which side are you....

[Helloface]

Sounds like a shitty picnic. What are you bringing? I will provide the potato salad but be warned it's been sitting in the back seat of a 2011 Camaro ( V6 ) for at least 3 hours.

Both parties have their own tyranny. Republicans want to stop certain people from marrying because it gives them the ick, for example. Because no one is willing to band together to get an actual third party going the only thing you can do is pick which tyranny is okay with you at the moment.

that sort of self-defeating thinking is the reason why you only have two choices. the way i see it, if both sides are utter dogshit, why not "throw your vote away" to a third party if you're getting gaped by the gov regardless

 

[-bZ-TargetOne]

The land improved by the city for purposes of adding a public sidewalk and traffic light is part of an easement.

Reading is fundamental:

And no, there was no easement for the city to seize anything.

This part of the city was county land and when the city annexed it they did not add any easements to existing properties such as the land where my brother's house was. Thus they settled with him after his attorney filed against them.

 

[-bZ-TargetOne]

Every day I wake up thankful that I'm neither a liberal or a conservative.

No, for the moment you've never experienced a life-defining trauma to help you sort this out. I hope you never have such a thing occur but I have noticed that when such things happen to people they usually figure it out.

 

[Mobius.jpeg]

I have.

 

[Helloface]

No, for the moment you've never experienced a life-defining trauma to help you sort this out. I hope you never have such a thing occur but I have noticed that when such things happen to people they usually figure it out.

most people are either liberal or conservative, weird comment

 

[The0bamessiah]

that sort of self-defeating thinking is the reason why you only have two choices. the way i see it, if both sides are utter dogshit, why not "throw your vote away" to a third party if you're getting gaped by the gov regardless

I have. What I am saying is that other people are not willing to.

The largest third party in the US is the Libertarian party and if you know anything about libertarians you will understand that trying to get them to agree on something is like trying to wrangle cats : it's a tiring, difficult activity that takes a long time and leads to a lot of screaming, hissing, scratching, and the occasional furball. The Greens are not much better because, being a bunch of hippies and PETA members, they are not liked by most people so only fellow hippies and PETA members tend to vote for them.

The problem is that the third parties in the US tend to be fairly extreme and/or fringe in their ideological platforms. The moderates on both sides of the political spectrum tend to coalesce under either the Democrat or Republican umbrella. To be fair there also used to be a fair degree of variety within those two parties in the past. Franklin Roosevelt was a New York Democrat, for example. That same Democratic party also used to be the Party of the segregationists in the American South. There was not exactly a lot of common ground between those two groups but they still caucused together. This hasn't been as prominent of a thing today as the parties have both regularized quite a bit but the differences still exist in some areas. It was a Massachusetts Republican governor ( Mitt Romney ) who first ordered the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts after the Supreme Judicial Court ( the Massachusetts version of the Supreme Court ) ruled that homosexual couples have equal rights to civil marriages in the state. These are both historical examples but there are still some contemporary situations where internal differences can become emergent.

I'd love for someone to create a more "big hat" political third party that isn't just devoted to fringe or specific ideological goals. There actually was a brief period where I believe the Republican party could have split into different parties over Donald Trump. One part of the GOP loved him and another part loathed him. Had the part which loved him not emerged victorious in their internal struggle I think there absolutely would have been a "MAGA" party created. That would obviously split the Republicans votes in a lot of races and effectively hand control to Democrats if it were to happen which is why a lot of Republicans "fell in line" with Trump : they thought of him as a lesser of two evils between total Democrat control and Trump's own... inadequacies. While Trump is a polarizing figure this was the closest I have seen to the creation of a bigger, more encompassing, less fringe political party. Despite what the media may lead you to believe his supporters are actually relatively diverse in their beliefs so even a "MAGA Party" would still have broader mass appeal than something as specific as the Libertarians or Greens.

 

[OKNewPlan]

It's a real Uncle Daycare in here.

 

[Koshmenk]

Im telling you guys, yall are pregnant

 

[Firedoc]

 

[Helloface]

I have. What I am saying is that other people are not willing to.

The largest third party in the US is the Libertarian party and if you know anything about libertarians you will understand that trying to get them to agree on something is like trying to wrangle cats : it's a tiring, difficult activity that takes a long time and leads to a lot of screaming, hissing, scratching, and the occasional furball. The Greens are not much better because, being a bunch of hippies and PETA members, they are not liked by most people so only fellow hippies and PETA members tend to vote for them.

The problem is that the third parties in the US tend to be fairly extreme and/or fringe in their ideological platforms. The moderates on both sides of the political spectrum tend to coalesce under either the Democrat or Republican umbrella. To be fair there also used to be a fair degree of variety within those two parties in the past. Franklin Roosevelt was a New York Democrat, for example. That same Democratic party also used to be the Party of the segregationists in the American South. There was not exactly a lot of common ground between those two groups but they still caucused together. This hasn't been as prominent of a thing today as the parties have both regularized quite a bit but the differences still exist in some areas. It was a Massachusetts Republican governor ( Mitt Romney ) who first ordered the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts after the Supreme Judicial Court ( the Massachusetts version of the Supreme Court ) ruled that homosexual couples have equal rights to civil marriages in the state. These are both historical examples but there are still some contemporary situations where internal differences can become emergent.

I'd love for someone to create a more "big hat" political third party that isn't just devoted to fringe or specific ideological goals. There actually was a brief period where I believe the Republican party could have split into different parties over Donald Trump. One part of the GOP loved him and another part loathed him. Had the part which loved him not emerged victorious in their internal struggle I think there absolutely would have been a "MAGA" party created. That would obviously split the Republicans votes in a lot of races and effectively hand control to Democrats if it were to happen which is why a lot of Republicans "fell in line" with Trump : they thought of him as a lesser of two evils between total Democrat control and Trump's own... inadequacies. While Trump is a polarizing figure this was the closest I have seen to the creation of a bigger, more encompassing, less fringe political party. Despite what the media may lead you to believe his supporters are actually relatively diverse in their beliefs so even a "MAGA Party" would still have broader mass appeal than something as specific as the Libertarians or Greens.

trvth nvke.....