I'm going to try to take a comprehensive look at all this stuff and see if I can come anywhere near a conclusion.    I'm going to start with Native's post from Tom Friedman:

But it does matter. I know so many thoughtful conservatives who know it matters. One of them has got to start the N.R.P. — New Republican Party — a center-right party liberated from all the Trump birthers, the Sarah Palins, the Grover Norquists, the Sean Hannitys, the Rush Limbaughs, the gun lobby, the oil lobby and every other narrow-interest group, a party that redefines a principled conservatism. Raise your money for it on the internet. If Bernie Sanders can, you can.

OK, I think this party would appeal to some people here.  I think most of the Libertarian-leaning folks here might look positively upon this party.  But here's theproblem as I see it.  Are the birthers, Palins, Norquists, Hannitys Limbaughs, NRA, Big Oil, Big Pharma going to go away?  No, of course not.  And these people have a ton of money and represent huge voting blocs.  Are they going to become Democrats?  Not on your life.  So they'll have to have a party independent of the New Republican Party.  So just taking that suppositive paragraph as a guide, we're going to have 3 parties.  Would Donald Trump be a member of the New Republican party?  I doubt it.  His main offense against Republican orthodoxy is that he says the party does not work for the little guy anymore and caters to the big corporations.  This is his populist appeal.  But he may very well nominate Sarah Palin as his VP so there goes that.

Libertarianism sounds great until the rubber meets the road.  Republicans will not flock to a party that supports legalization of marijuana and support for gay rights.  Minorities will not support a party that makes a point of allowing people the freedom to discriminate by race or sex or national origin.  So Libertarianism is somewhat self-delimiting.  There's also the point that outside of being a neo-con, Grover Norquist would be all down with Libertarianism.  Because he understands what some of y'all do not, is that in a vacuum, someone has to take power.  This is why the logical consequence of Libertarianism is Corporatism because big corporations will be free to behave in whatever manner enhances their bottom line.  This is why corporations exist.  Government is supposed to represent the will of the people.  That is not the role of corporations.  It's why the Libertarian party is riddled with anarchists.  But eliminate them and the party is even more fringy.

Can the Democratic Party exist as a single omnibus party?  Yes, but only for a little while.  The only possibility would be comparing it to the Democratic party of the FDR years.  They dominated the Presidential races obviously, they dominated the House and the Senate.  But were they a united party?  No, not at all.  The Democratic party used to contain both very conservative and very liberal members.  This model is not going to last forever.  And Strom THurmond's first presidential run (1948 or was it 1952) presaged the inevitable split that actually didn't take place until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

We already have a Green Party but nobody votes for them.  Their major accomplishment to this point was to get W elected over Gore in 2000.  Likewise, the Independent candidates whose main accomplishment via Ross Perot was to get Bill Clinton elected over George HW Bush.

So what do the purgers hope to accomplish?  The only thing that I can see is a European-style coalition government with Greens and Social Democrats and Republicans and New Republicans and Libertarians and  Anti-Abortionists and Evangelicals (may be the same thing) and Conservative Democrats and so on and so forth.  Does anyone want this? 

But what is the bottom line for everyone?  How is it possible to have a little bitty government that is able to protect all of it's citizens.  (And if you can't protect your citizens what is the point of a government).  I mean protect them from foreign invasion but also from discrimation, pollution, etc?   

I will try to summarize, because my plate is pretty full this morning...I might have more time after lunch to expound.

I think the current political system is causing a severe GroupThink phenomenon in our population that is detrimental to the American ideal. Otherwise normal people become supporters of things they ordinarily wouldn't support via "party platform" and the pontificating of the partisan talking heads. As has been said elsewhere, party politics/loyalty trumps (yuk yuk) common sense. How else could we arrive at Trump v. Clinton? Perhaps the most craptastic and flawed candidates in my short 36 years on this earth. They are both absolutely revolting human beings, one being an arrogant rich boy, the other being a scummy politician. 

Again, otherwise normal people become warped by the domination of the two party system. I see people defending Trump for his inexcusable rhetoric and damning him for inciting violence. I see people defending violence against Trump supporters. I see people defending Clinton's foreign policies that were similar to Bush's military expeditions in that we started a military intervention based upon grounds that are specious at best by involving ourselves in civil wars between Arabs (so, do our military interventions cause more terrorism, or not? Can't have it both ways). Again, people become blinded by the partisan GroupThink.

My politics are hard to fit into a box. I support some positions of all the parties, and all of the positions of none of the parties. I don't care about gheys getting married, good for them. I don't support nor believe people can just decide to be the opposite sex then do whatever the hell they want (locker rooms/playing sports) and impose their will on the rest of the population. I don't care if people smoke pounds of weed. I also do not support the cart blanche legalization of all drugs. I don't support elective abortion, but I'm ok with it for rape victims and danger to the mother. Thus, I can never be a true libertarian.

Call me a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings, and a mostly social liberal that doesn't care what people do unless it impacts myself or my family (again, my wife and kids aren't comfortable with a 6'3 "woman" that sounds like Barry White using the same bathroom as they do, and I believe they get a vote).

So what do I want to accomplish via The Purge? The death of GroupThink caused by party loyalty. I suppose that is the ultimate goal. In my opinion, that can only come about by destroying the two party system as we know it. As Clocky said, I'm under no delusion that there will ever not be a X party system. I don't think it is out of the question to reign in the power and influence of those parties though, and by extension, roll back the authoritarianism that is becoming prevalent in our government.

I can't support Clinton because of some of my deeply held feelings toward her, which I share as much as I can within the bounds of my NDAs. Also, she represents everything that is wrong with politics. Most of you can see this and have expressed that sentiment, yet will still defend her because you are scared of Trump. Fine. Be scared of Trump. But for the love of God, stop defending Hillary's record.

I'm not asking you to support Trump, because I don't. Don't vote for him. I wouldn't if his opponent wasn't Clinton. I just hope you look around, take stock, and ask "How in the FUDGE did we get to this point?"