The News Thread

@Allfader looks like Trump's supporters won't need to try and create a third party, apparently Trump has already floated this idea and reports are saying the name under consideration is The Patriot Party.
I told ya. Those mofos are against everything and everyone. They are extremists and as such, they will alienate themselves and try to drag most people as possible into their fold, like religious zealots has done before.

US must crush them before they become too powerful. Hitler rose to power in a similar way; it was seen as a clown with crazy supporters until his speech reached enough people to make himself the ruler of Germany.
 
Most likely Trump's support took a big hit after the Capitol riot, and a third party would go nowhere since it sets Dems up for an electoral landslide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
What a position to be in, help Google and Facebook avoid paying tax while continuing to make mega profits, or assist Uncle Rupe in his old age to ensure he can live comfortably.
I'd love to see Google make good with the threat though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd
No you said his supporters would start a party.
Trump just went ahead knowing he needs those people aligned and went to give them hope for their own party. Obviously, Trump will use other mofos to actually build that party.

Thing is that people here said there was no way that a 3rd party would come up from this and I said "just wait and see". We didn't have to wait much.

Now, in terms of Presidential elections, they will side with the "pussy" Reps for convenience, BUT... They will likely to put their own candidates for minor positions and consolidate power little by little. Once they start to get senators of their own, things will go crazy. It will happen.
 
I said there's no way his dumb ass supporters would form a third party (as in, a party that represents a genuine third choice; there's a shitload of random parties but nobody cares about them) but I think the chances Trump was going to do it were always pretty high. Didn't he already try to start a party before? The Reform Party or some shit?

If Trump forms a party it has a chance of gaining momentum, whereas a party started by Billy Bob Joetard who's assmad at the GOP would just be a joke.
 
The Reform party has been around for a while now, I think...? I don't keep track.

If Trump starts an entirely new party it's likely to have support, but it's unlikely to gain actual political traction. It's incredibly hard to form and fund a new party, and I doubt Trump has the patience or commitment to do that. It's more likely he and his supporters would infiltrate something like the Constitution party (or be welcomed in, possibly).
 
Certain parallels yeah, and they're definitely part of the same genealogy, i.e. antipathy toward centrist and globalist policy. But of course, the Tea Party wasn't an official political party; it was just a movement. Right now that's what Trumpist populism feels like too, and it'll likely remain that way unless they seriously coopt an actual party.
 
If Trump starts an entirely new party it's likely to have support, but it's unlikely to gain actual political traction

Trump as candidate was discussed in that same terms when the idea was around and he ended being elected.

You, US people, need to fucking wake up. Your country is not the same anymore and it things won't go with the same bipartisan frigid shit as it has always been.

Far right mofos will push Pussy reps to get more extreme in their political views to survive, because Trumpism fits in a very specific demographic that pussy Reps no longer represent and man, the redneck trumpist kind of guy is fairly abundant in America. People needs to get that right to stop this shit. Pussy reps WILL lose political power and eventually, they will be eaten by the Trumpists.

And from the left, Dems can't and won't go away with their fake leftism either. Newer generations are not eating the Commie fear strategy anymore and they are far more attracted to Socialism and other non-centrist left ideas. They WILL push Pussy dems to the left or, in some time, a new more leftist political figure will emerge that will do what Trumpism is/will do now.

If Biden don't show a far more social headed policy, he and the pussy dems will lose a lot of support. Political status quo and "more of the same" won't make the cut anymore.
 
Last edited:
Trump as candidate was discussed in that same terms when the idea was around and he ended being elected.

You're talking about two very different things. People didn't think Trump could win the support/nomination of the Republican party, but he did, namely because he appealed to a mass of right-wing voters (and people disillusioned by the Democrats' dismissal of Sanders). Once the Republicans realized their base was siding with Trump, they threw all their financial and political capital behind him.

The same thing cannot happen if Trump tries to start a new party. It's in the Republicans' interest to oppose and strategically not fund such an effort, meaning Trump loses a lot of the financial backing he had as the Republican nominee. Furthermore, a new right-wing party pulls votes away from Republicans; they'll fight like wolves to keep that from happening.

This means that if Trump is the poster boy for a new right-wing populist, he'll need to fundraise for capital. Starting a party is a lot harder than funding a campaign, and I doubt he'll be able to milk his diehard supporters for enough cash to cover a significant portion of the cost. That means he'll need to fund it out of his own pocket, and I can't imagine Trump caring that much or being that politically gracious.

I completely agree that Trumpism and far-right conservatism will continue to pose a serious threat to our institutions and processes here, but I don't think it will be in the form of a new political party. If anything, I think we'll see Trump's momentum take over a currently existing party.
 
Once the Republicans realized their base was siding with Trump, they threw all their financial and political capital behind him.

This is the exact reason why a 3rd (far) right party might and probably WILL succeed. Remember that 45% of reps supported the insurrection at the Capitol, roughly half of the entire party. It's all about the votes and Trumpist are fierce, unless the pussy reps. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in the same exact way.

Seriously, GOV must address and crush the fuck out of Trumpism while they can. It might be too late if people underestimate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zerostatic
I respectfully disagree. 45% of voters may have supported it, but private industry overwhelmingly did not. I could see some industries/companies shifting their financial support to a new party, but that's a lot of risk to take on. A new political party doesn't thrive on constituent support alone. It needs a lot of funding.

Granted, I'm talking about the formation of a party that goes through all the appropriate political channels and processes. I'm putting aside the possibility of an unofficial party that stages a violent coup and takes power. If that happens, then we're no longer talking electoral and party politics; we're talking about civil war.
 
We'll have to wait and see what happens then. Biden and the Justice dept need to incarcerate the insurgents the most time as possible, so it can discourage some people into trying again.
 
How would the government "crush" Trumpism exactly?

To the 45% stat I actually think it's much more interesting that 43% of Republicans strongly opposed the Capitol riot, when you consider just how popular Trump is among Republicans it's actually kind of refreshing to see that about half of all Republicans draw the line somewhere with this fucking guy. I was surprised support for it was only at 45%.
 
The first and absolute bare minimum for getting a true right-wing party and not more Zionist neoliberals that run the Reps, is that the Dems fracture between the mainline corporate types and a progressive or racial identitarian caucus. Andrew Jackson managed to win a sizable plurality in both the electoral college and the popular vote in 1824, and all three opponents at the time united against him to force in John Quincy Adams. The two-party system was born immediately after Jackson's presidency and has dominated ever since, with the occasional spoiler usually throwing the election in favor of the less-aligned candidate. Basically 200 years of precedent. Add in the fact that the GOP is literally dying, likely to see ~25% declines from demographic change alone within one generation, and the idea of a Hitler-esque victory (plurality winning the endorsement of a major party) seems especially unlikely. Our government is structured too differently for that to ever happen.

Something that has only dawned on me over the last year is that spoilers tend to be noticed by the major parties, yet crushed. LBJ, a firm Southern anti-civil rights rep in the 1950s, made a 180 after Southern spoilers threatened multiple consecutive elections. When protectionist Perot threatened to defeat HW and Clinton until he made the retarded decision to drop and then restart his candidacy, it ushered in an unprecedented era of free-trade deals, culminating in China being granted Most Favored Nation status and the rapid implosion of American industry. As the small-yet-significant influence of libertarian values threatens recent elections with razor-thin margins, the new Populists(tm) like Tucker Carlson (a CATO Institute ex) use mega-corps as proxy libertarian foes while left-liberalism fuses openly with neoconservatism in the new war on domestic terror. For a major party to adopt and siphon off a foreign plank is to give power to new untested actors, and make that plank a part of the debate. By contrast, to simply humiliate the foreign plank into disappearance is to remove it from the voters' minds and to force them to vote on the available options, or to force them not to vote at all.

I've changed my party registration from Libertarian to Democratic for this reason. Ilhan Omar is unironically among the best and most meaningful allies of the right at the moment. The only way to defeat one of the major parties is to drive a plank that they cannot possibly endorse, e.g. BDS.
 
Well, Jackson's presidency gave rise to the Democratic party, and eventually the modern Republican party. But prior to this you also had two-party dominance in various forms (namely Federalists and anti-Federalists). Parties fractured and divided, but the tendency has always been toward two parties because that's how you theoretically guarantee a majority win.

Obviously this doesn't always work out, as in Trump's victory. But with a third-party system you introduce even more likelihood that less than 50% of the voting population can elect someone who then presides over 100% of the voting population. Electoral politics has always gravitated toward two parties; it’s not like America was this multi-party or even three-party system in its early years.