Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

the centrist party

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:32 pm

With how crappy both the right and left wing parties can be would it not make sense for the U.S. to have a mainstream centrist party? many more task would be completed and both sides would at least have some of their arguments heard.

this is already popular in countries like france and other european countries and we have a party that is officially recognized as the centris party

http://www.uscentrist.org/



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:33 pm

Ross Perot tried that and failed. You're going to need some ideological zealots to support a minor party, otherwise it will just fizzle and die.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:39 pm

Orwell wrote:
Ross Perot tried that and failed. You're going to need some ideological zealots to support a minor party, otherwise it will just fizzle and die.


it works on other countries that have a right and left wing party, it is called a mlti party system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_%28centrism%29

not the greatest example, but it works.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:41 pm

But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:42 pm

Orwell wrote:
But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


how are the full of s**t?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:45 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


how are the full of sh**?

Their positions are little more than vague buzzwords, and they keep playing holier-than though, claiming to be superior simply because they are "moderate."


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


how are the full of sh**?

Their positions are little more than vague buzzwords, and they keep playing holier-than though, claiming to be superior simply because they are "moderate."


if you are talking about the wikipedia article i can understand, but if you are talking about the centrist party site then I am confused.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 10:06 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


how are the full of sh**?

Their positions are little more than vague buzzwords, and they keep playing holier-than though, claiming to be superior simply because they are "moderate."


if you are talking about the wikipedia article i can understand, but if you are talking about the centrist party site then I am confused.

I'm talking about the centrist party site. They're obnoxious as can be, intolerant in their own way, and falsely twist statistics to claim that they're a huge majority. Also, they won't give specific stances other than crap about "we'll all work together to solve this problem" blah blah blah. What a load of bull.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 10:08 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
But our system makes it impossible for third parties to succeed. Besides, I looked at the Centrist Party's website and they're pretty much full of $h*t.


how are the full of sh**?

Their positions are little more than vague buzzwords, and they keep playing holier-than though, claiming to be superior simply because they are "moderate."


if you are talking about the wikipedia article i can understand, but if you are talking about the centrist party site then I am confused.

I'm talking about the centrist party site. They're obnoxious as can be, intolerant in their own way, and falsely twist statistics to claim that they're a huge majority. Also, they won't give specific stances other than crap about "we'll all work together to solve this problem" blah blah blah. What a load of bull.


so people can not work to solve problems? it is jsut their missio9n statement, all political parties have them. As for the statistics they may not be accurate but less than a thrid of people vote in the presidential election so it may not be sucha surprise.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 10:12 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
so people can not work to solve problems? it is jsut their missio9n statement, all political parties have them. As for the statistics they may not be accurate but less than a thrid of people vote in the presidential election so it may not be sucha surprise.

1. No, all of their stances are vague, fence-straddling cop-outs. All they say is that they can solve the problem because they are moderates, and therefore better and smarter than everyone else.
2. Your own statistics are wrong. Less than 1/3 voting in the presidential election? Check your facts, please.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 10:17 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
so people can not work to solve problems? it is jsut their missio9n statement, all political parties have them. As for the statistics they may not be accurate but less than a thrid of people vote in the presidential election so it may not be sucha surprise.

1. No, all of their stances are vague, fence-straddling cop-outs. All they say is that they can solve the problem because they are moderates, and therefore better and smarter than everyone else.
2. Your own statistics are wrong. Less than 1/3 voting in the presidential election? Check your facts, please.


I did make a mistake on that it was around 127,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rand_total

but that is still less than half



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 10:27 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
so people can not work to solve problems? it is jsut their missio9n statement, all political parties have them. As for the statistics they may not be accurate but less than a thrid of people vote in the presidential election so it may not be sucha surprise.

1. No, all of their stances are vague, fence-straddling cop-outs. All they say is that they can solve the problem because they are moderates, and therefore better and smarter than everyone else.
2. Your own statistics are wrong. Less than 1/3 voting in the presidential election? Check your facts, please.


I did make a mistake on that it was around 127,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rand_total

but that is still less than half

No, it was slightly over 60% of eligible voters in 2004. Not everyone living in this country is eligible to vote.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 10:28 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
so people can not work to solve problems? it is jsut their missio9n statement, all political parties have them. As for the statistics they may not be accurate but less than a thrid of people vote in the presidential election so it may not be sucha surprise.

1. No, all of their stances are vague, fence-straddling cop-outs. All they say is that they can solve the problem because they are moderates, and therefore better and smarter than everyone else.
2. Your own statistics are wrong. Less than 1/3 voting in the presidential election? Check your facts, please.


I did make a mistake on that it was around 127,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rand_total

but that is still less than half

No, it was slightly over 60% of eligible voters in 2004. Not everyone living in this country is eligible to vote.


where did you get that statistic?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 10:30 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
where did you get that statistic?


United States Election Project


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 10:42 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
where did you get that statistic?


United States Election Project


it still says that the total turnout was 123,00,000

and even if one takes out the population that is not of voting age they still do not achieve a 2/3rds majority



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 10:47 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
where did you get that statistic?


United States Election Project


it still says that the total turnout was 123,00,000

and even if one takes out the population that is not of voting age they still do not achieve a 2/3rds majority

And it says the voting-eligible population was 202,746,417. 123,000,000/202,746,417=about 60%.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH