Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/12/2003 7:23:19 PM EDT
It just seems to me that both of our parties are not in touch with the mainstream middle class, tax paying, leave me alone, don't screw with my Bill of Rights Party.

Ross Perot tried but lost a lot of credibility running, not running. I am not saying I supported him but I support the idea of a third political party that finally got more than 1% of the vote.

Do you think people are afraid of "wasting" a vote voting third party?

The name Libertarian sounds too foreign to Americans, Independent Party sounds like the NO direction party.

We need to establish a valid electable third party and candidate.

We also need our own media outlet.

Maybe we should call it the Bill of Rights Party.

Link Posted: 12/12/2003 7:26:46 PM EDT
Restoration party?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:34:11 PM EDT
We don't need a third party, we need a second party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are basically Socialist in nature. They act as the Left wing and the Right wing of the Socialist Incumbent Party. They agree on most issues such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN membership, NATO, etc. They disagree on issues that are supposed to be outside of the scope of Constitutional governance, such as abortion, gun control, homosexuality, government controlled medicine, etc. A REAL "Third" party would oppose the Democratic/Republicans on all of the first set of issues and take no action at all on the second set. The only party that currently comes close to doing this is the Libertarian party. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually win an election. Steve
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:36:20 PM EDT
I'm a Whig.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:46:56 PM EDT
A third party would split and fragment the vote even worse than it is now.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:52:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RELOADER-BOB: A third party would split and fragment the vote even worse than it is now.
View Quote
Do ya think we could have more gridlock?[:D]
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 1:30:51 AM EDT
Ross Perrot was in the race to get the Clintons elected. That in the race out of the race crap was due to fluctuating Clinton support. Perrot's campaign suckered in more republican votes than democratic. After the truth came out about Hillary's healthcare plan, it was shown that the greatest beneficiary would be Ross Perots medical companies. That man never wanted to be president.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 7:43:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RELOADER-BOB: A third party would split and fragment the vote even worse than it is now.
View Quote
We tried this up here, and that's exactly what happened. Our conservative party became so alike to our liberal party on everything (including gun control), the entire western half of Canada dumped them and formed it's own party. And we've had liberal govt's since 1994. Better to rehabilitate the Republican Party. Unless you want to live under a couple of terms of President Hitlery Klintoon.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:00:45 AM EDT
Do ya think we could have more gridlock?
View Quote
We don’t have gridlock. Gridlock is a desirable state of affairs, a hell of lot better state of affairs than an active Congress.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:11:33 AM EDT
Did you follow what recently happened in Kalifornia? In that case the fragmented Fruitcake party vote allowed Arnold to walk in, but it will not always work out in a good way. We need to pick candidates that will follow our agenda and run him/her against a candidate that doesn't, then see who wins. I've voted many times for 3rd party people and have come to the conclusion that it's a wasted vote, and worse a vote that sometimes let's the least desirable candidate win.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:28:11 AM EDT
[url=http://www.constitutionparty.com/]Constitution Party[/url] Our forefathers successfully revolted against Britain with less than 12% support in the population.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:33:12 AM EDT
We have it. It's called Independent Voters. I think it works better than the Euro version where Knights Who Say Ni get a representative along with the Mujihadeen's for Sharia.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 10:37:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 1:31:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: I'd be happy to just get the old Republicans back.
View Quote
A lot of people would like to get some old Democrats back, like Harry Truman. You may not have agreed with him, but you knew where he stood.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 1:32:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Donith: Ross Perrot was in the race to get the Clintons elected. That in the race out of the race crap was due to fluctuating Clinton support. Perrot's campaign suckered in more republican votes than democratic. After the truth came out about Hillary's healthcare plan, it was shown that the greatest beneficiary would be Ross Perots medical companies. That man never wanted to be president.
View Quote
BTW, where was Perot from? You don't think that...
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 2:42:43 PM EDT
At some point in time if you want a third party candidate to win, you MUST be willing to sacrifice your happiness for at least 4 years in office. If you want to vote for a third party candidate, DO IT! Don't simply say "Well, a Democrat will win if I do, so I might as well just vote for the Republican." If you continue to have this attitude, then you will NEVER see your third party elected. NEVER. By voting for a third party candidate, you are sending a message to the GOP that you are willing to possibly live under 4 years of Democrat rule in order to get your reforms across. The GOP is NOT conservative anymore. What is one thing with domestic policy that the current administration has done in a conservative manner, aside from the tax cut? Spending is completely out of control with this administration. It just might be the right time to vote for a third party candidate. No, the third party won't win, but it may send the message to the GOP to shape up.
Top Top