Time For A Legitimate 3rd Party in the US?

he still stands

Obama has lost support from nearly everybody except a few left-leaning moderates with the announcement of an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He has done very little as hoped for by his liberal base and the majority of conservatives are still calling him a socialist. This massive divide in perception of political reality is absolutely staggering to me and I can't remember there ever being such a polarized yet consenting opinion of a president. Quite the paradox, eh?

Similarly, the Republican Party has lost many followers during the 8-year reign of Fuhrer Bush. It seems as though Palin, Beck, and Hannity are damaging the party too as many people are sick and tired of the sensationalist propaganda targeted for the malleable-brained neo-conservative audience. More and more, people are self-described "independents" and are becoming apathetic in regards to political policy.
Sure, there remain the fervent believers in the liberal and conservative parties, but as their leaders' voices grow louder and shriller, the thoughtful members of each party begin to fall off as the veil is lifted and conflicting voices are all exposed as rhetoric.

With the increase in citizens who have don't have a political philosophy in the mainstream that speaks to them, I think it is time for a legitimate 3rd party to rise up and become a viable choice for the "rest of us." What are our options? Their seems to be a social stigma with the libertarian party which has given the impression to many that it is run by a bunch of guys with pony-tails wearing suit coats that smell of cigars and brandy and a joint behind their ear. The green party likely will never gain traction simply because people will always be selfish and while the environment remains a priority, the personal well-being of the majority is the higher priority for the thoughtless who are stuck in the competitive anal-territorial circuit of reality.

So, the label of minor parties may be an obstacle to overcome because people can't open up their little primate brains. We are trapped in a self-defeating system of government and economy (based on forever increasing consumption/production of finite resources) but we are too stupid to think of an alternative, or maybe it is that we are too weak and spineless to do what is fundamentally responsible of the citizens of any country, which is to revolt. Either way, it is time for a legitimate 3rd party with honest ideals to step up and gain traction, but I don't see it ever happening because there is too much at stake for the democratic and republican monopoly.

VINNY GOOMBA

he still stands wrote:

Their seems to be a social stigma with the libertarian party which has given the impression to many that it is run by a bunch of guys with pony-tails wearing suit coats that smell of cigars and brandy and a joint behind their ear.

Penn Jillette is a Libertarian and that describes him perfectly

edit: Penn claims to have never smoked pot????

polaris_x

as long as people continue to vote lesser of two evils and are easily brainwashed with lies ... it's gonna be near impossible

he still stands

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Their seems to be a social stigma with the libertarian party which has given the impression to many that it is run by a bunch of guys with pony-tails wearing suit coats that smell of cigars and brandy and a joint behind their ear.

Penn Jillette is a Libertarian and that describes him perfectly

edit: Penn claims to have never smoked pot????

If I had to label myself it would be as a "sympathetic Libertarian." I support a minimalist government, but since humans can't take care of each other since we stopped living in tribes, one of the functions of the government has to be supporting those in need. Unfortunately, it seems that most Libertarians don't feel the same way, which is why I added the word "sympathetic."

arthurdent

we already have 2 fucked up parties. what makes you think a third will be any improvement? We just need a better class of voter, that's all.

he still stands

arthurdent wrote:

we already have 2 fucked up parties. what makes you think a third will be any improvement? We just need a better class of voter, that's all.

Yeah and I guess I was echoing that sentiment when I mentioned that the libertarian and green parties aren't legitimate options. Existing democratic and republican candidates are viable and on the ballot (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul) but as you say, the voters will never support them.

Why is that? When I told my parents about Kucinich a few years ago they were like "why didn't we know about him?" He aligns perfectly with their political opinion, and I think the same would be true for many others who either don't know about him (because the media ignores him) or think he believes in aliens (because that is the only thing the media has ever brought forth about him).

CJMST3K

I think the FCC needs to take some of the time from the networks to allow EVERY candidate for president an uninterrupted 10 minute segment to explain their positions in depth, regardless of party. Just played over and over again at particular times, or even just in the middle of the night.

arthurdent

he still stands wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

we already have 2 fucked up parties. what makes you think a third will be any improvement? We just need a better class of voter, that's all.

Yeah and I guess I was echoing that sentiment when I mentioned that the libertarian and green parties aren't legitimate options. Existing democratic and republican candidates are viable and on the ballot (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul) but as you say, the voters will never support them.

Why is that? When I told my parents about Kucinich a few years ago they were like "why didn't we know about him?" He aligns perfectly with their political opinion, and I think the same would be true for many others who either don't know about him (because the media ignores him) or think he believes in aliens (because that is the only thing the media has ever brought forth about him).

Ron Paul, and to a lesser degree Kucinich, are symptoms of the problem... not solutions to the problem. Paul and his mindless followers are often lacking in critical thinking skills, which is why so many people find them so damn annoying.

arthurdent

CJMST3K wrote:

I think the FCC needs to take some of the time from the networks to allow EVERY candidate for president an uninterrupted 10 minute segment to explain their positions in depth, regardless of party. Just played over and over again at particular times, or even just in the middle of the night.

nope. retarded idiots should not be allowed anywhere near a microphone. The only thing they accomplish is attracting more idiots to their retarded causes.

he still stands

How are they (Paul, Kucinich) symptoms of a problem? What problem?

VINNY GOOMBA

he still stands wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Their seems to be a social stigma with the libertarian party which has given the impression to many that it is run by a bunch of guys with pony-tails wearing suit coats that smell of cigars and brandy and a joint behind their ear.

Penn Jillette is a Libertarian and that describes him perfectly

edit: Penn claims to have never smoked pot????

If I had to label myself it would be as a "sympathetic Libertarian." I support a minimalist government, but since humans can't take care of each other since we stopped living in tribes, one of the functions of the government has to be supporting those in need. Unfortunately, it seems that most Libertarians don't feel the same way, which is why I added the word "sympathetic."

I'm unclear as to whether or not you would support government supporting welfare programs?

Also, I still don't understand why people think Libertarians are so callous? When it comes to taking care of people, I believe that they are quite the opposite. I know I view it as a dis-service to the poor of this country (and elsewhere) by trusting government to see to the task of getting them the help they need-- especially since our tax dollars end up in giant slush funds that can be used for just about anything, including blowing people up on the other side of the world. What kind of charity work is that?

If charitable organizations had more support directly from their members and the community at large, they would have an easier time accomplishing their mission. Lifting a good deal of the tax burden on the working class of this country would be a start.

I live in a very rough city and own property there. I get taxed to death to do it-- still, I realize that the best way to protect myself, my family, and my property is to keep people being fed, clothed, and with shelter. (A big badass dog and a gun would rank 2nd and 3rd ) The more time I spend making sure those in my city have what they NEED, the better off all of us are. I wish I could devote more time or money to good causes-- and maybe I should ax my side-job in favor of that? Maybe good faith and Karma will take care of me?

If you were to take government out of "taking care" of people tomorrow, there would be a very obvious void to fill by the people, either out of the goodness out of their hearts, or even for pragmatic reasons. It would also take some effort by the impoverished to try and take care of themselves. It's the right thing to do, as well as the smart thing to do. It's having the bleeding heart, as a result of a well functioning brain or vice-versa.

Overall, Libertarians think this is a better mousetrap, with some very clearly defined lines, unlike our current system which has people falsely reliant on government to take care of them, in many cases to find out that they don't "qualify" for care.

The problem is that higher taxes have people like myself working more and more hours with diminishing results.

VINNY GOOMBA

arthurdent wrote:

Ron Paul, and to a lesser degree Kucinich, are symptoms of the problem... not solutions to the problem. Paul and his mindless followers are often lacking in critical thinking skills, which is why so many people find them so damn annoying.

Do you think Paul and Kucinich are too idealistic?

Who would you like to see as the two (or more) main candidates in a presidential election?

CJMST3K

arthurdent wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

I think the FCC needs to take some of the time from the networks to allow EVERY candidate for president an uninterrupted 10 minute segment to explain their positions in depth, regardless of party. Just played over and over again at particular times, or even just in the middle of the night.

nope. retarded idiots should not be allowed anywhere near a microphone. The only thing they accomplish is attracting more idiots to their retarded causes.

So, who gets to judge?

he still stands

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I'm unclear as to whether or not you would support government supporting welfare programs?

Yeah I support welfare programs... "one of the functions of the government has to be supporting those in need" which is why I call myself a "sympathetic" libertarian.

The libertarians that I have met aren't callous but they seem to think that the "welfare state" is the primary reason for their tax burden. Most are borderline social darwinists. But then again, I've met maybe a dozen or so in my life, so that is a relatively small sample size and might not be an accurate depiction of the "average" liberatarian.

I don't think most people would voluntarily participate in a community welfare system, and I don't see any evidence of that ever changing. That isn't to say that I wouldn't personally participate... I help out whereever possible already.

Otherwise, I think we are on the same page.

VINNY GOOMBA

CJMST3K wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

I think the FCC needs to take some of the time from the networks to allow EVERY candidate for president an uninterrupted 10 minute segment to explain their positions in depth, regardless of party. Just played over and over again at particular times, or even just in the middle of the night.

nope. retarded idiots should not be allowed anywhere near a microphone. The only thing they accomplish is attracting more idiots to their retarded causes.

So, who gets to judge?

arthrudent! Who else?

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

Obama has lost support from nearly everybody except a few left-leaning moderates with the announcement of an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He has done very little as hoped for by his liberal base and the majority of conservatives are still calling him a socialist. This massive divide in perception of political reality is absolutely staggering to me and I can't remember there ever being such a polarized yet consenting opinion of a president. Quite the paradox, eh?

not really, it's something i noticed years ago and the reason i think republicans are generally more successful than dems. they will circle the wagons, even around their embarrassing members. even though dubya was a moron, they stood by him becos he was their guy on their team and that was good enough becos they hate the other team so much. the dems/left will turn on their own as quickly as the oppositions becos they're too whiny and conciliatory. thus, im not remotely surprised that they've wasted no time in skewering obama for not being hugo chavez.

JD Sal

he still stands wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

we already have 2 fucked up parties. what makes you think a third will be any improvement? We just need a better class of voter, that's all.

Yeah and I guess I was echoing that sentiment when I mentioned that the libertarian and green parties aren't legitimate options. Existing democratic and republican candidates are viable and on the ballot (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul) but as you say, the voters will never support them.

Why is that? When I told my parents about Kucinich a few years ago they were like "why didn't we know about him?" He aligns perfectly with their political opinion, and I think the same would be true for many others who either don't know about him (because the media ignores him) or think he believes in aliens (because that is the only thing the media has ever brought forth about him).

Blame the media and uneducated voters. Obama is labeled a socialist, yet he's not even a liberal. People like Nader and Kucinich will never be viable candidates in modern society because the media portrays them as left-wing buffoons, although their ideas are not really that radical.

This country needs a left wing and a progressive party. There really isn’t a balance in this country, and it really doesn’t represent the people. I thought Nader had a great chance to really build up the Green party over the last decade plus, but he seems to just disappear and reappear every 4 years when there's an election.

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Obama has lost support from nearly everybody except a few left-leaning moderates with the announcement of an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He has done very little as hoped for by his liberal base and the majority of conservatives are still calling him a socialist. This massive divide in perception of political reality is absolutely staggering to me and I can't remember there ever being such a polarized yet consenting opinion of a president. Quite the paradox, eh?

not really, it's something i noticed years ago and the reason i think republicans are generally more successful than dems. they will circle the wagons, even around their embarrassing members. even though dubya was a moron, they stood by him becos he was their guy on their team and that was good enough becos they hate the other team so much. the dems/left will turn on their own as quickly as the oppositions becos they're too whiny and conciliatory. thus, im not remotely surprised that they've wasted no time in skewering obama for not being hugo chavez.

I don't know that liberals (and independents) are skewering him for "not being hugo chavez" but because he is escalating an unwinnable war. Nothing "socialist" with putting an end to needless death and suffering.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Obama has lost support from nearly everybody except a few left-leaning moderates with the announcement of an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He has done very little as hoped for by his liberal base and the majority of conservatives are still calling him a socialist. This massive divide in perception of political reality is absolutely staggering to me and I can't remember there ever being such a polarized yet consenting opinion of a president. Quite the paradox, eh?

not really, it's something i noticed years ago and the reason i think republicans are generally more successful than dems. they will circle the wagons, even around their embarrassing members. even though dubya was a moron, they stood by him becos he was their guy on their team and that was good enough becos they hate the other team so much. the dems/left will turn on their own as quickly as the oppositions becos they're too whiny and conciliatory. thus, im not remotely surprised that they've wasted no time in skewering obama for not being hugo chavez.

I don't know that liberals (and independents) are skewering him for "not being hugo chavez" but because he is escalating an unwinnable war. Nothing "socialist" with putting an end to needless death and suffering.

they had the fires burning and pitchforks out before he talked about escalation. hell, he's escalated forces before this and he said all campaign that's exactly what he was going to do. yet you act betrayed. :roll: the left was maybe 1 week behind the right in ripping him a new one. 'he's too compromising on health care, his bailouts aren't enough, etc'

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

they had the fires burning and pitchforks out before he talked about escalation. hell, he's escalated forces before this and he said all campaign that's exactly what he was going to do. yet you act betrayed. :roll: the left was maybe 1 week behind the right in ripping him a new one. 'he's too compromising on health care, his bailouts aren't enough, etc'

Really? I didn't notice. Most of the liberals that I see (my wife and her friends) were fairly confident that eventually he'd wind down Iraq and Afghanistan (up until last month or so) and didn't lose confidence in him until very recently. I don't follow the shit closely enough to know if he campaigned for "an escalation in Afghantistan" but I sure as hell don't remember it...

And I don't feel "betrayed", as you put it, because I didn't vote for him.

polaris_x

JD Sal wrote:

Blame the media and uneducated voters. Obama is labeled a socialist, yet he's not even a liberal. People like Nader and Kucinich will never be viable candidates in modern society because the media portrays them as left-wing buffoons, although their ideas are not really that radical.

This country needs a left wing and a progressive party. There really isn’t a balance in this country, and it really doesn’t represent the people. I thought Nader had a great chance to really build up the Green party over the last decade plus, but he seems to just disappear and reappear every 4 years when there's an election.

america is not a socialistic country ... it's a me-first country ... nothing wrong with that ... but that is why the two main parties are centre and right ... there is nothing "left or socialist" about obama ...

in order for "progressive" type societies to work - most people have to subscribe to that ... that is not the case in america ...