Independent run for POTUS 2020

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It might be a little OT, but was originally intended as my suggesting that avoiding the polarizing rhetoric of identity politics could be a key advantage for a moderate independent candidate.

Feel free to open a thread about it. I will take part. I do think there is an asymmetry in the type of  identity politics played by both sides. I don't like either.

So I would like to see a more moderate candidate get the Democrat ticket, and a much more statesmanlike/stateswomanlike candidate on the right...or barring that both parties getting what they deserve...and losing to a quality independent (as unlikely as that may be).

 

3

hey splinters, what side of the fence gives you more pain?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I found this which you might find interesting on where our centre-right stands relative to the Republican and Dems:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/312573/

I've wondered about that! Thanks!

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I've wondered about that! Thanks!

Me too!

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I found this which you might find interesting on where our centre-right stands relative to the Republican and Dems:

The govt cuts one is misleading in my opinion. Republicans always increase spending when they are in power. 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

The govt cuts one is misleading in my opinion. Republicans always increase spending when they are in power. 

I think it's referring to hands-on regulation.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The govt cuts one is misleading in my opinion. Republicans always increase spending when they are in power. 

hey splinters, what side of the fence gives you more pain?

Edited February 6, 2019 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think it's referring to hands-on regulation.

That makes more sense. 

I touched on it some earlier but political coalitions have a huge impact on issues. On the right gun lobbies have formed coalitions with white evangelicals Together they have more influence. As a result guns and abortion, totally separate issues, are uniformly handled. Candidates only have so much wiggle room before they are crossing coalition lines. 

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

hey splinters, what side of the fence gives you more pain?

Both sides of a physical fence might be the same but what's beyond that fence in either direction isn't. A fence on a cliff for example.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A fence on a cliff for example.

what side is that?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There isn't a singlular definition for what a moderate candidate is. It is relative.

Can you provide a single policy being promoted by any polician which doesn't address or more directly impact a specific identifiable group of people? 

As mentioned above the definition of moderate is relative. This is your thread how about you provide us with your definition of what sorts of positions a moderate candidate would hold on things like gun control, abortion, climate change, immigration, and etc? 

Gun control:support stricter control generally especially assault weapons. I do somewhat understand the 2nd amendment concerns with regard to government tyranny.

Abortion- I think it is somewhat tragic, but support the mothers right to choose in the first trimester. I don't late in the third, as I fail to see the fetus at that stage being less human than a premature baby. I don't know where to draw the line. I don't agree with the obvious ones at conception or birth If I had to draw one it would be when the child could be viable outside the womb...but what does that mean exactly?

Climate change: This is clearly and predominantly man made, the only debate is how fast the changes will come.

Carbon Tax: For it in principle. Too bad no one seems to like it. You have to tax something. The question is fairness and efficiency.

Taxes: Progressive income tax

Immigration: As much as a Nation can comfortably handle. Immigrants should have a path to citizenship and full rights. We should not just take in the "best and brightest" for our own selfish reasons if a poorer country they came from needs them more. Asylum seekers should have a high bar.

Border walls: Nothing inherently immoral about them.

Death penalty: Support in the most egregious cases where there is essentially no doubt, a higher bar than reasonable doubt.

Voters rights: Even incarcerated criminals should be allowed to vote in Provincial and Federal elections. Why isn't the protection of this as much of a concern to the National Rifle Association as the need for assault rifles to dissuade potential government tyranny? I would rather they vote against me than shoot me, and don't think they would all vote the same way. If there is potential to have them be so big a group and all vote one way against your views, maybe you need to take a closer look at the root causes of crime, and why they might all be against you. In any case voting is more of a group obligation than individual right.

Health Care: Two Tier

Affirmative Action: Only where absolutely necessary to reduce, not remove, some historical imbalances.

Edited February 6, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Gun control:support stricter control generally especially assault weapons. I do somewhat understand the 2nd amendment concerns with regard to government tyranny.

Abortion- I think it is somewhat tragic, but support the mothers right to choose in the first trimester. I don't late in the third, as I fail to see the fetus at that stage being less human than a premature baby. I don't know where to draw the line. I don't agree with the obvious ones at conception or birth If I had to draw one it would be when the child could be viable outside the womb...but what does that mean exactly?

Climate change: This is clearly and predominantly man made, the only debate is how fast the changes will come.

Carbon Tax: For it in principle. Too bad no one seems to like it. You have to tax something. The question is fairness and efficiency.

Taxes: Progressive income tax

Immigration: As much as a Nation can comfortably handle. Immigrants should have a path to citizenship and full rights. We should not just take in the "best and brightest" for our own selfish reasons if a poorer country they came from needs them more. Asylum seekers should have a high bar.

Border walls: Nothing inherently immoral about them.

Death penalty: Support in the most egregious cases where there is essentially no doubt, a higher bar than reasonable doubt.

Voters rights: Even incarcerated criminals should be allowed to vote in Provincial and Federal elections. Why isn't the protection of this as much of a concern to the National Rifle Association as the need for assault rifles to dissuade potential government tyranny? I would rather they vote against me than shoot me, and don't think they would all vote the same way. If there is potential to have them be so big a group and all vote one way against your views, maybe you need to take a closer look at the root causes of crime, and why they might all be against you. In any case voting is more of a group obligation than individual right.

Health Care: Two Tier

Affirmative Action: Only where absolutely necessary to reduce, not remove, some historical imbalances.

I don't know what Two Teir means with regards to healthcare. 

Only Trump wants a wall. Bush, Reagan, Romney, McCain, etc never campaigned for a wall. It isn't a left vs right issue. It is a Trump issue. When Trump is gone you won't here about a Wall ever again

On every issue minus Trump's wall and perhaps healthcare (not sure about Two Teir) your notion of moderate is exactly where the Democratic party is. By the definition you just provided every establishment Democrat is moderate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't know what Two Teir means with regards to healthcare. 

Only Trump wants a wall. Bush, Reagan, Romney, McCain, etc never campaigned for a wall. It isn't a left vs right issue. It is a Trump issue. When Trump is gone you won't here about a Wall ever again

On every issue minus Trump's wall and perhaps healthcare (not sure about Two Teir) your notion of moderate is exactly where the Democratic party is. By the definition you just provided every establishment Democrat is moderate. 

Two Tier means a base level that everyone gets for free (paid for by taxes) and everything beyond is paid for personally or by personal insurance etc.

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Two Tier means a base level that everyone gets for free (paid for by taxes) and everything beyond is paid for personally or by personal insurance etc.

Two tier medical is a conservative pipe dream and little else. The Canada Health Act and the Constitution prohibit preferential emergency treatment based on economic standing,

Canada is already somewhat two tiered when it comes to dental, optical and physio-therapeutic treatment, but elective procedures continue to be triage based.

Health insurance is individually mandated by law. The CHA says all citizens must be insured. If an uninsured citizen arrives in an emergency room, instead of being turned away, they are signed up instead. At the end of procedure, they're only left holding the bag for the premium itself, not the total bill.

America has wrongly conflated the individual mandate into a freedom of expression issue. Liken that to biting off one's nose to spite their face.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Two tier medical is a conservative pipe dream and little else. The Canada Health Act and the Constitution prohibit preferential emergency treatment based on economic standing,

Canada is already somewhat two tiered when it comes to dental, optical and physio-therapeutic treatment, but elective procedures continue to be triage based.

Health insurance is individually mandated by law. The CHA says all citizens must be insured. If an uninsured citizen arrives in an emergency room, instead of being turned away, they are signed up instead. At the end of procedure, they're only left holding the bag for the premium itself, not the total bill.

America has wrongly conflated the individual mandate into a freedom of expression issue. Liken that to biting off one's nose to spite their face.

That's part of the base level. In Canada you can pay extra, or use insurance, to get some extra services and prescription drugs, which generally are not covered. You can also go to the States and pay for procedures that are not covered or to reduce your waiting time.

Where do you live where you pay a premium for emergency services? I know Medicare is provincially run, and the system is a little different in each province.

In Nova Scotia you can pay a small fee to use a private clinic to reduce waiting time for some non emergency concerns.

While many Canadians are now born in hospitals, most are born in the wild:

 

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's part of the base level. In Canada you can pay extra, or use insurance, to get some extra services and prescription drugs, which generally are not covered. You can also go to the States and pay for procedures that are not covered or to reduce your waiting time.

Indeed. Those options are available because they are not emergency services, even though many are imperative. Some employers offer Blue Cross as an incentive, which is okay, especially if it means getting back to work, as opposed to getting on a waiting list and needlessly missing more work in the meantime.

In America, no insurance, no treatment. Pre-existing condition? No treatment. Neither puts people back to work.

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

While many Canadians are now born in hospitals, most are born in the wild:

I feel genuinely sorry for all those Canadian women who are asked to pass hockey sticks through their birth canal. 

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I feel genuinely sorry for all those Canadian women who are asked to pass hockey sticks through their birth canal. 

?

[iNow]

Reference his youtube vid about how Canadians are born 

[Ten oz]

@J.C.MacSwell I don't think what you are describing could work here in the states. Canada and the U.S. have different systems. 

The others positions you outline align with where Democratic leadership already is. So if that is your definition of moderate we (USA) already have a moderate party. 

As for 3rd party candidates the most successful one ever was George Wallace. He carried 5 states and won 46 electoral votes. That is more states won and electoral votes received than the losing major party candidate in 72' or 88'. In 80' Jimmy Carter (incumbent) won 6 states and 49 electoral votes. Wallace is far and away the most successful 3rd party candidate every. His platform was centered around hatred of hippies and civil rights. It was not a moderate one. Successful (had an impact in the general election) 3rd party candidates have never served the role of balance between existing parties or moderation. They succeed by fomenting dissatisfaction. Wallace was so successful that his language continues to be used in Political circles to this day 50yrs later. The below Wallace qoute made from the campaign trail in 1968 reads like it was written yesterday.

Quote

What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street.[13] Link

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

@J.C.MacSwell I don't think what you are describing could work here in the states. Canada and the U.S. have different systems. 

 

 

Our system is far from perfect. I'm not suggesting you copy it exactly. I just don't believe a one tier system is appropriate. Not everyone wants the same coverage but most are happy that basic coverage is universal.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

@J.C.MacSwell

The others positions you outline align with where Democratic leadership already is. So if that is your definition of moderate we (USA) already have a moderate party. 

While I did mention some specifics, most of my points were fairly vague as to how far they should go.. Many Republicans could agree with them also IMO. Others feel that taxes are just stealing their money at gunpoint.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The below Wallace qoute made from the campaign trail in 1968 reads like it was written yesterday.

 

I think part of the problem is that many on the Left think that all inequities that remain today should be fixed by the government, often at the expense of personal freedoms. Some actually invoke racism in their fight against racism, and sexism to fight sexism. 

Wallace's words were inappropriate at that time. Today, you have people actually claiming that minorities cannot discriminate racially, which is garbage. They should recognize racial discrimination by minorities is generally less of a problem (due to the obvious difference in numbers) and focus on solutions based on that, but they don't...and it hurts there cause...which is just...due to their tactics...which are sometimes deplorable...and often simply racist at their core by any normal definition. In their defence maybe they don't see it, but that doesn't help matters. It's a prime example of negative identity politics and does nothing toward genuine solutions, which are much harder to generate.

Edited February 7, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think part of the problem is that many on the Left think that all inequities that remain today should be fixed by the government, often at the expense of personal freedoms.

You mean like building walls with tax dollars that Mexicans were supposed to pay for?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You mean like building walls with tax dollars that Mexicans were supposed to pay for?

If the worst of Trump is the bar, you haven't set a very high one.

But doesn't that support my point that there should be a pretty wide chasm in the mid ground for an Independent? 

Should be is bolded as I would agree with Ten oz that there likely isn't.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Many Republicans could agree with them also IMO. 

Can you provide one example of a Republican in a leadership position who would agree with the positions you outlined with regards to Abortion, Gun Control, Climate Change, and Progressive taxes? 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

think part of the problem is that many on the Left think that all inequities that remain today should be fixed by the government, often at the expense of personal freedoms. Some actually invoke racism in their fight against racism, and sexism to fight sexism. 

What does this have to do with anything. I brought up Wallace because he was the most successful 3rd party candidate ever and this thread is about 3rd party candidates. You have been referencing 3rd party candidates as potentially moderate figures yet history shows us otherwise. George Wallace was not a moderate by any relative standard I can think of. I don't see how you turned that into problems with what you believe the left is thinking. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wallace's words were inappropriate at that time. Today, you have people actually claiming that minorities cannot discriminate racially, which is garbage.

Who claims this? Some anonymous poster on a Reddit forum you read. Seriously, who specifically are you referencing? 

 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If the worst of Trump is the bar, you haven't set a very high one.

Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And POTUS. Why are you admonishing me for a low bar, when clearly conservatives are totally fine with one?

You're welcomed to the bottom. I won't race you there.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But doesn't that support my point that there should be a pretty wide chasm in the mid ground for an Independent? 

Middle ground the void 3rd party candidates fill. I have give you real world explains (Nader, Perot, Wallace) with the numbers and from different ends of the political spectrum.  If their were truly some mythical audience, the middle, which wasn't being served why hasn't a single Politician ever been smart enough to locate them? 

Did you review the link breaking down how Fiscal Conservative Socially Liberal people (self identified) vote? You didn't find it odd that fiscal and social issues aren't good indicators for how they vote? 

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@J.C.MacSwellWallace is far and away the most successful 3rd party candidate every. His platform was centered around hatred of hippies and civil rights. It was not a moderate one. Successful (had an impact in the general election) 3rd party candidates have never served the role of balance between existing parties or moderation. They succeed by fomenting dissatisfaction.

That's what happens when a third party runs on a divisive platform. You get what you vote for.

In America, a something-for-all policy is viewed as socialism. People are so entrenched by party lines, it's practically an act of war to oppose.  The current cycle demonstrates conservatives would rather have a corrupt New York liberal who identifies as a conservative that secretly consorts with Russians because it means not having a liberal POTUS.

Sadly, the debate "the party or the man" is totally lost on most Americans.

We used to be a two party system in Canada. It wasn't until the 1950's when the CCF ( today's New Democratic Party) came to be on a policy of universal health care. Even the most partisan factions up here rarely run on an anti-healthcare, anti-abortion or racist platforms, because they know it's political suicide.