If they preach about bipartisanship while advancing ideas like protecting children from LGBT grooming, all the better. Most Democratic voters agree with that, so it is bipartisan, as it should be.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.
This is the only attitude that will allow for our constitutional liberties to survive.
Too many naive fools on the right still think there can be compromise and unity.
If a Republican politician constantly preaches "bipartisanship", you must vote the traitor out.
Rhetoric is not the problem, actions are.
If they preach about bipartisanship while advancing ideas like protecting children from LGBT grooming, all the better. Most Democratic voters agree with that, so it is bipartisan, as it should be.
So Full Fascist it is.
Way to prove them right about you.
Choosing not to associate with the left and ensuring the protection of the first and second amendment is now muh fascism?
What a pathetic retort.
You can ensure that without going full Fascist. Trump did it splendidly.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
"You have to say Black Lives Matter!"
"No."
That's not fascism, you midwit.
You are making inferences on what i want.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
By "independent" I mean those who reject both the D and R parties and see the duopoly as the dead-end it is.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.