Replies

A political party is just that. It is a collection of like minded people working together towards shared goals via the electoral process. The Republican party isn’t enshrined in the constitution. If you wish to join it, the bare minimum it should require is you support it’s nominees. If you can’t do that, don’t join. Simple as that.

Trump has the resources and support right now to create yet another 3rd party and should be able to get on the ballot in most, if not all, states. Let him do that. The GOP should simply call his bluff. Openly yammering about using leverage against a party that is, like it or not, allowing you to use its infrastructure to run for office is obnoxious and I don’t see why any political party would stand for it.

Lets say the GOP was blown up and some other party rose to become the 2nd leg of our 2 party system. And lets say it started off as a group of conservatives with the intent of it being a more conservative party. How would you feel if all the non-Democrat voters, which would include all the same GOPe, RINO and “moderates” joined, became the majority of this new party yet again and started running establishment type candidates in your fresh new party? Do you feel you’d have a right to expect some level of purity in the new party? Do you feel the new conservative party should pointedly refuse to accept former RINO’s and establishment types as candidates? Do you think the new party, designed to be more conservative, should have the right to screen out those that do not stand for it’s basic beliefs?

To be honest, one of my biggest gripes is that our system is designed as a winner take all 2 party system with no opportunity for coalitions. I know we all revere the founding fathers, but personally I’d rather see multiple parties and the ability to form coalitions. Can you imagine how refreshing it would be to be able to go to the ballot box every election and vote for a party/candidate you actually believe in and LIKE - as opposed to this current system where we are basically condemned to voting for the lesser of 2 evils all the way up and down the ballot because we essentially have only 2 viable options?

Sorry about the long post. Just thinking out loud a little bit. I know we disagree about Trump, but probably don’t on 90% of the issues.

As I said earlier, I am really not sure if such laws would pass constitutional muster. I know these laws are on the books in several places, but I don’t know enough about whether and what the outcome of challenges were.

Same here. I agree on all points.

A political party is just that. It is a collection of like minded people working together towards shared goals via the electoral process. The Republican party isn’t enshrined in the constitution. If you wish to join it, the bare minimum it should require is you support it’s nominees. If you can’t do that, don’t join. Simple as that.

If a person competes in the nomination process, and fails to get the nomination, I would agree. If the party manipulated the process, I would not.

The party has every right to expect party loyalty, but a person running from that party should be able to expect a fair process, loyalty in reverse if you will.

Trump has the resources and support right now to create yet another 3rd party and should be able to get on the ballot in most, if not all, states. Let him do that. The GOP should simply call his bluff. Openly yammering about using leverage against a party that is, like it or not, allowing you to use its infrastructure to run for office is obnoxious and I don’t see why any political party would stand for it.

Do you have any idea how many party platform policies McCain was against? He was about the farthest thing from a conventional Republican as you could get. Trump is a choir boy compared to him. McCain couldn't get enough support from his own party members to pull in someone like himself to run with him. He had to pull in Palin to counter his extreme Leftist views. Otherwise he would have lost by 30 points. Did the party expel him?

Much is made about how antagonistic Trump is. He's not calling Tea Party members terrorists. McCain had. McCain was teaming up with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russell Feingold, and Joseph Lieberman to co-author legislation on the floor of the Senate. Not six months before he ran for the presidency, he had an immigration reform bill on the floor of the Senate co-authored by Ted Kennedy. He submitted no fewer than three campaign finance reform packages before finally getting that passed with Feingold. It was such bad legislation, it was passed and ruled unConstitutional. He worked with Joseph Lieberman on another effort submitting the same sort of legislation between three and five times, before they finally got that passed. It was Leftist in nature also.

Trump? He's nowhere near the disaster they would have you believe. Think John won any converts for the Republican party when he riped the veteran's group and spanked the representatives of men MIA on the floor of the Senate, to act on behalf or MFN for Vietnam?

This was our 2008 nominee. Trump was not in a position of power. His views are assumed to have been leftist, but he didn't do 2% of the damage John McCain did to the nation, and he was just fine with the GOPe.

Lets say the GOP was blown up and some other party rose to become the 2nd leg of our 2 party system. And lets say it started off as a group of conservatives with the intent of it being a more conservative party. How would you feel if all the non-Democrat voters, which would include all the same GOPe, RINO and “moderates” joined, became the majority of this new party yet again and started running establishment type candidates in your fresh new party? Do you feel you’d have a right to expect some level of purity in the new party? Do you feel the new conservative party should pointedly refuse to accept former RINO’s and establishment types as candidates? Do you think the new party, designed to be more conservative, should have the right to screen out those that do not stand for it’s basic beliefs?

I don't mind your example, but let's do one better than that. This is EXACTLY what the RNC GOPe did to the Republican party. We don't need to think about a hypothetical new third party. This has already taken place. Our party that differed with the Democrats was destroyed. This is relatively new. I have never seen a Speaker and Majority Leader cooperate with an opposition party head in the White House as these two have, and the GOPe has been silent as can be. Think that did any harm to the Republican party? Trump wants to move the party back to the right and now there's talk of him being unfair to the party? Really?

You share my views of the Republican Party leadership, and yet you have fallen for their ruse. I'm not trying to be mean about it, but isn't that exactly what you have done? Think about it and let me know if you think I'm way off base.

BTW: Your example was something I think about as well. It's part of the reason why I am not a big fan of a third party. It's my take it would be come corrupted as well. None the less, if you have to do it, you have to do it.

We should not let a party do what the Republican party has done, then defend it for it's treachery. It has changed, and now claims it isn't fair for us to return it to core principles. (if it ever had them to begin with) None the less, it shouldn't be any more of a sin to move the party back right, if it was okay to move it at all, in particular to the Left. That should have been the larger infraction if we're honest about it.

To be honest, one of my biggest gripes is that our system is designed as a winner take all 2 party system with no opportunity for coalitions. I know we all revere the founding fathers, but personally I’d rather see multiple parties and the ability to form coalitions. Can you imagine how refreshing it would be to be able to go to the ballot box every election and vote for a party/candidate you actually believe in and LIKE - as opposed to this current system where we are basically condemned to voting for the lesser of 2 evils all the way up and down the ballot because we essentially have only 2 viable options?

In those coalitions, you vote for the party, and the party puts their party leader in to lead. I don't know how they work, but I am not positive they can't appoint a new leader any time they like. Perhaps you know the answer to that.

One other consideration is this. If you splinter the groups, what happens when there are only 20% of the populace that is Conservative. You would have to form a coalition with others, and those others may have more power than you in perpetuity.

How would you like to be in a coalition with some really bat-s crazy party? That doesn't appeal to me. David Duke and his band of minions as a coalition partner... no thanks.

Sorry about the long post. Just thinking out loud a little bit. I know we disagree about Trump, but probably don’t on 90% of the issues.

We probably agree on more like 95% plus. Take care.