# Is It Time For a Third Party?



## American_Jihad (Feb 24, 2013)

*Is It Time For a Third Party?*

February 20, 2013 
by Sean Aland

...


The Democrat Partyat one time an honorable organizationhas been hijacked by leftist progressives, which is another name for American socialists. It is now the party of big government, redistribution, entitlements, equal outcome, and runaway spending; a party that ignores the Constitution and refuses to compromise. It is the far left political party. The Republican Party that used to be the small government, constitutional-conservative party has tried to get its tent so big the Party is fast becoming the Democrat light Party. The Republican Party now strives to be the party of the middle and middle lefta so-called kinder, gentler party that is more moderate, inclusive, and submissiveone that no longer represents the right. 

The Tea Party, despised by both establishment Democrats and Republicans, is the new representative of conservatives. It stands for the conservative, Christian, constitutional, capitalist, small-government ideology. Simply stated the contemporary Democratic Party represents the far left, the Republican Party represents the moderate left, and the Tea Party represents real conservatives who are trying to salvage our country. Currently both parties suffer from an identity crisis with Blue Dog Democrats supporting socialism and the Republican Party abandoning its base. Since both major parties have abandoned their constituents, it may be time for Americans to abandon the elephants and asses and start a new majority party.


...


We are at a crossroads in America. Hence, it might be time to carefully examine the platforms of both major parties to deter mine what they actually stand for and represent. This might require the establishment of a third party to get the attention of the establishment, careerist politicians of the current two parties. That party could be the Tea Party. If this does not happen, perhaps it is time to adopt the European model of two major political parties, the Socialist party and the Conservative party. The progressive Democrats and RINOs would feel more at home in a Socialist Party , and the Blue Dog Democrats and GOP conservatives that still have an ounce of character could start rebuilding a constitutional, small government, Conservative Party under the tutelage of the Tea Party Patriots. 


Read more: Is It Time For a Third Party? ? Patriot Update


----------



## Sallow (Feb 24, 2013)

They are plenty of parties in the United States.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 24, 2013)

We are currently a 2 party system.  If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades.  Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority.  And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 24, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*
> 
> February 20, 2013
> by Sean Aland
> ...



These schemes just aren't going to work for you.  The Republican party needs to cooperate and get back to doing what their constituents want them to do.

Job approval is in the 30s for them.


----------



## Politico (Feb 24, 2013)

Tell Mr. Aland to get busy. I imagine it would get real quiet.


----------



## American_Jihad (Feb 24, 2013)

Sallow said:


> They are plenty of parties in the United States.









Swallow, We know...


----------



## Sallow (Feb 24, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > They are plenty of parties in the United States.
> ...



Apparent not, American_Faggot.

And no..you can't have a swallow..I don't swing that way, gay boi.

How was that quickie with S.Gay.?


----------



## S.J. (Feb 24, 2013)

Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.



Oh jesus fucking christ


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.



God damn that's funny!


----------



## Sallow (Feb 24, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.
> ...



Yeah..it starts like this..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE]Original Upload, I Just Shot Myself! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Capstone (Feb 24, 2013)

Sallow said:


> ...American_Faggot.



Not close enough to the actual username.

American_Jizzwad would have been better...


----------



## Sallow (Feb 24, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > ...American_Faggot.
> ...



My bad.


----------



## editec (Feb 24, 2013)

I think we need about five or six parties to truly represent the different POVs of most Americans.

But the structure of Congress would negate that system.

Parlimentary systems are more receptive to a many-party system.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.



I love Keyboard Kommando tough talk....lol


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 24, 2013)

I'd love a viable third party. With the volume of people who don't identify with either party, you'd think it would be easier to establish.


----------



## Michelle420 (Feb 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Too late for that.  It's now a one-party government because the media has been taken over and the information is now propaganda.  There will be another party, but not until after the revolution.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

It's unlikely there will be three viable parties at the same time.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 28, 2013)

What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.


----------



## UKRider (Feb 28, 2013)

An Independence Party of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans rather than just disgruntled Republicans and Democrats?

Nah, a pipe dream.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

whitehall said:


> What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.



Having a view outside the mainstream doesn't make you a "loser" or a "nutcase".


----------



## S.J. (Feb 28, 2013)

A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2.  Case in point, Ross Perot.  His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush.  And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

S.J. said:


> A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2.  Case in point, Ross Perot.  His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush.  And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.



Third parties are most successful when they draw attention to a particular issue. 

And for all the talk about Perot harming Bush, the evidence doesn't really support that claim.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 28, 2013)

Polk said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > A third party is usuall a front to draw votes away from one of the other 2.  Case in point, Ross Perot.  His sole purpose for running was to sabotage Bush.  And even though he threw a few token criticisms at Clinton, his main thrust was to attack Bush, and appeal to the RINOs.
> ...


Maybe you hadn't been born yet, or weren't paying attention.


----------



## tinydancer (Feb 28, 2013)

Once upon a time there were three parties in Canada. Liberal, Progressive Conservative and the New Democrat Party.

Conservatives had had it up to here with Progressives who stood for nothing much like your current crop of RINO's.

We formed a fourth party called the Reform Party (aka Canadian Alliance) which eventually became the Conservative Party of Canada once all the Progressives either agreed to the merger or left . It was a "unite the right".

We now are the Majority.

Took a few years wandering in the wilderness and many struggles.

 But by keeping true to our Conservative beliefs and actually having excellent individuals who could articulate our positions, we've been winning elections.

 And last time round Conservatives decimated the Liberal Party and became the Majority. Actually we crushed them.

And we conservatives are for the time being, living happily ever after. 

People who say this cannot be accomplished are either misinformed or full of shit.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 28, 2013)

The US could look to its origins for an alternative. How many parties were there at the start?

Hint: its less than 1.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I pay attention to the evidence, not the chatter. While many on the right want to claim Perot cost Bush the election, the exit polls tell a different story. They show that while Perot drew more votes from Bush than Clinton, it would not have been enough to close the five-point gap between the two. While exit polling is imperfect, this aligns pretty closely to what economic models of elections predict.


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Feb 28, 2013)

Current election and election finance laws make the establishment of a viable third party next to impossible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 28, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*  snip  Read more: Is It Time For a Third Party? ? Patriot Update



Please leave the GOP, whatever you do.


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

ArmyCowboy said:


> Current election and election finance laws make the establishment of a viable third party next to impossible.



Current election laws in what sense?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 28, 2013)

Polk said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.
> ...



 The dirty little secret is that National 3rd party leaders are usually political losers who want to punish their former party for not supporting their nutcase issues. 3rd Party leaders are no fools. They know they don't have a chance and their mission is to syphon votes from their former party or make a nutcase statement about social justice or the environment or pot use. Their followers are usually ignorant of the political process or hate filled or part of a dirty tricks scenario.


----------



## Dante (Feb 28, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*



If you are in it?

No!​


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Actually, they're more often a vehicle for drawing attention to some issue the mainstream parties aren't taking seriously (slavery in the pre-Civil War era, agrarian discontent in the Gilded Age, various social reforms in the early 20th century).


----------



## dblack (Mar 1, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> We are currently a 2 party system.  If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades.  Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority.  And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.



Sad but true. Plurality, winner-take-all elections pretty much guarantee two strong parties opposing each other. We won't see much different unless we change our voting system.


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > We are currently a 2 party system.  If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades.  Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority.  And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.
> ...



Pretty much. That doesn't necessarily have hold, but it's basically true.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 1, 2013)

Is it time for a third party?  Well, yeah.
The Independents and in particular the moderates made up the largest segment of American voters in the election of 2012.  The Democrats are too far to the left and the GOP is too far to the right.  Both parties are totally locked into their ideologies. Critical thinking in leading this country is needed, not goose-stepping to an ideology, look where that has got us! 
We need a party that represents the center and is not bound by a strict ideology but is bound by open minds to lead effectively.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 1, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> We are currently a 2 party system.  If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades.  Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority.  And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.



As compared too the Dems and Repubs?? Both of which fit into your description of the tea party. DC is fucking broken,who brought us the cluster fuck that is the Feds?? It wasn't the tea party. We have Independents for ever and they are coveted by both sides.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 1, 2013)

It's time for a second party.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 1, 2013)

Waste your vote if you want to but at least put some thought into the issue. Consider what your chances are and think about the political subterfuge behind the movement.


----------



## ArmyCowboy (Mar 1, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Waste your vote if you want to but at least put some thought into the issue. Consider what your chances are and think about the political subterfuge behind the movement.



So was a vote for Romney in California, or a vote for Obama in Oklahoma wasted?

Neither candidate had a chance to win either state.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's



The Democratic Party doesn't have factions? If anything, it's the Democrats that are far more fragmented.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 1, 2013)

Polk said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the two-party system any more than anyone else but a three-party system would require coalitions to govern unless it replaced/eliminated the Repub party. The Repubs have too many factions to funtion which benefits the Dem's
> ...



but they aren't diametrically opposed like the social cons & uber wealthy are in the Repub party. Notice how the real backers of the Repubs are always lurking in the shadows and the social cons like kg are out on the front lines? Theres a reason for that, the uber rich don't want to be openly associated with their base for many reasons; one being that their base does not represent their priorities. Their priorities being to get as many loopholes/write-offs for rich folk as possible by buying-off politicians.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 1, 2013)

The funny thing is that conservatives who dream about a viable 3rd party are either ignorant, too damn lazy, scared or hypocritical to join the Tea Party and try to get the best candidates. Get some balls instead of whining conservatives. Democrats aren't afraid to support the quasi-commie OWS and commie Van Jones has become an accepted spokesman for the progressive movement.


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



The financial class, largely, shares their views on social issues. That's why they're in the same party.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 1, 2013)

Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 1, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Yeah, like Soros, Gates, Buffett, Immelt, the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Heinz/Kerry, Kohl, Dayton....

Oh, wait.....


----------



## Dante (Mar 1, 2013)

A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.

damn people here are clueless


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2013)

Dante said:


> A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.
> 
> damn people here are clueless



How does Ralph Nader fit in to that equation? Ross Perot?


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 1, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The funny thing is that conservatives who dream about a viable 3rd party are either ignorant, too damn lazy, scared or hypocritical to join the Tea Party and try to get the best candidates. Get some balls instead of whining conservatives. Democrats aren't afraid to support the quasi-commie OWS and commie Van Jones has become an accepted spokesman for the progressive movement.



I beg to differ. Third party is nothing to me. 

We started a fourth party and we still after less than two decades have seized power as conservatives. 

Try it.


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 1, 2013)

Polk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.
> ...



You are talking fringe. 

It's bullshit when it comes to them and media promo. The hard work can be done and you can end up as a major conservative party.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 1, 2013)

Polk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.
> ...



Yeah it's true that 3rd party political pressure movements have always been around. MacArthur thought he would become the republican candidate until a grass roots movement of Veterans knocked him out. He ran as a 3rd party candidate deliberately syphoning votes from Eisenhower. The question is whether it's possible for a candidate to be elected president without having a political reputation as a main stream candidate. The answer is no.


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 1, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
> The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
> Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
> Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.



Looking in from the outside, not one side will give. Those old maniacs are going to hold on to their power as long as they can.

Look. It's not politics. It's "inside the beltway" land of make sure my kids get everything.

Quite disgusting but true.


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 1, 2013)

Polk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > A third party will get it's leaders from the two existing parties.
> ...



A voice. I know I'm a conservative but I started out lib. When Nader speaks I listen. He's no asshole.


----------



## PUCrussel (Mar 19, 2013)

I don't think T party is strong enough to win the election.


----------



## tjvh (Mar 19, 2013)

A third Party will only empower Democrats and should be avoided.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2013)

The problem with a third party is that they frequently become a protest, not a focused platform of belief. 

Take a look at the Reform Party, which started out as Ross Perot's crazy hatred of Bush-41, nominated Pat Buchanan in 2000 when he couldn't get any traction as a Republican the third time, and then nominated Ralph Nader in 2004 when the Greens refused to be blamed for Bush again.  So you go from a crazy billionaire to a Nazi to a Communist in 8 years.  

The only thing that made the Reform Party last is the idiotic policy of matching funds


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 20, 2013)

I propose the gridlock party.

Just enough members to stymie the two party system.

When government is in gridlock it's better for us.


----------



## hipaware (May 16, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Right now I would settle for two parties with real differences.
> The Democrats and the Republicans are really just the flip side of the same coin.
> Look no matter who is in charge it is still the same basic principles and nothing really gets changed.
> Big Spending, More wars, more loss of freedoms.


----------



## whitehall (May 16, 2013)

A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.


----------



## Polk (May 16, 2013)

whitehall said:


> A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.



That's definitely true to an extent.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 16, 2013)

There's more than a third party.   There are 29 third parties.  No one votes for them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2013)

I haven't voted for a Dimwitcrap or a Repugnantcan in over a decade.


----------



## Capstone (May 17, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> I haven't voted for a Dimwitcrap or a Repugnantcan in over a decade.



How's that been working out for you?


----------



## editec (May 17, 2013)

> Is It Time For a Third Party?



Yes as well as a fourth, fifth, sixth, seveneth....


----------



## dblack (May 17, 2013)

whitehall said:


> A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.



What if you don't want more socialism and you think the Tea Party are a bunch of racist reactionaries? What you're ignoring is that there are always more than two choices. But our system of winner-take-all, plurality voting creates a false condition where we are limited, practically, to only two choices.

Refusing to vote for the statists who dominate both parties is not 'whining'. It's about the only thing we _can_ do to put any real pressure on them to change.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 17, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> The Tea Party, despised by both establishment Democrats and Republicans, is the new representative of conservatives. It stands for the conservative, *Christian*, constitutional, capitalist, small-government ideology. Simply stated the contemporary Democratic Party represents the far left, the Republican Party represents the moderate left, and the Tea Party represents real conservatives who are trying to salvage our country. Currently both parties suffer from an identity crisis with Blue Dog Democrats supporting socialism and the Republican Party abandoning its base. Since both major parties have abandoned their constituents, it may be time for Americans to abandon the elephants and asses and start a new majority party.



You lost me at christian.  I'm a christian, but I want no part in a political party that wants to legislate morality, that want's to use the old testament to beat up on gays, single parents, atheists, and non-christian religions.  Why do some people assume constitutional conservative means bible thumping christian?  Why do some people look for the authority to press their religion on others?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > We are currently a 2 party system.  If a 3rd party actually rose up and began making an impact over the years it would guarantee 1 party rule for decades.  Unless that 3rd party was DAAAAAAMN well prepared and competent enough to compete and threaten the majority.  And the "tea party" sure as hell isn't competent or prepared enough for anything.
> ...



Yes the problem is the voting system.  We should be able to rank the candidates when we vote.  In a ranking system you could select the third party as the highest rank then second party then first party.  If the third party got less number one rankings than the second party then your vote goes to the second party.  This way your vote for the third party is not a vote for the first party.  Alternatively you could hold run off elections in the case where a candidate does not get 51%.

Our voting system is basically brain dead.  It's as if the system was developed by a 5year old.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't voted for a Dimwitcrap or a Repugnantcan in over a decade.
> ...



Just fine.

At least I know I'm not contributing to the insanity of the two party system.

It's you people who keep voting Dimwitcrap or Repugnantcan and expect different results than we have that are insane.


----------



## dblack (May 17, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I often wonder how far they'd be willing to take this assumption that a vote for a non-winning candidate is a wasted effort. If we had a one-party system, similar to the old Soviet charade, would they insist that refusing voting for the nominated candidate was a futile 'protest'? I'd argue that what we have now is only a small-step from such a scenario. From my perspective, regarding the policies and goals I'm most concerned about, the two parties are identical. They won't get my vote unless they actually represent my views.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 17, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > ...American_Faggot.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2013)

The long-term goal is to drive the Republicans into being a nationally irrelevant Bible Belt party. At that point, the Democrats can split into a center-right business-as-usual party, and a good center-left party which isn't just corporate suckups. So if you want your 3 parties, help out with stomping on the GOP.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (May 17, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*



Yes.

After nutballs hijacked the Republican Party in 1980 fiscal conservatives had nowhere to turn. The options were to stay in a party dominated by religious nuts and chickenhawk wannabes or the wilderness. My choice was the wilderness. I'd rather have been tied to a post and whipped to death than ever have been stupid enough to be gulled by a halfwit New Dealer fronting for Wall Street. Sure enough the bobbleheaded old simpleton tripled the national debt. 

Been downhill ever since. 

That a bare handfull of nutballs now appear to be capable of figuring that out is a great sign.


----------



## American_Jihad (May 20, 2013)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



See what happens when progressive/liberal ilk has nothing to say, typical...

That was EZ, 3 4 1...


----------



## itfitzme (May 28, 2013)

There is the Tupperware Party


----------



## American_Jihad (May 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is the Tupperware Party



Pot party on the left coast...


----------



## HUGGY (May 28, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*
> 
> February 20, 2013
> by Sean Aland
> ...



We are not at a crossroads in America..  We are stuck in a hundred mile long pileup on a freeway with no exits.  The accident was started by a Christian Yahoo seeing a muslim family on the freeway and the yahoo rolled his car because he lost control and slammed into the muslim family..they were all killed and the pile up behind them has blocked everyone's progress.

The problem is not the parties.  The problem is that too many Americans are willfully ignorant.  Until the average American does his own do diligence and understands the truth about what and who they vote for we will be endlessly stuck making bad choices.


----------



## American_Jihad (May 29, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *Is It Time For a Third Party?*
> ...



BUGGY, as usual you're full of 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...


----------



## HUGGY (May 29, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...



Ya ...wishing Americans become better informed *is* bullshit.  I see your point.


----------



## American_Jihad (May 29, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



BUGGY, you can't pull that liberal spin on me, You blaming Christians is the B/S, U f/n dork. You couldn't see a point if someone drove a railroad spike threw yo f/n brain...


----------



## JQPublic1 (May 29, 2013)

Why would Democrats, liberals or Progressives want a third party? Their Party has been successful twice in a row already. It's the losers who want to split thing up!


----------



## Bleipriester (May 29, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Is It Time For a Third Party?*
> 
> February 20, 2013
> by Sean Aland
> ...


Socialists. Don´t overstretch that term please. What you call socialism, is still predatory capitalism to us in Europe. Not even the the current French homo-government has a whiff of socialism though they call themselves "Socialist Party". 

As for the Tea Party I heard they want to limit the right to vote to landowners.


----------



## midcan5 (May 29, 2013)

The tea party is already a third party, they demonstrate the problem with multiple parties in that they can control legislation that is supported by a majority of Americans. No longer does majority rule matter, nor the will of the majority of people. You see that today with healthcare, taxes, gun control, and other complex issues. But I am not claiming our two parties are the best we can do, they prove their uselessness daily. 

This video covers the problem with third parties well.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## American_Jihad (Jun 1, 2013)

Bleipriester said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *Is It Time For a Third Party?*
> ...







adolf hitler and valerie jarrett in background






And he's anti christian, smashing the christian symbol yelling yee haw, oh my...


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 1, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...



My "Liberal Spin"???  You are a paranoid tea party pinhead that is so hard up for followers that you even hold your own children hostage in an effort to try to make your mental ilness a valid "point of view".

There should be a law against someone as stupid as yourself "homeschooling" children.

Check this out peabrain...I am not a "liberal".  I am farther to the right than you are on some issues.  Constantly attempting to label me a Liberal proves you don't have the mental horsepower to teach anyone anything.  

You do have a willing constitchuency though...they reside in mental institutions.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jun 1, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



BUGGY, you're a progressive/liberal/socialist/hack. I'M under 30 no kids and retired...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2013)

Polk said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > A third party is for people who are too timid, lazy or ignorant to take responsibility for electing the right candidates. If you think socialism isn't coming fast enough for you than try to make the democrat party more responsive. If you want to improve the republican party than get behind the Tea Party and for Christ sake quit whining.
> ...



I am neither timid, lazy, or ignorant.. In fact, I've been working diligiently and intelligiently to END the 2 party monopoly on power in this country for a couple decades.. There is no solution by "electing the right person"  Why? 

Because the parties have dug in and raised barriers to entry into elected office with onerous ballot access requirements. They have carved out battle trenches where in 100s of races --- the main candidate runs unopposed by the minority party. Having only one principal opponent allows them to close shop and not waste money on "losing battles".  Leaving Millions of voters with no redress. (try living in Calif as a Repub or Libertarian and you'll discover the true meaning of voter disenfranchisement).

Because there is no where to hide in DC from the wrath of your party leadership.. Oppose the 4 people who control ALL LEGISLATION in the Capitol and you'll find yourself off the committtees and running your seat from the supply cabinet with no staff.

These parties are unaccountable because once in power, they can dodge any responsibility for their actions and claim that the "other guys did it first". 

It's harder to lie and consolidate power when you have more than one opponent. And you need places where ethical elected representatives can hang out and survive the tyranny of party leadership. Places where principles and the CUSTOMER still matter. 

Our debates are a joke because difficult issues are ignored and NOT subjected to the light of day. Your highest offices are being won on SLOGANS and sound bites and not task lists of stuff that needs to get fixed. 

Other than that --- everythings just fine with you party animals spending the majority  of your lives dropping f-bombs on your "enemies" on USMB.. What a waste of bandwidth is on display here. Meanwhile, corporate welfare and stone-stupid foreign policy is propagated by BOTH of your clown parties forever. While most intelligient and informed people already agree on fixes to both of these perennial festering sores. 

I sleep well knowing that the guy I voted for in 2012 was a 3 time governor with MORE street cred than either of your sorry ass actors. Lemme turn the tables here. 

How's all that Rep/Dem shit working out for YOU??? --- morons..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 3, 2013)

Ranked voting

The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *

We would have to change our single choice voting system to a ranked system

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systerms


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Ranked voting
> 
> The US voting system is fundamentally incapable of sustaining more than two major parties. *The two parties compete for the swing vote, shifting their platform towards center as the center shifts. *
> 
> ...



First of all this "center shifting" is a meaningless TRANSIENT, cynical ploy just to get elected.  And NOT an indication of a better elected political product.. 

But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties. None at all.. In fact -- I told you that 100s of important elections go UNCONTESTED by the minority party in hopeless districts. SURELY -- other candidates should be able to fill those voids.. 

The BIG VOID that needs to be filled is in parties who will SUPPORT liberty and freedom and actually OPPOSE crap like the Patriot Act. Or who believe in proper Defense but would never use US military force UNINVITED and without a direct threat to the Homeland or an ally.  Or who OPPOSE corporate welfare and are principled enough to act on it,, because they do not believe that getting elected grants them privileges of patronage for their biggest constituents...


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jun 29, 2013)

And a fourth, and a fifth...like Europe.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Ranked voting
> ...



*"But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties."*

Yeah, no evidence except that we only see two parties repeatedly in office. *But we wouldn't want actual historical facts getting in the way.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ballot access rules are so rigged that 3rd parties exhaust themselves and their funding just TRYING to get on a 50 state national ballot. Fix that and the access to the public debate and see what happens.. No reason on EARTH that a party who jumps thru the 50 state ballot access hoop --- shouldn't be in the Prez debates. 

In reality, the parties are ALREADY unwilling coalitions of competing groups. The Reps have their Tea Party and Country Club and stealth Libertarians -- and the Dems are constantly feuding amongst mainstream "my momma voted" Dems and the whacky Progressives with a few closet Socialists thrown in. 

These factions have no where to hide from the leadership in power.  It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide. They cannot find shelter in an alternate caucus -- they NEED additional parties so that they can FULLY express their views. It's not safe in EITHER party if you cross your leadership.. You might as well commit political suicide.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This is interesting;

"Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the "none of the above candidate" and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans."

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadar was escorted, by police, out of the debates, once. (Actually, he agreed to leave, but it was under threat of being physically escorted)

Yeah, the current system has all sorts of issues.

I thought by ""But there is NO evidence that our system can't sustain more than 2 parties.", you meant the current system and in observation of what has occured. *I wasn't taking that to mean how it would be if it was the way it ought to be.

And yeah, it's all about shifting slightly about center to get that extra 1%.

If we really want to fix the mess, ranked voting is far more representive of the will of the voter.

----

if people would just do what Libertarians think they should do, then everyone would have more liberty.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah --- ranked voting is interesting. But it's a cop-out so that folks can bugger the system with putting PRACTICAL voting above conscience. 

When you horse around with these wildass ideas, you get the mess you got in Cali where the final ballot only has 2 democrats on it. Because they were the top vote getters in the primaries and NO OTHER party is represented. Can you say totalitarian? 

I would far prefer to have a buffet choice on the ballot.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Can we say "Berkeley, Ca"?

Yeah, cuz when people don't vote the way you think they should, it's totalitarian.

Like I say, to a Conservative, democratic freedom when everyone votes the way they are told too.  To a Libertarian, it is when everyone votes the way they are SUPPOSE to.


----------



## dblack (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



To a libertarian, it's when the rights of the minority are protected, regardless of how the majority votes.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 30, 2013)

There are almost 30 political parties in the US.  Things won't much improve if we have 31.


----------



## ModerateGOP (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm fiscally conservative.  Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.  Fairly conservative on gun control.  In favor of immigration reform and a path to citizenship.  In favor of conservation.  Want the government to control as little as possible but think most libertarians take it way too far.

Find me a party, I'll thank you later.  My family has been voting for Republicans for generations, I am proud of the history of the GOP (abolishing slavery, supporting women's suffrage, pushing through the civil rights legislations despite what liberals will try to tell you), and I think fiscal issues are unbelievably more important than social issues.

Where does that leave me?  As long as the Democrats remain the party that tries to build up the weak by pulling down the strong (as they have been since the 1800s), I'll be voting Republican ... no matter how many issues I have with the mentally deluded base.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 1, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> There are almost 30 political parties in the US.  Things won't much improve if we have 31.



That's like saying democracy won when there were 67 choices on the ballot in Cali to replace Grey Davis.. Maybe... 

Fact is that out of those 31 only 3 or 4 EVER ATTEMPT to candidates on a national ballot, and only 1 or 2 succeed in getting ballot access in more than a dozen states. 

Don't care how many are on paper... You need to get the Dem/Rep stranglehold off of the ballot access regulations and publically funded debates. THEN -- we would have a fair test of whether there is any evidence that 2 party rule is a tenet of American democracy.. 

Any party that NOW jumps hoops to get on enough state ballots to reach the electoral threshold ---- OUGHT to be included in public debates..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 1, 2013)

ModerateGOP said:


> I'm fiscally conservative.  Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.  Fairly conservative on gun control.  In favor of immigration reform and a path to citizenship.  In favor of conservation.  Want the government to control as little as possible but think most libertarians take it way too far.
> 
> Find me a party, I'll thank you later.  My family has been voting for Republicans for generations, I am proud of the history of the GOP (abolishing slavery, supporting women's suffrage, pushing through the civil rights legislations despite what liberals will try to tell you), and I think fiscal issues are unbelievably more important than social issues.
> 
> Where does that leave me?  As long as the Democrats remain the party that tries to build up the weak by pulling down the strong (as they have been since the 1800s), I'll be voting Republican ... no matter how many issues I have with the mentally deluded base.



Hopefully you won't have to witness the bloody carnage of an intraparty coup.. Within your own party -- there is more work being done to remove "moderates" and "extremes" than to focus on the overall health of the party. No place to hide for principles. That's the sad reality of 2 party politics..


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 4, 2013)

*Jesse Ventura on running for president in 2016: "As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open"*

June 4th, 2013 

On Monday evening "Piers Morgan Live" invited Jesse Ventura to return to the program, welcoming the former Minnesota governor and his trademark brand of candid commentary and unique insight.

Willingly taking a seat on "The Grill," the longtime WWE wrestling personality explained why 2016 would be the perfect year for him to run for president:

"As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open," he surmised. "I'll tell you right now what I would run on: I would run with no political party and I would give the people of the United States of America the opportunity to elect their first president since George Washington &#8211; the father of our country &#8211; who does not belong to a political party."

Jesse Ventura on running for president in 2016: "As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open" ? Piers Morgan - CNN.com Blogs


https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1T4GGLL_enUS324US325&q=Time+For+a+Third+Party


.............


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 4, 2013)

I try not to treat what American_Jizzwad says seriously.  Even his Avi is the kind of thing of a poster who can't be taken seriously.  

But here's the problem with a third party.  They never really work.  A third party is really just a sign of dissatisfaction with the existing parties, a stopping point for the disaffected to go before either changing party or coming home meekly. 

The TEA Party only represents 8% of the population, and most of the country has a bad opinion of it, but it has enough strength to threaten Republicans in primaries by carrying out Kamikazi flights. (Nominate someone who can't possibly win in the general election.)  

Until the GOP is willing to stand up to the Teabaggers, they are going to continue to cause trouble.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I try not to treat what American_Jizzwad says seriously.  Even his Avi is the kind of thing of a poster who can't be taken seriously.
> 
> But here's the problem with a third party.  They never really work.  A third party is really just a sign of dissatisfaction with the existing parties, a stopping point for the disaffected to go before either changing party or coming home meekly.
> 
> ...



As long as the limited party leadership has the power to marginalize and punish elected members --- third and fourth parties are the ONLY REFUGE for an honest politician with a conscience.. Don't obey your majority/minority leader?? You'll be begging on the street for election funding and working your House office out of the supply closet.. 

Truly 4 people in Congress RUN this country -- BECAUSE there is nowhere for dissidents within the party to hide.. That's a recipe for ---- well ----- the fucking crap we have now.

Make the parties EARN A VOTE.. When your party abandons races in your district because they can't win --- they've abandoned you.. Do realize how often this happens today in Congressional races??? ?


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I try not to treat what American_Jizzwad says seriously.  Even his Avi is the kind of thing of a poster who can't be taken seriously.
> 
> But here's the problem with a third party.  They never really work.  A third party is really just a sign of dissatisfaction with the existing parties, a stopping point for the disaffected to go before either changing party or coming home meekly.
> 
> ...



Most of the people can't tell you what the Tea Party platform consists of, but they know the Tea Party is stupid because the talking heads on TV tell them the Tea Party is stupid.

I'm not represented by any party. I vote Republican because they are slightly more in tune with what I believe in on fiscal issues and concerning gun laws. The Republicans have little to offer me (especially when it comes to anything the Evangelicals champion), but the Democrats have even less to offer. The Libertarians lose me when it comes to foreign affairs and the border/immigration. Third parties are a joke. Where does that leave me?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 4, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I try not to treat what American_Jizzwad says seriously.  Even his Avi is the kind of thing of a poster who can't be taken seriously.
> ...



I can't speak for others but I was very interested in the Tea Party but it didn't take long to see that they really had no platform except they were _'mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore'_, wore stupid cutesy hats and signs that read, _'keep government out of my Social Security'_. Very quickly, they sold out to the Kich's and became the teepotty that such mental giants as $arah Palin and Michele Bachmann subscribed to. They're an embarrassment. 

We have dozens of "political parties" in the US but JoeB is right about support for them. 

What does it say about us that big money (Kochs) owns the teepotty and the Rs are afraid to stand up to them? I think its very possible that the GOP (no b) is dead and has become the GObP.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 4, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Jesse Ventura on running for president in 2016: "As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open"*
> 
> June 4th, 2013
> 
> ...



A phony rassler for president of the United States?

Looks like the Rs Race To The Bottom has been won. 

Funny as hell if it weren't so damn scary. 

I read this before but can't remember who is running mate might be. 

gawd


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 4, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...



I'm gonna have to start paying a little attention to your posts cuz they're funny as hell. 

OTOH, methinks there's not enough tin foil in the grocery store to get you through the night.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 4, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I try not to treat what American_Jizzwad says seriously.  Even his Avi is the kind of thing of a poster who can't be taken seriously.
> ...



No, guy, I already know what the TEA Party stands for. 

It stands for the Koch brothers spending a lot of money getting lower-middle class whites to be angry the Black Guy is in the White House trying to fix everything Bush messed up.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *Jesse Ventura on running for president in 2016: "As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open"*
> ...



Mark this date in history.. Luddly and I AGREE on something.. Ventura went commando after his governorship and is a complete loose cannon.. Would rather have Howard Stern run in his place.. (entertainment value -- not values)\


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 4, 2013)

Is it time for that third party?

Let me know when and I will kick start you when you want to or forever live under Rove.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 4, 2013)

We need to start a dead pool for the Repub party


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> We need to start a dead pool for the Repub party



And idea whose time has come.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 4, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Is it time for that third party?
> 
> Let me know when and I will kick start you when you want to or forever live under Rove.



Just work for more equitable ballot access and entrance to the debates if you qualify on enough ballots. That's all that is required.. 

We need to remove the privilege of maintaining power by 2 party monopolies.


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



Puddly, that's because you cornered the market on tin foil...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 5, 2013)

Never figure out why folks think that aluminum makes a better protection helmet than actual tin..

Aluminum makes it easier for the scanners to track you..


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 5, 2013)

Anytime anyone wants to start third party successfully let me know. It is more than possible. 

It can rule a nation.


----------



## bayoubill (Oct 5, 2013)

I've been a card-carrying member of a third party since before alotta folks here were born...

it's been a very frustrating experience... 

I no longer hold out any hope of a third party making any difference...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 5, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> We need to start a dead pool for the Repub party :
> 
> 
> we do


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 5, 2013)

bayoubill said:


> I've been a card-carrying member of a third party since before alotta folks here were born...
> 
> it's been a very frustrating experience...
> 
> I no longer hold out any hope of a third party making any difference...



Would you love me bill if I told you I could like I did up here? Because I believe in you. I beleive in one man who can make a difference. I believe that an honest man can change the world.

I believe in a man called bayou bill.


----------



## bayoubill (Oct 5, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > We need to start a dead pool for the Repub party :
> ...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh grow up.

Just grow up.


----------



## bayoubill (Oct 5, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a card-carrying member of a third party since before alotta folks here were born...
> ...



w00t...

let's dance...!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV-QGQVZv0k]INXS - New Sensation (original video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bayoubill (Oct 5, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



meh... don't waste your time talking to jerks like this... they'll never learn...


----------



## bayoubill (Oct 5, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *Jesse Ventura on running for president in 2016: "As an independent, you don't want an incumbent, so the office will be wide open"*
> 
> June 4th, 2013
> 
> ...



I'd vote for a ham sandwich compared to the lame assholes the two parties have put up these last dozen years...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 5, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'd tell you to grow a fucking brain, but that'd be asking too much. 

Really, a five minute conversation with a TeaBagger kind of shows how stupid most of you are. 

Or you can just read their signs..


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



JoeBlow, I'M independent and everyone knows those are liberal plants with the crazy and misspelled signs...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> [
> 
> JoeBlow, I'M independent and everyone knows those are liberal plants with the crazy and misspelled signs...



1) None of those signs had mis-spellings.  I could have taken the cheap shot, but I didn't.  

2) A guy who has an Avi of Matt Damon shooting Che Gueverra really has no business talking to anyone about "Crazy".


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Anyone with half a brain can see that's a reflection of a picture on the glass of Damon's scope.  It's a target, dummy. 

Why do libtards have to make up lies about every single topic?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...



Actually, it still kind of bizarre.   I mean, why a target of a guy who died 45 years ago?  

Oh, that's right. Because the guy with the Che Tee-Shirt was getting all  the pussy American Jizzwad thought he should have in college.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Obama was a member and friend of domestic terrorists as a ploy to get women into bed with him?  That's a new one on me.  Did that work for you?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2013)

Until publicly-funded elections are approved, a third party is doomed to irrelevance. They can't bring home any bacon, hence they won't get any donations, hence they can't win.

That's why it's hard to take libertarians seriously. They make the totally insane claim that money is free speech, and they doom themselves to permanent joke status by doing so. It's like they want to be failures. Governing actually requires work, while bitching from the sidelines doesn't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So you didn't get reading comprehension in HOme Skule?  It was right after they taught you about talking snakes in Science Class.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > What makes people think that the losers and nutcases can do any better for America than established political parties? If you don't like the way your chosen party has been dealing with issues why don't you try to fix it? Scared? The Tea Party tries to get the best candidates for the republican party and they have been attacked mercilessly by the radical left and the media. Meanwhile CUSA has been trying to gain control of the democrat party and fools and anarchists like Van Jones have become spokespersons for liberalism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Get off your ass and join the Tea Party or CUSA if it's your thing.
> ...




History says that having a view outside the mainstream political arena makes you a loser and sometimes it indicates a nutcase philosophy. The United States has always been open for 3rd, 4th parties and extremist political philosophies. It's nothing new so go for it. The problem for the nutcases and the losers is that 3rd and 4th parties are often dependent on nut case theories. If you want to make the Country better the best way is to try to make your chosen party reflect your views. If you are a republican the best way to try to push the party toward conservative views is to join the Tea Party. If you are a democrat the best way to push your party toward the liberal arena is the join CUSA.


----------



## regent (Oct 6, 2013)

Well conservatives began with the Federalist party and it lasted for two presidents, then a liberal took office and the period in history is named "Era of Good Feelings." Finally conservatives got a new Whig party going and it died a fast death. So now the conservatives are on their third political party and it's in danger. The liberals, are still the party of Jefferson, elected in 1800.  So maybe another new conservative party should be formed. Who would the new conservative party select to lead them, Gingrich, Bush, Romney, Bush, Palin, Cruz who?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 6, 2013)

regent said:


> Well conservatives began with the Federalist party and it lasted for two presidents, then a liberal took office and the period in history is named "Era of Good Feelings." Finally conservatives got a new Whig party going and it died a fast death. So now the conservatives are on their third political party and it's in danger. The liberals, are still the party of Jefferson, elected in 1800.  So maybe another new conservative party should be formed. Who would the new conservative party select to lead them, Gingrich, Bush, Romney, Bush, Palin, Cruz who?



Make it better or join the CUSA.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



That's Che Gueverra?? I thought it was Cochise... Or a young Sitting Bull..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Until publicly-funded elections are approved, a third party is doomed to irrelevance. They can't bring home any bacon, hence they won't get any donations, hence they can't win.
> 
> That's why it's hard to take libertarians seriously. They make the totally insane claim that money is free speech, and they doom themselves to permanent joke status by doing so. It's like they want to be failures. Governing actually requires work, while bitching from the sidelines doesn't.



Yeah... That's why we refuse to take public funding. Because we have no principles about who works for whom.. 

We raise AMPLE money.. The problem is most of that (in a Prez election cycle) gets tied up in BALLOT ACCESS and court fees from the DEM/REP power structure determined to maintain their duopoly. THat and even THO we qualify on 48 or 50 state ballots, SOMEHOW --- the govt keeps us out of the debates.. FUCK the public money.. JUst give us the access that we're due. If we didn't spend MILLIONS on ballot access, we'd have ENOUGH to buy the reasonable amount of ads that this process should take. 

We ran a candidate in 2012 that was completely QUALIFIED for office and had competive credentials and ideas. Not my fault he has the personality of a guinea pig..


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Let me put on my liberal hat, OK here we go...JoeBlew131 cocks and he's from the Toddling Town...

Salunsky rule #5&6, Hats off...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Hey, dumbass, it's "Alinsky".   

And I really did try to ask you a valid question.   That is kind of a disturbing picture. Are you saying you wanted Matt Damon to kill Che, or did you just want him to shoot the guy wearing the Che tee-shirt who bagged the cheerleader you had been stalking? 

Beause, honestly, you come off like you are about 22...


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



JoeBlow, Saul D. Alinsky, I shortened it to salunsky if you don't like it file a grievance. About my avatar, it's doing precisely what I wanted it to do, example---> YOU...
You keep bringing up t-shirts and cheerleaders, we don't want to know about your school yard fantasies...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2013)

So you are essentially another disturbed wingnut proving why the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a terrible idea?


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> So you are essentially another disturbed wingnut proving why the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a terrible idea?



There is only a misrepresentation by fanatical liberal totalitarian liars.
I still have never seen anything in the second amendment that states that one must belong to a militia to own a firearm.
It states quite the opposite in fact.

Now don't you owe me an apology for lying?
You could show the post you claim I made.
Of course we all know it does not exist.
Hence after 2 weeks you have not produced it!
Liar.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut (Oct 8, 2013)

My suggestions: 

The True Freedom Party: Legal drugs and free guns for everybody and free all prisoners - saving billions of tax money, earning billions by drug dealing. Waiting what will happen...calling it "natural selection"

The "America First" Party: Tax the billionaires to 90%, close all borders for foreign products. Force the big money to rebuild the producing sector. Close 80% of media stations. Punish hard any media lie. Allow only ethic correct movies. Pay the teacher good enough.

The "New Deal Party": Cange the Dollar 1: 1000 to the "Nollar" - the New Dollar. See what will happen. Call it "Natural selection". 

The "Adult America" Party: Reduce all laws about 95%. Punish any dumb behaviour with death. Call it "Natural Selection". 

Need more?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 8, 2013)

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> My suggestions:
> 
> The True Freedom Party: Legal drugs and free guns for everybody and free all prisoners - saving billions of tax money, earning billions by drug dealing. Waiting what will happen...calling it "natural selection"
> 
> ...



How about a real LIBERAL party.. One that channels Thoreau and the Founders? One that has a skeptical view of increasing govt power and spending? But a maximum view of social and economic freedom? One that would end all corporate welfare tomorrow?One that doesn't use military force the way a gang uses drive-by shootings? 

Oh ?? It already exists? Nevermind.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are essentially another disturbed wingnut proving why the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a terrible idea?
> ...



Double-Wide, you need to get a new hobby.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You need to back up your allegations.
I don't have a doublewide, liar.
Show the post!!
Or admit you are a lying piece of shit.
NB not showing the post is an admission that you are a lying piece of shit?

If the post exists you could score a huge victory against me right now.
All you have to do is post it !!!!!!!!


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> So you are essentially another disturbed wingnut proving why the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a terrible idea?



JoeBlow, you're just another progressive/liberal that got all wee weed up because he got smoked like a cheap cigar in post 140...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



Guy, I'm scoring a huge victory just by getting you to act all crazy and shit by typing a simple sentence. 

It's just not one I'm enjoying as much as I did a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Ah, you enjoy being a liar?
Proud of it even?

No credibility then, boy.
Every post you make must be a lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



No, man, I'm just amused how crazy you get, Double-Wide.  

It's pretty obviously you are seriously mentally disturbed, proving my adage the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Gun nut?
To you anyone who does not have a paranoid terror at the thought of guns is a nut!!

But you are a liar.
Caught in your lies.
Scumbag.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



Double-Wide, you prove my point with every post.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I prove your lies!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

Double wide, the only thing you are proving is your crazy...


----------



## Pauli007001 (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Double wide, the only thing you are proving is your crazy...



Liar.


----------

