A Third Party Would Rock!

It IS. Nobdy can fight the two machines. The SCOTUS even endorsed it.

 

Yea, you are correct on the quote. I can not argue against it quite honestly. I just do not see why it needs to be a secret. The government knows everything any way, so we are the only ones that do not know what is going on.

 

Ron Paul also supported the Citizens United decision and opposed campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold.

 

Yea, I have been reading too much on corporatism. I can not argue against the descion on 1st amendment grounds. I do see Thomas dissent as fair, not sure why they feel the need for secrecy. The side effects of the decsions are not positive for libertarians or any small party not sponsored by big money. That does not change the constitutional aspect however.

 

That's why the best way to change things political is thru lobbying. Money talks BS walks. That's why Ralph Nader's lobbying and the National Rifle Association has done more to affect change than third parties.

 

Perhaps we need the Black Panthers, the KKK and the the Hollywood elite to sponsor a party. Plenty of money there and that could be raised. Money is all that's important. That much has been established. People really don't matter...only money. So, hey, maybe anybody with cash should step forward and spin the wheel.

 

Still - - nobody can tell us the agenda of this mythical third party.

 

I think a third party would be great … And there are a lot of people who are dissatisfied enough with their current party affiliations that they would support better choices in a third party.

Then we have to get down to the details of what to do with this third party to attract voters … And how we appeal to the voters the most likely to abandon either party.
We need to come up with a platform that addresses some of the needs of each segment to ensure any kind of success.

So when we make a tree hugging, smaller government, entitlement driven, reduced spending, religious, homosexual, nationalized healthcare, private business platform … It will be a done deal.

Or we can come up with a let's get along, work together and compromise platform … That takes the same stance Democrats take towards compromise … The other side gives in and we call it bi-partisanship.
You know the type compromise when the choices are whether or not you get shot in the head or the heart.

People need to really stop asking the government to handle things it is not equipped to handle efficiently … And get the personal benefits for business or vote buying out of politics.
I personally think a no confidence vote in regards to the entire government as is would go further than any particular third party … If we could have that option.

No one has any reason to object to a hypothetical party … Because having ideas is a good thing ... But making them work is entirely different.
When we understand that hypothetical is synonymous with hot air … Then we can move on to the next best thing.

If all you want is term limits and redistribution of wealth … The Democrat party would be your call with a minor amount of tweaking.
If you are interested in compromise to get there … Throw out the term limits requirement … And you are already only a breath away from what exists now in the Democrat party.

Liberals aren't going to support a party that cuts spending … And likewise upsets their voter base.
If you just want to segment and rename a large portion of the Republican party … Well fine.

If you think that will get you closer to winning an election on the national scene … Put some Irish Whiskey in your coffee … And keep the dream alive all day.

This is the sucker punch the DNC wants the Conservatives to fall for again … Throw out your convictions and worry more about giving up so you can win the stupid prize.
They tell you that Governor Christie is the choice to give the Democrat party a run for it's money … When for all practical purposes … It is their money the Liberals want to take anyway.

They pull the same crap they used to fool John McCain into losing … And the rest of the Conservatives into believing when it comes to compromise and the moderate middle.
I mean if you want to vote for a Liberal … Then by all means vote for one … I would have voted for Joe Lieberman over John McCain … Because with Joe, you at least would know what you are getting.

Kind of reminds me of President Reagan's re-election to a second term … You know the one where he was re-elected with more than 70% of the popular vote … Carried every state except Minnesota.

Whether or not people liked him … There was one thing about his politics and policy that helped him cross the boundary of a strict party vote.
He did not let politicians or the Republican party define him or his platform … He defined what Conservatism was to him, and enough people agreed with it.
He told the Republicans who they were … What they were going to stand for during his presidency … And he didn't give a damn about what the Democrats thought regarding the government or the country.

If anyone ever wants to win an election to that degree … Then they need to have the stones to stand up and define their party.
They need to define what they stand for … And quit crying about what other people want to define them as.

If that person could come in the form of a Third party candidate … Then I think they would see some success … Albeit not enough to make a positive difference for a while.

I think that is part of the media driven McCain Syndrome … The search for the new "Maverick".

Politicians like Senator Rubio head off to Washington with a solid plan … And possibly a decent mandate from their voters.
Once they get there … They notice what happens when they say the right things to get them in front of the camera … They fall in love with themselves, and the response the media spoon feeds them.

Because they have face time on the boob-tube … They get phone calls expressing support.
Then they do whatever they think is necessary to keep that support rolling in … Even if it means they forget what they came for … And what they are really supposed to be doing.

Look at Senator McCain now … Conservatives hate his guts.
First in line to show up on the boob-tube every chance he gets … And he is too stupid to understand that the Conservative media is propping him up as the laughing stock.

Lose ... Until they get big enough to make a difference ... Better yet, risk and facilitate a chance of someone you disagree with more than anything winning.

 

I don't mind role playing;

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.

 

I am just saying that is not all that hypothetical ... That is the Democrat party minus term limits.
You would get better results pushing the term limit issue within the Democrat party ... And doing some more convincing as far as fleecing the wealthy.

Why start with nothing when a party that already exists is more than half-way there?

 

Yes, we do so well with it that we find ourselves constantly defending the indefensible and taking positions based on red or blue instead of right or wrong. MOST members here are so partisan they can't possibly entertain ideas perceived as contrived from the other political party. Most of the time, people don't analyze the issues and think for themselves. It's one side or the other. That's a problem with this so-called coalition you speak of. There are over 300 million Americans. It is impossible to have that many people, educated and autonomous in their thinking, to only side with either R or D on every issue. It's ridiculous and it makes most of us look completely stupid and lazy.

 

A true Third Party will only arise if one of two events happen.

1. The current voter registration system is legally banned. Citizens can only be registered as "legal voter" and if the Reps or Dems want a seperate database for primaries, they will have to create, update and pay for the process without the aid of any government agency.

2. Some ongoing crisis occurs that is so mindbogglingly bad (my favorite scenario is a new Great Depression combined with the collapse in value of the US Dollar) that the inadequacies of the Reps and Dems become so obvious that significant numbers of voters will be mad enough and desperate enough to vote for a third party.

Barring one or both of these events occuring, a true Third Party isn't going to appear.

 

None of the previous party splits have occurred only under those conditions. There was no economic calamity nor legal voter registration changes that made the splits possible. There were issues that divided them, just like today.

 

There is another necessary condition for a third party: People would actually vote for third party candidates.

Ross Perot made a fairly compelling case but still didn't get the votes - more than just enough to be a spoiler.

Teddy Roosevelt (a guy who could certainly get his ideas across to people) didn't do that well. He was just a spoiler.

We had four parties in the 1860 election...and civil war ensued.

Maybe there's a reason for the two-party system.

 

I think we really just need to goad the wealthiest into creating a party of Capitalism and simply draft the wealthiest to do their chore for their republic.

 

As far as members here, you're right. Too many are hyper-partisan.

But the fact that a lot of people are partisan isn't a proof against the coalition principle. A plurality of Americans aren't partisan at all.

 

There are only two parties in this country, the Democratic Party and the Anti-Democratic Party.

 

Lots of talk about third (or fourth) parties, but nobody votes for their candidates.

 

That could all change if those third and fourth parties could come up with candidates that aren't widely recognized as crackpots. A few years back I actually thought of supporting Ron Paul.

 

Didn't get the votes? In 92 Perot got almost 19% of the popular vote. That's the biggest third party showing in my lifetime. If he'd gotten much more it would have been a second party, not a third party.

 

Remember: Ross Perot self destructed.
I will always believe he was pressured to do so,
just as I do not believe a lone gun man killed JFK.

When Perot came back in the race he had lost his momentum.
Had that not happened, the times may have given us a non RepubloCrat president.


Moi


Remember
Americans Elect and how they failed us. Was it sincere or a fix ?

 

"Perot got almost 19% of the popular vote."

Taxcutter says:
Which was just enough to be a spoiler. Nothing more.

Perot should have made a effort to take over the GOP in 1996 rather than be a spoiler in 1992.

 

Well that's what a third party is. A spoiler.

 

I think that would only add more 'division' to our political scheme; it probably won't help.

 

Yes, because the two party system has worked out so great as of late.