Is It Time For a Third Party?

[Dot Com]

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's

 

[Polk]

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's

The Democratic Party doesn't have factions? If anything, it's the Democrats that are far more fragmented.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's

The Democratic Party doesn't have factions? If anything, it's the Democrats that are far more fragmented.

but they aren't diametrically opposed like the social cons & uber wealthy are in the Repub party. Notice how the real backers of the Repubs are always lurking in the shadows and the social cons like kg are out on the front lines? Theres a reason for that, the uber rich don't want to be openly associated with their base for many reasons; one being that their base does not represent their priorities. Their priorities being to get as many loopholes/write-offs for rich folk as possible by buying-off politicians.

 

[whitehall]

The funny thing is that conservatives who dream about a viable 3rd party are either ignorant, too damn lazy, scared or hypocritical to join the Tea Party and try to get the best candidates. Get some balls instead of whining conservatives. Democrats aren't afraid to support the quasi-commie OWS and commie Van Jones has become an accepted spokesman for the progressive movement.

 

[Polk]

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's

The Democratic Party doesn't have factions? If anything, it's the Democrats that are far more fragmented.

but they aren't diametrically opposed like the social cons & uber wealthy are in the Repub party. Notice how the real backers of the Repubs are always lurking in the shadows and the social cons like kg are out on the front lines? Theres a reason for that, the uber rich don't want to be openly associated with their base for many reasons; one being that their base does not represent their priorities. Their priorities being to get as many loopholes/write-offs for rich folk as possible by buying-off politicians.

The financial class, largely, shares their views on social issues. That's why they're in the same party.

 

[Desperado]

Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.

 

[Oddball]

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's

The Democratic Party doesn't have factions? If anything, it's the Democrats that are far more fragmented.

but they aren't diametrically opposed like the social cons & uber wealthy are in the Repub party. Notice how the real backers of the Repubs are always lurking in the shadows and the social cons like kg are out on the front lines? Theres a reason for that, the uber rich don't want to be openly associated with their base for many reasons; one being that their base does not represent their priorities. Their priorities being to get as many loopholes/write-offs for rich folk as possible by buying-off politicians.

Yeah, like Soros, Gates, Buffett, Immelt, the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Heinz/Kerry, Kohl, Dayton....

Oh, wait.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless

 

[Polk]

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless

How does Ralph Nader fit in to that equation? Ross Perot?

 

[tinydancer]

The funny thing is that conservatives who dream about a viable 3rd party are either ignorant, too damn lazy, scared or hypocritical to join the Tea Party and try to get the best candidates. Get some balls instead of whining conservatives. Democrats aren't afraid to support the quasi-commie OWS and commie Van Jones has become an accepted spokesman for the progressive movement.

I beg to differ. Third party is nothing to me.

We started a fourth party and we still after less than two decades have seized power as conservatives.

Try it.

 

[tinydancer]

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless

How does Ralph Nader fit in to that equation? Ross Perot?

You are talking fringe.

It's bullshit when it comes to them and media promo. The hard work can be done and you can end up as a major conservative party.

 

[whitehall]

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless

How does Ralph Nader fit in to that equation? Ross Perot?

Yeah it's true that 3rd party political pressure movements have always been around. MacArthur thought he would become the republican candidate until a grass roots movement of Veterans knocked him out. He ran as a 3rd party candidate deliberately syphoning votes from Eisenhower. The question is whether it's possible for a candidate to be elected president without having a political reputation as a main stream candidate. The answer is no.

 

[tinydancer]

Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.

Looking in from the outside, not one side will give. Those old maniacs are going to hold on to their power as long as they can.

Look. It's not politics. It's "inside the beltway" land of make sure my kids get everything.

Quite disgusting but true.

 

[tinydancer]

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless

How does Ralph Nader fit in to that equation? Ross Perot?

A voice. I know I'm a conservative but I started out lib. When Nader speaks I listen. He's no asshole.

 

[PUCrussel]

I don't think T party is strong enough to win the election.

 

[tjvh]

A third Party will only empower Democrats and should be avoided.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem with a third party is that they frequently become a protest, not a focused platform of belief.

Take a look at the Reform Party, which started out as Ross Perot's crazy hatred of Bush-41, nominated Pat Buchanan in 2000 when he couldn't get any traction as a Republican the third time, and then nominated Ralph Nader in 2004 when the Greens refused to be blamed for Bush again. So you go from a crazy billionaire to a Nazi to a Communist in 8 years.

The only thing that made the Reform Party last is the idiotic policy of matching funds

 

[Skull Pilot]

I propose the gridlock party.

Just enough members to stymie the two party system.

When government is in gridlock it's better for us.

 

[hipaware]

Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.

 

[whitehall]

A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.