Is It Time For a Third Party?

[Polk]

What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.

Having a view outside the mainstream doesn't make you a "loser" or a "nutcase".

 

[S.J.]

A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2. Case in point, Ross Perot. His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush. And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.

 

[Polk]

A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2. Case in point, Ross Perot. His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush. And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.

Third parties are most successful when they draw attention to a particular issue.

And for all the talk about Perot harming Bush, the evidence doesn't really support that claim.

 

[S.J.]

A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2. Case in point, Ross Perot. His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush. And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.

Third parties are most successful when they draw attention to a particular issue.

And for all the talk about Perot harming Bush, the evidence doesn't really support that claim.

Maybe you hadn't been born yet, or weren't paying attention.

 

[tinydancer]

Once upon a time there were three parties in Canada. Liberal, Progressive Conservative and the New Democrat Party.

Conservatives had had it up to here with Progressives who stood for nothing much like your current crop of RINO's.

We formed a fourth party called the Reform Party (aka Canadian Alliance) which eventually became the Conservative Party of Canada once all the Progressives either agreed to the merger or left . It was a "unite the right".

We now are the Majority.

Took a few years wandering in the wilderness and many struggles.

But by keeping true to our Conservative beliefs and actually having excellent individuals who could articulate our positions, we've been winning elections.

And last time round Conservatives decimated the Liberal Party and became the Majority. Actually we crushed them.

And we conservatives are for the time being, living happily ever after.

People who say this cannot be accomplished are either misinformed or full of shit.

 

[there4eyeM]

The US could look to its origins for an alternative. How many parties were there at the start?

Hint: its less than 1.

 

[Polk]

A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2. Case in point, Ross Perot. His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush. And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.

Third parties are most successful when they draw attention to a particular issue.

And for all the talk about Perot harming Bush, the evidence doesn't really support that claim.

Maybe you hadn't been born yet, or weren't paying attention.

I pay attention to the evidence, not the chatter. While many on the right want to claim Perot cost Bush the election, the exit polls tell a different story. They show that while Perot drew more votes from Bush than Clinton, it would not have been enough to close the five-point gap between the two. While exit polling is imperfect, this aligns pretty closely to what economic models of elections predict.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Current election and election finance laws make the establishment of a viable third party next to impossible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is It Time For a Third Party? snip Read more: Is It Time For a Third Party? ? Patriot Update

Please leave the GOP, whatever you do.

 

[Polk]

Current election and election finance laws make the establishment of a viable third party next to impossible.

Current election laws in what sense?

 

[whitehall]

What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.

Having a view outside the mainstream doesn't make you a "loser" or a "nutcase".

The dirty little secret is that National 3rd party leaders are usually political losers who want to punish their former party for not supporting their nutcase issues. 3rd Party leaders are no fools. They know they don't have a chance and their mission is to syphon votes from their former party or make a nutcase statement about social justice or the environment or pot use. Their followers are usually ignorant of the political process or hate filled or part of a dirty tricks scenario.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is It Time For a Third Party?

If you are in it?

No!​

 

[Polk]

What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.

Having a view outside the mainstream doesn't make you a "loser" or a "nutcase".

The dirty little secret is that National 3rd party leaders are usually political losers who want to punish their former party for not supporting their nutcase issues. 3rd Party leaders are no fools. They know they don't have a chance and their mission is to syphon votes from their former party or make a nutcase statement about social justice or the environment or pot use. Their followers are usually ignorant of the political process or hate filled or part of a dirty tricks scenario.

Actually, they're more often a vehicle for drawing attention to some issue the mainstream parties aren't taking seriously (slavery in the pre-Civil War era, agrarian discontent in the Gilded Age, various social reforms in the early 20th century).

 

[dblack]

We are currently a 2 party system. If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades. Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority. And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.

Sad but true. Plurality, winner-take-all elections pretty much guarantee two strong parties opposing each other. We won't see much different unless we change our voting system.

 

[Polk]

We are currently a 2 party system. If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades. Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority. And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.

Sad but true. Plurality, winner-take-all elections pretty much guarantee two strong parties opposing each other. We won't see much different unless we change our voting system.

Pretty much. That doesn't necessarily have hold, but it's basically true.

 

[kiwiman127]

Is it time for a third party? Well, yeah.
The Independents and in particular the moderates made up the largest segment of American voters in the election of 2012. The Democrats are too far to the left and the GOP is too far to the right. Both parties are totally locked into their ideologies. Critical thinking in leading this country is needed, not goose-stepping to an ideology, look where that has got us!
We need a party that represents the center and is not bound by a strict ideology but is bound by open minds to lead effectively.

 

[chikenwing]

We are currently a 2 party system. If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades. Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority. And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.

As compared too the Dems and Repubs?? Both of which fit into your description of the tea party. DC is fucking broken,who brought us the cluster fuck that is the Feds?? It wasn't the tea party. We have Independents for ever and they are coveted by both sides.

 

[Oddball]

It's time for a second party.

 

[whitehall]

Waste your vote if you want to but at least put some thought into the issue. Consider what your chances are and think about the political subterfuge behind the movement.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Waste your vote if you want to but at least put some thought into the issue. Consider what your chances are and think about the political subterfuge behind the movement.

So was a vote for Romney in California, or a vote for Obama in Oklahoma wasted?

Neither candidate had a chance to win either state.