OTHER Conservative parties?

[NewGuy]

Seeing as I am new, and haven't seen much on this topic, how do people feel about alternative parties?

There are other conservative parties out there such as the Constitution party (which I would think is more appropriate than the Republican based on compromise).

I was curious since most people would believe you only have a choice between the D and R parties, and then vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Seeing as I am new, and haven't seen much on this topic, how do people feel about alternative parties?

There are other conservative parties out there such as the Constitution party (which I would think is more appropriate than the Republican based on compromise).

I was curious since most people would believe you only have a choice between the D and R parties, and then vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

ALso it's a choice between hanging onto every one of your issues instead of being politically effective ie. like you said: How much do you want to compromise? My view on compromise is that sometimes you must on a smaller issue to win the bigger ones which have severe consequences attached to them.

 

[NewGuy]

ALso it's a choice between hanging onto every one of your issues instead of being politically effective ie.

I have always believed doing what is right is better than what is "effective". Since I have been criticized often for not being very compromising, it intrigues me to hear the perspectives of others.

like you said: How much do you want to compromise? My view on compromise is that sometimes you must on a smaller issue to win the bigger ones which have severe consequences attached to them.

I guess I can understand that, although from my perspective, the end result of that logic ends up endlessly breaking even or losing without really gaining ground.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I have always believed doing what is right is better than what is "effective". Since I have been criticized often for not being very compromising, it intrigues me to hear the perspectives of others.



I guess I can understand that, although from my perspective, the end result of that logic ends up endlessly breaking even or losing without really gaining ground.

Well, who can really specify with any accuracy the end result of the logic of effectiveness. I mean, nothing would happen if we lived according the opposing paradigm, despite the zen koan you've used to trivialize the hope of progress.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think there's a bumper sticker here:

Question Effectiveness!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Seeing as I am new, and haven't seen much on this topic, how do people feel about alternative parties?

There are other conservative parties out there such as the Constitution party (which I would think is more appropriate than the Republican based on compromise).

I was curious since most people would believe you only have a choice between the D and R parties, and then vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

NewGuy, you can probably tell what party I favor... but to be honest, I think that the GOP generally has the best policies for the issues that are most important to me. The Constitution Party has some great goals, but they don't seem any different than the conservative base of the GOP. So why they would form a third party is beyond me.

 

[NewGuy]

The Constitution Party has some great goals, but they don't seem any different than the conservative base of the GOP. So why they would form a third party is beyond me.

Actually, they are uncompromising in regard to sticking to Constitutional authority without making deals and compromising themselves. THAT is why they exist. If you read about their beliefs, it becomes quite clear.

Aside from that, the common person sure seems to ignore the 3rd parties, when in may cases, getting a 3rd party into a real run would cause all others to stick to their promises and toe the line more.

 

[cptpwichita]

i like both the reform party and the constitution party although i differ from both of those parties just slightly i think they are both better than the republican party which i believe has no guts and panders to the left and the minorities and only cares about playing politics and will never do any of the following-
1.end foreign aid
2.protect american jobs
3.end all welfare programs
4.privatize social security
5.put the military on our border
6.stop the pork barrell spending and govt waste
7.term limits
8.get the u.n. out of the u.s. and the u.s. out of the u.n.
9.balance the budget and pay off our nations debt
10.get the federal govt out of education(end the dept of education) and return the responsibility of educating to the states(except for block grants to the states for no interest college loans).

 

[William Joyce]

They don't call the GOP the Stupid Party for nothing. The GOP is more interesting in kissing minority ass, opening borders, throwing away jobs, blowing billions on military misadventures and trying to federalize state issues they lost decades ago than in pursuing true conservatism.

The Constitution Party is good at least on paper, so is the America First Party. Neither have a chance of success.

I guess what I consider sometimes is retaking the GOP from the neocons and the anti-whites. There is something within the GOP called NFRA http://www.gopwing.com/ that advocates actual conservatism. I've been meaning to check into them.

 

[NewGuy]

The Constitution Party is good at least on paper, so is the America First Party. Neither have a chance of success.

If we all thought like that, we wouldn't have had America to begin with.

They both have a tremendous chance of success if people stop voting for who will win... (which is not logical at ALL), and vote for who they think is RIGHT.

THAT is exercising the right to vote....not voting for 1 of 2 promised to win without wanting either.

Voting for someone who will do 2 good things, but further a landslide of bad IS NOT justification of a vote FOR your country, it is a continual vote AGAINST your country.

 

[cptpwichita]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If we all thought like that, we wouldn't have had America to begin with.

They both have a tremendous chance of success if people stop voting for who will win... (which is not logical at ALL), and vote for who they think is RIGHT.

THAT is exercising the right to vote....not voting for 1 of 2 promised to win without wanting either.

Voting for someone who will do 2 good things, but further a landslide of bad IS NOT justification of a vote FOR your country, it is a continual vote AGAINST your country.

while i agree with you here's what will happen-intelligent people(conservatives)will vote third party and the dumb-dumbs(liberals and most democrats) will vote for their party even though their candidate is clueless(kerry) and their party has no direction(democrats) or just pander and play politics(republicans) and we end up with a real loser(kerry) instead of just a semi-loser(bush).

i will be voting for the reform party(ted weill) so don't come and blame me when we all hear president-elect kerry!:

 

[Avatar4321]

Id rather compromise and get most of what I wanted, then to not and get nothing.

Take Abortion for example. I am pro life. Will always be. And ill always fight for whats right. But im willing to compromise and slowly win rather than to be stubborn and not win at all.

Its also something ive never understood about some nations. People protest the governments actions by not voting and thus ensuring the problems in their government will continue. I mean its a simple decision of getting most of what you want to getting none.

Our Constitution is a great example of this. the Slavery issue. The Northern states wanted to abolish slavery even back then and of course the Southern states economies thrived on it. If the northerners has not compromised, the Union may have never been formed. There may be a union in the north and one in the South and Slavery might still exist in this nation. But the Founders being wised found a compromised that enabled slavery to be weakened as an institution and eventually abolished by denying the slave states their full representation. The compromise there created the Greatest Union in the World.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

It's nice to see someone who recognizes how spineless and pitiful the traditional political establishment has become. I probably don't agree with you on a number of ideological issues new guy, but it's nice to see someone advocating third parties at all. Someone needs to carry the torch to change the stilfling political atmosphere that both the dems and republicans perpetuate.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
i like both the reform party and the constitution party although i differ from both of those parties just slightly i think they are both better than the republican party which i believe has no guts and panders to the left and the minorities and only cares about playing politics and will never do any of the following-
1.end foreign aid
2.protect american jobs
3.end all welfare programs
4.privatize social security
5.put the military on our border
6.stop the pork barrell spending and govt waste
7.term limits
8.get the u.n. out of the u.s. and the u.s. out of the u.n.
9.balance the budget and pay off our nations debt
10.get the federal govt out of education(end the dept of education) and return the responsibility of educating to the states(except for block grants to the states for no interest college loans).

You're talking to me, now. Have you ever heard of Washingtonian foreign policy? It served our country well through the first 120 years of it's existence.

Washington never spoke of, "alliances". Rather, he referred to, "foreign entanglements". His three rules for the feasibility of foreign entanglements were these:

1. They must be few.

2. They must be short in duration.

3. They must, above all, serve American interests.

To call this policy, "isolationist" is ludicrous. America narrowly averted war with France in 1800, fought a war with England in 1812, and likewise engaged Mexico and Spain during the same century. By the advent of the 20th century, America was a world power.

It was only during the 20th century that America felt obliged to become the world's "cop".

World War 1, "The war to end all wars", was the violent end of centuries of feudalism and militarism. The Treaty of Versailles was, because of it's stupid cruelty and vindictiveness, an absolute guarantee of a second world war. The US, despite itself, found that it was the deciding factor in both wars.

It says a lot for the US that we neither conquered territory nor subjugated populations. We led by example. Nobody ever had to build a wall to keep anybody in a democracy.

America is the place people come, from all around the world, to make their dreams come true. Screw multilateralism. Screw political correctness. This is the shining city on a hill.

This might be a good time for America to rethink it's foreign entanglements using the Washingtonian yardstick.

 

[William Joyce]

I agree. Uncle Willie's tip for the day: any time someone accuses American patriots of being "isolationist," check out who this individual is, and what other interests he might be advocating for --- inside the U.S. our out. Why would he want us to wage war against Germany? Iraq? Iran?

What's the common denominator here?

 

[eric]

I think that the GOP generally has the best policies for the issues that are most important to me

I think this statement best sums up my feelings also. I don't agree with every stance my party takes but overall we are in agreement on many more issues than the other parties.