A Viable Third Party Candidate

A Viable Third Party Candidate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

hlen5 -> A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 11:04:36 AM)
To anyone interested, on Talk of the Nation (NPR Radio) 1 PM CST today (right now!), this is the subject. Happy listening, people!

Fightdirecto -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:05:08 PM)
Unfortunately, I only caught the last part, but I found it interesting that the callers couldn't come up with a platform that wasn't self contradictory - let alone agree on a candidate.

Moonhead -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:14:39 PM)
A century and a half back the Republicans were a third party. Look how well that's worked out for your country...

defiantbadgirl -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:22:30 PM)
IMO the best independent is Senator Bernie Sanders. He's against entitlements for the rich, against free trade deals and offshoring jobs, and for single-payer health care. He also has balls. Unfortunately, he probably couldn't win if he did run because he's unwilling to kiss corporate ass and accept bribes for campaign dollars. His unwillingness to compromise his values, which makes him the best choice, sadly keeps him down.

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead A century and a half back the Republicans were a third party. Look how well that's worked out for your country... The end of slavery? Firm

Moonhead -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:24:53 PM)
I was thinking of the more recent stuff. You know, since the GOP has moved south...

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I was thinking of the more recent stuff. You know, since the GOP has moved south... Getting us out of Vietnam? Winning the Cold War? Firm

Moonhead -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:42:09 PM)
Winning the cold war was a fifty years long project. Neither party can take credit for that one, whatever Reagan's apologists claim. I'll give you Vietnam, though. That was very much a Democrat war.

Marc2b -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 1:54:01 PM)
The communications revolution has made the possibility of a viable third party candidate a reality. Thanks to the internet, twitter, etc, it is now possible to bypass the so called main stream media altogether. I think that someone who is socially liberal (pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc) but fiscally conservative (lower taxes, cut spending) could stitch together an alliance of the middle and successfully win the Presidency. I’m not saying it will happen… such a candidate still needs to be articulate and photogenic… but it could.

hlen5 -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:23:44 PM)
We can hope.....

flcouple2009 -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Getting us out of Vietnam? Winning the Cold War? Firm This is why we keep repeating the same old mistakes. We learn nothing form the past. You might want to try some real history books. I'm afraid you might have been reading some of those "alternate history" things.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead A century and a half back the Republicans were a third party. Look how well that's worked out for your country... ...and to think, before that we had the 'Democratic-Republican' party. But true to form, the people have been so conditioned by all of the propaganda since...refuse to learn about any of them and their policies or warnings.

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Getting us out of Vietnam? Winning the Cold War? This is why we keep repeating the same old mistakes. We learn nothing form the past. You might want to try some real history books. I'm afraid you might have been reading some of those "alternate history" things. So, what is wrong, fl? Did Nixon get us out of Vietnam? Don't many historians give Reagan some credit for ending the Cold War when it did? Didn't Gorbachev? Or is it that you just hate republicans and/or conservatives so much that you can't stand it? What if I told you, that as a percentage of elected party officials in Congress, more Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats? Just can't believe it, huh? That being said (and back to topic), I do think a third party could be successful, nowadays, or very soon. Firm

MrRodgers -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:55:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The communications revolution has made the possibility of a viable third party candidate a reality. Thanks to the internet, twitter, etc, it is now possible to bypass the so called main stream media altogether. I think that someone who is socially liberal (pro gay marriage, pro choice, etc) but fiscally conservative (lower taxes, cut spending) could stitch together an alliance of the middle and successfully win the Presidency. I’m not saying it will happen… such a candidate still needs to be articulate and photogenic… but it could. One must get on ballots and the case of pres. and v-pres., in all 50 states. For that...one needs signed petitions and money and lots of it. The Conservative party got James Buckley on their NY ballots and was elected senator. He served one term and is now a federal judge.

Fightdirecto -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 2:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I was thinking of the more recent stuff. You know, since the GOP has moved south... Getting us out of Vietnam? The only reason Nixon go us out of Viet-Nam is that he was trying to divert attention from Watergate and his impending impeachment. Sort of like, "I just recently stopping beating my wife - so you should give me a free pass on the drunk driving arrest." FYI: I served with P Company, 75th U.S. Army Rangers, I Corps, Republic of Viet-Nam 1970-1971 and got my 2 Bronze Stars there (to preempt the anticipated "You should shut up - you didn't serve" future smear attack common from Rightists) [image]local://upfiles/42188/E68B7D6D82FD42D5A39EC35B0787A359.jpg[/image]

MrRodgers -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 3:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Winning the cold war was a fifty years long project. Neither party can take credit for that one, whatever Reagan's apologists claim. I'll give you Vietnam, though. That was very much a Democrat war. While ironically it was Eisenhower (a moderate repub, also warning of the coming military/industrial complex) who bequeathed our earliest involvement in VN...to Kennedy. The CIA was already there. Yes, I blame LBJ completely for expanding the war tragically too...rather than get out. Again people, I believe they are all puppets and every war is a racket...a war for profit. Otherwise, why lift trade and economic sanctions against the USSR almost right after the Gulf-of-Tonkin 'incident ?' To supply the enemy of course.

flcouple2009 -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 3:41:38 PM)
Nothing is wrong except your misuse of history, but that's nothing new, If you mean the Republicans ended the Vietnam war because Nixon was the President at the time you might be right. That would be ignoring things like Nixon being the one who escalated the bombings, Nixon was ready to move in Cambodia to support Nol, should I continue? Any reasons Nixon personally had for ending the war were purely to gain a political advantage over the democrats. LBJ was an idiot and much of the escalation lies at his feet. Large portions of the democratic party were in dispute with him over the war. When congress finally just had enough you should look back at the resolutions and who were supporting them. I thought the Church-Cooper Amendment was bi-partisan maybe you have a different historical take.. When Congress finally stood up it was pretty bi-partisan though many of the Republicans were considered "liberal" ones. Reagan ended what exactly? Maybe you should think about that for a bit. Really look at what happened in many places around the world and figure out what ended and what actually was won. I know the Republicans don't like to trace back how many of the worlds issues are fall out form Reagan. Saying Reagan ended the cold war is as empty a statement as Bush and the "Mission Accomplished". There is going to be no viable 3rd party candidate anytime soon. It's going to take a special person who can captivate the attention of the masses for it to happen.

Edwynn -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 3:44:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Getting us out of Vietnam? Winning the Cold War? This is why we keep repeating the same old mistakes. We learn nothing form the past. You might want to try some real history books. I'm afraid you might have been reading some of those "alternate history" things. So, what is wrong, fl? Did Nixon get us out of Vietnam? Don't many historians give Reagan some credit for ending the Cold War when it did? Didn't Gorbachev? Or is it that you just hate republicans and/or conservatives so much that you can't stand it? What if I told you, that as a percentage of elected party officials in Congress, more Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats? Just can't believe it, huh? That being said (and back to topic), I do think a third party could be successful, nowadays, or very soon. Firm Sorry, but neither of today's parties have anything whatsoever to do with the situation 200 years ago, 160 years ago, or 100 years ago. Quit asking others what they believe and ask yourself why the Republican party of today has gone so against their original principles. Otherwise, why have both modern day Republicans and Democrats gone completely 180 degrees in opposition to what Theodore Roosevelt or his distant cousin FDR did in breaking up oligarchies that made American democracy not actually properly called democracy anymore? This is the situation we find ourselves in today, but unlike back then, people are more cheaply bought, so then the virus is more deeply insinuated, and one person alone cannot fight the flood of corporate media and effectively corporate congress and regulatory agencies' calumny, of which is taken by the populace as 'truth' and so firmly entrenched. Some people are screaming for more liqueur as we speak, between bouts of vomiting.

DomKen -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 3:49:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 There is going to be no viable 3rd party candidate anytime soon. It's going to take a special person who can captivate the attention of the masses for it to happen. I disagree with this. The level of discontent in the right of center socially moderate fiscal conservatives seems perfect for the emergence of a new political party. The response to the Presidents call for people to contact their Congress people showed a high level of discontent with the intransigence of the tea party types that seem to have a stranglehold on the Republican party. This upcoming primary season, where no candidate acceptable to the group will have any chance of winning the GOP nomination, just might be the figurative straw.

flcouple2009 -> RE: A Viable Third Party Candidate (7/26/2011 4:18:26 PM)
And is there a person the Tea Party people would support who could actually win the election?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02