1Molly3028
https://www.nolabels.org/
We are a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country's biggest problems.
***
49% of voters are Indies, now. Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade? I would like to see them launch a presidential candidate. I plan to give this organization my support going forward. You?
We are a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country's biggest problems.
***
49% of voters are Indies, now. Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade? I would like to see them launch a presidential candidate. I plan to give this organization my support going forward. You?
2JGL53
No. Any attempt to split the vote at this juncture could lead to the reelection of a malignant narcissist grifter.
Let's just wait first and see if the repukelican party self-destructs.
Let's just wait first and see if the repukelican party self-destructs.
3kiparsky
>1 Molly3028: Is this group offering us a way out of the political quagmire America has been stuck in for almost a decade?
I don't see how it is.
Their premise seems to be the that there's a "middle ground" where most people find themselves located, politically speaking, and that nobody represents that "middle ground". Therefore, the thinking goes, they define their policy as "whatever is between left and right". This is nonsense. In fact, economically speaking, the Democrats have represented the traditional Republican view since Clinton, and the Republicans do not have an economic policy at all. They don't understand trade, they don't understand taxes, they don't understand deficits, etc. - there is no basis for economic policy in the Republican party today, so their policy is simply "no". (Why do you think they shut down the government every time they have the chance?) There isn't a middle ground between "corporate capitalism" and "the other guy shouldn't get anything that he wants", which means there isn't a basis for compromise there.
On social issues, the problem is a little different. Americans broadly speaking agree with Democrats - they don't want women to be slaves of the state, they think reasonable gun regulation is fine, they don't really care about the stuff that the Culture Worriers get worked up about, etc, On social issues, the problem isn't that the middle ground isn't represented - it's represented by the Democrats, on just about every issue. Trying to sell Americans on a compromise between what they actually want (for example, to be allowed to make their own medical decisions) and what the Taliban want (which is that women should be the property of their father, husband, brother, priest, or political representative) is simply not going to fly. Americans don't want that, they want women to be allowed to make their own decisions about their own bodies with the help of the people they choose to involve in the decision. The compromise between reasonable gun control and "you can fire your gun anywhere you want, and it's up to everyone else to not be where the bullet goes" is not something Americans want, and you're not going to be able to sell it to Americans.
The idea that "problem solvers" can "get things done" by making compromises is fine, if you're dealing with an honest disagreement on issues, but today's Republican party doesn't have positions, it's self-defined purely in terms of its opposition to "liberals". Since they don't have positions, any compromise you broker with them will just result in them taking more extreme and idiotic positions, because their brand is solely about being against liberals, and has nothing to do with any independent values or thought.
All of this of course is before we even wrestle with the question of whether Americans are willing to be moved by the idea of returning to the old one-hand-washes-the-other school of pork-barrel politicking, where the game is simply to give each representative or senator who plays along a sack of pork chops that they can bring back to their district and hand around. I'm not convinced that anyone's really all that nostalgic for that era, but that's the essence of the "good old days" that you'd be returning to here.
So, I'm not seeing how this is going to accomplish much of anything. On the other hand, if they're not actually trying to form a third party, I think it's pretty harmless and will die out fitfully in due course.
I don't see how it is.
Their premise seems to be the that there's a "middle ground" where most people find themselves located, politically speaking, and that nobody represents that "middle ground". Therefore, the thinking goes, they define their policy as "whatever is between left and right". This is nonsense. In fact, economically speaking, the Democrats have represented the traditional Republican view since Clinton, and the Republicans do not have an economic policy at all. They don't understand trade, they don't understand taxes, they don't understand deficits, etc. - there is no basis for economic policy in the Republican party today, so their policy is simply "no". (Why do you think they shut down the government every time they have the chance?) There isn't a middle ground between "corporate capitalism" and "the other guy shouldn't get anything that he wants", which means there isn't a basis for compromise there.
On social issues, the problem is a little different. Americans broadly speaking agree with Democrats - they don't want women to be slaves of the state, they think reasonable gun regulation is fine, they don't really care about the stuff that the Culture Worriers get worked up about, etc, On social issues, the problem isn't that the middle ground isn't represented - it's represented by the Democrats, on just about every issue. Trying to sell Americans on a compromise between what they actually want (for example, to be allowed to make their own medical decisions) and what the Taliban want (which is that women should be the property of their father, husband, brother, priest, or political representative) is simply not going to fly. Americans don't want that, they want women to be allowed to make their own decisions about their own bodies with the help of the people they choose to involve in the decision. The compromise between reasonable gun control and "you can fire your gun anywhere you want, and it's up to everyone else to not be where the bullet goes" is not something Americans want, and you're not going to be able to sell it to Americans.
The idea that "problem solvers" can "get things done" by making compromises is fine, if you're dealing with an honest disagreement on issues, but today's Republican party doesn't have positions, it's self-defined purely in terms of its opposition to "liberals". Since they don't have positions, any compromise you broker with them will just result in them taking more extreme and idiotic positions, because their brand is solely about being against liberals, and has nothing to do with any independent values or thought.
All of this of course is before we even wrestle with the question of whether Americans are willing to be moved by the idea of returning to the old one-hand-washes-the-other school of pork-barrel politicking, where the game is simply to give each representative or senator who plays along a sack of pork chops that they can bring back to their district and hand around. I'm not convinced that anyone's really all that nostalgic for that era, but that's the essence of the "good old days" that you'd be returning to here.
So, I'm not seeing how this is going to accomplish much of anything. On the other hand, if they're not actually trying to form a third party, I think it's pretty harmless and will die out fitfully in due course.
4lriley
Apparently Clarence Thomas's Harlan Crow is one of its donors. Other people linked to it are former Connecticut Senator and McCain/Lindsey Graham buddy Joe Lieberman. Tom Reed former Republican congressman from my NY district who resigned after a sex scandal. Dan Lipinski former right wing anti-abortion democrat from Illinois. Super wealthy people as well from high finance.
What I see are people who would like to muddy the water and potentially throw the next election to the guy who tried to stage a coup on his way out in 2021.
What I see are people who would like to muddy the water and potentially throw the next election to the guy who tried to stage a coup on his way out in 2021.
5prosfilaes
>3 kiparsky: I'm a bit nostalgic for the pork barrel days. A little pig fat makes the engine run smoother, metaphorically. Adding pork barrel to the discussion means not every bill has to be an uncompromising fight to the death, instead being a trade off of high value local pork versus issues that may not matter that much to their constituents.
6proximity1
typically and laughably ill-conceived stuff. So I have no doubt your likes shall seize on this.
Politics is the arena of the damnably difficult, controversial and unavoidable matters of life. They may also be damned important --but aren't always so--as, in periods of mass-hysteria, they can come to focus on the insanely stupid to the detriment of much else.
As political theorists, you people don't even rise to the level of bad amateurs.
Labels aren't going away. They serve purposes--good and, for liars and hypocrites, bad.
7Molly3028
People in the middle of a continuum can find agreement and allow good governance to take place. Labeling them, political tribalism, unfortunately allows the people on both ends of the continuum to short circuit agreement and interfere with proper governance.
8prosfilaes
>7 Molly3028: Between 1912 and 1992, the US did not have the political split that characterized government before and after that point. In fact, one of the major divisions was inside the Democratic Party, without formal label. The problem is in the people, not the labels.
9Molly3028
>8 prosfilaes:
In my mind, labelling and tribalism are on separate planets, altogether. Tribalism involves the mixing of blood!
In my mind, labelling and tribalism are on separate planets, altogether. Tribalism involves the mixing of blood!
10Molly3028
George Will of The Washington Post recently affirmed our purpose, suggesting, “A third option might appeal…2024 might bring the most dramatically nonbinary election since 1856…One or both of the major parties might, depending on their calculations of a third candidate’s appeal, accuse No Labels of being a spoiler. Let those parties try to explain how today’s politics could be spoiled.”
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan sees a potential path forward for a No Labels run in the 2024 presidential race. She posits that if a few key elements align, “they’d have an even or better than even chance of surprising history by winning.” We love her optimism!
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan sees a potential path forward for a No Labels run in the 2024 presidential race. She posits that if a few key elements align, “they’d have an even or better than even chance of surprising history by winning.” We love her optimism!
11JGL53
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are Satanists, since tRUMP is Satan and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a Satanist.
I hate Satanists.
I hate Satanists.
12kiparsky
>11 JGL53: I wouldn't want to slander Satanists like that. Most of them seem to be pretty okay folks, and I quite like some of the things that for example the Satanic Temple has been doing for free speech and freedom of religion.
And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, are falling for the "no labels" nonsense.
And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, are falling for the "no labels" nonsense.
13lriley
From what I've seen I can almost classify the No Labels group as Reagan-ites. Lots of pre-Trump classic republicans from 80's, 90's, early 2000's. That's really what the Hogan's and Sununu's are. Throw in Joe Lieberman who campaigned for John McCain and Joe Manchin--more than less democrats that are hardest at the conservative margins. It's not like to me that Biden is all that far away from them in perspective but watering down whatever support he has with someone from the No Labels group is just playing around with putting Trump back in office. People should be happy with the person they vote for. That said after Sanders failed there are no real difference makers left on our political scene as far as I can see and Trump is an existential danger to the nation. Try getting him out of power if he ever attains it again. He has an enemies list already in every sector of the federal government and he intends to purge his enemies and perhaps even abolish our entire electoral system. When you look at some of his allies on the right from the militia groups like Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, to White Supremacist groups, to far right evangelical and Catholic christians who would turn this country into a christian version of Iran.....this guy is corrupt and wants power and could care less about how he attains or maintains it. Next time around he intends to be a dictator and a majority of his base are fine with that.
14JGL53
> 12
OK. I apologize to all Satanists, who, for all I know, are our children's best role models.
Let's substitute the words "dumbass" and "dumbasses":
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are dumbasses, since tRUMP is a dumbass and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a dumbass.
I hate dumbasses.
- There, fixed it.
OK. I apologize to all Satanists, who, for all I know, are our children's best role models.
Let's substitute the words "dumbass" and "dumbasses":
If a third party in the 2024 race helps tRUMP get elected then that third party and everyone who voted for it are dumbasses, since tRUMP is a dumbass and anyone who helps him get elected - in any way - is thusly a dumbass.
I hate dumbasses.
- There, fixed it.
15kiparsky
>14 JGL53: I think that is a much more accurate assessment of the situation. (and I quite agree with you, btw)
