Rise of a Third Party

[Mike458877]

I vote the person or the issue, never party politics.

My official party affiliation is listed as, none. Party politics IMO is very counter productive.

The correct timing for a viable third party could be right or very near!

People are getting very fed up with both the liberals and the GOP!

Mike

 

[slackjawed]

Lucky Dan would flunk that part of a freshman history course at his local community college.

In 1856 and 1860, the GOP ran on sectional and regional tickets, north and west of the Ohio River. In 1864, it ran on a fusion ticket. Not until 1868 could it win in all parts of the country. Yes, indeed, it was a 3rd party for at least the two first elections.

If Jake Starkey were my instructor, I'd drop the course.

114 electoral votes in 1856, 180 in 1860 and the Presidency. How can the winning party be considered anything but major? They never ran third.

If sectional and regional (and fusion?) are the defining characteristics of a third party, then there was nothing but third parties after the Whigs died.

The democrats are still around today.
They don't use the term "free-soil democratic party" any longer, but hey are still around.
The democratic political machine even survived the taint of the Tammany Hall scandal, and survive until now.

 

[slackjawed]

The current two party system is nothing more than tyranny disguised as democracy Most people take it for granted that there is nothing else but the two party system because that's all they have ever known, and that belief has been reinforced by both political parties. Those people then end up being shills for the two party system.

 

[007]

The correct timing for a viable third party could be right or very near!

People are getting very fed up with both the liberals and the GOP!

Mike

I totally agree, and the results of this poll would reflect that as well.

And if there is to be a third party emerge as a possible winning party, it will be the Tea Party.

 

[rightwinger]

The correct timing for a viable third party could be right or very near!

People are getting very fed up with both the liberals and the GOP!

Mike

I totally agree, and the results of this poll would reflect that as well.

And if there is to be a third party emerge as a possible winning party, it will be the Tea Party.

Tea Party is a joke....just look at their convention

Tommy Tancredo is their view of the future of this country?

 

[Gadawg73]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

 

[Contumacious]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

Actually, parasitism - close to 50% by last estimates - IS their excuse,

.

 

[kyzr]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

Actually, parasitism - close to 50% by last estimates - IS their excuse

Nope. Its actually the wasted-vote. Its better to pick between the R/D than considering nuisance 3rd parties. Even if elected the 3rd party guys wouldn't be able to do anything.

 

[code1211]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

Actually, parasitism - close to 50% by last estimates - IS their excuse

Nope. Its actually the wasted-vote. Its better to pick between the R/D than considering nuisance 3rd parties. Even if elected the 3rd party guys wouldn't be able to do anything.

If the 3rd party guy gets in, he/she will be a swing voter and therefore will have a great deal of power, even as a freshman.

The TEA Party is positioning itself as a King Maker, not a party. If they back a candidate, it seems from recent history, that candidate will win. It will be interesting if they get involved in Party Primaries and endorse candidates from either party who toe the shrink government line.

I don't know why a politician cannot support the Liberal Social Agenda and still want reduced spending. Abortion rights are fine with me. Just don't ask me to pay for someone's abortion.

It would be interesting to have legislatures split evenly along party lines, but dominated by fiscal Conservatism while supporting laws that are Liberal by any measure. I personnaly feel that this is where most of the country is anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

 

[rightwinger]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

No...Ron Paul came on like a wimpy, milquetoast who spoke in a monotone

He reminded me of Henry Gibson for President

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

No...Ron Paul came on like a wimpy, milquetoast who spoke in a monotone

He reminded me of Henry Gibson for President

Monotone? Ron Paul's high pitch voice wasn't monotone.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

No...Ron Paul came on like a wimpy, milquetoast who spoke in a monotone

He reminded me of Henry Gibson for President

Monotone? Ron Paul's high pitch voice wasn't monotone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No...Ron Paul came on like a wimpy, milquetoast who spoke in a monotone

He reminded me of Henry Gibson for President

Monotone? Ron Paul's high pitch voice wasn't monotone.

 

[Foxfyre]

If folks would look at the Libertarian platform before the next election we would win.
The "wasted vote" BS is their excuse.

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

Yes. Quite serious. That isn't to say he has no personality or isn't a nice guy. I'm sure he is. I am sure his fan base is crazy about him. But his television persona was not charismatic and he too often projected a stubborn, passionless ideologue instead of as somebody who can inspire and lift up and lead with conviction. And that hurt him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarians are going to have to work harder to find candidates who are compelling and personable who can present himself/herself as normal and mainstream before they are going to ever get much traction. They keep putting up people perceived as a character out of 'The Shining' or otherwise wild-eyed nut cases or sour faced angry or dispassionate types that put people off instead of persuading them to listen. I think Ron Paul would haved gained more traction if he ever seemed really enthusiastic about what he was saying, but he too often presented himself as a grumpy old man or exuberated no more passion than he probably does ordering lunch.

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

Yes. Quite serious. That isn't to say he has no personality or isn't a nice guy. I'm sure he is. I am sure his fan base is crazy about him. But his television persona was not charismatic and he too often projected a stubborn, passionless ideologue instead of as somebody who can inspire and lift up and lead with conviction. And that hurt him.

Stubborn I'll give you, but I don't agree that he was passionless at all. Though I suppose I am part of his "fan base" so I guess I may be biased.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ron Paul was grumpy and showed no passion? Are you serious?

Yes. Quite serious. That isn't to say he has no personality or isn't a nice guy. I'm sure he is. I am sure his fan base is crazy about him. But his television persona was not charismatic and he too often projected a stubborn, passionless ideologue instead of as somebody who can inspire and lift up and lead with conviction. And that hurt him.

Stubborn I'll give you, but I don't agree that he was passionless at all. Though I suppose I am part of his "fan base" so I guess I may be biased.

I understand that. I adored Bob Dole who ran against Clinton for Clinton's second term. On the Senate floor he was articulate, passionate, and one of the world's funniest humans. I thought he would make a great President. Unfortunately, his teleivision campaign persona was too much an unsmiling, dour, dull, unappealing kind of guy. He didn't have a chance against the engaging, charistmatic, appealing Bill Clinton.

In our television world, there just has to be a bit of a celebrity charisma along (hopefully) a lot of substance. Some got it. Some don't.

 

[ron scott]

I don't believe in applying any emphasis towards any party. Our co-opted two party system is the bane of this nation. History will show that it was the tool used to decosnstruct our economy and liberties and merge us into a homogenouse system with the rest of the nations who are being incorporated into a corporate constructed global system rather than a citizen controlled national system.

If people want legitimate change (towards a US Constitution-based, limited, "by the people" form of government) the only possible solution is to completely and fully cease from feeding the moster that is also know as the Republican and Democratic Party. They have a collective stranglehold over our government which they use to continuously expand their control and to constantly overstep the Constitutional framework that places the citizens in charge of government.

Both parties have indebted us beyond our ability to ever repay the global banks whom we owe practically every square inch of capital and property inside this nation.

Both have expanded us more than 100 fold from the Constitutional framework of government.

Both have sent our children and grandchildren to die and to kill in foreign nations for purposes that have nothing to do with the needs of the US citizens, with the exception of those who have controlling interests in business entities or NGO's whose agenda's or bottom lines are subject to foreign influence.

Both have taken dramatic and over-reaching steps to harmonize our domestic policies and regulations under the authority of international bodies without the benefit of oversight by the Congress, therefore, without the oversight or agreement of the American people.

And both have enacted policies, practices, expansions, and programs that are detrimental to our national economy, to our individual liberty, to our security (both domestic and international), and to nearly every aspect of our lives, ranging from the schooling of our children to the world perception of who we are as a nation and a society.

if you are so bold as to believe that by continuing to work with and elect these same two parties back into office, that we will see a new direction and a course correction from where they are currently taking us, then I will be so bold as to say that you are a complete and utter ignoramus. Your mind is drunk with hope and expectation based upon words rather than the sobriety of examining our current circumstances from an apolitical perspective and arriving at the obvious conclusion. That conclusion is that we've reached our current state BECAUSE of the two-party system, NOT in spite of it.

And that is why it's my conclusion that no party should ever be emphasized or promoted on any official level. If you need to unify and work together to promote a candidate, so be it. That's what it takes to run an election campaign. But.... the unification of the majority of elected officials under one or two umbrella's is a recipe for manipulation, for implementation of private agenda's, and all other sorts of nonsense that is outside the scope and interests of the voters.

I'd rather see a House and Senate full of individuals who are elected on the merits of their support for Constitutional leadership rather than a gaggle of representatives who are working together to grow government and implement agenda's that are pet policy to those who support them.

Eliminate the two party system and let candidates run elections by standing on their own two feet. There will be no correction from our current course until each individual arrives at this only remaining logical conclusion.

Great Post - Say's it all - Nothing left to do here - It's over folks! nothing to see, go home. Shut your computer off - It will be a while before there's another good post like this again.

 

[ron scott]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N331kGvh0U0]YouTube - Official Trailer for AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM[/ame]