CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
14
A fresh look at politics. It would further divide.
Debate Score:28
Arguments:32
Total Votes:30
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 A fresh look at politics. (11)
 
 It would further divide. (11)

Debate Creator

Mongele(210) pic



Should Donald Trump form a separate, 3rd political party?

Not only do the 70 million people who voted for Donald Trump  feel cheated by what they perceived to be a rigged election, but also ''denied platform'' by the mainstream news media and the social media giants.
To avoid civil unrest and continuing violent confrontations with the radical leftists such a party dedicated to those with a conservative agenda could help to calm emotions and offer a route back into the democratic process. 

A fresh look at politics.

Side Score: 14
VS.

It would further divide.

Side Score: 14
2 points

No. Trump should not have his feet in political power any more. If you want a third party, that's great, there are many already out there and I firmly believe they should start seeing the light of day to give Dems and Reps a run for the money. No one HAS to vote Rep or Dem, the more people vote for 'other' parties the more our current leaders start realizing this nation doesn't need to be a two party state and hopefully that will inspire them to work for the people again and not just for themselves. Their jobs are too cushy, we need to take it away from them and give it to those who remember what it's like to be an average citizen.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
BurritoLunch(6608) Clarified
1 point

No one HAS to vote Rep or Dem, the more people vote for 'other' parties the more our current leaders start realizing this nation doesn't need to be a two party state and hopefully that will inspire them to work for the people again and not just for themselves.

That's a great idea of course, but it's similar to trying to explain Marxism to people. Even if you can prove what you are saying is true, most still won't listen. Voters are really creatures of psychology who usually vote out of habit and/or personal bias. The two big parties understand this.

In fact, it applies to more than voting too. Imagine right now you have the choice of buying one of two products which both do the exact same thing. One of them has a Gucci label on it. Which one do you want?

In my experience most people would be more likely to want the Gucci version than the no-name brand, and there's psychology behind that. People connect Gucci with good qualities. Good qualities they usually consider worth the price tag, and the important thing to remember is that it works not just with things which are true, but also with mythology you have created and marketed yourself.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
Mongele(210) Clarified
0 points

Well, thanks for that but what you've done is what so many others have done.

You've glibly dismissed out of hand the votes of some 70/75 million American citizens.

The number of people who voted for Trump is greater than the entire population of the U.K., or France.

Yet withal you're saying, hey you guys, get lost, your a bunch of insignificant hillbillies who only voted for Donald Trump because you're too stupid to know any better.

These millions of people voted for Trump because he listened to their concerns and because they have been overlooked and ignored by the political elite for decades.

The silent majority spoke at the ballot boxes in 2016 and they now feel (wrongly I believe) that they were cheated out of their victory.

I'm strongly of the opinion that the ballot box option must, absolutely must remain available for those Trump supporters, of whom I am NOT one.

Trump has been ostracized by the media so 75 million people have not only lost their champion but their means of expressing their opinions.

I think you'll find that it isn't going to a a case of ;- AND EVERYBODY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

Yet withal you're saying, hey you guys, get lost, your a bunch of insignificant hillbillies who only voted for Donald Trump because you're too stupid to know any better.

I'd agree with that. If you voted for Donald Trump you are either too stupid to have learned about the rise of fascism or you are too stupid to care.

I can see just from reading your post that you have made common grammar errors which students in England are expected to understand and avoid by age 11.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I'm just asking you to please understand that it is the opinion of an idiot.

he listened to their concerns

And then turned them to his personal advantage, just like Hitler did.

The silent majority spoke at the ballot boxes in 2016 and they now feel (wrongly I believe) that they were cheated out of their victory.

So you describe these people as the majority, and then later on in the very same sentence claim they were outvoted. Which one is it bro? Trump supporters were never the majority. Not in 2016 and not in 2020.

Trump supporters voted for Trump because they believed his lies and because he developed a cult of shame where none of his own followers would dare correct him for fear of ridicule.

There are no alternative explanations. If you voted for Trump you are either dishonest or you are stupid. Maybe you're both.

Side: It would further divide.
Mint_tea(4623) Disputed
1 point

You've glibly dismissed out of hand the votes of some 70/75 million American citizens.

At no point did I dismiss the 74,222,958 people who voted for Trump any more than I dismissed the 81,283,098 votes for Biden.

Yet withal you're saying, hey you guys, get lost, your a bunch of insignificant hillbillies who only voted for Donald Trump because you're too stupid to know any better.

Your feelings on that matter are wrong. I don't know or care why some voted Trump and others voted Biden. That's between them and their conscience and while I don't agree with those who voted Trump, I can support their right to do so and still have a personal opinion that they are idiots.

These millions of people voted for Trump because he listened to their concerns and because they have been overlooked and ignored by the political elite for decades.

No he didn't. He said what they supported, whether it be to the detriment to the country and its people or not. A vast majority of those "insignificant hillbillies" as you call them, wave the confederate flag around. I would know, I practically live in hillbilly country.

The silent majority spoke at the ballot boxes in 2016 and they now feel (wrongly I believe) that they were cheated out of their victory.

Seems like your glibly dismissing the over 80 million people who voted for someone who isn't Trump.

Trump has been ostracized by the media so 75 million people have not only lost their champion but their means of expressing their opinions.

And a vast majority of that he did to himself. The media is biased, it always is, but his twitter account and facebook profiles are from him and him alone. What he rants about comes from him and you don't have to believe me on this but he ostracized himself by acting like a child instead of the President of the United States. He was never their champion, he was his own champion.

I think you'll find that it isn't going to a a case of ;- AND EVERYBODY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

Of course they won't. Biden is probably going to have to spend YEARS trying to fix the mess Trump created. I don't know if he'll be a good President or not but he's got his work cut out for him which includes trying to heal the country.

Side: It would further divide.
1 point

If sufficient citizens feel that the democratic process is corrupt and therefore pointless to participate in, a third party THE PATRIOTIC PARTY OF AMERICA could give direction to the millions of disillusioned voters.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

I WILL BE BACK.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

For purposes of clarification for anyone slow on the uptake I would spell out that it is the concept of a third political party, or a forth party for that matter which would be a fresh approach to the political landscape regardless its ideology.

Such a third/forth party could have a Lenin-Marxist agenda.

In this particular case however, a hard line conservative party would be infinitely more desirable than a well armed extremist organization.

A third political party could offer an outlet for the alt-right to air their views and reduce the likelihood of some of their number being sucked into armed insurrection.

So far no one, except me has been capable of presenting a rational counter argument.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
BurritoLunch(6608) Clarified
1 point

For purposes of clarification for anyone slow on the uptake I would spell out that it is the concept of a third political party, or a forth party for that matter which would be a fresh approach to the political landscape regardless its ideology.

It's all very well saying that now mate, but the title of your debate is:-

Should Donald Trump form a separate, 3rd political party?

That seems to be pretty specifically about Donald Trump, if you'll forgive my pointing out the obvious.

In this particular case however, a hard line conservative party would be infinitely more desirable than a well armed extremist organization.

Ahahaha! Of course failing to clarify that the hardline conservative movements are the well-armed extremist organisations. Even most Nazis don't like being called Nazis, so they use code words like paleoconservative.

So far no one, except me has been capable of presenting a rational counter argument.

A rational counterargument to your question about Donald Trump? Your question about Donald Trump which you say isn't even about Donald Trump?

Why do you suppose that might be?

Side: A fresh look at politics.

A fresh look at politics

Are you serious? What is fresh about 1930s German fascism?

Side: It would further divide.
Amarel(5386) Clarified
2 points

Lol says the Marxist !

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

Lol says the Marxist !

I've never claimed to be fresh you fallacious clown. Just accurate.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
NomLovesMarx(310) Clarified
1 point

I want to listen to you, and will not troll, you. What you said, interests, me.

Side: A fresh look at politics.

If you genuinely believe you need another party which is further to the right than the Republican Party then you guys have simply lost your marbles. In a country without any serious or dependable left wing representation you want to drag the centre even further right than it already has been? Pretty soon your centre ground is going to be Hitler you daft bastards.

Side: It would further divide.
NomLovesMarx(310) Clarified
1 point

We don't need a party at all, we need a system where voters vote based pn ideology, and policy, not Party. I love Mr. Trump and President Biden, equally, because I am a Chrustian.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
Mongele(210) Clarified
1 point

Who would formulate and present the arguments along with the merits of each individual ideology?

Everything, including politics needs to be organized and in many cases to be presented to the public in a manner they can understand.

Most people like to belong to a tribe and if the tribal structure is removed they form small groups of squabbling factions.

The point of my question was to suggest that the formation of a third party headed by Donald Trump would be pro-active.

If we travel some 3000 miles east to Northern Ireland, U. K., we can observe that after 30 years of murder and destruction the I R A were brought into the political system about 20 years ago.

Their participation in politics through Sinn Fein has saved 1000s of lives and 10s of 1000s of jobs.

It took the Brits 30 years to come to the conclusion that 'jaw-jaw was better than war-war.

I contend that it would be better to snip any likelihood of armed insurrection in the bud and don't wait for the streets to be littered with dead bodies and scared with burnt out buildings.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

Such a third party would only serve to dilute and fracture the Republican Party.

The G.O.P, is now licking its wounds and the last thing it needs is a divisive initiative that would splinter the party into warring factions.

Side: It would further divide.
1 point

I think the wounds are self-inflicted. And I'm generally not too worried about it, the best recruiters for Republicans (or whatever 3rd party if they want to take this opportunity) are Democrats. And frankly vice versa, it's why there's a two party equilibrium; it's more who you don't agree with than who you do. I expect a countershock, and the counter to a restrained Obama/Biden presidency was already massive.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
Mongele(210) Clarified
1 point

The main benefit of a third party would be to keep the militant element of Trump's supporters focused on the ballot box and away from forming a paramilitary force, which due to the 2nd amendment, would be an armed force.

The major players in this frightening scenario seem hell bent on humiliating Trump and antagonistically parading their victory in the face of the downcast losers without realising that such displays of gloating triumphalism will only arouse deeper resentment.

Resentment can very quickly turn to anger which inevitably manifests itself in violence.

The victors should leave Trump alone and permit his controversial laws to stand for a while.

Or, maybe the Democrats would like to see the nation embroiled in a bloody brother vs brother civil war.

Side: A fresh look at politics.
1 point

One of the elements of good management is to identify a problem and deal with it before it becomes a crisis. THAT'S BEING PRO-ACTIVE.

Side: It would further divide.
1 point

Can you legitimately form a party from Prison?? Would you want to follow a party where the speaker wore horns and long johns??

Not ME! ;-)

Side: It would further divide.