? And Biden didn't pass it. Like you said, Congress passes laws, not the President. And Congress was voted in using rigged elections.
>If a 3rd party rises how many Patriots would join it?
Out of the number of voters in the last election, if you consider that not only were Biden's vote numbers inflated, but also that Trump's were deflated - So, lets say 75 million for Trump/Republican party.
75 million. Subtract the "Never Democrats" votes. Subtract the ones who vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is. Subtract the "Trump is the lesser evil" votes. Subtract the "I hate politicians and political parties, and I just want a fucking job, so I'll vote this way" votes.
Do all of that, and on November 4th 2020 there were around 5 to 10 million potential Patriot Party supporters. Probably less.
So, the left has 20 million die hard left wing or nothing voters. 15 million right wing or nothing voters. Another 15 million people who are guaranteed to vote right wing, they just don't realize it. And the rest that can swing either way.
But lets go back to the Patriot Party - On Nov 4th it had the potential for a lot of supporters. But Trump has gone from a superhero, here to save the country, to just another politician.
You have to understand that if the right splits, the Patriot Party won't be right wing enough, and the left voters won't touch it.
The fact is that people believe in right and wrong (or what they consider right and wrong). They look out for themselves and their own interests. Only fanatics define themselves as a political party no matter what.
In the end, the left has it's guaranteed voters. The bleeding hearts, the virtuous. Those votes are guaranteed Democrat. Add in Jewish influence, Jewish controlled media/websites, chink money, and they create more guaranteed Democrat voters. There's nothing that can be done to gain them at all. Those are a write off.
Then there are the guaranteed right wing votes. Trump isn't right wing enough for them. Trump shot to power because he was right wing enough to be accepted, but left wing enough to gain undecideds. The Patriot Party will get some right wingers, but won't be right wing enough to take them all.
So, that means Trump grabs every single undecided or not guaranteed left or right vote and wins by a landslide, right? Wrong.
Over the next 4 years, the Dems will blame Trump for everything they do wrong. Claiming that they're fixing what Trump did. 4 years of Dems saying it's all Trump's fault will also result in many right of center undecideds to avoid the Patriot Party and vote Republican.
Some might say that even
Or everything I'm saying is pointless because the elections are rigged, the narrative is controlled, and this is all just a movie following the script. The right breaking into 2 separate parties is all part of the script.
Act 4: Scene 1 - Title: They Want Us Divided.
Location: Mar-a-Lago. March 4th, 2021.
Trump divides the right into 2 separate parties. As the right's judges, politicians, and voters fight amongst themselves, the country descends into communism.
Marvin....at least you tried this time. However I completely disagree with your "math" regarding potential voters...(3rd party seekers). Interesting point on the splitting effect. Will give you that. May be temporary. However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough. So you seem to be in that category YES? That far right would be fascism....yes?
>That far right would be fascism....yes?
No.
Left wing is more government; more government controls, more government restrictions, more government, more government.
The government runs the hospitals, the government builds the roads. the government decides how many guns you can have, the government restricts what type of guns you can have. That's left wing.
Right wing is less government; fewer government controls, fever government restrictions, less government.
The government doesn't run the hospitals, the government doesn't build the roads. The government doesn't have any say in how many guns I have or what types I can have. That's right wing.
There are many terms and phrases that people try to use to describe certain chunks of the political spectrum. There are large percentages of the population that are say, right of center. But their political beliefs only extend a certain distance right. They're given some pointless term in an attempt to well... describe their wants, needs, and voting habits in one or two words.
The problem is that individuals, groups of people, and political parties are almost always left wing on one topic and right wing on another.
Here's an honest question - Could a brand new political party be left wing on one topic and right wing on another? Could someone create a political party that wants universal healthcare, and the right for people to own as many guns as they want? - The answer is yes. I'm not saying anyone would vote for them, but a political party like that can exist.
Next honest question - If someone says that they should be able to own whatever type of gun they want, as many guns as they want. And the government should have no say, there should be no government restrictions. That the government should have no say, no restrictions. Are they left or right wing? Obviously right wing.
Now replace the word gun with abortion, or marriage.
Most people, not all, but most people are right wing on one topic and left on another. Most political parties are too. That's why nearly all of those political terms - Republican, Democrat, fascist, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian - those terms are bullshit.
Fascism - The first use of fascism was to describe Mussolini's politics. He's quoted as describing fascism as, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - The state, the government, has complete control. Not only does the government run the hospital and builds the roads, the government runs the companies and corporations. Sounds like far left politics, sounds like Communism, doesn't it?
Far right fascism is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is phrases like "an organized mess". It can't be a mess if it's organized, and can't be organized if it's a mess. Same with far right fascism. It can't be fascism if it's far right, and can't be far right if it's fascism.
Also, Fascism is usually described as "Ultra-Nationalism". But what is "Patriotism"? Can Patriotism be defined as Ultra-Nationalism? Yes.
Me personally - I don't want the government restricting me on what job I work, or business I own. I don't want government restrictions, so I'm right wing. But I want the government to restrict Jews and foreign corporations from owning media outlets. I do want government restrictions, so I'm left wing.
Do you want capitalism or communism? If you want capitalism you're right wing. If you're a Patriot, then you're a Fascist. If you're a Capitalist Patriot, then you're a Right Wing Fascist. Either that or these terms are bullshit.
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.
(post is archived)