A Third Party Would Rock!

What objection can there be to a hypothetical party of Capitalism that simply drafts the wealthiest to do their chore for their republic? They may have some incentive to refrain from making careers out of public office.

 

Labels are not going to communicate anything but the negative connotations.
Rather then speak of Tea Party or Libertarians,
how about speaking of Cruz or Paul, etc. and the policies they espouse.
What is right and what is wrong with them.
I know many people who comprehend the term "tea party" and "libertarian" in very different ways.
Thus labels foster negativity, and are void of communication as used today.


Moi


Communication: Too many talk about it without doing it themselves.


Do you mean a God like a spiritual God, or the God of the Bible.
Labels, leave one asking for "what do you mean" type definitions. Y'see.

 

SPOT ON!!! Mr. Unifier, I couldn't agree more but there is still a problem with the system when we have canibalistic Repukicans who attack and stab others such as Allen West in the back. That is just about the only guy I could confidently support (last time and in 2014 for representative and/or 2016 for President).

I also agree and appreciate what OLDYOUNGIN said regarding eliminating parties altogether.....only problem with that is MONEY TALKS and if you have enough jackals sticking together, though they are small individually, as a unit, they are enough force to bring down a buffalo. I voted for PEROT years ago and swore that I'd never do a third part thingy again BUT with McSHAME and Mittens as our last two candidates, I've considered going back on my own word. Something has to give somewhere....and the tea party candidates aren't doing it either. Look at the likes of Rubio......old, rotten meat wrapped in new paper.

 

In a first past the post system, two parties emerge, and they position themselves to each take roughly 50% of the vote, cobbling together seemingly unrelated issues into 2 platforms. Third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties shrink into insignificance, it's the nature of the system.
To have a sustainable third party, fourth party, etc. you need proportional representation.
A party that target more than 50% of the vote, doesn't always get it, but they do sometimes and power is shared between two parties, begrudgingly, but each gets it's turn. A party that gets a solid 10% of the vote, would be a force in a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, but in a first past the post system, it's permanently exiled from the halls of power.

On the bright side, there is a spectrum of beliefs within the parties, and as a party member, you can become an activist, attend your state conventions, political events and work within the party to shape that platform, that will sometimes be the platform in power.
Even in single party systems, party members enjoy some democracy.

 

Pretell, what rational Democrat would joint the Tea-Party or the Libertarians? It's not like either one is any closer to the center than the GOP, they are both actually more far out on the right and not one bit more appealing to the Liberals than the GOP.

 

I agree it's been hijacked by some in the GOP.

 

I disagree. I think the regular old GOP stayed the regular old GOP, and the people who want reform left it for the Tea Party.

 

Sure we have other parties, but none with the kind of momentum as the Tea Party to become a force in national elections. All it takes now is a true split of the Republican party. The money will be there. I suspect at least 30% of the GOP's current war chest would leave with the Tea Party.

 

I haven't read the book, and honestly, I probably won't. I'm tired of talk radio hosts and their books. It's nauseating. I'm sure there's good stuff in there, and he really is a Constitutional warrior. But it will take someone other than him to get the attention of Democrat voters and young voters unaffiliated.

The two party system is part of the problem. It's a big part of the problem. It's simply a matter of competition and choices.

 

Yet Rand Paul labeled Libertarian is the best chance of siphoning Obama voters to the GOP.
That's why YOUR labels are useless.
We need to speak of the people, not their labels.


Moi

 

The moderates and centrists.

Right now the Democrats are the center, it doesn't have to be that way, the Republicans held the center for quite a long time. Now that the baggers are a part of the GOP, it's only moved further to the right, leaving a void to be filled by the DNC.

The DNC isn't as fractured as the GOP, the neocons, RINO, and baggers are fraught with angst, each trying wrestle control of their piece of the GOP pie.

The Rule 2/Careful with the insults loved that (*)(*)(*)(*), they didn't give a damn one way or the other.

Does that work the other way around? Do you think some Rule 2 didn't like the guy or haven't given him his due because of the color of skin?

How would a Mormon Romney/Ayn Rand Devotee Ryan ticket or a super duper geriatric broke dick McCain/derp de doo Palin (the thought of McCain kicking the bucket with that weirdo half-wit as the VP was pretty spectacular) ticket have been any different than an Obama administration?

Would the same lobbyists been in play, playing both sides of the isle with billions worth of scratch pushing for the same kinds of legislation or the lack thereof (maybe not wasting seventy million trying to get rid of Obamacare, but that's a cop out on the GOP's part)?

 

I don't care if they win. I want the GOP to be held accountable for their betrayal. They won Congress promising to cut spending. If they can't do that, they need to lose their jobs and our votes. There needs to be a truly fiscally responsible party. The answer is not the GOP.

 

Holy cow, are you suggesting that Paul junior is the GOP's salvation to reign in the middle of the road moderates? That wacko is so far out there on the right side of the political spectrum it's stupid to even suggest such a thing. Did you see how uncomfortable he looked in front of a black audience?

Christie has a better chance and track record with middle of the road, on again, off again DNC centrist voters than any other potential GOP candidate. My guess is that the GOP has moved so far to the right that Christie will be an after thought, the NRA, the Koch's, Fox News, and every other fringe right, far to the right leaning organization will stand by the most ardent fringe bought and paid for bastard (Cruz or Paul Jr.) instead of actually putting forth the one candidate that'll give the DNC a run for it's money.

 

Well first of all I don't know of any liberal minded voter who would vote for Rand Paul, so I don't know where you got that information, but I think it's flawd.
Second, let's talk about the "labels", what are they there for? Why do they exists? They exist to help people sort through the issues and provide tranparency of the canidates political views, so if he doesn't believe what Libertarians believe, he shouldn't run on that parties platform. The same goes for the other parties, so if he can't fit on any of the largest party platforms, he's going to have to do everything on his own.

Now by "everything" I mean he will not have access to those other parties fund raisers, advertisers, and any other resourse you can mention. Those are related to the money, so you need to get the money out of the politics before any single individual can be equal with a party backed canidate. That means you have to change the system before you can expect people to treat all the canidates as equal options. Only then would the party system be moot.

If there was no Democratic party, I would vote for people in the Green party most likely, but as it is, that would be a waste of time and effort because they have no chance to win. If my vote is to count for nothing more than the lesser of 2 evils, then so be it.

 

A powerful and independent libertarian party in full swing would likely attract as many disaffected Democrats as it would Republicans. Careful what you wish for, partisan. The entire house of cards could come crumbling down around you.

 

What the hell are you posting? A history lesson would do wonders for Ron Paul supporters and or Glenn Beck listeners. The United States has always had a two party system, it may not have always been GOP/DNC, but it's always been a two party system. That's why the elections are staggered the way they are, it's why we've got a lower and an upper house, the Federal government is set up for a two party system.

State and local levels are a different story, hell, Nebrasca is a unicameral system, in fact, every state's executive organization is different from one another. That's where third parties belong, not at the national level, they just end up (*)(*)(*)(*)ing it up for the candidate trying to beat out the incumbent.

 

Many people seem to associate all libertarians with the actual party. Just about the only thing libertarians agree on are the social issues. Many in the tea-party are still corporatist like the democrats and republicans. While we are allied with the teaparty to run off the RINOs our views are still very different.
http://leftlibertarian.org/leftlibertarianism.html

 

Sadly, it seems the Tea Partiers pro corporationist views are of the Trickle Down faith.
When the corporations are unbridled by excessive taxation and regulations, the riches will trickle down for all of us.
And Pie In the Sky When You Die.

I do not know about Libertarians
but the Pauls both speak of the excessive influence of monied interests.
That sounds anti Corporationist to me. And anti RepubloCratic. Bravo !


Moi
Anti RepubloCrat.
Anti Corporationist

 

All too often "anti-corporationist" becomes anti-corporation. Big difference.

To paraphrase, "When the government is allowed excessive taxation and regulations, the riches will trickle down for all of us." But trickle down is trickle down, whether the trickling comes from government or business. Big government is not the antidote to big corporations. Government is simply the biggest, most powerful, most abusive corporation of all. So many people of all political persuasions believe that an action is magically transformed by government participation into something benevolent and public-spirited. That's how it's spun, but not so.

Those who care about liberty want first to limit government. That is, after all, the chief purpose of the Constitution. As for big businesses, they're an inevitable consequence of competition in a free market. Some companies make better products for less money. These companies absorb competitors and dominate the market. Trying to prevent that means forcing people to buy shoddy goods for inflated prices. Government's proper role is to prevent big businesses from exploiting their position in ways injurious to the public. Nothing more.

 

The answer is not a third party. The answer is to take back the GOP by booting out the posers and replacing them with actual conservatives. You have to create a stark contrast between the two parties. RINOs and GOPosers are trying too hard to be liked by the Democrats. Why? Why are you bending over backwards to seek the approval of people who hate your guts? That's ridiculous.

Anybody that's not Tea Party affiliated pretty much shouldn't even be considered a Republican anymore. You're either Tea Party or Democrat.

No doubt. West is a boss. Which is why we have to be vigilant about only supporting and voting for legitimate conservatives. Let these guys know that if they don't stand for the values of their constituents, then we'll just replace them with people who do. Look how effective Ted Cruz has been. He's proof of what's possible.

 

Great, but not likely to happen. The closest was in 1996, when Reform Party candidate Ross Perrot managed to gather over 8 million votes in the Presidential election, but not a single state. Since then it has effectively become a two-state party.... Where the party colours are all backwards.

 

I agree with some stuff the tea party has but I don't agree with all of it .

 

I agree, however, we should be careful of whom is replaced by some other candidate....I was fooled into thinking that Rubio would be part of the "FRESH" new face BUT he has turned out to be a disaster....and so as some of the others.

 

Instead of a comment that makes no sense, name some accomplishments of conservatives in America.

 

They'll always vote Republican so, no difference to speak of.