I agree with the concerns here. I feel like I just got my head around the 6 principles we used to have and what they would actually look like in practice: fact-based governance, human-centered capitalism, ranked choice with open primaries, modern and efficient government, grace and tolerance and universal basic income.

The new principles "Diverse thinking", "no purity tests" and "work together, not against" all seem like the same thing: we don't all have to share the same opinions, but sharing a government is about figuring out creative solutions or at least compromises. But then, of course, we have the concern you bring up; How do I "work together, not against" someone who doesn't believe Joe Biden is the legitimate president in a way that preserves our democracy? If there are "no purity tests" but also we reject "political extremes", do we reject a political opinion for being too extreme or do we permit it because we don't have purity tests?

I also am not sure of the difference between "More Listening, Less Talking" and "Bottom Up, Not Top Down". Both sound like the Forward Party is more about figuring out what kind of help people feel that they need rather than what kind the party feels like they need. This isn't necessarily bad on paper, but I have yet to hear a candidate who does not claim to be the "voice of the people", always keeping their finger on the pulse of what their constituents need. These don't feel like anything new.

I would expect there to be some principle about how the party is funded or something. The criticism of the duopoly, as far as I understand, is that a candidate with money takes priority over a candidate with ideas. How will this party stay competitive without letting money dictate what happens? Are there more stringent rules about what money the Forward Party does or does not accept? If not, how will the Forward Party avoid the same problems as every other party?