On the Formation of A Third Party

SuperMonkey

Sidekick
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
0
Points
31
In the last eight years, we have witnessed a complete dismantling of the conservative movement in the United States. As a conservative, I no longer have any faith whatsoever in the Republican Party, but it has become practically impossible to elect third party or unafilliated candidates. This is caused by a self-perpetuating cycle caused by those in power, who wish us to believe that no third party candidate could ever gain enough votes to be elected to high office, and since we believe this, we choose not to "waste" our votes, and therefore limit ourselves to two choices.

The obvious solution is to form a national Third Party with a loose affilliation of state parties devoted to destroying the two-party system. The party would not be devoted to any specific political ideology, only to faith in the principle that the people deserve more than two choices. It would begin as a grassroots movement in smaller states, gradually getting candidates on the ballot, and forcing the two parties to allow our candidates into debates.

Eventually, the Party could turn to national offices, and attempt to solidify a position as a viable third party. It would have to be done as Ross Perot did, gathering funds and support by vicious campaigning and gaining popularity with voters.

To do this, the Party must debunk the myths that have invaded American politics, namely that only two candidates per election are electable, and that write-ins are useless. There is a growing population of disenfranchised voters in America, that understand this, and if given the opportunity, would vote for and support a third party.

If the constitution and America's liberty is to survive, it must be done.

Good luck.

-- FunBob
 
I voted for Ross Perot in both 92 and 96. The main reason was the NAFTA issue. He was right about that and I agree that there needs to be more than just the republican and democrat candidate to choose from. It was the two-party system that caused hundreds of thousands of Americans (including myself) to lose their jobs.

Both parties wield a lot of power with the media as well. I remember Hillary Clinton being picked as the democratic nominee a year before the 08 election cycle even began. And if you recall, candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were later kicked out of the "debates," if you want to call them that.

Yes, I agree. There has to be a way to dismantle this tight grip both parties have on the media and political system.
 
We will never have a third party win the presidency until there is campaign finance reform. Since the two parties control a majority, there never will be.
 
I know people like to talk about Third Parties, but where is the interest? Really?

We had a Third Party in 2008. We had a Libertarian Party candidate. His name was Ron Paul. How well did he fair in the Primaries?

When the American People are ready for a Third Party, want a Third Party, there WILL be a Third Party. But the American People seem to be content with the two party system, and as long as that stays it's not going to change.
 
Bull Moose almost made it, though teddy could have spun gold out of horse**** to be fair.
 
I know people like to talk about Third Parties, but where is the interest? Really?

We had a Third Party in 2008. We had a Libertarian Party candidate. His name was Ron Paul. How well did he fair in the Primaries?

When the American People are ready for a Third Party, want a Third Party, there WILL be a Third Party. But the American People seem to be content with the two party system, and as long as that stays it's not going to change.
Your post confuses me, sir.
 
He makes a good point, but it could still be done. As I said, the only reason a third party hasn't been elected to the presidency yet is because people are deceived into thinking their vote would be wasted if they voted for a third party candidate. Perot shattered that assumption, and got nearly as many votes as Clinton, but was cheated out of a win in Maine even though he received a majority of the votes there.

It could be done. All it would need is a massive publicity campaign (Ron Paul on steroids) and an unprecednted media blitz.

-- FunBob
 
Last edited:
I know people like to talk about Third Parties, but where is the interest? Really?

We had a Third Party in 2008. We had a Libertarian Party candidate. His name was Ron Paul. How well did he fair in the Primaries?

When the American People are ready for a Third Party, want a Third Party, there WILL be a Third Party. But the American People seem to be content with the two party system, and as long as that stays it's not going to change.

It would have helped if he wasn't a nutzo who wanted to dismantle the federal govt. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. But there's enough crazy in there to make him unelectable. and yeah I voted for Perot too.

You give me a viable 3rd party guy who isn't hellbent on bringing it all down to fix it (which it might take but you're not going to get elected saying that) nor will you get congress to vote your way. so his ideas are intriguing but they are not possible right now.

he would be an excellent choice to lead the rebuilding after it all crumbles under it's own weight though. wait until that happens and then I'll vote for him because he might be able to get er done then.
 
I know people like to talk about Third Parties, but where is the interest? Really?

We had a Third Party in 2008. We had a Libertarian Party candidate. His name was Ron Paul. How well did he fair in the Primaries?

When the American People are ready for a Third Party, want a Third Party, there WILL be a Third Party. But the American People seem to be content with the two party system, and as long as that stays it's not going to change.
You really should say when the media is ready for a third party. Americans are content with the two party system because we are basicly told that the way it is. We can have the greatest third party candidate and the people will ignore him/her because the media will.
 
You really should say when the media is ready for a third party. Americans are content with the two party system because we are basicly told that the way it is. We can have the greatest third party candidate and the people will ignore him/her because the media will.

I disagree. People like to claim that the American people are sheep, but if that was the case John Kerry would of beat Bush in 2004. If that was the case Mike Huckabee, a man with little money and little media attention, would not have had the success he had in the primary - especially not over candidates like Guiliani.

Your post confuses me, sir.

It's quite simple. There is no need for a Third Party until the American people are ready for a third party.
 
It's a combination of both the political system and the media. The media is owned by corporations, that have a stake in the political system.

Indulge me for a moment while I talk about my favorite politician Dennis Kucinich. He was right when he said the reason he was kicked out of the debates was partly because of his stance against having a nuclear waste dump on Yukka Mountain.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4363

Third party candidates typically go against the grain. The Democrats and Republicans (most of them anyway) play the political game and do the corporations bidding.
 
It's a combination of both the political system and the media. The media is owned by corporations, that have a stake in the political system.

Indulge me for a moment while I talk about my favorite politician Dennis Kucinich. He was right when he said the reason he was kicked out of the debates was partly because of his stance against having a nuclear waste dump on Yukka Mountain.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4363

Third party candidates typically go against the grain. The Democrats and Republicans (most of them anyway) play the political game and do the corporations bidding.

Bull. Obama cut the government funding for the Yukka mountain dump, and yet NBC and MSNBC are his biggest cheerleading squad.

Kucinich wasn't invited because he was a niche candidate without enough support to be considered relevant. It's like Ron Paul not being invited to one of the debates.
 
Bull. Obama cut the government funding for the Yukka mountain dump, and yet NBC and MSNBC are his biggest cheerleading squad.

Kucinich wasn't invited because he was a niche candidate without enough support to be considered relevant. It's like Ron Paul not being invited to one of the debates.

Obama is much more of a corporate stooge than Kucinich, there's no doubt of that. Just look at the Wall Street bailouts. Kucinich was vehemently against them while Obama tried to justify them. And then of course, his economic advisers are all Wall Street veterans with Wall Street interests in mind rather than what's best for the public.
 
How do we get a third party in power in some semblance, other than a R or D?

One thing that needs to happen

Commission on Presidential Debates
All members are shot, beheaded and quartered. Its nothing but a bunch of R and D that make rules favoring those parties, and not the others. Disband the commission and and make the League of Woman Voters take it over, or some group that is not politically associated, or just not have one at all.

This group is responsible right now for not allowing people like Ross Perot in debates now, because he scared the hell out of both parties.
 
I say, BAN corporations from donating AT ALL to politician campaigns.
 
Obama is much more of a corporate stooge than Kucinich, there's no doubt of that. Just look at the Wall Street bailouts. Kucinich was vehemently against them while Obama tried to justify them. And then of course, his economic advisers are all Wall Street veterans with Wall Street interests in mind rather than what's best for the public.

Absolutely. But the idea that Kucinich was kept out of a debate based on that issue is absurd. Kucinich wasn't a viable candidate, that's why he wasn't invited to the debate.
 
I say, BAN corporations from donating AT ALL to politician campaigns.
Then they just form a ton of PACs, like Norm's old friend MoveOn.org and work around the system that way.

Next thing you know you've got the Committee of Citizens United for the Acceptance of Making it a Federal Standard to Roll Toilet Paper From the Top As Opposed to the Bottom donating the max amount to candidate #2.
 
Last edited:
Next thing you know you've got the Committee of Citizens United for the Acceptance of Making it a Federal Standard to Roll Toilet Paper From the Top As Opposed to the Bottom donating the max amount to candidate #2.

:lmao:
 
Absolutely. But the idea that Kucinich was kept out of a debate based on that issue is absurd. Kucinich wasn't a viable candidate, that's why he wasn't invited to the debate.

The main reason he wasn't viable is because of the media's obsession with Clinton and Obama.
 
No, a main reason he wasn't viable is because he is far left and looks like a dwarf.

If you have extreme views, you have to ooze charisma and be attractive. Kucinich lacks this.
 
No, a main reason he wasn't viable is because he is far left and looks like a dwarf.

If you have extreme views, you have to ooze charisma and be attractive. Kucinich lacks this.

Well it's a combination of things, certainly. Charisma is an important factor in most politicians' success.
 
I voted for Ross Perot in both 92 and 96. The main reason was the NAFTA issue. He was right about that and I agree that there needs to be more than just the republican and democrat candidate to choose from. It was the two-party system that caused hundreds of thousands of Americans (including myself) to lose their jobs.

Both parties wield a lot of power with the media as well. I remember Hillary Clinton being picked as the democratic nominee a year before the 08 election cycle even began. And if you recall, candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were later kicked out of the "debates," if you want to call them that.

Yes, I agree. There has to be a way to dismantle this tight grip both parties have on the media and political system.

And does her not winning the primary not showcase that the party elitists not always in control?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"