Trump shares video of "great people" yelling "white power" at pro Trump parade

[GMDino]

(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Has there ever been a big named independent candidate? If not, then maybe that would help garner more support for the independent party. Like maybe Mark Cuban? I believe he claims to be independent. Just a thought. But even then, with both house and senate being controlled by left or right, not sure how much would get done?

Ross Perot.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/07/10/perot-third-party-presidential-bids

Perot was great for us when I worked in radio.  His "giant sucking sound" sound byte always worked.  But all seriousness aside I thought at the time that maybe a third party could get a strong foothold after his run.  Not the first or last time I was wrong!

I think Johnson was a big name too and I was surprised he didn't garner more support.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Maybe his marijuana stance was ahead of its time? 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Has there ever been a big named independent candidate? If not, then maybe that would help garner more support for the independent party. Like maybe Mark Cuban? I believe he claims to be independent. Just a thought. But even then, with both house and senate being controlled by left or right, not sure how much would get done?

Ross Perot got almost 20% of the votes in the 1992 Presidential election and finished in 2nd place in multiple states, but Clinton still got the majjority of the Electorial College votes required.

TRhe last time a 3rd party finished higher than third place was 1912 with former President Theadore Roosevelt ran as a member of the progressive Bull Moose Party.  It was a party created just for Teddy.

[GMDino]

(06-29-2020, 10:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Ross Perot got almost 20% of the votes in the 1992 Presidential election and finished in 2nd place in multiple states, but Clinton still got the majjority of the Electorial College votes required.

TRhe last time a 3rd party finished higher than third place was 1912 with former President Theadore Roosevelt ran as a member of the progressive Bull Moose Party.  It was a party created just for Teddy.

I was just coming back to edit my post to say "in my lifetime"...lol.

Yeah, in the past third or new parties were able to can popularity.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Has there ever been a big named independent candidate? If not, then maybe that would help garner more support for the independent party. Like maybe Mark Cuban? I believe he claims to be independent. Just a thought. But even then, with both house and senate being controlled by left or right, not sure how much would get done?

Ross Perot has already been mentioned, and there have been some others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

We haven't seen any third-party/independent candidate gain any electoral college votes since 1968. In all seriousness, with the EC, we will never see a viable candidate that isn't a part of the two major parties. That system was designed to prevent the common people from making a bad decision and is now being used by those in power to keep their power. Anything that gives more power in the hands of the people, like popular votes and ranked choice voting, is objected to by the political powers that be. You can see, as pointed out, Ross Perot hit nearly 20% in the popular vote but gained no EC votes. What would've happened with NPV/RCV? We could've seen a second term for Bush. Or, people may have been more comfortable voting for Perot as a first choice if they could then put Clinton or Bush as a second choice.

Anyway, what I'm talking about is coming from a political science perspective and isn't something most people think very much about.

[HarleyDog]

(06-29-2020, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ross Perot.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/07/10/perot-third-party-presidential-bids

Perot was great for us when I worked in radio.  His "giant sucking sound" sound byte always worked.  But all seriousness aside I thought at the time that maybe a third party could get a strong foothold after his run.  Not the first or last time I was wrong!

I think Johnson was a big name too and I was surprised he didn't garner more support.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Maybe his marijuana stance was ahead of its time? 

I voted for Perot. I remember very strong support for him just about everywhere I went (was a truck driver then). Yet, he killed his chances after backing out then getting back in the race late. I think people lost trust in him after that. 

[CJD]

It was basically confirmed that Trump is a complete and utter racist when he tweeted that American citizens should go back to where they came from, but for the few stalwarts left who were still in denial, this should do the trick.

Oh, what's that?...He...Didn't hear it?

Really?

That's your excuse now?

Racists will jump through so many hoops to continue to pretend that Trump is not blatantly and obviously racist.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: I was just coming back to edit my post to say "in my lifetime"...lol.

Yeah, in the past third or new parties were able to can popularity.

Perot actually impacted the election and added unpredictability to the 2 party system.  He was allowed to debate and participate and, go figure, people voted for him. 

Now 3rd parties aren't allowed to participate or even get on ballots in some cases and the major parties say "See?  No one cares."  It's why successful 3rd party politicians spend their careers outside of presidential bids as members of parties that are allowed to be elected.  

The idea that Trump and Johnson were both running and Trump was the Republican and Johnson was considered the wild card fringe nut just shows how perverted our party-driven system has become. 

[fredtoast]

Some people blame Ralph Nadar for costing Al Gore the '00 election

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida (and Pat Buchanan and Harry Browne received 17,484 and 16,415 respectively), which led to claims that Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat. Critics rarely mention Buchanan (who should be considered due to the butterfly ballot) or Browne. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all" (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush). Similarly, in New Hampshire, Bush won a plurality by garnering 273,559 votes, 48.07%, to Gore's 266,348 votes, 46.80%. The 22,198 votes for Nader (3.90%) was triple the margin of victory for Bush (the combined 4,372 votes for Buchanan and Browne fall below the margin of difference). If Gore had received all of Nader's NH votes, he would have won with 15,000 to spare, but if Nader's figures of 38% for Gore and 25% for Bush held true, Gore would not have carried NH. When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida."

[fredtoast]

While I do not disagree that the system is rigged to favor the two big parties (money raising, gerrymandering, winner-take-all voting, etc) I also note that there are no real viable third parties out there right now. They all seem to be either extreme fringes groups of the two established parties or single-issue parties.

But if we made some major changes to our voting system I believe we could get at least a few third party congressmen elected. And as evenly as the Senate and house are split it would just take a few votes to swing some major issues. Congress might actually go back to *gasp* COMPROMISING *gasp* in order to pass legislation that could help everyone.

[masonbengals fan]

What was the guy in the blue t-shirt yelling to get that response from the white power guy? I can't understand what he says?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=171&v=KLgyJBUaNVg&feature=emb_logo

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The big problem with the two-party system; in order to have any potential of making your vote count, you have to vote for the least objectionable of the two options. Lots of people like to espouse the third-party or independent vote, and I'm not going to say that I don't roll that way quite often. The issue is that the likelihood of a those options being viable is slim to none thanks to our electoral system. It's not just a matter of getting people on board, it's the system that needs to be restructured to make it possible. For president, specifically, it would need to be national popular vote with ranked choice voting in order to give a third-party or independent a real shot at the White House.

Good points but I'm on record as to why I support the Electoral College.  Ranked choice for statewide and more local elections would be fine with me.

(06-29-2020, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: To be fair though, a reasonable argument can be made that he's actually still better than Trump. Morally or otherwise.

Morally?  Possibly, maybe even likely.  Not a fan of any man who rapes a women though.  That being said I don't think morality is the main reason someone would vote for Trump over Biden.  Political positions are the main determinant.

[hollodero]

(06-29-2020, 02:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Morally?  Possibly, maybe even likely.  Not a fan of any man who rapes a women though.  That being said I don't think morality is the main reason someone would vote for Trump over Biden.  Political positions are the main determinant.

What I unsuccessfully tried to get at is that there are several viable reasons to prefer Biden over Trump aside from morality. Or politics.

Eg. Trump firing inconvenient AGs or how he argues in court that he can not be indicted no matter what. This would be a long list.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 02:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: What I unsuccessfully tried to get at is that there are several viable reasons to prefer Biden over Trump aside from morality. Or politics.

Eg. Trump firing inconvenient AGs or how he argues in court that he can not be indicted no matter what. This would be a long list.

I completely agree, that still won't outweigh the radically different political positions for most people.  Also, there's almost certainly going to be a SCOTUS position opening up in the next four years.  As much as I dislike Trump A far left leaning SCOTUS, which we would have gotten under Hillary, would be a disaster.  The second amendment would be dust and I have zero doubt that the first would be curtailed at some point in the near future.

[hollodero]

(06-29-2020, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree, that still won't outweigh the radically different political positions for most people.  Also, there's almost certainly going to be a SCOTUS position opening up in the next four years.  As much as I dislike Trump A far left leaning SCOTUS, which we would have gotten under Hillary, would be a disaster.  The second amendment would be dust and I have zero doubt that the first would be curtailed at some point in the near future.

I get that it doesn't necessarily outweigh political positions. I'd argue it should regarding this particular extreme, but I wouldn't argue it too much. If someone feels abortion is murder or something like that, what is that person supposed to vote for. OK.

As for SCOTUS though, it always seemed to me they reign in tendencies to lean too far to one side or another amongst themselves. Which does look weird to me at times, but that's my impression. Up to four may stay in their respective lanes, but someone has to occupy a middle position then. 
Also, from what I heard about Garland he was not far left leaning at all. I suppose Hillary had chosen someone similar to get through the senate.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  As much as I dislike Trump A far left leaning SCOTUS, which we would have gotten under Hillary, would be a disaster.  The second amendment would be dust and I have zero doubt that the first would be curtailed at some point in the near future.

There is really nothing to back any of this up.

Hillary was never for abolishing the 2nd amendment.  In fact she is on the record as saying she supported the Second Amendment right of individuals to own weapons and that the complete bans like in DC would be unconstitutional.

And here is some shocking news.  The First Amendment right to free speech is ALREADY limited.  


Does that mean it is "dust"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 03:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that it doesn't necessarily outweigh political positions. I'd argue it should regarding this particular extreme, but I wouldn't argue it too much. If someone feels abortion is murder or something like that, what is that person supposed to vote for. OK.

As for SCOTUS though, it always seemed to me they reign in tendencies to lean too far to one side or another amongst themselves. Which does look weird to me at times, but that's my impression. Up to four may stay in their respective lanes, but someone has to occupy a middle position then. 
Also, from what I heard about Garland he was not far left leaning at all. I suppose Hillary had chosen someone similar to get through the senate.

There's no guarantee Hillary would have went with Garland, although I agree it would be bad optics not to.  I also agree that he was pretty moderate.

(06-29-2020, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is really nothing to back any of this up.

Hillary was never for abolishing the 2nd amendment.  In fact she is on the record as saying she supported the Second Amendment right of individuals to own weapons and that the complete bans like in DC would be unconstitutional.

And here is some shocking news.  The First Amendment right to free speech is ALREADY limited.  


Does that mean it is "dust"?

AT the risk of rehashing this argument I'll simply point out that the second amendment is consistently whittled away at in deep blue states like CA.  It's even reared its head in Virginia now.  I want a SCOTUS that will push back against this increasing infringement, which Hillary would never have provided.  As for 1st amendment restrictions, they are limited to direct calls for violence and such things as shouting fire in a crowded theater.  Seeing as how it's becoming increasingly popular on the far left to demand curtailment of "hate speech" I'm not down with the SCOTUS getting more liberal.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree, that still won't outweigh the radically different political positions for most people.  Also, there's almost certainly going to be a SCOTUS position opening up in the next four years.  As much as I dislike Trump A far left leaning SCOTUS, which we would have gotten under Hillary, would be a disaster.  The second amendment would be dust and I have zero doubt that the first would be curtailed at some point in the near future.

I assume you weren't one of the law abiding citizens who owned a now super-illegal bump stock. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 03:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for 1st amendment restrictions, they are limited to direct calls for violence and such things as shouting fire in a crowded theater.  Seeing as how it's becoming increasingly popular on the far left to demand curtailment of "hate speech" I'm not down with the SCOTUS getting more liberal.

Considering the constant efforts from folks on the right trying to damage free speech through lawsuits aimed at individuals and companies, I'm just concerned about the future of the First Amendment all around.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 03:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I assume you weren't one of the law abiding citizens who owned a now super-illegal bump stock. 

Not at all.  I said on here long ago that I consider them to be a stupid range toy.  Also, you can achieve the exact same effect with a belt loop or shoe lace.  

(06-29-2020, 03:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering the constant efforts from folks on the right trying to damage free speech through lawsuits aimed at individuals and companies, I'm just concerned about the future of the First Amendment all around.

An excellent point as well, thank you for raising it.  

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 03:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Seeing as how it's becoming increasingly popular on the far left to demand curtailment of "hate speech" I'm not down with the SCOTUS getting more liberal.

And Trump is proposing a law against burning the American flag and also demanded that a private business fire an employee for protesting.

The right also wants government to control communications on private social media companies.

Seems to me the biggest current threats to the First Amendment are coming from the right.