If you mean the so-called "Green New Deal", that is not about green energy. Most Dems want green energy. GND is about using green language to push $100T in spending on leftist boondoggles such as federal jobs guarantees.
Greens and Libertarians have been around for a while. But they are just treading water.
No, that would be libertarian "extremists". So-called liberals want to grant woman control over their own bodies only on the issue where they agree with exercising said choice, not on other issues one might want a right to choose.
That is not true. The real reason why third parties are not viable is the "first past the post" system with single member districts in state legislatures and House of Representatives. A proportional system, where a minor party would get the seats commensurate with their share of votes would make minor parties viable, even if they would not (at least not regularly) challenge for chief executive.
That is true. But it has to do with the medieval FPTP/single member district system rather than electing the president independently.
The only thing a strong fauxgressive caucus would do is make Democrats more extremely left. So you have two extreme parties.
Are we talking gulags or what?
Party of AOC, Presley, Omar, Bowman, Bush et al is "right of centre[sic]"? LMAO!
That's a feature, not a bug.
Yup.
LMAO. Sgt. Sandy, her squad and her commanding officer Colonel Sanders all admit to being Socialists.
Tell that to the Israelis.
Or Italians for that matter. The voters were asked. Instead of asking them over and over again, there needs to be a way for government to function without either paralysis nor the government being able to ram everything through with opposition being there just to look on (tyranny of the majority). I think my system would provide some balance.
Looking at that list of parties you do not seem to have any fun parties.There are LOTS of parties in the US, always referred to as 'third parties' basically because who could keep track of all the parties and which are active, which are viable, which are relevant, etc. Here's the wiki:
List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Admit"? LMAO. Being a Socialist is something to be proud of. And they wish they were, but they're all centre right, trying to promote the 'centre' part, and pretending it's 'left'.
Yeah, I quite like the idea of a filibuster, because it requires genuine belief, to the point of being prepared to stand up all night, to block something.
With the exception of nationwide protection of voting rights all of these issues are the province if state governments, which makes them 50 times harder...
Do you really think that there is a secret group of millions of Americans who are left of AOC and Bush? If your claim that Bush is a moderate, then there are a 100 million Americans left of her? I'd love to see your evidence of this. I don't see any exit polls or polls period that support this. It's a dangerous belief because it gave us Bush Jr. The left thought that Nader would capture this mystic group of lefties who had never voted before in 1980. Exit polls after the 80 election showed that most of Nader's voters were democrats. Some were republicans. Very few were first time voters to the left.
With respect, I don't agree here either. Democrats lost non college educated whites a long time ago. But we're lately also losing white suburban women and the Latino vote. If this trend continues, we're in deep kimo. I think that the primary driver here is economics and safety. IMO, The people promoting socialism tend to be those in comfortable financial situations. Latinos and suburbanites struggling to get ahead and get their children ahead aren't advocating for socialism! Just the opposite! They want economic policies that expand the economy and allow more opportunity. There are numerous links that support my theory:
www.nbcnews.com
I don't think the filibuster necessarily needs to be removed. But they do need to change the rules back to the original when if you wanted to filibuster, you actually had to show up, stand up and talk for as long as you wanted to filibuster. Nowadays, all you have to do is threaten to filibuster like a 3 year old threatening to hold his breath and you can simply stop all legislation.Tell that to the Israelis.
I do not think that's a feature. Either a government is stable and can get through anything it wants or you have new elections. No in between.
Some friction is good, without requiring so much friction everything comes to a screeching halt.
Hence my idea of an independently elected executive as we have now, but a proportionally elected House with multiple parties where a single party can't neither ram everything through nor can it block everything.
I think the filibuster in the Senate was meant to provide this partial friction, but it has been abused as is now a millstone around the neck of the Senate.
The voters were asked. Instead of asking them over and over again, there needs to be a way for government to function without either paralysis nor the government being able to ram everything through with opposition being there just to look on (tyranny of the majority). I think my system would provide some balance.
No.
Gotcha. I misinterpreted your post. However, this thread is about a third party in the US. Not Australia, Poland, or whatever. Yea, Americans are more right wing that many other countries. That isn't news.
