RE: A third party in US politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:41:57 AM)

Still, that the believers in individualism and absence of government should rely on party organisation and stucture to spread the word to the masses is deliciously ironic :-) .




bestbabync -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:52:43 AM)

sorry to disappoint, but there are many that believe "Government get out of the way!"  one example, social security!  the system/party politics you believe in has bankrupted that program with the big government control and spending.  [:'(]what a success!




kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:54:15 AM)

You never disappoint, baby. Each time you speak, it's illuminating :-) .




bestbabync -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:59:17 AM)

every time you speak you insult someone




Aynne88 -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 8:05:01 AM)

Woosh![;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You never disappoint, baby. Each time you speak, it's illuminating :-) .




philosophy -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 9:23:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

"Third parties are like bees--once they sting, they die."

Third parties exist in this country, but they function as an "advance guard" for ideas that ultimately get subsumed by one or the other of the two major parties, as either the Democrats or Republicans will co-opt ideas, policies, and programs of third parties that gain traction with the broader electorate.



...i've seen this happen in the UK. some years back the Green party had a surprisingly good showing in a European Parliament election. The very next year the three main parties all had an enhanced environmental element to their platform.

However, what has struck me from the more serious responses to the OP is the idea that the media have a large amount of control over the influence any party can wield. As the internet becomes more pervasive, is it possible that a third party could rise to power through a purely grassroots campaign? Haven't there already been examples of politicians in the USA who have gained office, but eschewed the usual media outlets in favour of internet campaigning?




kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 9:26:38 AM)

Perhaps the U.S. are moving towards one party. 

One Party to rule them all, One Party to find them,
One Party to bring them all and in the darkness bind them



Mouahahahahahaha [sm=evil.gif]




rachel529 -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 2:45:08 PM)

kittin, we are already there. 




kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 3:27:54 PM)

Glad you got the double-edged joke.




NeedToUseYou -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:10:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Still, that the believers in individualism and absence of government should rely on party organisation and stucture to spread the word to the masses is deliciously ironic :-) .


Libertarianism is about limited government not absence of government, but you know that, already.







kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 6:40:35 PM)

The Libertarians are Republicans Lite: hardly a 'third party'.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 7:37:09 PM)

How so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The Libertarians are Republicans Lite: hardly a 'third party'.




rachel529 -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 8:15:03 PM)

truthfully it sickens me people believe that.  i wish libertarians would man up and vote libertarian.  then we would have our third party.  the problem is, no government willingly gives up power.   remember- all a national government should do is 1:maintain currency 2:provide national defense 3: maintain the border.  how does that dovetail into republican kittin?




NeedToUseYou -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 8:32:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The Libertarians are Republicans Lite: hardly a 'third party'.


Not really, anyway, the discussion was about libertarians, you responded to someone speaking of libertarians, and said they wanted the absence of government, which is untrue. Now, they are Republican Lite?

If you are going to just make things up on the fly, at least have the courtesy to be consistent. As Republicans in these days given the last 8 years are more big government than Democrats at minimum they are on par with the democrats. There is a obvious contradiction between your statements.

Me thinks, you just say anything about stuff you don't like.

(Me above is intentional, just to head off the grammar Nazis)






TheHeretic -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/16/2008 10:26:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

What would it need to create a third party in US politics? One that actually stood a chance of holding some power. What kind of thing would be in its manifesto? Is there room in the US political spectrum?


      There is all kinds of room in the spectrum for third parties, Phil.  Not just the Libertarians (Republicans LITE, Kitten?  Do you know anything at all about them?)   We have everything from neo-pinko's to theocrats running around, mostly with highly misleading party names.  My personal theory is that the Green's call themselves that because they figure all the green in my wallet, that I worked for, should be passed out to benefit those who didn't. 

      Getting a third party to power is something else.  Chances are, they will draw more support from one party than another, splitting either the liberal/conservative bloc and handing the win to the other side.  In the U.S. '92 election, Bill Clinton won with 58%-ish voting for a much more conservative platform than he was offering.  So much for whatever it was Perot-vians called themselves

      To make it happen, realistically, you would need several things.  First and essential would be a friendly press.  Right behind that, you would need a competent and articulate grassroots movement NOT composed of people who figure more than a weekly shower to be optional (are you listening, Ron Paul?).  A charismatic figurehead who at least seems very likable.  A message that resonates with a lot more people than it alienates.

     One way we could get something moving to really change our party system would be with a change to proportional representation in the House, and a requirement of run-offs to a majority for Senate seats and the votes of the Electoral College.




kittinSol -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/17/2008 5:47:34 AM)

The collective indignation above says it all [sm=danger.gif] .




Thunderbird56 -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/17/2008 6:25:15 AM)

Wow, what to say? Some good discussion here and some not so good. For my part, America *must* have a viable 3rd party ... obviously the "dual monopoly" that the Dems and Reps have held for the last 60-70 years or more isn't getting the job done. Obviously.

No, that's not quite right. They *are* getting the job done ... but it's the job of corruption, greed, malfeasance, and favoritism, and we the people are paying for it. Again and again and again.

I am a Libertarian, so I would like to see the Libertarian Party rise to become that viable 3rd party. It wouldn't take much. Imagine just 40-50 in the House, 8-10 in the Senate? So much crap legislation could be killed and defeated. Anything to drive a wedge between the Democons and Republicrats.

I've said this before, neither 'side' really cares which one of them has the White House or the majorities ... not really. Just so long as it is one of them! Sure, they'd *like* to hold the balance of power, but as long as it's one of them, the other side knows they will still have some power and the chance for more power another day.

What they are *really* afraid of is a viable 3rd party that could come along and upset their whole applecart.

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us".  Gandalf the Gray




celticlord2112 -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/17/2008 6:36:05 AM)

quote:

As the internet becomes more pervasive, is it possible that a third party could rise to power through a purely grassroots campaign?

In theory, it's quite possible.

However, the structure of government in the US strongly favors two dominant political parties.  Unlike parliamentary systems, where the chief executive is the leader of whatever party assembles a majority within the legislature, the President is elected independently of Congressional majorities.  Thus, the structural oppositions are not inter-party but inter-organizational: not Liberal vs Conservative but Legislative vs Executive (and in the last 40 years, the overwhelming tendency is for Congress and the Presidency to reside in differing political parties).  Effective opposition to a President draws politicians into a single opposing party, and effective support for a President likewise coalesces into a single supporting party.

As a result, while a third political party could conceivably arise and capture a broad segment of the electorate, it would only gain significant political power (especially at the national level) if one or the other of the two dominant parties disintegrated, or if the two dominant parties fell jointly into a political center and became, in effect, one party.  Absent such a scenario, the rising popularity of a third party would be met with adaptation by two dominant parties, and the policies and ideas of said third party would be absorbed by one or the other of the dominant parties.




Truthiness -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/18/2008 5:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88


I am absolutely willing to wager that my knowledge of politics surpasses anyone that believes that tripe.


Unfortunately, that puts you well into the minority.  I mean, the fact that 60% of Obama voters couldn't even tell you what party controlled Congress is telling. 




Truthiness -> RE: A third party in US politics (12/18/2008 5:40:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
As Republicans in these days given the last 8 years are more big government than Democrats at minimum they are on par with the democrats. There is a obvious contradiction between your statements.



Quoting for truth.  That's one of the amusingly ironic things about the US government right now...Bush was one of the most economically liberal presidents in the history of the country.  Virtually every problem that came his way, he answered with bigger government and more spending.

So...America's response to that?  Let's get rid of him and put in someone equally if not more economically liberal!  That'll change things!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875