@DCGoldPants Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 After almost 11 months of a new admin, but the same ole same ole. Is there anybody here that voted for either major party in 2008 who is now ready to go 3rd party and indy in 2010 and forward? I'm just curious since there were only a handful of us who were shouting for this last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I don't think it's the same ol same ol and I'm very happy with what I see. Sorry but if anything my want for a third party is all but gone. I can see how republicans would want one though being that there don't seem to be very many economic conservatives and an over abundance of social conservatives (which really need a new name, being that they support an expansion of goverment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm there. This health care bill not passing was the icing on the cake for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Bob Barr 2012.. lock it in he was 4 votes closer in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm ready for making political parties illegal in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I will never understand why we have political parties to begin with. Let the best man/woman win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I will never understand why we have political paries to begin with. Let the best man/woman win. That's because Wall Street and the elite bankers want to make sure they have a puppet that does exactly what they say. If you don't have the parties, the elite bankers will have a more difficult time grooming their puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I think we're seeing it. Just not in the way I thought we would. The Tea Bag movement, NY-23, even the minor party guy in NJ. I dont think we will see a NAtional 3rd party to challenge D and R, but we will so local challenges. In fact, we already have 2 third party guys in the Senate, they just use a broad term "independant". Id rather see a bunch more rather than just 1 more big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm already there...voted 3rd party this past election. Bob Barr, oh yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 That's because Wall Street and the elite bankers want to make sure they have a puppet that does exactly what they say. If you don't have the parties, the elite bankers will have a more difficult time grooming their puppet. Good point. Sad Point. But still a good one. I wonder if in our lifetime we will start to see many more people get elected based on their stances and beliefs seperate from the two main party lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm ready for making political parties illegal in the country. Add in making it easier to get on the ballot and I'm in Vote the individual and the issues then let the horse trading begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I don't know if third party will ever be a viable option, but term limits are a must! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 What makes the 3rd party candidates any different? They still answer to their financial backers. But go ahead, waste your vote. Statistically, it will mean more blue anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well for those considering a 3rd party, I'd be happy to invite you into the fold of the Neo-Bull Moose Whig party. For a nominal fee, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 If there's a serious 3rd party candidate who actually has a chance, absolutely. Otherwise, for the first time in my adult life, I'll forego voting. I feel cheated and in a lose/lose situation, quite honestly. I'm at the point where I no longer believe it makes any difference. The Dems and Repubs are just slightly different shades of the same color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 we have political parties because its human nature, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 If you want to make third party viable in the US all you have to do is change the voting laws. Make it so that you can pick TWO candidates instead of one. If your first option is statistically eliminated your vote is cast for your second option. This would allow people to support third parties without becoming "a vote for the other guy!" and risking someone entirely opposed to their view being elected. I'm all for it. Ending political parties however is a waste of time. When you need cooperation on the scale we are talking about in government, needing 50 to 60%, people are going to form teams. People just have a tough time realizeing that elected reps HAVE to do something to get their ideas voted on. This wrong minded nonsense that everything should be voted on via it own merits without any back room channels isn't how business gets done at any level. Small, medium, large, or government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 How about as a serious step, we remove the arcane law that the House must not consist of more than 435 members? We can leave the senate alone, as that's a number set by the Constitution and would require extraordinary steps to change it. Here are some of the benefits of say....tripling the number of House members (just for argument's sake, we'll triple the number and not get too complicated): -Significant increase and likelyhood of 3rd party candidates winning -Much less "pork" spending (I'm using the simplistic "If there's not enough gum for everybody, than nobody can have any" philosophy) -More equal representation (For example, Rhode Island has just over 1 million people and 2 House members, Montana has 967,000 people and 1 House member....something seems amiss there to me for a governmental body that's supposed to be based on population.) -Perhaps a tad optimistic on my part, but if you have over 1200 members of the House, I would venture a guess that the incumbency rate would drop below 99%. But that's just what I want to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I've voted 3rd party before and I listen to ALL candidates. I want to start off by saying IMO, the American Green Party is a joke. I am registered as a Green Party voter because in the 2000 election, if they were able to get 5% of MD voters registered, it made them eligible for certain campaign finances as well as a right to be acknowledged in all debates. So I registered specifically to help gain a 3rd party in MD not to mention in my younger, uneducated liberal years, I was a raging, unapologetic Nader fan. I'm still registered as Green Party today for the same reasons listed above. Years later, my political views have evolved and I have become much more conservative. Home ownership changed my mind about how our taxes are spent. I see far too much of my income being devoured by gov't and I'm sick of it. I also think MD is a fee based society that uses the DMV/MVA to suck tons of money out of the citizens. In order for our country to survive into the next century, this current roster of politicians and political parties must be destroyed. I think these *******s are completely disconnected from the mentality of Americans. I don't think 80% of them truly represent the states they come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Is that too extreme of a political position 'cause that's all I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Is that too extreme of a political position 'cause that's all I ask. that's pretty much where I'm at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I dont give a hoot about what party. I'll vote forever more for the candidate that mirrors my values and policy opinions the closest. Though, I will have a hard time trusting either of the two big monsters at this point, but I know there must be some good people somewhere within each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Is that too extreme of a political position 'cause that's all I ask. considering that Democrats are starting to move socially conservative and Republicans are sprinting fiscally liberal... yeah, too much for us to ask for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Is that too extreme of a political position 'cause that's all I ask. I actually have long believed that this describes a majority of Americans. There simply isn't a party to represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I actually have long believed that this describes a majority of Americans. There simply isn't a party to represent them. Agreed. A hybrid version of Obama and Romney would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.