7 Candidates on the right eligible for debate, who do you like?

But the same thing happens if you have three parties and even more so. You think it's hard to get a majority with two parties? Try it with three. Where did you get the idea that third parties don't have agendas? People join and form political parties in the main because they have a political agenda of some sort. The trick is to find and support whichever one best matches your own political views. If you have no political views why are you here?

 

The socalled extremists are the ones trying to change things.

 

No Labels is not exactly a third party. They would put forth a democrat/republican split ticket where they would work with moderates to get things done, telling the extremes on both sides to go take a flying leap. It would be about time that moderates ran the country instead of the nutcases on both sides.

 

From BOTH sides. Of course they are trying to change things to fit their agendas. And neither should succeed with those plans, IMO. It is not beneficial to the country in general, and as with most things, the pendulum swings....

 

And so your vote is to keep what we have because thats what you'll get. But beware there is no such thing as a moderate in DC, no labels will do nothing to prevent the slow transfer of power from everywhere else to DC. AOC's club thinks that isn't going fast enough the Freedom Caucus wants to halt and reverse that transfer.

 

Yup. Every time one side wins they wrongly believe that the other party is dead, never to be heard from again. Then the pendulum swings again and again and again, with both sides saying the same thing every time it swings back in their direction.

 

What we have is the whackos on both sides taking government hostage in order to get their way. We need something different.

 

the No Labels Movement is not a political party yet, but it can morph into one given the right time and circumstances. But no major political party, GOP or Democrat, is going to put forth a split ticket. It's a nobel idea, but it has no basis in political reality today.

 

Totally the exact opposite. It has a massive basis in political reality today. People are sick of both parties. People are sick of both Biden and Trump.

 

Not really because at the end of the day, most people will vote for the letter behind the name.

 

Well, even Democrats don't want Biden to run again. And, Independents are more in favor of Trump than Biden.

 

Yes, they are thinking he is too old, and Biden is not much older than Trump. But if Biden is nominated as the Democratic President Nomination, most of them, if not all of them, who say they don't want him to run, will vote for him anyway just like many Republicans who don't want Trump to run because of all those indictments will vote for him anyway if he is the GOP Presidential Nominee.

 

You are making assumptions so how is one to actually discuss it?

Term limits, a reversal of any votes for self benefit by congressweasels, actual independent oversight of congress and SCOTUS (morals and ethics)

 

I used to like Haley, but Christie is the only remotely palatable one to me now. If he stands up against Project 2025, I'll vote for him in the primaries. If not, then I'm not voting in the GOP primary this time.

 

Yet these days it tends to be the Republicans who don't want to pay for it. Democrats are tax-and-spend and Republicans have become spend . . . but cut taxes and our ability to actually pay for that spending. I would love it if the whole two-party system ended -- I agree with you on that. However, our winner-take-all EC system virtually guarantees a two-party system.

 

The problem with government is that it is not the number of agencies or departments, but that it is administratively top heavy. The Army is best known for this as well as the DoD. We have Criminal investigation divisions in the Army, Navy/Marine Corp, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the DoD under the Defense Intelligence Agency. NCIS has been popularized on TV, so has JAG, Judge Advocate Corps, but that is not real though.

 

Chris C, though he's got some baggage, I think will be the victor in that debate, since he is the only one with the guts to stand up to Trump, and will stand out among the very bland crowd.

 

It will be interesting to hear the response from the audience, for sure. Christie was the kingmaker in the previous debate (even if he regrets it), and I think he'll be a powerful force again. He's the only reason I'll watch.

 

In case you haven't noticed, taxes have nothing to do with spending. That's why we owe 32 trillion dollars. No matter how much taxes we collect, we spend what we want to spend anyway.

 

Same here, the others are boring.

 

In case you haven't noticed, taxes produce something called "revenue." You claimed to want to find a responsible way to pay for the spending . . . for that you need revenue. Interesting pivot, though.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you are calling for a balanced budget amendment.

 

I'd be interested in seeing it and I'd definitely be in favor of more responsible spending that involves actually paying for what we've already spent and perhaps cutting future spending. But the GOP isn't remotely serious about that and has repeatedly proven so. MAYBE Christie would be, since he showed concern for it in his own state. Trump is as far as you can possibly get from fiscal responsibility. He makes Democrats look like fiscal conservatives by comparison.

 

It happens in some states where the governor and lt. governor are elected separately. I don't think it works out well.

 

Chris Christie is a total idiot.