Quoted: The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote.  Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.   img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg

Without Ralph Nader George Bush would not have won IN 2000
Both partys want you to not vote Third party. Its what keeps them in business and power

ETA typos

I see voting as a means to an ends.

Some people here obviously view voting as a means of self expression.
Nader is the only third party candidate I support.
I want his party to grow and grow.

Quoted: Which country does it work well for? Israel Switzerland England Italy France Netherlands Spain

Liberal shitholes except The Izzy's and ze Swiss

I have absolutely no idea what to do this upcoming election.  I'm confused, and I feel that no matter which box I check betrayal is imminent.  Just thinking about the ramifications of the 08 election makes my head throb and want to stockpile ammo.  

Every time I think I know the candidate, they change their stance.  Maybe I'm just stupid or not informed, but I feel screwed no matter what I do.  

Quoted: Quoted: and is mccain going to be any better?  the guy is a shitbag who is riding on his "I'm a POW" high horse.   As much as I might dislike McCain, I'd vote for him without batting an eye 100 times before I would waste my vote on a third party candidate and assure a victory by the Demo candidate.

McCain IS a democrat and a liberal in all but name.

You fear throwing away your vote. I fear throwing away the future. A vote isnothing compared to that. That kind of cowardice is what has kept the status quo the last 100 years. And 3rd party didn't kill Bush . His betrayal of conservatives namely gun owners did.

Quoted: Quoted: The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote.  Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.   img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg Yeah, like bush and his phone tapping isn't an infringement on my rights. Get your head out of the sand, PLEASE!

Don't forget Clinton's phone tapping.  We were not at war then, what was his excuse?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The democraptic candidate applauds your third party vote.  Vote your consience, you'll be sleeping well at night as your rights are slowly eroding.   img83.imageshack.us/img83/346/9016932wf.jpg Yeah, like bush and his phone tapping isn't an infringement on my rights. Get your head out of the sand, PLEASE! Only if you were calling your terrorist buddies in Afghanistan.  You do know that was the only assholes being listened to, right?  Good thing you fell for the MSM BS on that one.  You probably have your panties in a twist about the "Dubai ports deal" too.   Nope.  I don't give a fuck who I'm talking to.  Get a warrant or get out of my life.  My rights are NOT waiverable for ANY reason.

that phone monitoring deal was put in by Carter, and I'm fairly sure that every single president afterward has used it.  the directive is that they can only listen in for the first 60 seconds, if there is no suspicion of illegal activities being discussed then they shut off.  and yes, they typically only monitor calls coming from suspected terrorist types.

Quoted: In a hundred years, when, our children have no rights, Thank yourself.

If you keep voting Republican you can thank yourself too, but it might take a hundred and twenty years.

Quoted: Don't forget Clinton's phone tapping.  We were not at war then, what was his excuse?

Clinton is no longer President, or even a functioning member of government. You could bitch about JFK or FDR, but at this point the only one that matters is the one in office currently fucking us.

It's a winner-take-all system, so third parties, coalitions, etc you see in foreign parliaments is impossible here.  A third party would have to be pretty effing compelling to challenge the Republocrats.

For a third party system to work properly, you'd have to combine your congressional/presidential votes so you were basically voting the party line.  Most people do this already.  Then if you had a 30/30/40 split L/D/R congress would have 30% Libertarians, 30% Democrats, and 40% Republicans with a Republican president.  This would bring us closer to the idea of what a Republic should be.  

Edited to fix math.

When Lincoln went to war to preserve the union we ceased to be a republic. Many of the checks and balances that existed were thrown out the window. Even tough living in 1870's America would seem like a paradise of freedom compared today. BUT it set the stage for the Federal Government usurping states rights, and individual rights after that. This was exactly what the Anti-Federalist Founding fathers feared and what the Federalists hoped for.

Things got progressively worse since. To say that we operate under the principles of a Republic any longer today is to delude yourself. The federal government REFUSES to follow the constitution. They only do what they think the majority would let them get away with. They operate above the law in NEARLY every way. We are at BEST a Social Democracy, fast becoming a totalitarian state. BOTH the GOP and DEM's are moving us this way.

Change will NOT be easy and if the conservative base drops the GOP and say moves to the LP there will be a power vacuum filled by Liberals for a time. After the shaking out the conservative party will begin to take over again. We certainly could have a civil war during this time if the LIBS went really hog wild. But once the dust settles a true conservative party could take back power and if they don't betray us they could and would turn back many of the things that we loath.

During such a turn over gun control will certainly advance, and yes things will not be easy. If you are a true patriot it really doesn't matter though, if we could but learn to think of the big picture, and think in a generational sense we could fix this! OUR grandfathers really blew it big time. They had a chance after WWII and did nothing. If you believe what you say when you say, “from my cold dead hands” then it does NOT matter if the liberals take over for a season while conservatives regroup. If Hilery is elected because conservatives are in aperiod of flux and a fledgeling new party is emerging and she tries to take your guns so WHAT? Are you goingto give up your guns anyway? No, so what the hell are you worried about? There are too many of us and the more liberal things got in the short term, the worse that things got, it will strengthen the resolve of the conservative movement and make the come back that much more powerful.

But this would only work if the cowards sitting in their warm GOP poopie decide to break out of their cage and stop letting their FEAR control their decisions.

You refuse to vote LP or CP because it is "throwing the vote away". I say if you vote GOP then you are throwing your FUTURE away! Which is more valuable. Your FUTURE; your children’s FUTURE or a lousy vote for a few years maybe even a decade. Would not ultimate victory in a bloodless coup be preferable to a cage?

The difference between GOP slavery and DEM slavery is the CAGE. You will own your GOP cage; and they will even let you play with guns, just like southern slave owners did. (There are all sorts of old laws referring to permission slips or permits written by masters so slaves could either own or use a firearm). Your cage may be a little warmer, a little bigger and the meals not so bad but it is still a cage and you are still a slave. The beauty of it for them is you won't even want to admit you are a slave. "Freedom is Slavery"; you will come to know that well.

The Liberal Cage will be warm and fuzzy, with padded bars for your protection. The food will be worse and the cage smaller. But you get to listen to Peter Paul and Mary sing kumby-ya all day long.

Either way you are a SLAVE. All it takes to become free is to first stop being AFRAID and letting that fear control you. Grow some big hairy ones and USE THEM. Chances are if the Liberals do gain power they will try to repeal the 2nd and start a major gun grab. They think with their emotions, and though that is stupid (strategically), they will try. Would you rather have to fight NOW when you are younger stronger and if your kids are young give them a shot at freedom while you work and vote for a true conservative republican form of government? OR will you wet your belly like a cowering dog and turn in your newly banned weapons and sing Kumby-ya with P.P.&M?

If you are not going to be part of the solution send your guns and ammo to men with balls and crawl in your cage. May posterity forget that we were brothers, we desire neither your counsel nor your arms. Lick the hand that feeds you be it a GOP or DEM. May your servitude be gentle, may you die in peace an old man.

Or you can grow a pair and MASTER YOUR FEAR. Vote what you truly want; not just to stop a liberal take over, they are winning anyway. It is as simple as being a liberal asn saying you are a conservative. Gosh would a politician actually LIE. The writing is on the wall the end result for GOP or DEM is the same, make your choice. Making excuses that the LP is for open immigration or the CP is too religious are excuses. Either party is 95% of what you want. Live in FEAR or Live in FREEDOM. The GOP has proven it is not the solution. Be a pussy and vote for them I really don't care. I know where my line is and frankly if it is going to be crossed at all I hope it is when I am young and hale. I will NOT be a slave! If you are all going to vote GOP then I'll vote DEM jsut to get things moving. Either way this election we will get a liberal regardless of what party they represent.

What has the GOP gotten you NOTHING, but another useless war and less rights. They have simply been VACANT on the gun issue. They have the power to repeal many of the bad laws out there and have not done a thing. All the work has come from grass roots efforts of the gun orgs.

with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put

Quoted: I have absolutely no idea what to do this upcoming election.  I'm confused, and I feel that no matter which box I check betrayal is imminent.  Just thinking about the ramifications of the 08 election makes my head throb and want to stockpile ammo.   Every time I think I know the candidate, they change their stance.  Maybe I'm just stupid or not informed, but I feel screwed no matter what I do.

Don't be afraid. Whats the worst that can happen death? Got news for you every man dies. Stockpile ammo, take rifle courses met some like minded people for support cache supplies vote and work for a CP or LP canidate. Its all you can do. We ALL die. I won't live in fear. I won't live as a slave. Better to die on your feet a man than on your knees as a slave. MASTER your FEAR. Once you have mastered the fear you are truly free.

Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put

Portions of it were necessary.  Iraqi Nation Building, the Patriot Act, and Warrantless Searches were pretty much just useless for us and a great big bonus for Big Brother.

People are afraid of the unknown.  They'd rather sit around, blindly vote R and feel secure in knowing that they 'did their best' instead of actually taking a chance to win.

Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put

It is an international dick measuring contest. If the Fed's were really concerned for the nations safety, we would not stip search little old ladies or medal of honor winners at the airport, our borders would be secure and there would be an active civilian militia. Pilots would be armed and so would passangers. We would not be acting like Islam is a peacful fluffy thing. The war on terror is just a diversion. Lies on top of Lies. They are just taking a play from "1984". The war is the excuse to remove our freedoms. After all everything is to keep us safe....

Quoted: Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put It is an international dick measuring contest. If the Fed's were really concerned for the nations safety, we would not stip search little old ladies or medal of honor winners at the airport, our borders would be secure and there would be an active civilian militia. Pilots would be armed and so would passangers. We would not be acting like Islam is a peacful fluffy thing. The war on terror is just a diversion. Lies on top of Lies. They are just taking a play from "1984". The war is the excuse to remove our freedoms. After all everything is to keep us safe....

We are at war with Eurasia.  We have always been at war with Eurasia.  

Quoted: I've seen the question asked: "what if we're faced with McCain vs. Clinton in 2008?" why is there such a problem here?  why not vote 3rd party?  are you afraid that your vote is going to go toward the dems?  why not try to get your lib neighbors who arent too happy with hitlery to vote 3rd party as well?  it's this kind of stupidity that is keeping the USA a two party state.

Ross Perot gave us Clinton winning with 48% of the vote. Remember?

Quoted: Ross Perot gave us Clinton winning with 48% of the vote. Remember?

and nader let dubya win.

people are complaining almost constantly about how the GOP is too left, too socialist, and too wasteful  yet you keep voting for them.

Quoted: Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put Portions of it were necessary.  Iraqi Nation Building, the Patriot Act, and Warrantless Searches were pretty much just useless for us and a great big bonus for Big Brother.

Dismantling the constitution is not necessary to ensure our safety. The Patriot Act is the single biggest violation of our rights in a long time.

Should we actively and decisively attack and destroy thoose who would initiate terrorist acts on this country? CERTAINLY. Since WHEN does that involve stripping away the rights of the American People. The REAL soltions are simple. Arm Pilots, Let CCW passangers carry, profile arab travelers, secure our borders. Search and Destroy terrorist camps. etc. Many of the most effective real solutions are easy and cost effective to do.

I have a good homework assignment for you READ THE 2ND AMMENDMENT. A well regulated militia being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE the right of the people to keep and bear arms..blah blah blah.

Arm the populance give them TRUE safety and there is your solution. Over 200 years old and it would still work. Would inocent Islamic people get killed or search at an airport. YES. But how many inocent are being killed in the war? I bet if the gov't just followed its own rules less inocent lives would be lost.

The war on terror is a diversion and false because of the various issues we are dealing with, namely the border; Proof is in actions not rhetoric.

Stop supporting GOP facists out of fear of electing DEM socialists. It is INSANE

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put Portions of it were necessary.  Iraqi Nation Building, the Patriot Act, and Warrantless Searches were pretty much just useless for us and a great big bonus for Big Brother. Dismantling the constitution is not necessary to ensure our safety. The Patriot Act is the single biggest violation of our rights in a long time. Should we actively and decisively attack and destroy thoose who would initiate terrorist acts on this country? CERTAINLY. Since WHEN does that involve stripping away the rights of the American People. The REAL soltions are simple. Arm Pilots, Let CCW passangers carry, profile arab travelers, secure our borders. Search and Destroy terrorist camps. etc. Many of the most effective real solutions are easy and cost effective to do. I have a good homework assignment for you READ THE 2ND AMMENDMENT. A well regulated militia being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE the right of the people to keep and bear arms..blah blah blah. Arm the populance give them TRUE safety and there is your solution. Over 200 years old and it would still work. Would inocent Islamic people get killed or search at an airport. YES. But how many inocent are being killed in the war? I bet if the gov't just followed its own rules less inocent lives would be lost. The war on terror is a diversion and false because of the various issues we are dealing with, namely the border; Proof is in actions not rhetoric. Stop supporting GOP facists out of fear of electing DEM socialists. It is INSANE

Re-read what I posted, I'm agreeing with you.  

ETA I'm also a big L Libertarian.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: with the exception of the war on terror being "useless" that's well put Portions of it were necessary.  Iraqi Nation Building, the Patriot Act, and Warrantless Searches were pretty much just useless for us and a great big bonus for Big Brother. Dismantling the constitution is not necessary to ensure our safety. The Patriot Act is the single biggest violation of our rights in a long time. Should we actively and decisively attack and destroy thoose who would initiate terrorist acts on this country? CERTAINLY. Since WHEN does that involve stripping away the rights of the American People. The REAL soltions are simple. Arm Pilots, Let CCW passangers carry, profile arab travelers, secure our borders. Search and Destroy terrorist camps. etc. Many of the most effective real solutions are easy and cost effective to do. I have a good homework assignment for you READ THE 2ND AMMENDMENT. A well regulated militia being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE the right of the people to keep and bear arms..blah blah blah. Arm the populance give them TRUE safety and there is your solution. Over 200 years old and it would still work. Would inocent Islamic people get killed or search at an airport. YES. But how many inocent are being killed in the war? I bet if the gov't just followed its own rules less inocent lives would be lost. The war on terror is a diversion and false because of the various issues we are dealing with, namely the border; Proof is in actions not rhetoric. Stop supporting GOP facists out of fear of electing DEM socialists. It is INSANE

Sounds like you watch CNN.  Grow up and learn to think instead of "feel".  Tin hat a little tight?  Try not to be so emotional.

Quoted: I've seen the question asked: "what if we're faced with McCain vs. Clinton in 2008?" why is there such a problem here?  why not vote 3rd party?  are you afraid that your vote is going to go toward the dems?  why not try to get your lib neighbors who arent too happy with hitlery to vote 3rd party as well?  it's this kind of stupidity that is keeping the USA a two party state.

Because many would rather have McCain than a 3rd Party candidate.

Furthermore they would blame 3rd party votes for putting Clinton in the White House. Never mind that the Republicans did it themselves by alienating conservatives, it would still be the fault of those who didn't stay faithful to the GOP.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: HISTORY In the over 200 year history of the Republic, only ONE third party has been successful, when the Republicans took over from a dying Whig party just prior to the Civil War.  All other third parties have done nothing more than split the vote of one block or the other, and paved the way for success for the other side. For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this.  What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton.  The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality.  If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process.  That's where the battle is won or lost these days. which is great, but the republican party is failing us and rotting from within.  perhaps their time has come?   So whats the realistic alternative?  The constitution party or the libertatians have about as much chance of success as the green party.  People voting third party got Clinton elected, glad to see that worked out so well.

And THAT was also the fault of Bush Sr. Perhaps if the Republicans didn't back door their base they could depend on them. I couldn't elect Bush Sr. after the 89 Import Ban. I won't be supporting Republicans who voted for AMNESTY in 06. Will that result in Democratic wins? Probably. But if they want MY vote they need to REPRESENT ME, currently many do not.

Quoted: I dont see the electorial college being split three ways in one state. I think their heads would explode...

I don't see why not.  If we used a system where the electoral college votes went by congressional district rather than winner-take-all, a state could have electors from three or more parties.  Say, in Kansas, that the state overall goes Republican, so our two senatorial electoral votes go Republican.  Of the three representational districts, one could go R, one could go D, and one could go third party.  

I learned recently that two states already do it this way.  I don't know whether they've actually had split votes or if it has just been an 'academic' rule.

Jim

The Republicans would take the lion's share of most libertarian's votes if the Republicans would just stick to their traditional tenets.

Quoted: Quoted: I have absolutely no idea what to do this upcoming election.  I'm confused, and I feel that no matter which box I check betrayal is imminent.  Just thinking about the ramifications of the 08 election makes my head throb and want to stockpile ammo.   Every time I think I know the candidate, they change their stance.  Maybe I'm just stupid or not informed, but I feel screwed no matter what I do.   Don't be afraid. Whats the worst that can happen death? Got news for you every man dies. Stockpile ammo, take rifle courses met some like minded people for support cache supplies vote and work for a CP or LP canidate. Its all you can do. We ALL die. I won't live in fear. I won't live as a slave. Better to die on your feet a man than on your knees as a slave. MASTER your FEAR. Once you have mastered the fear you are truly free.

I didn't say I was afraid.  I said I was confused and felt betrayal from any candidate was imminent.  I will never fear my government - they serve me, and I served them.  I just think I served them much better than they are, or will be, serving me.  It isn't fear.  It's disgust.  

Cause no one wants to leave the herd.
Bah...bah...bah.

Nevermind that the Republican Party was a Third Party.

Because American politics is permanently stuck in the idiotic "2 parties" business which of course led to the present where Republicans and Democrats are often indistinguishable.

Quoted: For those of you pissed at the Republican's, think of this.  What if a Liberal like Kerry gets elected, and due to private industry we have another great economic boom like happened to Clinton.  The Dems may get credit for being the "responsible" party on economics and gain real dominance, complete with gun control and mandatory homosexuality.  If you really want to change the system rather than bitch, get active in the primary process.  That's where the battle is won or lost these days.

I don't want to have to be gay!!! Please, don't! I like being straight!

Quoted: Because American politics is permanently stuck in the idiotic "2 parties" business which of course led to the present where Republicans and Democrats are often indistinguishable.

The whole gripe with the "two party" system is really a non sequitur.  In a democracy you need to get 51% of the votes to get anything done.  In two party systems such as Britain and the U.S., each major party tries to get 51% within its own tent, and has various subgroups within itself that attempt to reach a compromise favorable to 51% of the population.  In multi party systems such as France, you have several smaller parties who must compromise to form coalitions that amount to 51% of the vote.

In other words, same story, different players.  You can either have a conservative wing of the Republican party allying with a business wing of the Republican party to get 51% of the vote, or you can have a Conservative Party forming a coalition with a Business Party to get 51% of the vote.  In any event, compromise will eventually become necessary in order to get 51% of the vote.  

Quoted: 2 choices are enough for mercans.

Haha, well said, well said.

The problem, whether TheTracker realizes it or not, IS the two party system. But hey, as blacklisted said, people love to see black and white. America good. Everyone else bad. No grey here.

Blathering simpletons...

Quoted: Quoted: Because American politics is permanently stuck in the idiotic "2 parties" business which of course led to the present where Republicans and Democrats are often indistinguishable. The whole gripe with the "two party" system is really a non sequitur.  In a democracy you need to get 51% of the votes to get anything done.  In two party systems such as Britain and the U.S., each major party tries to get 51% within its own tent, and has various subgroups within itself that attempt to reach a compromise favorable to 51% of the population.  In multi party systems such as France, you have several smaller parties who must compromise to form coalitions that amount to 51% of the vote. In other words, same story, different players.  You can either have a conservative wing of the Republican party allying with a business wing of the Republican party to get 51% of the vote, or you can have a Conservative Party forming a coalition with a Business Party to get 51% of the vote.  In any event, compromise will eventually become necessary in order to get 51% of the vote.

which is why a multitude of parties are needed.  having the big "R" or "D" by your name deciding which way you vote isnt the way that our government was supposed to work.  our representatives dont represent their voters, they represent whatever the party wants them to regardless of what voters want.

Go read the platforms of the 3rd parties.  Some might be attractive to some really far right nutcases or far left nutcases, no thanks to those.  Some of the more frequently mentioned ones, such as the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party seem to have some pretty good ideas, then they go off the edge.

There are some who raise hell about the borders, then preach Libertarian Party.  Shit, the Libbies would throw the borders completely wide open.  They also want to abolish the UCMJ and think that military personnel should be able to quit whenever they want.  That's a crock.

The Constitution Party seems to want a religion based government and I think that's a bad idea.  That's one of many reasons that people migrated to this country centuries ago.

So, while some bemoan the Republicans because they aren't far right enough, they are still a damn sight better than either the Dummycrats or any 3rd party whose platform I have read.

Quoted: which is why a multitude of parties are needed.  having the big "R" or "D" by your name deciding which way you vote isnt the way that our government was supposed to work.  our representatives dont represent their voters, they represent whatever the party wants them to regardless of what voters want.

Bullshit.  Both major parties have had rebellions within their coalitions.  Heck, with immigration the House Republicans basically told the Senate and the President to kiss off.  Parties are simply a convenient way to organize to get that 51% of the vote.  

Quoted: Quoted: Which country does it work well for? Israel Switzerland England Italy France Netherlands Spain Liberal shitholes except The Izzy's and ze Swiss

You are being a bit simplistic there. I wouldn't go as far as to call Italians liberal shitholers. As far as the Israelis are concerned, they and all their enemies can go kill eachother for all I care. They have proven themselves to be irrational and selfish bastards, time and time again. Hell, that's really the state of the world. As for the Swiss... I think the Swiss are the most boring people on the planet. It is only with the Swiss that I can have a conversation that I begin and finish all on my own without as much as a peep from them inbetween. Dullest people on the planet, I swear.

If the Libertarian Party would lose the plank of free-drugs, they would do quite a bit better in the polls IMHO.  That seems to be holding many of the social conservatives that I know from voting for them.

They can still get it done, but just do so subtly.

The Democrats only represent some of my views...  The Republicans only represent some of my views...  The Libertarians represent nearly all of my views, so I'll continue to vote for them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Which country does it work well for? Israel Switzerland England Italy France Netherlands Spain Liberal shitholes except The Izzy's and ze Swiss You are being a bit simplistic there. I wouldn't go as far as to call Italians liberal shitholers. As far as the Israelis are concerned, they and all their enemies can go kill eachother for all I care. They have proven themselves to be irrational and selfish bastards, time and time again. Hell, that's really the state of the world. As for the Swiss... I think the Swiss are the most boring people on the planet. It is only with the Swiss that I can have a conversation that I begin and finish all on my own without as much as a peep from them inbetween. Dullest people on the planet, I swear.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quoted: If the Libertarian Party would lose the plank of free-drugs, they would do quite a bit better in the polls IMHO.  That seems to be holding many of the social conservatives that I know from voting for them. They can still get it done, but just do so subtly.

How about their stance on the borders and the UCMJ?

Quoted: The Democrats only represent some of my views...  The Republicans only represent some of my views...  The Libertarians represent nearly all of my views, so I'll continue to vote for them.

So, you are okay with open borders and abolishing the UCMJ?

Quoted: Quoted: The Democrats only represent some of my views...  The Republicans only represent some of my views...  The Libertarians represent nearly all of my views, so I'll continue to vote for them. So, you are okay with open borders and abolishing the UCMJ?

considering that the constitution party relaxed their religious stance, you may want to look at them

Quoted: Quoted: If the Libertarian Party would lose the plank of free-drugs, they would do quite a bit better in the polls IMHO.  That seems to be holding many of the social conservatives that I know from voting for them. They can still get it done, but just do so subtly. How about their stance on the borders and the UCMJ?

Dropping those would help, but from people I've spoken with, they care more about the drugs.  

Just to clarify, this is not my opinion, just those I talked to after the last election, those who were frustrated with the two major parties.

As for me, I agree with you.  To be truly successful, the Libertarians need to remove some of their whack-job ideas, but they are on the right track.

Quoted: Quoted: The Democrats only represent some of my views...  The Republicans only represent some of my views...  The Libertarians represent nearly all of my views, so I'll continue to vote for them. So, you are okay with open borders and abolishing the UCMJ?

We don't need no stinking Military.  Those big oceans on both sides do such a great job of protecting us.  History has proven that isolationism is the best thing ever, on November 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 especially.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Democrats only represent some of my views...  The Republicans only represent some of my views...  The Libertarians represent nearly all of my views, so I'll continue to vote for them. So, you are okay with open borders and abolishing the UCMJ? We don't need no stinking Military.  Those big oceans on both sides do such a great job of protecting us.  History has proven that isolationism is the best thing ever, on November 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 especially.

yeah our military did a great job on 9/11 didnt they?

oh yeah they did didnt they?  too bad the politicians killed "Able Danger".  politicians are worse than isolationism

Quoted: Quoted: Because American politics is permanently stuck in the idiotic "2 parties" business which of course led to the present where Republicans and Democrats are often indistinguishable. The whole gripe with the "two party" system is really a non sequitur.  In a democracy you need to get 51% of the votes to get anything done.  In two party systems such as Britain and the U.S., each major party tries to get 51% within its own tent, and has various subgroups within itself that attempt to reach a compromise favorable to 51% of the population.  In multi party systems such as France, you have several smaller parties who must compromise to form coalitions that amount to 51% of the vote. In other words, same story, different players.  You can either have a conservative wing of the Republican party allying with a business wing of the Republican party to get 51% of the vote, or you can have a Conservative Party forming a coalition with a Business Party to get 51% of the vote.  In any event, compromise will eventually become necessary in order to get 51% of the vote.

ETA: NEW I think your problem is that you seem to think that the coalitions that eventually win presidential elections end up being the same no matter what their makeup is. Wrong, different coalitions accomplish different agendas. An alliance of conservative republicans (small r) and liberal (in the old-fashioned, true liberal, sense) democrats would be favorable to either of the two parties today. And I think there are plenty that would fit into that coalition to make up the majority vote.

The difference is that in the German-style (or French as you called it) systems, those smaller groups actually get presentation in their parliament/congress/whatever. In the American system you only have Republican and Democrat congressmen (and women, if you want to be so politically correct) and they play their little slappy games as such. In, say, Germany, the various parties, even the smaller ones, have a lot more power to uphold the interests of their constituents and voice their own opinions/agendas/whatever. I really don't see how you can claim that a two-party system is superior. You are all too focused on the presidency. The president is not the end-all, be-all of the government. The make-up of congress, a parliament, etc. is much more important than who the president or prime minister is.

This is all I will say for now, I will write more depending on what sort of reply I get. In any case, this is certainly an interesting discussion and hopefully Americans will realize that a multi-party system is actually more conducive to getting things done and voicing the opinions of all the voters.

P.S.: Please correct me if I am wrong, but since when is the UK a two-party system?

Anyone that thinks a third party candidate has a chance at the presidential election hasn't paid much attention to the Electoral College. The EC makes a third party a moot point in the presidential election. In the event that the third party candidate actually wins a couple of states, however unlikely, and thereby keeps a Republican or Democrat from getting more than 50% of the EC, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives. What chance do you think your third party candidate has at that point?

If a third party is to truly become a mainstream party, it has to start at the local and then state levels. To think that a third party candidate has a chance in a presidential election is to be living in a dream world.

No matter how much you dislike the option of choosing the lesser of two evils, a vote for a third party will help insure one of the other party's victory.

Quoted: If the Libertarian Party would lose the plank of free-drugs, they would do quite a bit better in the polls IMHO.  That seems to be holding many of the social conservatives that I know from voting for them. They can still get it done, but just do so subtly.

Agreed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because American politics is permanently stuck in the idiotic "2 parties" business which of course led to the present where Republicans and Democrats are often indistinguishable. The whole gripe with the "two party" system is really a non sequitur.  In a democracy you need to get 51% of the votes to get anything done.  In two party systems such as Britain and the U.S., each major party tries to get 51% within its own tent, and has various subgroups within itself that attempt to reach a compromise favorable to 51% of the population.  In multi party systems such as France, you have several smaller parties who must compromise to form coalitions that amount to 51% of the vote. In other words, same story, different players.  You can either have a conservative wing of the Republican party allying with a business wing of the Republican party to get 51% of the vote, or you can have a Conservative Party forming a coalition with a Business Party to get 51% of the vote.  In any event, compromise will eventually become necessary in order to get 51% of the vote.   The difference is that in the German-style (or French as you called it) systems, those smaller groups actually get presentation in their parliament/congress/whatever. In the American system you only have Republican and Democrat congressmen (and women, if you want to be so politically correct) and they play their little slappy games as such. In, say, Germany, the various parties, even the smaller ones, have a lot more power to uphold the interests of their constituents and voice their own opinions/agendas/whatever. I really don't see how you can claim that a two-party system is superior. You are all too focused on the presidency. The president is not the end-all, be-all of the government. The make-up of congress, a parliament, etc. is much more important than who the president or prime minister is. This is all I will say for now, I will write more depending on what sort of reply I get. In any case, this is certainly an interesting discussion and hopefully Americans will realize that a multi-party system is actually more conducive to getting things done and voicing the opinions of all the voters. P.S.: Please correct me if I am wrong, but since when is the UK a two-party system?

Don't know about now, but in 1776 it was.  That was one of the gripes by our Founding Fathers.