A Third Party?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
ABM

ABM

Happily Married In Music City, USA!
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
31,865
Likes
5,785
Points
113
Are you in favor of a viable third party from which a President might someday be elected?

Independent? Libertarian? Other?
 
I vote Libertarian Party most of the time.

If there's a Tea Party candidate and he's not a religious zealot, I'd consider him.

There was talk of NYC Mayor Bloomberg running for president as a 3rd party candidate; he's rich enough to fund his own campaign and not miss the money and he's got name recognition.
 
No. There's not a bloc of voters that are as large as either the GOP or the Democrats, and having coalition governments is a pain in the ass.

Ed O.
 
parties don't mean shit anymore.

have people spell out their policies, and if the voters aren't with it enough to do the research, then they shouldn't get to vote.

arbitrary party affiliation is what kills politics
 
westnob said:
so you don't like the tea party stuff huh? just curious if that's what you meant by far right.
Click to expand...

That's a fair question. I like some aspects of all the parties. But it is abundantly clear that no party has all the answers. Look at any state that has remained too liberal or too conservative for a long time and you get one screwed up state (Oregon readily comes to mind as an example). It's the diversity of opinion creating ideals and ideas that when molded by all sides create our best governing times. Not the weak Presidential, partisan Congresses we've had for the last 19 years or so.
 
I want to revive the Democratic Republicans, the old Jefferson/Madison party. They were the shit. Fuck the Federalists.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...he-wrong-party-for-Tea-Partiers-83443727.html

Mark Tapscott: Third party is the wrong party for Tea Partiers
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
February 4, 2010 A faction of the Tea Party movement is gathering this weekend in Nashville, Tenn., for a "national convention" that will feature most prominently among its speakers former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

As usual with the Tea Party movement, this latest event has occasioned a fair amount of internecine bickering that has been gleefully encouraged by obscurantists in the Mainstream Media and their blogospheric allies at sites like the Huffington Post and TPM.

It's also sparked an unusually intense outpouring of predictably stereotypical caricaturing of supposedly "downwardly mobile" Tea Partiers "as a flowering on the Right of nativism, hyper-patriotism, anti-rationalism, racism and wishful thinking about going back to a happy America that never really existed."

(One wonders why folks who say such things don't realize that by relying upon ad hominem slander they appear to be either afraid of engaging the merits of their opponents' arguments or of being incapable of doing so).

The Nashville event is also producing more debate within and without the Tea Partiers about whether to organize as a third party, mount an assault to retake the GOP from its disingenuous establishment leadership, or to remain independent while seeking to influence both major parties from outside.

The biggest mistake in this discussion is to frame the analysis around the third-party issue. Doing that confuses a relic of 19th century conventional political wisdom with a 21st century reality.

The Tea Partiers are not a traditional third-party movement, they are instead the most visible manifestation yet of what Examiner contributor Glenn Reynolds calls "an army of Davids" made possible by the Internet and that empowers "ordinary people to beat Big Media, Big Government, and other Goliaths."

Third parties have mostly failed thanks to immense institutional ballot access obstacles erected by the two major parties, and the challenge of overcoming geographic separation over vast differences in order to achieve timely concerted action.

But the Internet enables these new armies rapidly to overcome distance and resource limitations that would hobble a traditional third-party attempt, and instead focus effectively on bringing to bear consistent demands with widespread public support on decision makers.

They can also, if they choose and organize to do so, impose enduring consequences on recalcitrant or witless decision makers, as Martha Coakley found out a few weeks ago in Massachusetts.

The issue then for Tea Partiers and political elites alike was posed by Reynolds in a recent Examiner article: When political movements can "bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?"

Going the traditional third-party route will lead Tea Partiers to a dead end. Taking over the GOP probably should be pursued in any case, but even if successful would only win half the battle and likely would be temporary in any case.

Why settle for half a victory when Tea Partiers have within their grasp as an independent third force to be the decisive influence in both major political parties?

There is no mystery about what most Tea Partiers seek -- a limited, transparent government that listens to them and resists ideologues with millennial blueprints to remake America in their own image, minimal taxation and regulation, strong national defense, and an unapologetic commitment to American exceptionalism abroad.

Tea Partiers should seek out or field candidates in both major parties who support those aims and do everything possible to elect them, then hold their feet to the fire of accountability. Just imagine a bipartisan Tea Party Caucus with sufficient numbers in Congress to drive the national agenda.

That could be a conquering army like none before in American politics.
Click to expand...

Think massive caucus among both parties, not a third party.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I want to revive the Democratic Republicans, the old Jefferson/Madison party. They were the shit. Fuck the Federalists.
Click to expand...

In general I agree with the sentiment of "Fuck The Federalists"...I sure didn't like that asshole Ashcroft coming after medical marijuana in Oregon...

It's tough because there has to be some line at which the Feds can step in (I'm thinking slavery)...but even on issues as nasty as abortion I think I'd be more comfortable if the states were 100% in charge...
 
Blazer_Hippie said:
In general I agree with the sentiment of "Fuck The Federalists"...I sure didn't like that asshole Ashcroft coming after medical marijuana in Oregon...

It's tough because there has to be some line at which the Feds can step in (I'm thinking slavery)...but even on issues as nasty as abortion I think I'd be more comfortable if the states were 100% in charge...
Click to expand...

The older I'm getting the bigger believer I am in states rights. I think there should be universal rights that cross state lines, but with other issues, I'd like my democracy to be as direct as possible.
 
maxiep said:
The older I'm getting the bigger believer I am in states rights. I think there should be universal rights that cross state lines, but with other issues, I'd like my democracy to be as direct as possible.
Click to expand...

The trick is picking out those "universal rights"...I mean it would mean people "agreeing to disagree" on some pretty tough issues (abortion/assisted suicide/etc)...
 
Dang, it appears that Sarah Palin is pushing hard to become the Tea Party's presidential nominee. :lol:
 
ABM said:
Are you in favor of a viable third party from which a President might someday be elected?

Independent? Libertarian? Other?
Click to expand...

Sure, that would be a lot of fun. The more the merrier.

barfo
 
A Libertarian/Independent party that would be actually viable and relevant would be a God send for this country, IMO.

a 6 party system, Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican, Conservative would be rad. I don't think 2 (real) parties serves this country justice.
 
MrJayremmie said:
A Libertarian/Independent party that would be actually viable and relevant would be a God send for this country, IMO.

a 6 party system, Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican, Conservative would be rad. I don't think 2 (real) parties serves this country justice.
Click to expand...

With 6 parties, think of the back room deals and political back stabbings... I love it.
 
I am against parties at all.

We need a no-party system, with no state representation.

All this partying is why nothing gets done.
 
MrJayremmie said:
A Libertarian/Independent party that would be actually viable and relevant would be a God send for this country, IMO.
Click to expand...

Libertarians and Independents are 2 completely different, usually oppposing, viewpoints.

As for God send, there is no God and it's silly to build another party on one.
 
maxiep said:
The older I'm getting the bigger believer I am in states rights. I think there should be universal rights that cross state lines, but with other issues, I'd like my democracy to be as direct as possible.
Click to expand...

My god, we actually agree on something.

I'd really like to see a "States Rights" party emerge that really holds true to the values that each states should manage marijuana, health care, gay rights, guns, abortion, assisted suicide, etc as they see fit.

The problem is that these values aren't really scalable. A party that believes we should make those decisions locally doesn't really have prescription for how those decisions should be made locally. For example, the party might be be all for Idaho being able to set its own marijuana laws, but no real prescription for how Idaho should construct its own marijuana laws.

Essentially, it'd devolve into a libertarian party, which doesn't appeal to me at all.

Anyway, I think you'd pretty much have to have a four party system, wouldn't you? A three party system would just be a split of one of the major parties. To win anything, they'd have to vote together to beat the other party. In which case they might as well not have split at all.

However, with 4 parties you could get all kinds of crazy coalitions on different issues.

Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green make the most sense to me.
 
Libertarians and Independents are 2 completely different, usually oppposing, viewpoints.

As for God send, there is no God and it's silly to build another party on one.
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break, it is a figure of speech.

Do you object when people say "Oh my God!"?
 
we need someone rich as fuck to run on the platform of having never taken any contributions. hed get shot though.
 
drexlersdad said:
we need someone rich as fuck to run on the platform of having never taken any contributions. hed get shot though.
Click to expand...

There's definitely a massive opening for another billionaire candidate to march in and put a real challenge to Obama. Hopefully whoever that guy is is slightly more sane than Ross Perot.
 
Obama's playing down to his competition, just about anyone would give him a real challenge right now. If he keeps playing lower, it won't be much of a challenge.
 
I hope there is a third party that splits the republicans, it would be great.
 
MrJayremmie said:
Oh give me a break, it is a figure of speech.

Do you object when people say "Oh my God!"?
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that the majority of independents and libertarians do not believe in mythical super-daddies. They believe in individual human beings who are personally responsible for their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top