Support of third parties.

[libertarian_knight]

You have a unique view of the political process. Perot "snuck in" and snagged a "few" (18% of the ****ing popular vote) votes. He certainly wasn't limited by this mysterious conspiracy you allude to. And today, the 2 major parties are so equally polarized that it doesn't take too many 3rd party votes to shift the balance. Accept it or not, the fact remains that 3rd party candidates do actually have an adverse affect on their own cause, especially as of late.

Yeah, Perot did OK. But you didn't happen to notice all the Campaign Finance laws passed in his wake, or the change to federal funding and Federal Debates did you? If the the whole perot thing, were done today, instead of 1992, he wouldn't do nearly as well, and not because of any political climate change.

The Major Party "polarization" is an ILLUSION, and when it comes to the threat of third parties, they are unified beyond belief.

Oh, and how are the dems and reps polarized? The War (HA!!)? raising the debt cieling? deficit spending? Pork SPending? NAFTA, FTAA-variants, WTO policy, World Bank Policy, IMF policy? Drug laws? Monetary system (FRB FRBS)? Election and campaign finance reform? Corporate Welfare? High Farm Subsidy?

I had developed a list, on another computer, of about 40 major things the dems and reps agree on, much of which, they never even talk about. If your careful, you might even see they agree on the things they say they do not, that means looking at voting records. The Dems and Reps want one thing, more Ds or Rs to be counted as points in a game.

What is there real big difference? Roe V Wade? wow, all in all, the perfect meaningful-non-issue. Oh yeah, and gay marriage... ohh soo great. real ****ing pressing issues.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Pus mongering gonad gobbler. Your evil ways never cease to shock me. Ever heard of Harry Brown? The guy who represents the political views you claim? If ignorance is bliss you must be undergoing a neverending mental orgasm. I see my work educating you on libertarianism is far from finished.

Ah Grasshoppa, first you must learn, Browne is spelled with an "e." Second lesson, young grasshoppa, Browne did nota run in 2004.

 

[Arts&Sciences]

I've been told by more than one source that I could fit among the moderates of either major political party, but the Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly polarized. As a centrist, I think that both George W. Bush and Howard Dean are ruining their parties. Essentially, the Democrats turned too far to the left in the late 1960's and the Republicans turned too far to the right under Reagan (IMO). I would like to see a rational third party emerge as much as anyone, but in the meanwhile I'll have to register as an Independent (I am 20 and I haven't registered yet) and either go to the voting booth reluctantly or stay home. I think that the soft money machines of both parties are just too strong for a third party to win the Presidency for decades to come.

 

[The Real McCoy]

What is there real big difference? Roe V Wade? wow, all in all, the perfect meaningful-non-issue. Oh yeah, and gay marriage... ohh soo great. real ****ing pressing issues.

Yes, abortion and gay marraige are the only issues the 2 parties can't seem to agree on. :shock:

 

[Lucidthots]

Supporting Third and fourth Parties is one idea.

Pressuring our current Party to act as a legitimate government for the American people is another.

If all the good people stop participating we will only be left with the dregs.

We need to force the criminals out and keep the good guys accountable to the Law.

 

[kal-el]

I think Republicans and Democrats are both corrupt parties. It's just that Democrats are the lesser evil. I would have no problem voting green, if they had a chance of winning. It seems that they have a better chance of getting struck by lightning!:2razz:

 

[teacher]

Ah Grasshoppa, first you must learn, Browne is spelled with an "e."

Ah, you're one of those spelling snobs.

Second lesson, young grasshoppa, Browne did nota run in 2004.

Never said he did. I've just never heard galen say his name. You must be new around here.

Can I pick on him yet? Why not. Let's go find something.

What is there real big difference? Roe V Wade? wow, all in all, the perfect meaningful-non-issue. Oh yeah, and gay marriage... ohh soo great. real ****ing pressing issues.

Taxes, guncontrol, entitlements, affirmative action, military spending, enviormental regulations, Billo's impotence, education, crime, or did I miss something in your post? YGTSIRO

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I am a Libertarian, but a moderate one at that.

In the last Australian Federal election, i voted for a local independent candidate, rather than the Labor Party (=Australian version of the Democrats), and the Liberal Party (Australian version of the GOP).

Even though I believe that the Liberal Party under the leadership of John Howard has done a good job at managing the Australian economy, I don't like Liberal Party's stance on censorship, abortion and most importanty the war in Iraq.

The Labor Party in Australia is more liberal (progressive) on social issues, but they had no real ideas on tax reform, or developing Australia's infrastructure, which desperately needs investment. Lastly Mark Latham (who was the leader of the Labor Party at the last election) had no diplomacy. I want Australia to become more independent of United States foreign policy, but his abrupt manner, and lack of finesse, would have not have been the way of doing it.

In Australia we do have the Democratic Liberal Party, which is the closest thing this nation has to the American Libertarian Party. Problem is that the election campaign rules make it very hard for this party to get its candidates on the election ballot. But if the Democratic Liberal Party do get on the ballot next time, I'll be voting form them.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Never said he did. I've just never heard galen say his name. You must be new around here.

Can I pick on him yet? Why not. Let's go find something.



Taxes, guncontrol, entitlements, affirmative action, military spending, enviormental regulations, Billo's impotence, education, crime, or did I miss something in your post? YGTSIRO

Really? George Bushes massive tax cuts of what, like 1% tax revenue... wow. Gun Control, did Congress REPEAL the AWB? no they let it die, and GWB wanted to extend and expand it. Why did Ruby Ridge happen, over gun ownership and selling? Entitlements have been repealed? Affirmative action policies of the fed are gone? Education, umm no Child Left behind (a bi partisan reform, champion by none other than ted kennedy)... Welfare reform(a republican agenda, supported and passed by demorcats and held high by Clinton). Crime? HA!, seriously. HA! Bill Clinton put soo many non violent people in jail as part of Nixon's Drug war. Not to mention, Justice is not served by having the victims of crimes pay taxes to house, feed, and clothe their assailants.

Don't be fooled by what politicians say, watch how they vote, what bills have thier names on them, and when all else fails, read the statistics (especailly concerning resolving crimes, a staggering proportion of crimes committed are never solved, including murders, the most serious of crimes, are closed at something like 46%) then assaults, rapes, and property crimes down at the low end in single digit percentages. That is of course, for reported crimes, the DOJ has the info on their website.

 

[SixStringHero]

I think Republicans and Democrats are both corrupt parties. It's just that Democrats are the lesser evil. I would have no problem voting green, if they had a chance of winning. It seems that they have a better chance of getting struck by lightning!:2razz:

Democrats lesser of 2 evils?
You have got to be kidding me.

Pick your poison, but they are both malignant in the long run

 

[kal-el]

Democrats lesser of 2 evils?
You have got to be kidding me.

Nope. I'm not kidding. The Democrats seem to be too busy bashing the Republicans over an exit srtategy, that they don't have time/can't figure out a descent strategy on their own.

Pick your poison, but they are both malignant in the long run

That basically sums it up.

 

[aquapub]

If I agree with 51% of what conservatives stand for, and 49% of what Democrats stand for, then I am a liberal Republican. (unless you are dealing with the media. They always say, "moderate" Republicans and, "conservative" Democrats-never the other way around).

Why do we need the Green party or any of the others?

Unless a party stands exactly where you do on everything, it is just another party for you to partially agree with. Since NO party will ever perfectly replicate your views, why don't you just calculate which of the two main parties you support the most and then figure out to what degree?

There is no real gain to be made from complicating things with extra parties.

 

[teacher]

Really? George Bushes massive tax cuts of what, like 1% tax revenue... wow. Gun Control, did Congress REPEAL the AWB? no they let it die, and GWB wanted to extend and expand it. Why did Ruby Ridge happen, over gun ownership and selling? Entitlements have been repealed? Affirmative action policies of the fed are gone? Education, umm no Child Left behind (a bi partisan reform, champion by none other than ted kennedy)... Welfare reform(a republican agenda, supported and passed by demorcats and held high by Clinton). Crime? HA!, seriously. HA! Bill Clinton put soo many non violent people in jail as part of Nixon's Drug war. Not to mention, Justice is not served by having the victims of crimes pay taxes to house, feed, and clothe their assailants.

Don't be fooled by what politicians say, watch how they vote, what bills have thier names on them, and when all else fails, read the statistics (especailly concerning resolving crimes, a staggering proportion of crimes committed are never solved, including murders, the most serious of crimes, are closed at something like 46%) then assaults, rapes, and property crimes down at the low end in single digit percentages. That is of course, for reported crimes, the DOJ has the info on their website.

A tax cut is as cut. Democrates don't cut taxes. Judge appointments point out a huge difference in philosophy and in real life effects. We won't even get into the military. I was in under Reagan. I know guys in under Clinton. I can't begin to illustrate the differences. I understand what your saying. Like the McCain/Finegold campaign bill was nothing but a huge incumbency boost. Sure their biggest threat is a third party. You're new here. You'll find third party talk won't gather much attention here. I've tried several times. But there ARE differences between the two parties. For one we would not be in Iraq if the Democrates were in charge. That is no small thing. The difference in foreign policy of the two parties is great. Bush tried to address the social security problem. No liberal would ever do that. If the Democrates could get away with it they would axe the 2nd amendment. Sure they all spout the party rhetoric to get elected. But once in they discover real change is difficult. The powers are too evenly matched. Thank God. The pendulum swings little. If you're gonna tell me Kerry as President with control of congress would not be very different than now, then you're out of your friggin mind.

 

[galenrox]

Pus mongering gonad gobbler. Your evil ways never cease to shock me. Ever heard of Harry Brown? The guy who represents the political views you claim? If ignorance is bliss you must be undergoing a neverending mental orgasm. I see my work educating you on libertarianism is far from finished.

lol, I traded votes. I hated both candidates pretty much equally, so I did it as a favor to my mom. I figured that Nader would probably get the most of the third party candidates, so I had my mom vote for him in Illinois, and thus attempt to send a message of discontent with both parties, but yeah, I reached the point where I honestly didn't give a **** who won, since either one would screw up this country horribly, but I knew my mom, my girlfriend, my dad, my sister, and all of my friends thought Kerry might be better, so thus, as the nice guy I am, I decided to give one of them a vote that was actually worth something.

 

[The Real McCoy]

As long as the DNC keeps pumping out goons like Gore & Kerry, I'm happy.

 

[KCConservative]

As long as the DNC keeps pumping out goons like Gore & Kerry, I'm happy.

I love third parties. Every vote for Nadar was a vote for Bush. Gotta love it.

 

[SixStringHero]

I love third parties. Every vote for Nadar was a vote for Bush. Gotta love it.

I think that's insulting to the people who are truly voting on ideals rather than pragmaticism.

In New Mexico the Democrats tried to keep Nader off the ballot. Essentially what they were trying to do was subvert the will of the people who really wanted to vote for him, and bully those people into voting Democrat.

I don't think Nader's views were any more in line with the Democrat Ideology than the Republican one.

But people still complain that he spoiled the 2000 election.:roll:

 

[KCConservative]

I think that's insulting to the people who are truly voting on ideals rather than pragmaticism.

Maybe so, but it's the reality.

 

[galenrox]

I think that's insulting to the people who are truly voting on ideals rather than pragmaticism.

In New Mexico the Democrats tried to keep Nader off the ballot. Essentially what they were trying to do was subvert the will of the people who really wanted to vote for him, and bully those people into voting Democrat.

I don't think Nader's views were any more in line with the Democrat Ideology than the Republican one.

But people still complain that he spoiled the 2000 election.:roll:

Well to be perfectly honest, there was a degree of pragmatism in the way I voted. I was relatively indifferent to who actually won, Bush or Kerry, cause I knew either one would've ****ed up this country. But since I vote in Iowa, my vote counts, and I didn't want to be one of those douchebags who has a vote that actually matters and turn it into a vote that doesn't, so I had my mom, who lives in Illinois (and thus her vote doesn't really matter), vote for Nader (and she had to frickin write his name on the ballot because the retarded democrats for some dumb ass reason got his name taken off the ballot, even though there's not a chance in hell Illinois wouldn't have gone blue), and I voted for her (which is for Kerry) here in Iowa. Ended up not making a difference, but the pragmatism I had was I wanted to express general discontent with the two party system for continuing to pop out shitbags like Bush and Kerry, and saying "Pick one, it's the next president".

Quick question though, why do you roll your eyes at the idea of Nader ruining it for Gore in '00? I mean, doesn't the math by itself show that idea to be true? I mean, Gore won the popular vote, and you can still win the election if you lost the popular vote by a little, but add 3% of those who voted onto Gore, since just about no one who voted Nader would've voted for Bush, and Gore would've had a large enough victory in the popular vote that at least a few of the states would've shifted.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Maybe so, but it's the reality.

No, it's not.

See, many poeple would NOT have voted for Gore, Kerry or Bush, like myself. In my case I voted for Browne and Badnarik. I would not have voted, if those men were not on the ballot. (well, I would have written them in).

I can not see myself supporting any candidate the Dems and Reps have put forward lately. They have betrayed the country too much, and can't control themselves and stop spending.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well to be perfectly honest, there was a degree of pragmatism in the way I voted. I was relatively indifferent to who actually won, Bush or Kerry, cause I knew either one would've ****ed up this country. But since I vote in Iowa, my vote counts, and I didn't want to be one of those douchebags who has a vote that actually matters and turn it into a vote that doesn't, so I had my mom, who lives in Illinois (and thus her vote doesn't really matter), vote for Nader (and she had to frickin write his name on the ballot because the retarded democrats for some dumb ass reason got his name taken off the ballot, even though there's not a chance in hell Illinois wouldn't have gone blue), and I voted for her (which is for Kerry) here in Iowa. Ended up not making a difference, but the pragmatism I had was I wanted to express general discontent with the two party system for continuing to pop out shitbags like Bush and Kerry, and saying "Pick one, it's the next president".

Quick question though, why do you roll your eyes at the idea of Nader ruining it for Gore in '00? I mean, doesn't the math by itself show that idea to be true? I mean, Gore won the popular vote, and you can still win the election if you lost the popular vote by a little, but add 3% of those who voted onto Gore, since just about no one who voted Nader would've voted for Bush, and Gore would've had a large enough victory in the popular vote that at least a few of the states would've shifted.

Gore lost because Gore lost. Not because of Nader, not because of the SCOTUS, not because of Jeb and Kathrine. Gore lost because Gore lost. If the vote was soo close, to allow those things to sway it, Gore did not "deserve" the job. It doesn't mean Bush did Either. if Gore would have had a 100,000 point lead, then what could the reps have done in florida? NOTHING.

Gore lost because Gore lost. The faster dems realize their position ONLY is result of their practices, the fast they can have power back. Though I am loathe to tell you this, that is the reality.

 

[KCConservative]

No, it's not.

See, many poeple would NOT have voted for Gore, Kerry or Bush, like myself. In my case I voted for Browne and Badnarik. I would not have voted, if those men were not on the ballot. (well, I would have written them in).

I can not see myself supporting any candidate the Dems and Reps have put forward lately. They have betrayed the country too much, and can't control themselves and stop spending.

That's all well and good, knight, but your vote for badnarik was one less vote for John Kerry. Libertarians helped the Bush re-election.

 

[libertarian_knight]

That's all well and good, knight, but your vote for badnarik was one less vote for John Kerry. Libertarians helped the Bush re-election.

What don't you get? I wouldn't vote for Kerry. It's not one less, because it's my vote, not theirs. In 2000 However, I was FAR more likely to have voted for Bush over Gore. So did Bush lose my vote? no. they NEVER EARNED IT, therefor they could never lose it.

One can not lose a thing that was never posessed.

 

[galenrox]

Gore lost because Gore lost. Not because of Nader, not because of the SCOTUS, not because of Jeb and Kathrine. Gore lost because Gore lost. If the vote was soo close, to allow those things to sway it, Gore did not "deserve" the job. It doesn't mean Bush did Either. if Gore would have had a 100,000 point lead, then what could the reps have done in florida? NOTHING.

Gore lost because Gore lost. The faster dems realize their position ONLY is result of their practices, the fast they can have power back. Though I am loathe to tell you this, that is the reality.

That's very deep, but essentially what you just said is similar to me saying my stove is hot because it's hot. That's not an answer, that's an observation that my girlfriend's retarded cousin could've come up with (I'm not trying to offend you cause I know you're smart and all, but come on dude, "Gore lost because he lost" isn't an answer under any interpretation).
Gore lost because of several factors. First of all, the election was very close, which is a sign that neither had really universally won the hearts and minds of the American people, so in that we're in agreement. That being said, the other factors should not be ignored. The lady in charge of the election in Florida just made a senate run as a republican, the supreme court was split across party lines in deciding the recounts should stop, etc.
That being said, you are right about the position that if Gore had been in front by such a small margin the dems wouldn't have done anything, but I can guarantee that the republicans would've (I mean, ****, just look at the Washington gubenatorial election!)
Don't ignore the evidence just because of what it implies, cause it has to be looked into. If we're to understand what's going on in the world at all, we can't just ignore important **** just because it implies something about you politically, and it's hard to deny that whether or not someone actually successfully stole the presidency and then entered into one of the most contraversial presidencies in recent memory (barring Nixon, of course) is important.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I think that all people should abandon the Democrat and Republican party cause they are all hypocrites.