If a third party could win, what would your party of choice be?

[Onyx]

Which party would you support, if any?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Constitution Party

 

[pismoe]

for the new upcoming TRUMP Party . Little I know of the Constitution Party is that they are ok / fine !!

 

[Unkotare]

Toga

 

[mudwhistle]

Which party would you support, if any?

The Trump Party.....

 

[Onyx]

Constitution Party

Oh, got to love those guys. They consider themselves fundamentalists and constitutionalists.

Ironically, they understand nothing about Christianity or the US constitution.

 

[flacaltenn]

Which party would you support, if any?

Problem is in your Title.. "If a 3rd party could win.............".. I don't support ANY party just to win. And til America sees the damage that these 2 insane "winning" parties are doing to their country --- It shouldn't be about winning. It's about offering SANE and RATIONAL choice on the ballot and promoting WIDER healthier discussion..

I've been active in the Libertarian Party for 20+ years. Worked with other parties on mutual ballot and debate access issues. And the LParty been right on most all of our principles and issues. America is just catching up with us...

 

[there4eyeM]

One wonders to what constitution this party's title refers.

 

[Onyx]

It shouldn't be about winning. It's about offering SANE and RATIONAL choice on the ballot and promoting WIDER healthier discussion..

I've been active in the Libertarian Party for 20+ years. Worked with other parties on mutual ballot and debate access issues. And we've been right on most all of our principles and issues. America is just catching up with us...

Not really, no.

The United States is going to be long gone before thirds parties have any major influence. Not that it matters, because in multi-party systems, power ends up being consolidated into two coalitions that serve the same endgame anyways.

 

[flacaltenn]

It shouldn't be about winning. It's about offering SANE and RATIONAL choice on the ballot and promoting WIDER healthier discussion..

I've been active in the Libertarian Party for 20+ years. Worked with other parties on mutual ballot and debate access issues. And we've been right on most all of our principles and issues. America is just catching up with us...

Not really, no.

The United States is going to be long gone before thirds parties have any major influence. Not that it matters, because in multi-party systems, power ends up being consolidated into two coalitions that serve the same endgame anyways.

Well that's depressing and pessimistic. The GOOD news is --- More POLITICIANS will put themselves in independent status and REFUSE to be muzzled and herded by the party power structure. Already the Dems/Reps have carved up territory and refused to run candidates in "losing" districts. Their focus on WINNING is gonna be their downfall.. Because when they leave 12 or 15% of House/Senate seats uncontested -- they are disenfranchising their voter minorities in those districts. ABANDONING them out of arrogance and greed and lust to "win"...

 

[Onyx]

Well that's depressing and pessimistic.

What is depressing, is that few among the conformed populace are going to pursue substantive solutions. They have been brainwashed into accepting a false premise, and are deadset against coming to terms with their own bias.

The GOOD news is --- More POLITICIANS will put themselves in independent status and REFUSE to be muzzled and herded by the party power structure. Already the Dems/Reps have carved up territory and refused to run candidates in "losing" districts.

That will just allow the opposing party to lock down their turf without resistance. An independent does not possess the same political infrastructure and connections as a major party.

Their focus on WINNING is gonna be their downfall.. Because when they leave 12 or 15% of House/Senate seats uncontested -- they are disenfranchising their voter minorities in those districts. ABANDONING them out of arrogance and greed and lust to "win"...

Greed is always our downfall. It is what defines the entire sociopolitical complex.

Do you expect the new set of politicians that come along to not repeat history?

 

[toxicmedia]

Which party would you support, if any?

Libertarian!!!!!!!!

 

[Onyx]

Libertarian!!!!!!!!

That would make them the big government party of small government.

No way that could go wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarian!!!!!!!!

That would make them the big government party of small government.

No way that could go wrong.

What kind of snide remark is that coming from a Chomsky fan? How the fuck did WE (LParty) screw up and become the "big government party of small government." ?? LOL...

At the moment -- working with what EXISTS and being a pragmatist -- I'd settle for a slightly less "Big Govt" that actually works to incentives and civil service and isn't completely inept and corruptible.

 

[Onyx]

What kind of snide remark is that coming from a Chomsky fan?

You mean the guy that believes in abolishing the state, right?

How the fuck did WE (LParty) screw up and become the "big government party of small government." ?? LOL...

It is common sense. A party of small government cannot function as a big government party. That does go without saying, doesn't it?

At the moment -- working with what EXISTS and being a pragmatist -- I'd settle for a slightly less "Big Govt" that actually works to incentives and civil service and isn't completely inept and corruptible.

Impossible. Republics do not elect competence into power.

If you have a system, then that systems exists to be exploited.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you've read Chomsky like I used to do as a reformed leftist -- you'd KNOW he is not an anarchist. He only wants to mold the "powers of state" to social justice and unicorn farming and playing field leveling.

Only party that EXISTS that would truly put ending corporate/govt collusion into it's top 10 of priorities is the Libertarian party. MEANINGFUL workable reforms -- as opposed to the communal fantasies of the Greens, the far left and Chomsky.

 

[Onyx]

If you've read Chomsky like I used to do as a reformed leftist.-- you'd KNOW he is not an anarchist.

First off, I am a huge Noah Chomsky fan. I had read one of his books and watched a couple of his videos several years ago.

To my understanding, he wants to completely abolish the state, which would lead to anarchy. He then wants society to reformulate based on what is efficient and sustained. In that regards, he is kind of like a revere Marxist social libertarian.

He only wants to mold the "powers of state" to social justice and unicorn farming and playing field leveling.

No, he most certainly wants to get rid of the state. Not sure why he would say it if it was not true.

Only party that EXISTS that would truly put ending corporate/govt collusion into it's top 10 of priorities is the Libertarian party.

MEANINGFUL workable reforms -- as opposed to the communal fantasies of the Greens, the far left and Chomsky.

Keep on smoking dope and chasing that pipe dream of yours.

The prospect signifies a fundamental lack of understanding on the reality of the system that we live in, as well as the nature of the sociopolitical complex. You should come to terms with the fact that the government does not work for you.

 

[Picaro]

Doesn't matter what ideology it is, if all the candidates come from an unprincipled amoral culture of materialism to begin with you just get the same shit over again. Most just can't accept the reality that our government and politicians are indeed representative of the people and culture it governs over, and that has always been the case all over the world since the hunting and gathering eras. Grow up and face it; Hillary and Trump are symptoms, not aberrations.

 

[Picaro]

If you've read Chomsky like I used to do as a reformed leftist -- you'd KNOW he is not an anarchist. He only wants to mold the "powers of state" to social justice and unicorn farming and playing field leveling.

Only party that EXISTS that would truly put ending corporate/govt collusion into it's top 10 of priorities is the Libertarian party. MEANINGFUL workable reforms -- as opposed to the communal fantasies of the Greens, the far left and Chomsky.

We already have the ultimate in 'Libertarianism' now; it's as laissez faire as it will ever get right now, with everything going to the highest bidders like any other privatized system. Just because they leave you out when divvying up all the spoils doesn't mean you aren't getting what 'Libertarianism' offers, it's just that you can't pay enough and got outbid, so quit whining.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you've read Chomsky like I used to do as a reformed leftist.-- you'd KNOW he is not an anarchist.

First off, I am a huge Noah Chomsky fan. I had read one of his books and watched a couple of his videos several years ago.

To my understanding, he wants to completely abolish the state, which would lead to anarchy. He then wants society to reformulate based on what is efficient and sustained. In that regards, he is kind of like a revere Marxist social libertarian.

He only wants to mold the "powers of state" to social justice and unicorn farming and playing field leveling.

No, he most certainly wants to get rid of the state. Not sure why he would say it if it was not true.

Only party that EXISTS that would truly put ending corporate/govt collusion into it's top 10 of priorities is the Libertarian party.

MEANINGFUL workable reforms -- as opposed to the communal fantasies of the Greens, the far left and Chomsky.

Keep on smoking dope and chasing that pipe dream of yours.

The prospect signifies a fundamental lack of understanding on the reality of the system that we live in, as well as the nature of the sociopolitical complex. You should come to terms with the fact that the government does not work for you.

I gave up chasing whatever Chomsky was selling because the stuff CHANGED daily everytime he opened his mouth.. Here in his OWN words, is the type of anarchist that he is.

Noam Chomsky: The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What's Wrong with Libertarians

Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, but primarily with control over work, over the work place, over production. It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, [that] they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations, and … democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society. And then, you know, ideas are worked out about how exactly that should manifest itself, but I think that is the core of anarcho-syndicalist thinking. I mean it’s not at all the general image that you described — people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows — but [anarcho-syndicalism] is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none.

The thing you need an argument for, and should give an argument for, is, How can we best proceed in that direction? And there are lots of ways within the current society. One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled. I mean in the long run, anarchists would like to see the state eliminated. But it exists, alongside of private power, and the state is, at least to a certain extent, under public influence and control — could be much more so. And it provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power. Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that. They’re not going to come about through private power. Quite the contrary. But they can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control … to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization. And that’s possible to not only think about, but to work on.

So in the 1st paragraph you have some hazy shady general anarchist BS that excludes consideration of a law and justice system, nation defense or a MYRIAD other "pipe dream" crap that Anarchists thrive on. Basically JUNKS individual protections from Constitutional viewpoint or guarantee of rights or how those rights are enforced. You anarchos have a lot guts -- talking about "pot smoking Libertarian pipe dreams" when you belch out this nonsense and fucking BURN the Constitution or reality of govt.

In the 2nd paragraph -- you have a HEAD-SPINNING Chomsky waffle number about "adapting to the EXISTING system". Which sounds a shitload more like vanilla Progressive than Anarcho..

Can never make it to any satisfying discussion with Anarchos. They ATTACK, they fling pipe dreams, and they got no CLUE how free people govern themselves.

So when are you gonna answer your OWN OP Question there Sparky?? I can't wait to here what alt-pipe party or movement that you support.