The Three Parties of the Future

[longknife]

While this thoughtful editorial comes from a Breitbart blog, it contains links and is worthwhile reading, even if you're a dedicated Leftist who doesn't want to believe anything but party propaganda.

Could the leaders of both parties have it wrong? Could top Republicans and top Democrats inside DC be simultaneously obtuse about the reality beyond the Beltway? You know, out there in the USA? Is there something about life in Powertown that distorts insiders’ perception of outsiders? Okay, that last one is a trick question, because by now it’s obvious that Washington politicos of both parties are drastically out of touch with the folks they purport to represent.

As the leadership of BOTH parties seems so far out of step with the majority of Americans, where will the people turn? What, if any, third party represents their values and desires?

 

[Camp]

The Tea Party is being vomited out of the Republican Party. Perhaps they will be forced into becoming an actual traditional party on their own.

 

[hipeter924]

The libertarian party would be a good replacement for the Republican party, and the Green party have a lot of good values and ideas too.

 

[longknife]

The libertarian party would be a good replacement for the Republican party, and the Green party have a lot of good values and ideas too.

Now all we need to do is revise all the rules in every state for getting candidates on the ballot at every level. The current systems makes it almost impossible to do.

And, get the media to realize there's more than two parties.

 

[Vox]

the two-party system in this country is dooming the country's future.

it is ridiculous.

 

[longknife]

Wasn't it Jefferson who warned of the danger of political parties?

 

[FJO]

America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.

No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.

You see what third party candidates have done in the past.

Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.

Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.

 

[Camp]

the two-party system in this country is dooming the country's future.

it is ridiculous.

No, the three party system is dooming the country's future. Ever since the parasitic Tea Party infected the Republican Party our system has been transformed from a two party system to what has amounted to a three party system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wasn't it Jefferson who warned of the danger of political parties?

Washington warned against it, and Adams and Jefferson ignored the warning and their factions became the first American two-party system, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

 

[BreezeWood]

it's not the parties, it is the special interests ... Term Limits would help solve the problem.

 

[Vox]

the two-party system in this country is dooming the country's future.

it is ridiculous.

No, the three party system is dooming the country's future. Ever since the parasitic Tea Party infected the Republican Party our system has been transformed from a two party system to what has amounted to a three party system.

get out of the box and stop spewing the talking points like an obedient komsomol member you are - for once.

why should it be three party?

 

[FJO]

it's not the parties, it is the special interests ... Term Limits would help solve the problem.

The more polarized America gets, the more there is a need for term limits.

Short of having term limits, the President (assume he/she was a patriotic one) must have line item veto, in order to strip pork from a bill, which is the greatest reason for the need of term limits.

 

[candycorn]

America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.

No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.

You see what third party candidates have done in the past.

Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.

Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.

I disagree.

Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate which is why I split my vote locally. Federally under our constitution; it makes zero sense to elect a President of one party and a congress of another when one has to rely on the other to get anything done (hence gridlock).

Further; If "no third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties", Perot and Nader would not have had an outcome. BTW; it was Pat Buchanan that got Bush elected in 2000.

There is a large issue of trust involved as well. Nobody could trust Romney who gained his victory in the primaries due to his running against dumb and dumber (Santorum and Gingrich). So just because he was the nominee; could you trust him to follow through? Not really. As for the Dems; hope and change was more hope than change as it turns out. The most "transparent" administration in history doesn't seem that much of a change from his predacessors.

 

[hipeter924]

The libertarian party would be a good replacement for the Republican party, and the Green party have a lot of good values and ideas too.

Now all we need to do is revise all the rules in every state for getting candidates on the ballot at every level. The current systems makes it almost impossible to do.

And, get the media to realize there's more than two parties.

Reminds me of this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtbfG_eKlZg]John Cleese Explains Proportional Representation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Steven_R]

If we went to the grocery store and were only given two choices for which cereal to buy, or two choices of which brand of soda was available or two choices in cars or clothing or any other thing we would flip out. But two choices in who is to be president...well, that's different.

South Park was right. Our political system is only allowing us to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich.

 

[konradv]

The libertarian party would be a good replacement for the Republican party, and the Green party have a lot of good values and ideas too.

Now all we need to do is revise all the rules in every state for getting candidates on the ballot at every level. The current systems makes it almost impossible to do.

And, get the media to realize there's more than two parties.

Just because they can get on the ballot, doesn't mean they're going to be successful. Name a state with other parties on the ballot that have had significant numbers elected. You can't. Why not, if ballot access is the main problem? The real reason we have two parties is that they have a stranglehold on money. Go to public financing of elections and parties would be forced to give up being money machines and go back to what the should be doing, being clearing houses for ideas and then maybe one of the others could come to the forefront..

 

[FJO]

America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.

No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.

You see what third party candidates have done in the past.

Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.

Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.

I disagree.

Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate which is why I split my vote locally. Federally under our constitution; it makes zero sense to elect a President of one party and a congress of another when one has to rely on the other to get anything done (hence gridlock).

Further; If "no third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties", Perot and Nader would not have had an outcome. BTW; it was Pat Buchanan that got Bush elected in 2000.

There is a large issue of trust involved as well. Nobody could trust Romney who gained his victory in the primaries due to his running against dumb and dumber (Santorum and Gingrich). So just because he was the nominee; could you trust him to follow through? Not really. As for the Dems; hope and change was more hope than change as it turns out. The most "transparent" administration in history doesn't seem that much of a change from his predacessors.

Multiple (infinite number of) shades of grey is just another (cowardly) expression saying: I have no spine, I love to vacillate between here and there, I don't mind if I get big slivers in my ass for sitting on the fence, I am too weak to make up mind (which I may or may not have) about what is right or wrong.

When you split your vote and vote one party locally and another state or federally, you only reveal your lack of spine, your greediness and your intention to be a full fledged free-loader. If you can not trust the candidate of your choice on the local level, but he/she is fine with you on state or federal level, you displayed exactly what trust your representative on any level can place in you.

When you say dumb and dumber and mention the names of Santorum and Gingrich, once again you display your ignorance. Santorum and Gingrich - collectively - had and still have, far more political savvy, experience, knowledge, honesty and dignity, than any Obama/Biden, Obama/Clinton, Biden/Clinton, Obama/anyDemocrat etc. could ever have or had. But you were, obviously mesmerized by a snake oil salesman, whose only merit on the political stage was an admittedly rousing - but phony - speech, a half-term state senatorship, a half-term U.S, senatorship - quit both for personal and selfish gain - and you are about to be mesmerized by a skank whose only 'qualification' for being more than local dog-catcher is being the wife of a former president.

Since you are, obviously, a liberal, you declared that my position on a two party system was "retarded". You also claimed that the Constitution, that gives you the checks and balances makes zero sense. If you had any decency, loyalty, patriotism and integrity, you would not split your vote in order to gain some tiny padding to your pocket book.

Finally, go back to Grade 2 and get some spelling lessons.

 

[Vox]

America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.

No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.

You see what third party candidates have done in the past.

Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.

Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.

I disagree.

Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate .

totally agree. and though European system which pushes smaller parties to form coalitions with big ones can cause a lot of corruption, it still better represents the choices of the people.
While obama won't be the candidate I can support even if I would be threatened, Mitt was the choice of a lesser evil and since there are a lot of purists out there, the result happened to be the continued idiocy and wrongfulness, multiplied by corruption of this administration for 4 more years.

 

[Vox]

America needs a third party like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is the computer age, which is, as yo know, based on the idea of BINARY, as in TWO.

No third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties.

You see what third party candidates have done in the past.

Russ Perot got the Arkansas hillbilly elected in 1992 and 1996.

Ralph Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

If you want America to become like Europe, encourage third, fourth, fifth, sixth....thirtieth parties to grandstand and ruin your life and your country.

I disagree.

Wanting only two choices is retarded. There are infinite shades of gray in the electorate which is why I split my vote locally. Federally under our constitution; it makes zero sense to elect a President of one party and a congress of another when one has to rely on the other to get anything done (hence gridlock).

Further; If "no third party would put anyone in a category that is not already espoused by one or the other present parties", Perot and Nader would not have had an outcome. BTW; it was Pat Buchanan that got Bush elected in 2000.

There is a large issue of trust involved as well. Nobody could trust Romney who gained his victory in the primaries due to his running against dumb and dumber (Santorum and Gingrich). So just because he was the nominee; could you trust him to follow through? Not really. As for the Dems; hope and change was more hope than change as it turns out. The most "transparent" administration in history doesn't seem that much of a change from his predacessors.

Multiple (infinite number of) shades of grey is just another (cowardly) expression saying: I have no spine, I love to vacillate between here and there, I don't mind if I get big slivers in my ass for sitting on the fence, I am too weak to make up mind (which I may or may not have) about what is right or wrong.

well, unfortunately there are a lot of people who can't make a choice for one candidate vs the other based not on their spineless but on their wrong view that if they don't choose between two wrongs, they somehow are exempt from the responsibility of dealing with those wrongs which then are being "chosen" mostly based on fraud ( the last one as an example).

not every fiscal conservative will agree on the "war on drugs" for example and not every liberal-minded individual where it comes to some social issues will necessary be on the side of the idiotic expansion of not working social programs.
and many other combinations.

Today those people are left with either or.

Which is not right.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Take the special interest money out of Washington......and the choices become much better.....with more options.

Would you say it is liberals or conservatives who are more likely to want the special interests, lobbyists and their money out of the process for picking our leaders>