If you could successfully form a THIRD political party in the U.S.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 10:04 AM GMT
    What would be its platforms?

    RULES:

    1. This party cannot be a replica of the Republican or Democratic party.

    2. This party cannot be a dissembled Republican or Democratic party (for example, don't replicate a "far left" Democrat or "moderate" Republican stance and disguise it as something else).

    2. This party must be some form of combination of the Republican and Democratic parties, and/or have different ideals than either party (i.e. a third option that neither Republicans nor Democrats support or address).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 10:39 AM GMT
    the two obvious answers are
    (1) a "liberty" party, which was basically libertarian. It would be a mess of course, but I suspect would have some appeal.
    (2) a "workers´s party", a genuine left wing which simply is not present in American politics which positioned itself as making things better for the average worker rather than the rich . The main problem they would have is the hysterical anti communist rhetoric which feeds many.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 11:56 AM GMT
    My party would be called the "Eroticism" party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 12:05 PM GMT
    WikipediaA Green party or ecologist party is a formally organized political party based on the principles of Green politics, which is founded in many countries. These principles include social justice, reliance on grassroots democracy, nonviolence, and an emphasis on environmentalism. "Greens" believe that the exercise of these principles leads to world health.


    Obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans TRULY believe in global warming, a reduction in the military budget, or grassroots democracy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 12:10 PM GMT
    third party? how about a second party before we consider a third one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 1:38 PM GMT
    Cogitor saidthird party? how about a second party before we consider a third one?


    haha.. well two functioning ones would be nice.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Aug 24, 2010 1:40 PM GMT
    JB82 saidWhat would be its platforms?

    RULES:

    1. This party cannot be a replica of the Republican or Democratic party.

    2. This party cannot be a dissembled Republican or Democratic party (for example, don't replicate a "far left" Democrat or "moderate" Republican stance and disguise it as something else).

    2. This party must be some form of combination of the Republican and Democratic parties, and/or have different ideals than either party (i.e. a third option that neither Republicans nor Democrats support or address).


    Pretty much sums up the Libertarian Party which I am registered too...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 1:45 PM GMT
    The Hedonist Party:

    1. Empower Americans to enjoy their genitalia to the utmost.

    2. We shall endeavor to elimininate bad taste in all areas except sex.

    3. Deeper and softer cushions and kneepads for all church pews!
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Aug 24, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
    I'd bring back populism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    RowBuddy saidIt's called the Coffee Party and it already exists.

    The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

    http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/



    *reads this post in awe*
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Aug 24, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    Vaughn saidI'd bring back populism.


    Protect the worker from the financial elite. Keep big business out of government.
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 24, 2010 7:10 PM GMT
    the party of self-employed CPA's..

    maybe someone who understands the simple concept of spend less than you earn and can set an example beyond words?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 7:44 PM GMT
    solak saidthe party of self-employed CPA's..

    maybe someone who understands the simple concept of spend less than you earn and can set an example beyond words?


    I think that more rational, instead of "spend less" (which is like not feeding one child out of four in order to balance your budget), would be: spend what is needed, but make sure that you're not borrowing to do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 7:49 PM GMT
    I'd be pretty inclined towards Communism. My family is from that part of the world after all.
    icon_lol.gif
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 24, 2010 7:50 PM GMT
    gregography said
    solak saidthe party of self-employed CPA's..

    maybe someone who understands the simple concept of spend less than you earn and can set an example beyond words?


    I think that more rational, instead of "spend less" (which is like not feeding one child out of four in order to balance your budget), would be: spend what is needed, but make sure that you're not borrowing to do it.


    agree with the last part about not borrowing..

    but i think the larger question is why did you have a 4th child knowing you can't afford giving him/her the proper needs at this point in your life?

    "Close your legs to married men!" - NeNe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 8:04 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]solak said[/cite]
    gregography said
    solak saidthe party of self-employed CPA's..

    maybe someone who understands the simple concept of spend less than you earn and can set an example beyond words?


    I think that more rational, instead of "spend less" (which is like not feeding one child out of four in order to balance your budget), would be: spend what is needed, but make sure that you're not borrowing to do it.


    agree with the last part about not borrowing..

    but i think the larger question is why did you have a 4th child knowing you can't afford giving him/her the proper needs at this point in your life?


    Not relevant. They had sufficient income when the child was born but then the stock market crashed. The 4th child is there, and hungry.
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 24, 2010 8:08 PM GMT
    unless you're a public employee, retired cop, fireman, union official, or superintendent/teacher receiving COLA (Cost of Living Adjusted) Pensions, subsidized by taxpayers, that pay higher rates during inflation times, but just stay flat at higher rate (as opposed to go down like private workers' 401(k))..

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1048968

    ..in that case go raw, no lube. taxpayers will subsidize your kid.

    otherwise, if you're a hapless private worker unable to participate in these excessive COLA pensions reserved for most public employees, derived from our taxes... then close yo legss

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Aug 24, 2010 8:24 PM GMT


    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSipLKKee8SJlWTVeZ0ZON
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 10:50 PM GMT
    problem is, no third party will ever carve out enough of a significant following to do much more than spoil an election for one of the two major parties.

    think Ross Perot in 1992 (technically, not a 3rd party, but he was the last person to poll significant numbers away from the GOP).

    Likewise, although hardly a drop in the electoral bucket - was Ralph Nader as the then-perennial Green Party candidate which helped to spoil the vote for Al Gore in 2000.

    All things being equal though, I think would support any candidate who ran on a platform similar to Ron Paul. It's all about fiscal responsibility. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 10:58 PM GMT
    I've invited politicians to my parties before. Does that count as a political party?
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Aug 24, 2010 11:01 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidproblem is, no third party will ever carve out enough of a significant following to do much more than spoil an election for one of the two major parties.




    Yes, that is the way the system is designed and the people in power have no desire to want to change it.

    There are other countries that have each party represented based on the percentage of votes that went to that party...that way every part has representation.

    Third parties have a better chance on a local political level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidproblem is, no third party will ever carve out enough of a significant following to do much more than spoil an election for one of the two major parties.

    think Ross Perot in 1992 (technically, not a 3rd party, but he was the last person to poll significant numbers away from the GOP).

    Likewise, although hardly a drop in the electoral bucket - was Ralph Nader as the then-perennial Green Party candidate which helped to spoil the vote for Al Gore in 2000.

    All things being equal though, I think would support any candidate who ran on a platform similar to Ron Paul. It's all about fiscal responsibility. icon_smile.gif


    Ron Paul who wants to make gay sex criminal again? That Ron Paul?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 24, 2010 11:57 PM GMT
    Socially liberal:
    --Indeed, Miss Manners has come to believe that the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the love lives of strangers and those who do not.

    --100% separation of church and state
    --mandatory sex education, and free condoms, in schools
    --100% legal abortion
    --100% equal gay rights
    --Free college education
    --Free medical care
    --No health insurance



    Fiscally conservative:
    --A flat tax on everyone's income above the poverty level, with no income tax deductions for anything.
    --No pork, earmarks, etc., allowed on any Congressional legislation.
    --Strict regulations and oversight on all businesses


    --Pay our U.S. car makers to switch to all electric cars
    --Open factories to make car batteries
    --Pull into a "service station," and, instead of filling up with gasoline, have the attendant pull out your car's weak batteries, load in newly recharged batteries, and away you go.
    --Open factories to make solar panels. Make so many that it would be cheaper for consumers to have them installed than it would be to pay their current electric bill.

    --No corporate campaign contributions




  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 25, 2010 12:04 AM GMT
    solak saidunless you're a public employee, retired cop, fireman, union official, or superintendent/teacher receiving COLA (Cost of Living Adjusted) Pensions, subsidized by taxpayers, that pay higher rates during inflation times, but just stay flat at higher rate (as opposed to go down like private workers' 401(k))..

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1048968

    ..in that case go raw, no lube. taxpayers will subsidize your kid.

    otherwise, if you're a hapless private worker unable to participate in these excessive COLA pensions reserved for most public employees, derived from our taxes... then close yo legss






    Republicans love to bring up this false argument.
    When's the last time you saw the cost of living go DOWN ?
    Anybody here old enough to remember the Herbert Hoover Republican Great Depression ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2010 12:10 AM GMT
    gregography saidRon Paul who wants to make gay sex criminal again? That Ron Paul?


    I must have missed that particular memo. But even so, that one thing would be unconstitutional via various SCOTUS rulings, if I'm not mistaken.

    Otherwise, the points made by Dr. Paul in his campaign, and continued by the Campaign for Liberty have a draw for me:

    - smaller, less intrusive federal government

    - bringing back the bulk of our armed forces within proper US borders, including closing down most of our European and Far East Asian operations in addition to the Middle East. We can better utilize our armed forces to secure our own borders, and redirect some of that money saved toward advanced threat detection, space-based weapons and neutralization platforms, and non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic weapons to counter the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea, as well as keep an eye on others who will most assuredly acquire nukes in the years to come.

    - sound money: not necessarily a return to the gold standard, but a very strict accounting for what the Federal Reserve does.

    - No more taxpayer bailouts for failed corporations.

    - Drive down the cost of college tuition by drawing down the Dept. of Education (government subsidized loans - while nice and often offering very low interest rates, are a cash cow for most post-secondary schools. A large part of what makes school so expensive is that the schools themselves expand to spend the money they can charge for tuition with all that nice loan money. There was a time when most average income earners could save and pay for the bulk of their children's 4-year college education. That's pretty much out of reach now for all but the wealthy elite.

    Constitutional checks on far-reaching executive, legislative, and yes, even judicial powers.

    As for the free beer, free condoms, free college, and free healthcare... I just don't see that happening.

    I mean, you could try and cob something together for a few years or even a few decades, but socialism seldom ever ends well for everyone; though the elites who are in control usually do quite well, just as with any elites in any given political scheme. Even the old socialist/welfare states in Europe are beginning to rethink things now.