It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Folks...NOW is the time for a Third Party.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
To clarify, public opinion polls indicate a number of things, but here of late, they have been indicating that public opinion of the Republican and Democrat parties is on the decline.

I am of the opinion that NOW is the time for all Third parties to get their collective acts together and find a viable 2008 Presidential candidate. Remember that Ross Perot held a lead in the polls when he was a Third Party Independent candidate and option when he ran against Clinton and Bush 41.

Maybe the time is right?
Maybe the time is NOW?






seekerof




posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The time is now, more than you know.

I've never heard this much chatter regarding third parties before. "We the People" are tired of our Constitution being trampled on at the whims of the two major parties and their special interests.

There are many third parties to choose from - do the research. Just be wary of the ones that focus on one issue as the main plank in their platform - such as environment. A viable third party should have a stance on every issue that faces our Country.

The Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party, are both very good choices.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well....make no qualms about it, I generally vote for the Independent Party. In my honest opinion, both Democrats and Republicans have destroyed a once great nation. Ross Perot tried to warn us in 1992 what NAFTA would do to the U.S,the people didn't want to hear it. Now they hear and see all too clearly what Perot was trying to get across. I'd be all for a Third Party Administration.

However, as long as the two major parties control the money,it doesn't seem likely a Third Party candidate will ever be elected. You know what they say, "Money talks."

[edit on 11-3-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
With as much political weight as the Republicans and Democrats have, would a third-party candidate be able to make a difference in Congress?

Those around me that claim membership in the Green Party or (insert alternative party affiliation here) seem to be scoffed at or at least not taken seriously because they are not part of "mainstream politics". And yes, I understand that they cannot expand their role in national politics unless they are given the opportunity to serve in Congress and promote their ideals.

I agree that it is time for a third party to come forward, but I am not sure that they would be allowed to by the two main parties.

JDub



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Of course, it is an uphill battle for the 3rd parties, as the dems and reps have (unconstitutionally) changed election laws and financing to make it so.

And, beings the Supreme Court is unwilling to take a proactive stance in regards to Constitutional violations such as "Campaign Finance Reform", it will be up to us to bring this behavior under control.

Just sitting back and saying, "Oh well, the cards are stacked against us." isn't going to get anything done.

[edit on 3/11/06 by VeeTwin60]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This is probably as bad a time as any for a third party to form, no Seekerof? Look at how they have done well in the past. The Anti-Masonic Party was able to rally support through demagogery and a few critical issues, but that only got it success for local and state elections. No Third Party now seems to be interested in that, they all want national results. Or look at the Bull Moose Party, that was largely successful because of Roosevelt's backing, but I don't see any widely popular person taking over any Third Party.

Also, look at the two "big" names in third partys today, the REform party and the libertarian party. The reform party was utterly destroyed , with Buchannan splitting it, and a large number of its members moving to the Natural Law party, a swamiist "maharishi school of politics" type of party. And buchannan doesn't seem to be interested in reviving the reform ticket. Then we have the libertarians, who seem to be saying everything that people don't want, people want a large, intrusive, interfereing and expensive government.

We also have the green party, but this is little more than a one plank platform, that is environmentalism, and the public just doesn't care.

On the other hand, the European Green party seems more like it could work in the US, and at least it has a history of getting invovlved in local and provincial governments, rather than wasting time on things like presidential elections.

Another issue is, what woudl a third party advocate? Usually, a third party would have to engage in demagogery and populism, so something like chavez's anti-american platform could possible work, especially if it was presented as 'anti-globalism'. THe american public likes capitalism, more or less, but isn't happywith globalism (which, of course, is contradictory). There are also some severe shocks that are about to happen to the american public, wrt economics, so possibly and anti-globalist, protectionist, nationalist sort of party could make some headway. Interestingly, with the widespread support in the US for big government and social programs, any socializing might also be big, so we have that old combination of nationalism and socialism that might stand a chance of being the 'next big thing'. Considering that we just rejected a major ports deal entirely based upon the race of the buyers, and that there is a near panic over foreigners comming over 'our' borders, this mix is already starting to look familiar.


BUt that is probably something of an exxageration.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I agree with you, seekerof. Probably not in the details, but certainly generally. I think the Libertarian Party would have the best chance and I'd vote for whomever they ran.

But unfortunately the major teams (uh... I mean parties) have such loyal fans (uh... I mean followers) that it probably doesn't matter who we vote for. For the first time in ages, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. It hardly matters when at least one of the parties owns the voting machines.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It does matter though. Change isn't going to happen overnight, but it has to start somewhere.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What about a technocrat party, where the platform was "whatever the best science says" on almost any issue...

Science and knowledge should be the first consultant for any issue, but rarely are considered... which leads us to where we are today...

It is an environment, progressive, libertarian, reform party all wrapped into one...

Of course, it hasn't been heard of yet, so

LazarusTheLong for Technocrat Party Candidate

hand me them babies... and after applying a antiseptic solution to their little cheeks, I give them a clean closed mouth peck...

first thing we change: campaign donation reform...
second thing: fix unequal school funding... it WILL be the great equalizer of the future.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
What about a technocrat party, where the platform was "whatever the best science says" on almost any issue...

This is essential what the european green party is about (different from the two american green parties).



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I live some-where with a Tri-Party System, it doesn't help at all. It just will cause more divide and leave the same people in power. Those with the money to fund political parties are the ones who gain - no amount of parties will change this.

Until people can have a say, in what is happening directly the same problems will occur. The rich will still be able to buy the election, the poor and middle class will still be slapped in the face by Big Business and the Government.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
lets address some of that shall we?

one person- one vote is the only way American can undue much of the damage that our corrupt political process caused.

it takes away the gerrymandering tricks, and gives the democratic process a chance...
I once saw a district that reminded me of an inkblot test...
if it wasn't for the one road that connected them, it would look like the polyponesian islands...
can you guess what race the representitive was? (not black)
give you a hint... it was in california...

it showed to anyone with eyes, the extreme tricks politicians will go thru to keep power, when they haven't earned the vote of the majority...

truly, i think we have been lucky that all this corruption and vote stealing has usually contradicted itself so that the damage was minimal...

We no longer have an equal party system...
in the lack of that, we need several, that are willing to work together on issues. Europe has already "gone there" and survived, and so can we...

democrats or republicans... equally corrupt. (not all, but most)

we need to do this while there are still enough fair players in the Senate and House to support a third, fourth and fifth party

[edit on 29-3-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
As I see it, the only solution to the deterioating spiral of alternating blue-red governments is proportional representation. It was one of Blair's campaign promises and of course he renaged on it.

The fact is that a two party system is the easiest to manipulate by a higher force. Germany and France have proportional representation, and whether you like thier systems or not, they are more democratic.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I agree with sekerof that now is the time. But I just don't see how a third party can be successful on a national scale without having sufficient local recognition of the party and the candidates. Which means that the difficult step of getting enough local and state candidates in office needs to be accomplished first. Agreed?

As far as the technocrat party, while it may logically be the best answer, I think that organized religion is far too powerful to rely on science only. How will you react when they start throwing gay marriage and abortion types of issues at you?

[edit on 23-4-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I agree Seekerof that a third party is needed and even a fourth or fifth the more the better and less power for the elite two.

But as anything in our nation Money is a big factor we are living in an illusion when it comes to our political make over and what the constitution is all about.

Is nothing but a dream, corporate America rules and they also dictate who gets in power and what parties are allowed.

Is only two parties recognized in the elite groups of corporate control and they will make sure that they will remain the only ones.

Sad but that is the truth but they have what it takes to do it and that is money and lost of it to burn at will

Have We the people lost our nation?

Yes we had, to corporate greed, control capitalism and foreign investments that also pay for our politicians in Washington.

Pity.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
A lot of "they will still be the same" type opinions here ... makes one wonder just how much power "they" should have.

Let’s remember here that we are not a Democracy, we are republic, or democratic republic if you prefer. We should not be choosing our leadership based on who will make the best (biggest) changes, but on who will uphold the law that has been in place over 200 years.

A government that is legit (meaning one that only takes action to protect you when you actually need protecting instead of governing you) should be so transparent that it hardly matters who is elected.

The POTUS should be an up keeper, not a policy maker.

We had our policy makers two centuries ago, and they gave us all that we needed in one small document. That document created the US. So it would seem that the US (with all our "policy changes and unconstitutional laws) does not actually like the US. So just who, or what, the hell are we then?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
There are some good points in your post, cavscout, but we still need to handle all the new issues that come up, that the Founding Fathers never anticipated. Like eavesdropping in the electronic age, or stem cell research.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
If it werent for my experience in the last presidential election I would be inclined to agree that the LP is ready to get some real progress done. The fact is that we don't need another political party, in reality we need the abolishment and disbanding of the current political parties. Parties are not an answer, they are merely a way for power to be collected and manipulated in a much easier fashion. Imagine a country where each politician was on their own with no backing from any party! They would have to actually convince the people to pick them instead of using party money to drag oppopnents through the mud. Or one where they werent afriad of loosing party backing by having a different oppinion? Where a presidential candidate had to make a name for himself(or herself) on their own without being propped up by some party who wants someone who suits their needs.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Third party?? They would gun you down before the finals ever got around to happening. You require allot of funding and it wont be there in this event, the media will laugh at you and never report your ratings.
Ok screw it, no one bothers to listen.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Any third party will need to own-obtain it’s own media. ATS could do it just because of its news section. The way to do it is to put a great deal of money into non-intrusive news distributation. I might actually buy a publication if I knew some money from it was going towards a political party, and if I supported the goals of that party, and got some interest-entertainment from that product.
The people will care about things like green issues if you own a private popular media capable of mobilising their support. Fox News actually does exactly the same but for opposite reasons. Fox is profitable, private, popular (but highly political), highly biased and very pro establishment. All in all the concept is the same.

A political party with its own expanding media would have many benefits. First the political party would compensate the media for its bias with direct financial investment-subsidy (even to the point of hard call members volunteering for free). This would make the political media highly competitive. If both party and media are non-profit organisations then that's a double bonus.
Party would benefit from a spectrum of free advertising. And to spread its circulation and popularity it will have no choice but to be consumer based with its political outlook. This is good; this is like applying the concepts of business to being democratically representative. Making your only corruption to be democratically representative (whilst for reputations sake avoiding the temptation of being too popularist).

The mainstream media is by the way very corrupt. Few too people owning too much with too much political influence. This problem still seems to be getting worse. Never ever be held hostage by these people. Vulnerability sells a political party to history.



new topics




 
0

log in

join