When has anything Trump ever said ever been more than Hot Gas?

So, this was based on the idea that was presented in the video below:

 - Snip -

Now this leads me back to Trump and the rumors him starting his own party. As unlikely as it is, personally I don't think he's actually going to go through with it, I think it's just a power play to pressure the GOP into doing what he says - And it's working. But let's say for the sake of this argument, he decided to do it and we'll use this pass election as a basis. He splits away from the Republican party, goes off to start his own party and takes around half the GOP with him. Effectively splitting the party in two. And let's assume those percentages from that poll that is referenced in the video holds true.

The Republican and Patriot distribution is purely based on my own personal hypothesis, I have no actual data or polling numbers to base that off. I just assumed there is a larger portion of far-right wing, Trump voters in states like Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, West Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi And I just assumed there is a larger portion of moderate, traditional right Republicans in states like Oklahoma, Utah, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas.

But as I was making these maps based on the poll from the video, I couldn't help but break out laughing at various points, thinking to myself: "If his voters actually support this idea, they're fucking morons. Every, last, one of them." For all the talk about 'owning the libs,' sticking it to 'those damn, dirty liberals,' and 'fuck the Dems,' that you hear from the most extreme, far-right Trump voters in groups like QAnon and the Proud Boys. The MAGAts, basically. If Trump actually goes through with this (Which I don't think he will for the reasons I'm about to state.) He is basically GIVING the entire country, the political landscape, the tools, resources, power and most importantly of all, TIME, to dictate and shape the direction of this nation in the near and deep future to the Democratic party. 

If THIS actually were to happen, the Democrats would run the table with every piece of legislation they want to pass:

- Legalized marijuana nationwide.
- Legalized abortion nationwide.
- Universal healthcare, including a stronger, beefier Obamacare.
- Stricter gun control laws, including a ban on Assault Rifles.
- More pathways to citizenship for immigrants, legal and illegal.
- A New Green Deal.
- A Wealth Tax.
- Cancelling all student loan debt.
- Tuition-free college and universities.
- Police Reform bills
- Abolishing the Death Penalty.

Every. Single. Last. One of them... Would all get passed and they'd not only have the resources and power to pass them, they would have the time to fully integrate them into society because THIS would ensure Democratic/Liberal domination of the federal and state governments for DECADES.

And it's precisely for all these reasons why I think this is just a huge bluff on Trump's part, and that he would not actually do it and the Republicans should call him out on it. But they won't because the risks are FAR too great and the results would be catastrophic for them if he WASN'T bluffing. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats should absolutely be elated at the prospect, BUT, I think the best thing for them to do is to just not bother with it and leave it alone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing the Democrats can do is just focus on themselves and trying to become the best versions of themselves and their party that they can. Leave Trump and the GOP alone. Don't even touch that dumpster fire with a 50 ft. pole. Because there's nothing they could do to them that could possibly be any worse than what they're currently doing to themselves.
That's the best course of action they could take because even if this scenario doesn't happen and the Republican party stays together, whether it's under Trump or if Trump backs off and lets them go with another candidate (A pipe dream at this point in time), they would still be at the weakest position and worse than they have ever been, while the Democrats would be getting better and more influential across the country. 

TL:DR - The Democrats mindset should be this:
"We're going to focus on ourselves and making our party, AMERICA'S party. We're going to focus on becoming the absolute best that we can be, so that we will be THAT much more capable of making our country and our citizens the absolute best AMERICA it can be. If the others guys stay together, good for them. If they split up, tough shit. It won't make a single bit of difference to us, because we're still going to win. By the time they get their shit together, we'll already be too far ahead of them for it to matter."

There were tons of trolling red flags. I chose to jump in on his reply to you in particular, because of the replies he had recently made (there were a lot of them in rapid succession and all pretty sketchy which is another red flag) that was the best place for him to actually present an argument. If he would have said "Oh well, my point was that Jaicee was cherry picking, because the article mentions more than one kind of victimization, and not all kinds of victimization lead to support for Trump..." that would have been fine (if that was his point. It might have been, but you're meeting him way more than halfway). That's the point of a warning, to let people know what they're doing wrong and how to correct it.  

KLAMarine wasn't policed for having an unpopular opinion. He couldn't have been, because he repeatedly refuses to state a position. For actual debate to be possible, each person involved needs to state their position, explain the evidence or reasoning it is based on, and be willing to reply to counterarguments. KLA refuses to state any position, never presents any kind of evidence or reasoning, and instead of responding to the actual points being made plucks a sentence or two out of context to comment on, which invariable led to derailing. 

If they want to have a debate with you or anyone else, they're more than welcome to try in a few days. I don't think those expectations are unreasonable, and I don't think anyone following them has been banned (unless they're doing something else like flaming). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

So, amidst all these "Trump starting his own party" rumors and hot gas. I can't help but do the nerdy thing and see just what kind of effect splitting up the GOP into two parties: The traditional Republican party and the ReTrumplican party, would have on the presidential, House, and Senate elections.

I'm actually looking at what the maps would look like and the distribution of the districts between 3 parties based on polling data in a video I saw. Which I will post here once I'm done.

But just to give a little preview on what to expect, I will say two words:

Blue Pac-Man.

I'm old enough that I can actually remember a time when something similar happened. It was in the presidential election of 1992, which was the first one I can remember noticing. That year there was a billionaire independent candidate who ran named Ross Perot who managed to get 19% of the vote. In certain respects, Perot was a similar candidate to Trump. He appealed mainly to older and somewhat more affluent, predominantly male voters, ran an angry, nationalistic campaign championing vague goals, tending to avoid specific policy proposals like the plague and dreaming up conspiracy theories about his misfortunes (e.g. accused one of his campaign managers of being a CIA plant, claimed, without evidence, that he'd briefly dropped out of the race during the summer because the sitting Bush administration ostensibly attempted to stop his daughter's wedding, etc.). The two main issues he ran on were a commitment to reduce the national debt (eventually he was forced to come up with policy proposals for achieving this, which wound up being a fuel tax hike and cuts to Social Security) and the outsourcing of American jobs (he staunchly opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in particular, which was very much on the ballot that cycle), so a sort of combination of causes later taken up by the tea party movement and Donald Trump decades later.

Perot got 19% of the vote in the presidential election, which, being fairly evenly distributed across the country, proved inadequate for him to actually carry a single state, though he did manage to place second in Maine and Utah. The most significant difference Perot's candidacy made, at least in the election cycle itself, appeared to be the securing of a clear Bill Clinton victory. Sitting President George Bush Sr. got a smaller vote share than four years previous and his Democratic rival Bill Clinton also got a smaller vote share than the preceding Democratic nominee had, but the drop for Bush from 1988 to '92 was much more stark; whereas Clinton fared 2 percentage points worse than his Democratic predecessor Michael Dukakis, Bush fared 16 points worse than in 1988, dropping from 53% of the vote in '88 to 37% in '92; good enough for a Clinton victory with 43% of the vote.

It wasn't a totally hollow effort though. The Perot campaign successfully put the national debt on the map as an issue for a generation. One tangible result would be the infamous 1995-6 government shutdown orchestrated by the new Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, which succeeded in exacting the enactment of what we might call workfare as a concession by President Clinton. Heroic stuff.

Anyway, I think that gives you some general sense of what might happen if Trump was indeed to run separately from both parties in the future.

An analogy where the result is restricted to self-harm misses the point when the discussion concerned something that was going to hurt the vast majority.

Being humane isn't an inherently political inclination dear leader. 

You are detailing why a rational person would not run a party against the GOP. Problem is, that ain't a description of Trump.

Trump is egotistical enough to do it, even more so if more Republicans call him out. In fact, I think he will create the MAGA party unless he gets the republican ticket for the 2024 presidential election or his health fails him beforehand.

Health doesn’t matter. He was already senile years before 2016 and that made no difference.

People still deserve the right to make the choice, whether it is right or wrong.

It's actually how we live, learn and grow.

How many times did your parents tell you not to touch something because it may be hot, yet we did it anyway?

Which people? Because the minority typically won't have the right to make choices.

In general it is applicable to everyone in every instance once we reach an Adult age, it should be a fundamental freedom.

That's fine when it's purely personal decisions. But in politics many things affect other people too, so somebody's going to be losing their freedom to choose.

Unfortunately the stupid dumb dumbs can bring down the lot of us, the Climate Crisis is testament to that :/ 

An analogy where the result is restricted to self-harm misses the point when the discussion concerned something that was going to hurt the vast majority.

Are we still on politics? 

If so, then the vast majority is an overestimation. The wounds would only reach roughly fifty something percent of the population. It's not the end of the world. Then there's also the notion of a blessing in disguise: people are far more likely to demand answers and transparent politics the more distant they become. The idea was what I hoped the DP would attempt to arrive at when they concluded their investigations into the real culprit of the 2016 outcome: the people wanted decisiveness instead of compromise! They want one strict, firm set of positions and well, avoiding compromises unless they are "uncompromised" (the idea that you can have restrictive abortion laws + social security systems that are not reliant on the private sector). 

We are still on the topic of KLAMarine's ban because a mod wanted to talk about it. The vast majority in this case is refering to the community on this website who is interested in political discussions.

But to be fair, this was an incident of Pemalite making an out-of-context quote to say something (that was intended to be) smart. I actually don't think he openly disagrees with the mod team's decision to ban KLAMarine and put him on a short leash.

You are absolutely right. Like so many other things in the US humanity is not at all political. And it isn't in the majority of other countries. It's just made political because a certain popular party is staunchly against it.

Ahem...

I'M RIGHT HERE, PEOPLE! I'M NOT BANNED FROM THIS THREAD, SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND SO MUCH OF THIS THREAD TALKING ABOUT ME THEN FEEL FREE TO TALK TO ME, OKAY? YOU'RE NOT ABOVE TREATING ME LIKE AN EQUAL. ALSO, QUIT TALKING DOWN TO ME LIKE I'M A CHILD. I'M FUCKING OLDER THAN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE, SO HAVE SOME GODDAMN RESPECT FOR YOUR ELDERS FOR CHRIST SAKES, WHIPPERSNAPPERS! YEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!

Okay, I've gotten that out of my system now. But seriously, you guys are assholes.