• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Support of third parties.

galenrox said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was meant to say "Gore lost because Gore Sucked." But got stuck on the lost lost thing.

Anyway, too many people blame the loss on the irregularities, striking as they were. It's like blaming the kicker in a football game, because he missed a fieldgoal. Sure, they would have won if the kicker made it, but the rest of the team (the whole other effort) should take the whole blame for allowing it to be so close.

Also, of course, the irregularities should be mended, Kathrine Harris' Conflict of Interest, Felon voting restriction roles (or they could do like the rest of the country, and allow felons to get their voting back), and voting system redundancy should be implemented. If for any other reason, these things are embarassing for the Leaders of the Democratized World.
 
libertarian_knight said:
I was meant to say "Gore lost because Gore Sucked." But got stuck on the lost lost thing.

Anyway, too many people blame the loss on the irregularities, striking as they were. It's like blaming the kicker in a football game, because he missed a fieldgoal. Sure, they would have won if the kicker made it, but the rest of the team (the whole other effort) should take the whole blame for allowing it to be so close.

Also, of course, the irregularities should be mended, Kathrine Harris' Conflict of Interest, Felon voting restriction roles (or they could do like the rest of the country, and allow felons to get their voting back), and voting system redundancy should be implemented. If for any other reason, these things are embarassing for the Leaders of the Democratized World.
Click to expand...
there we go, that's something I can agree with!
 
dstebbins said:
Why is it that no one supports the party they TRULY belong to? Everyone's got it in their heads that if they don't vote either democrat or republican, they're vote won't win. I cannot count the times I've asked a friend who they would vote for last year (before the election, that is), and they said "Bush and Kerry both suck so I'm not voting."

Wtf? Well vote for Ralf Nader for God's sake! Everyone's got it in their head that only the Dems or the Reps have a chance of winning, and if more people saw politics from the veiw I see them, we'd have much more diverse results than just Dem or Rep every damn time.

I'm my own party. One that I would like to start someday, if I ever found out how (unfortunately, no party leader will give me hints because of fear of competition). I call myself a populist. I believe the government should do whatever the people want, the constitution allows, and common sense agrees with. They can't pass laws that forbid minorities to excersise free speech, no can they do something radical like up the speed limit in a school zone to 150mph or lower income taxes to .5%, but anything that makes sense and is constitutional, the government should do simply for fear of reelection.

If I came accross a candidate that shares my views, I would proudly vote for him and encourage others to do the same, because the Dems and Reps have brainwashed us into believing that they're the only hope of taking office, and it's rediculous.
Click to expand...

iam very curious as to the possition third partys in america are in actually. In the uk we seam to be in a similar state in that only two partys have a realistic chance of getting into power, However some would see it as a 3 party system and smaller partys control/have alot of influence over local counsils and more seats in the e.u parliament due to the more proportional voteing system they use. I was wondering if third partys had any influence over state legislatures ,mayors e.t.c
 
Does anyone else think that it is stupid that third party candiddates are not allowed to debate alongside the other two candiddates???

I once asked a hardcore liberal fanatic that question and he said that the third party candiddates never have opinions on things that mattered they only care about trees and the environment. Therefore (according to his logic) they don't have the ability to debate on things like money or marriage or whatever, because they just rant on about trees and such.

I think that the third party would form opinions pretty quickly once they were in the debate.
 
In response to your SIG.

Harvey Firestein is the guy in Independence Day who is good friends with Jeff Goldbloom.

He ends up ranting about how he needs to call his psychiatrist and right at that point a car comes flying out of the tunnel(after the initial alien attack) and slams right into his car killing him.
 
If you seek truth, honesty, and integrity, then a third party is the way to go. If you like the status quo, i.e. corruption, lies, and namecalling then vote for one of the two major parties.
 
SixStringHero said:
In response to your SIG.

Harvey Firestein is the guy in Independence Day who is good friends with Jeff Goldbloom.

He ends up ranting about how he needs to call his psychiatrist and right at that point a car comes flying out of the tunnel(after the initial alien attack) and slams right into his car killing him.
Click to expand...
Thank you I was just looking at quotes on life and I came across this one...I liked it so I wrote it down.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
If you seek truth, honesty, and integrity, then a third party is the way to go. If you like the status quo, i.e. corruption, lies, and namecalling then vote for one of the two major parties.
Click to expand...

I agree but you must realize that the third party is only truthful and honest and good now because it hasn't been exposed to power as of yet. No matter who you vote for corruption will always dominate them. More safegaurds need to be put in place. I think that eventually this government will be good but as of now it sucks.
 
I'm lucky enough to live in a state with a reasonably active and organized LP network. Unlike a lot of the libertarians I meet, I don't believe that the Republican party is the "lesser of two evils". For example, I don't believe corporate welfare is somehow less destructive to free markets than social welfare. They're equally perverting.
I know I have almost nothing in common with the Democratic party. I don't even know what they stand for, let alone agree with that (whatever it is).
I feel at home with the LP, and always had since I first registered to vote.
I don't feel like a vote for the LP is "throwing it away". There's a certain mentality that dictates we should vote for the "winner". A patriot would vote for what's best for the country. I don't vote for "what's 'less worse'".
Besides, it's all about the numbers in America. To me, my vote matters, even when it just adds to party growth. If you're not going to crash n' burn in 3rd party politics in America, you need to focus on other things besides winning and losing.
 
This is a good site that explains one of our biggest hurdles... inclusion in public debates.
IMHO, this is probably our worst problem at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom