The 3rd Party I think we need.

[Charles_Main]

A state is either red or blue so it's easy to think there are just people who are red or just people who are blue. Most of us are made up of shades of purple when all is said and done.

I agree, the problem is Both Parties are so Beholden to their Extremes. The People driving the Agenda in the Dem Party are from the left. I know you wont agree with that but that is what I see. Pelosi, and Reid, Are not moderates. Howard dean was no Moderate, Neither is that idiot chick running the party now.

as long as you are stuck on viewing people you disagree with as leftists you will never ever truly get what it would take to join and form a 3rd party

I disagree with people on the left and right bud. Mostly about how much ******* Much money they want to spend.

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

I think you don't know what the libertarian party is about. You should look into it.

Nope, sorry they don't fit me either. Like the other parties they have a few issues I agree with, but they have stances on other things that are deal breakers for me. For example their Defense agenda is basically Isolationism, and they take Personal Freedom to the Extreme if you ask me. Defending People like NAMBLA and the like.

 

[Shelzin]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

I think you don't know what the libertarian party is about. You should look into it.

Nope, sorry they don't fit me either. Like the other parties they have a few issues I agree with, but they have stances on other things that are deal breakers for me.

Fair enough.

For example their Defense agenda is basically Isolationism,

You either don't know what "Isolationism" means... Or you haven't looked into the party itself and instead listen to less than respectable media. Flat out, no bullshit or pulling punches. You're an idiot if you think using the military for only defense is isolationism.

I don't mean that to be insulting. I mean that to be you are ignorant of what the party is about, ignorant of the word, or stupid in applying it wrongly.

and they take Personal Freedom to the Extreme if you ask me. Defending People like NAMBLA and the like.

Could you link me to where they defended NAMBLA for me please?

Edit: And I mean the party... Not someone who called themselves a libertarian. I mean the Klu Klux Klan called themselves Christian. Same with Timothy McVeigh... So... Eh...

 

[Shelzin]

This election shows just how well people are brainwashed. The swing states had lower votes for third party than other states. I was truly disappointed in the turnout for independents.

Missed this first go around.

My county had 5 people... 5 that didn't vote for Obama or Mitt. (Henry county in SE Iowa )That's wrong. I know at *least* 5 were at the same polling station I was at when I was there. I personally know 20 people that voted for Gary or wrote in Ron's name in this county. I would bet dollars to pesos that there was at least 100 in the county, likely closer to 200 that voted for Gary or Ron. But it was reported and counted at 5.

And we come right back to this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/242797-want-my-vote.html

 

[Dante]

funny how the law of unintended consequences has worked against those who fought for Citizens United and against public campaign financing

That depends on your presumption of what they intended.

the man who argued the case has an interesting rant about what he in tended, but most others clearly intended for it to favor conservatives causes and interests because of the commonly held view among conservatives that wealth and greed is theirs alone

 

[Wiseacre]

I would guess that if a 3rd party came into existence it would get 8 or 9 out of 10 members from the GOP. You would in effect split the republican vote and have one big Democrat Party and 2 small parties who would always be in the minority. The WH would remain in democrat hands in perpetuity. I'm sure they'd love nothing better than seeing a new 3rd party.

 

[Dante]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

I think you don't know what the libertarian party is about. You should look into it.

Now... I'm not a libertarian as I don't agree with all of this... But frankly it takes the best, IMHO, of both parties. But... They seem to actually WANT to do what it is they say. I mean hell... If Gays should have the right to marry according to Obama wouldn't he be pushing it?

Libertarians attract the best of the fringe. No doubt about that. Too many of today's pseudo intellectuals who flock to the Libertarian party forget the prime directive of representative government: Politics is the art of compromise, and politics is how we govern.

Libertarians value principles over the society they were created to serve.

plus look at how they say so much and when you step back and look at what they said...it adds up to very little.

 

[Dante]

I agree, the problem is Both Parties are so Beholden to their Extremes. The People driving the Agenda in the Dem Party are from the left. I know you wont agree with that but that is what I see. Pelosi, and Reid, Are not moderates. Howard dean was no Moderate, Neither is that idiot chick running the party now.

as long as you are stuck on viewing people you disagree with as leftists you will never ever truly get what it would take to join and form a 3rd party

I disagree with people on the left and right bud. Mostly about how much ******* Much money they want to spend.

lol

So you are part of a faction -- the 'spending' faction -- and factions are what Madison and others were worried about. Parties were big. Bigger the tent, less likely to have one faction rule everything.

You see everyone else as wrong because you have attached yourself to one issue 'spending' and that makes you unable and unwilling to compromise.

 

[Dante]

I would guess that if a 3rd party came into existence it would get 8 or 9 out of 10 members from the GOP. You would in effect split the republican vote and have one big Democrat Party and 2 small parties who would always be in the minority. The WH would remain in democrat hands in perpetuity. I'm sure they'd love nothing better than seeing a new 3rd party.

yes. It's why even though Dante left the Democratic party he fights to have them in the WH forever. It's all a plot. you are very wise

 

[dblack]

I would guess that if a 3rd party came into existence it would get 8 or 9 out of 10 members from the GOP. You would in effect split the republican vote and have one big Democrat Party and 2 small parties who would always be in the minority. The WH would remain in democrat hands in perpetuity. I'm sure they'd love nothing better than seeing a new 3rd party.

Not necessarily. With our election system, it's true that there are likely to be only two strong parties in the long run, but a temporary split for one wouldn't necessarily mean perpetual dominance for the other. It could simply be a necessary step on re-aligning of the party in question to better reflect the values of the electorate.

 

[geauxtohell]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

The American electoral process creates a two party system. That's it. If you want a viable third party you'd have to change the "winner takes all" which naturally drives people into two camps (you don't see three teams playing a baseball or football game) and change it to a more parliamentary system.

 

[Dante]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

The American electoral process creates a two party system. That's it. If you want a viable third party you'd have to change the "winner takes all" which naturally drives people into two camps (you don't see three teams playing a baseball or football game) and change it to a more parliamentary system.

yeah, and look at ALL of the nations that use a parliamentary system. Our system is more stable and suited to our national polity

 

[Shelzin]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

I think you don't know what the libertarian party is about. You should look into it.

Now... I'm not a libertarian as I don't agree with all of this... But frankly it takes the best, IMHO, of both parties. But... They seem to actually WANT to do what it is they say. I mean hell... If Gays should have the right to marry according to Obama wouldn't he be pushing it?

Libertarians attract the best of the fringe. No doubt about that. Too many of today's pseudo intellectuals who flock to the Libertarian party forget the prime directive of representative government: Politics is the art of compromise, and politics is how we govern.

Libertarians value principles over the society they were created to serve.

A society founded on those principles. Which... Have become warped in my opinion to something that it was never intended to be. That, of course, is my opinion... And the representative that I vote to represent me will of course represent that opinion in order to serve me... Unless of course they are a republican delegate.

plus look at how they say so much and when you step back and look at what they said...it adds up to very little.

*blink*blink*

I disagree.

 

[dblack]

The American electoral process creates a two party system. That's it. If you want a viable third party you'd have to change the "winner takes all" which naturally drives people into two camps (you don't see three teams playing a baseball or football game) and change it to a more parliamentary system.

There are other, perhaps better, avenues than the parliamentary approach. Approval voting would be a relatively simple transition in terms of logistics, but would significantly alter the voting dynamic - pretty much eliminating the lesser-of-two-evils nonsense.

 

[Dreamy]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

The American electoral process creates a two party system. That's it. If you want a viable third party you'd have to change the "winner takes all" which naturally drives people into two camps (you don't see three teams playing a baseball or football game) and change it to a more parliamentary system.

My wish would be for better teams at the top. These two have lost their way imo.

 

[Wiseacre]

I would guess that if a 3rd party came into existence it would get 8 or 9 out of 10 members from the GOP. You would in effect split the republican vote and have one big Democrat Party and 2 small parties who would always be in the minority. The WH would remain in democrat hands in perpetuity. I'm sure they'd love nothing better than seeing a new 3rd party.

Not necessarily. With our election system, it's true that there are likely to be only two strong parties in the long run, but a temporary split for one wouldn't necessarily mean perpetual dominance for the other. It could simply be a necessary step on re-aligning of the party in question to better reflect the values of the electorate.

I don't agree, you are supposing that a somewhat equal number of liberals would leave the democrats for the new party, or a substantial number of independents would join up. I don't see either scenario happening, independents are independent for a reason.

Right now I'm seeing 2 different political philosophies, the European model vs the American model. The democrats are following the first, the republicans the second. I'm not seeing how a 3rd party fits in here, some kind of mixture? Not sure I see how that changes anything for the better.

 

[Dante]

I think you don't know what the libertarian party is about. You should look into it.

Now... I'm not a libertarian as I don't agree with all of this... But frankly it takes the best, IMHO, of both parties. But... They seem to actually WANT to do what it is they say. I mean hell... If Gays should have the right to marry according to Obama wouldn't he be pushing it?

Libertarians attract the best of the fringe. No doubt about that. Too many of today's pseudo intellectuals who flock to the Libertarian party forget the prime directive of representative government: Politics is the art of compromise, and politics is how we govern.

Libertarians value principles over the society they were created to serve.

A society founded on those principles. Which... Have become warped in my opinion to something that it was never intended to be. That, of course, is my opinion... And the representative that I vote to represent me will of course represent that opinion in order to serve me... Unless of course they are a republican delegate.

plus look at how they say so much and when you step back and look at what they said...it adds up to very little.

*blink*blink*

I disagree.

Libertarian principles its has been argued, are those of America's founding fathers. But the US Constitution was written by the framers and it was ratified and got it's legitimacy from the people who ratified it, not by the founders, the framers, or the States.

Many people wanted different things and the USA is the result of compromise. A strong Federal government? Some citizens preferred or wanted a type of benign Royalty? A weak federal government? The colonists were all over the place

 

[there4eyeM]

I almost voted Republican in '76. Couldn't tell the difference between Ford and Carter for a while. Almost did again in '96, if Powell had run. Clinton seemed like damaged goods that couldn't win. Twenty years apart and now we're coming up to 2016! Not saying I see a Republican on the horizon I'd vote for, but if they don't wise up very few may ever consider them again. We need a new paradigm and you know what I favor. It seems the only way can break the Republicrat duopoly.

The only way to break the Republicrat duopoly is to quit voting for them.

Did you?

No.

 

[dblack]

Not necessarily. With our election system, it's true that there are likely to be only two strong parties in the long run, but a temporary split for one wouldn't necessarily mean perpetual dominance for the other. It could simply be a necessary step on re-aligning of the party in question to better reflect the values of the electorate.

I don't agree, you are supposing that a somewhat equal number of liberals would leave the democrats for the new party, or a substantial number of independents would join up. I don't see either scenario happening, independents are independent for a reason.

Actually, I wasn't assuming any Democrats would defect, though I suppose some would. I was merely saying that a temporary split of the Republicans wouldn't last - eventually one strong party would coalesce - hopefully around values and ideology that better reflected the views of those unhappy with the plans of the Democrats.

Right now I'm seeing 2 different political philosophies, the European model vs the American model. The democrats are following the first, the republicans the second. I'm not seeing how a 3rd party fits in here, some kind of mixture? Not sure I see how that changes anything for the better.

I think I just wasn't clear in what I was suggesting. What I meant was that a third party break could be a precursor to a new party - or significant rework of the old one. I agree that, with our current voting system, it will almost always boil down to two strong parties.

But I'm curious about your two political philosophies. Can you characterize them? What are the key differences between the philosophies in your view?

 

[Mac1958]

Every time people start talking about new parties. They always seem to envision a party that is at the far end of the Spectrum. Either left or right. I think that is why 3rd parties never get off the ground, well that and the fact the 2 parties rig the game.

What I think we need is a party of the center. A party that can draw both Blue Dog Democrats, and Moderate Republicans into it. Let the Dems and GOP be ruled by the Extremes while we build a new party.

But alas that's just a pipe dream lol.

I'll say it again, I just LOVE seeing my stuff on the screen:

Start the Party of God. Let all the hardcore social conservatives start their own party, they're so sure everyone agrees with them, and they can have the purity they so crave.

That would leave the GOP to the fiscal conservatives/social moderates. It would grab a ton of moderates, independents, and some Democrats.

Poof! Simple as that.

.