On the Formation of A Third Party

[voyzovrezon]

Lincoln didn't hold extreme views.

Tell that to the Confederacy.

 

[voyzovrezon]

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

Not entirely in control, true. The people came out in droves for Obama. They came out for Hillary too, but a lot of them were republicans. Some working for Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

 

[redfirebird2008]

Tell that to the Confederacy.

 

[moraldeficiency]

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

I'd say it shows the dems actually wanted to win the last election.

 

[bell110]

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.

I basically agree with what you said, but how come you only think this is a problem 8 years in the making? Are you saying that if the Republicans didn't screw themselves over, in your opinion, we would have no need for three parties? Having more than two parties should alway have been an viable option.

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.

Third Parties have been trying that for years. But, like you mentioned, it's been ingrained into our head that they "can't win, so why bother voting for them".

Also, I'm kind of amused by the idea of a third party candidate devoid political ideology and only there to give voters a third choice. How exactly would that work? Is that like picking what's behind curtain number 3? (Oh, sorry, you elected the goat)

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.

I'm not sure about where you live, but I've always seen a third party on the ballot. I'm sure almost every American knows that there are more than two choice and have the opportunity to vote for them. I've advocated for years to people that don't like either candidate to vote third party regardless of if they know the person. Electing the "lesser of two evils" only tells our politicians "I like what you are doing, keep up the good work" and not voting at all tells them "I don't care what you do". At least voting for a third party tells them know you don't like what either of them have to offer, but you still care.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I'd say it shows the dems actually wanted to win the last election.

Ouch!

 

[Venom'sDad]

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

Good luck???

Look, you are more of the problem the system is what it is. If you are really sincere about the creation of a third party, you have to do the work, not give opinions on a forum that is full of Liberal and Moderate thinking people.

This country has to have a Revolution, not just of the mind & ideas, but with your money. Find and support local businesses that agree with your philosophy. Form groups & networks to start a grassroots movement. Create & Advertise local websites with links to info & sites that support your ideas. Become more inform and share with family, friends, and co-workers.

It has to start & spread like cancer... nothing grand, because it will fail. You have to build momentum.

Most people on these boards want Socialism/Facism... this is why they ridicule Right Thinking People. You have to recognize that and stop taking things so likely as being just different opinions. Yes it's a different opinion... that goes to the very heart & core to what they believe. They wont admit they want Socialism/Facism, but look at their opinions and what they say, and you find they do.

So I encourage you, truely do the work, otherwise you are just fooling yourself waiting on other to do it for you.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Wow, I'm a socialist and didn't even know. Wonder what else you could tell us about ourselves VD? Hey am I black, cause I always thought I'd make a great black guy and maybe I am and just don't know?

 

[Obi-Ron]

Comparing the politics of the 1800's with the politics of the 2000's is kinda silly.

The invention and popularity of television changed the nature of presidential elections. Having good "face" is just as important to electability as any issue.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Yep, it almost let kennedy beat nixon on the 1960 election.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Yep, it almost let kennedy beat nixon on the 1960 election.

That was the example I was going to use.

Also, fascism is not the same thing as socialism.

 

[StorminNorman]

Yep, it almost let kennedy beat nixon on the 1960 election.

Ha ha, well worded.

 

[voyzovrezon]

Most people on these boards want Socialism/Facism... They wont admit they want Socialism/Facism, but look at their opinions and what they say, and you find they do.

Really? Do you know what fascism is?

 

[Venom'sDad]

^ Jesus Christ.... This country has been completely "Dumb-Down".

Yes... I know exactly what Facism is. I suggest you read what Benito Mussolini said about Facism; and maybe, just maybe, you may understand the simple point I was making.

 

[voyzovrezon]

Yes... I know exactly what Facism is. I suggest you read what Benito Mussolini said...

What Mussolini said and did may be two different things. No one here wants that type of "fascism." Socialism is not the same as fascism. Would you say countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland are fascist countries. Obviously they're not. Socialist? Yes. And what's wrong with that?

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't think he is saying Socialism = Fascism. I think he is saying that many posters on this board have socialistic and/or fascist tendancies.

I am not sure I entirely believe this, but I think that's the point he is making.

 

[Obi-Ron]

edit

 

[Venom'sDad]

^ Thank You Stormin.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Why did we need to read Mussolini for that?

 

[bell110]

Most people on these boards want Socialism/Facism... this is why they ridicule Right Thinking People.

I'm pretty sure people ridicule "Right Thinking People" because they are against facism.

 

[moraldeficiency]

^ Jesus Christ.... This country has been completely "Dumb-Down".

Yes... I know exactly what Facism is. I suggest you read what Benito Mussolini said about Facism; and maybe, just maybe, you may understand the simple point I was making.

I think you mean dumbed down, and the robot devil finds that ironic.