Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Politics: What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
PODcast:

What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America?


ATS members from all walks of life would like to see a new political party rise to challenge the Dems and the GOP. What would it take, and how would it happen?






length: 09:47
file: ptspod_2391.mp3
size: 1146k
feed: pts
status: live (at time of posting)




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Libertarian party is probably the best bet...Only party of small government, low taxes (no income tax), and individual rights is a huge factor in the party.

Ron Paul, while he may be a 'Republican' candidate, is a libertarian at heart.

Along with Steven Colbert and others, these men/women are sacrificing their lives to protect our freedom...No they're not soldiers defending us from a 'foreign' created threat, but from inside our own country...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Justin...

It takes enough people to support said party and candidates which would run on the pary platform. To my knowledge, there is already a number of "third parties" from the Green Party to the Libertarians etc... With respect to getting on the ballot as a third-party candidate, there are some obstacles... but mostly revolving around garnering enough signatures on a petition by a certain deadline.

Really, in short, there is no magic to creating a third party. Ross Perot did it! Mostly it comes down to having enough supporters (aka donors) to keep the party afloat. This is probably the closest we've been to resurrecting a true third party since the early 1800s. People are fed up and are beginning to see through the Republican and Democrat BS - just look at the (dis)approval ratings.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
It has been said that managing a political party is a lot like hearding cats. I have spoken so the ledaers of four groups who call themselves 3rd parties. I've watched their web boards, and these guys and gals couldn't agree on what to have for lunch if there was only one item on the menu.

Raising a political party to national status involves more than just money. You're not merely opening branch offices in every State, you're forging a coalition that will (if it is successful) eventually develope institutional and bureaucratic momentum. All of these 3rd party operations are plagued with similar friction. chief among them would be the fact that their membership is so passionate that they don't just argue--they go to war.

When H. Ross Perot built his own political party, he brought in his people, and their pre-existing loyalty. Linden Larouche did the same thing. Rick Stanely, Cramer over at the Constitutional party, and so on...have failed to achieve even that much. the person or persons who lead a political party are doing more than being in charge. They are practicing the oldest form of leadership dynamics. They are forging an organization that rewards or punishes as needed.

What you and I think of as a third party, based on what we now see in the field, does not yet exist. the leadership, the traditions, and the branding that would go in to the foundation of a real political party would require a truly exceptional person with a dedicated inner circle to make it happen. It would be a life-long pursuit. Assuming that the torch could be passed, it would have to live long enough to belong to no single person.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The real problem lies in the fact that people are becoming more and more afraid to step outside the lines of conformity.
The current administration has seen to it that people have become afraid to challenge or become different in their choices.
It does take strong willed individuals with a belief in our constitution to stand up and fight for change, but the direction we are headed, you have to be willing to do more than stand up for your rights as a citizen of the U.S. you have to be willing to to be shut up in a prison camp never to be heard from again.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
PODcast:

What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America? (reply 1)


Why is a political party so complicated?






length: 10:00
file: ptspod_2396.mp3
size: 1173k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
it has been said that there is some luck involve in the creation of any social organization. This is particularly true of politicla parties. In certain respects, they are harder to begin than most conspiracies. That's because there is so much internal conflict.

"I want to be the leader."

"No, I want to be the leader."

"We should stand for [fill in the blank]."

"Man, that is really stupid. Who cares about that?"

Conspirators cut down on internal dissent by ruling with an iron hand. So too must any party leadership. that's easier said that done. Need an example? Look at today's Republican party. As I type this, the GOP is deeply divided...and they ARE a national-level party. As I have watched some of America's third parties in action, I've seen some of the most bitter in-fighting that you can imagine.

As with any hierarchical organization, a lot depends on the quality of leadership. the simple truth is that 'real' leaders are few and far between. Are they born, or are they made? This is a mystery that I've made some effort to explore in my published work. Until the right sequence of events and circumstances occur, Americans will not have the luxury of a 3rd party choice at the national level.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
My Mom was a leader in Move on, and she said pretty much the same thing. Interesting. I think the reason she even tried was because she wanted to see change in our political structure and thought that grass roots were the only way.
But like you say when there is so much internal conflict in these types of organizations it is just the same # different day. What is needed is the complete restructuring of our political goals and the vested interests are far to preoccupied in cover ups and hand outs to settle for moving into the 21st century.
I had a relative present at the signing of the Declaration, a witness, and to me this is what is needed, another consult of conscious beings representing the whole, to update and re-write, instead of the few privileged just blatantly shredding our Constitution and abolishing our freedoms while the public is harassed into believing this backwater agenda is "for our own good."
I suppose the final blow is possible if we move into a conflict with Iran, one I do not think will lead us into a safer Nation, rather it could be the ultimate finalization for the downfall of our way of life.
It would most certainly cause the insergents here in the U.S. to move out of the shadows and into the streets. If we were to experience the types of bombings that happen daily in the middle east, we would most defineatly be in a state of National Lockdown.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I'm not sure that a re-write of the Constitution is necessary. In very broad historical terms, all power structures rot over time. The people at the top eventually stay at the top because they figured out how to keep therest down. In our case, the civic virtues which once motivated public service have evaporated. the men ans women who spend their entire lives scrabbling to reach the top see it as their just reward to stay there.

Having said all this, I'd like to point out that political change is still possible. It's hard, and as I have suggested all along, it would be a life-long pursuit. It has taken decades for corruption to do as far as it has. It would take decades of reform to turn the tide and reserves the rot that has already set it. Having said that, we need to acknowledge that there is a school of thought out there that says we'll get our chance to make things right soon enough...because...the system can't take much more rot.

I rarely get asked to run for office, but I do get my brain picked for political strategy more often than I will admit. Most of the time, the questions put to me are asked by people trying to game the system. Every now and then, I get questions from people who just want to do it right. Politics really is an art, and there are few really good practicioners.

How do you beat the in-fighting that goes on in so many of these organizations? It is possible. The odds are long, but it could be done. The short answer isthat you've got to develope a unified strategy. You and your inner circle need to control the cash flow, and command the loyalties of the people who make up your chain of command. The rules are whatever you say they are, and they must be enforced without exception. If your organization lives long enough, it developes the trends and traditions that will outlive you.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Justin I used to believe that the political agenda was only decades old but after reading the Catholic archives I decided that it is much more corrupt and even yes sinister than I had first suspected. It is deeply enmeshed in thousands of years of solid plans by the same families that were controlling the masses then and now.
What I find most disturbing is that the same families that have been voting the Popes into service are also the same families of the ultimate collegic vote of our presidents.
The plan has in a sense come full circle from the last era of the crusades. We find that if history repeats its self, then it is a total rewrite of our goals in a unified way that is needed to insure change for the betterment of our planet. We can no longer be so vein as to think that we can continue to be divided in political parties of the past, they have never served us in an enlightened way. I am not suggesting Communism, but a reorganization and restructuring of our future is needed. It will have to begin at the deepest levels of government to exact any real change. It is the same politicians and religious leaders that have delivered us to this threshhold in history that need to be retired to the old and a new completly new plan needs to be the path to the new Golden Future.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Thinking about this question makes me wonder if it will take another civil war to usurp the current gov. body and to establish a new state? Would it be then necessary to create smaller governmental bodies that function more independently from the main branch? It is already happening in small ways by the individual states.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I think it may take a revolt to put things back on track, but I doubt that a full-on civil war would be necessary. I'm not holding my breath in the hopes that such will happen. I sincerely hope that we can choose ballots over bullets, but I'm a realist. The trend I have identified strongly suggests tht our leaders will have to go too far before we can begin that process of mending and reconstruction. The ATS uploading for podcasts is off-line just now. When they bring it back, I'll have more audio material for you.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Justin...

It takes enough people to support said party and candidates which would run on the pary platform. To my knowledge, there is already a number of "third parties" from the Green Party to the Libertarians etc... With respect to getting on the ballot as a third-party candidate, there are some obstacles... but mostly revolving around garnering enough signatures on a petition by a certain deadline.

Really, in short, there is no magic to creating a third party. Ross Perot did it! Mostly it comes down to having enough supporters (aka donors) to keep the party afloat. This is probably the closest we've been to resurrecting a true third party since the early 1800s. People are fed up and are beginning to see through the Republican and Democrat BS - just look at the (dis)approval ratings.



i completely agree with this posters position.

creating a 3rd party is one thing...........
but garning the vote is the main obstacle...& that is in essence your question...

hitler made an obscure fringe party a nation's motivating force, & the nation's heart & soul- > for a time...

the mechanics are there in the historical record,
do you(or any one else) have the heart & desire to create a controlling
3rd Party ?!?

[edit on 10-7-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I've got a new podcast locked and loaded to answer that, but the upload option is not available just now. When it is, I will post it. This is a good question,and it deserves and answer and more debate.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I just dont think it rests entirely on the amount of financial backing one recieves. Look at your example of Ross Perot, he had all the money at his disposal and quite an influencial list of contributors to boot and he never even came close. Money can only take you so far.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Heh! I like how you pointed out that a political party, by necessity, has to start small...Likened to a new conspiracy group. It lends a whole new level of truth to the following quote:


Source: The Real History of the Rosicrucians--Arthur Edward Waite

"Beneath the broad tide of human history there flow the stealthy undercurrents of the secret societies, which frequently determine in the depths the changes that take place on the surface."

When compared to the two major political parties in the US, they carry all of the organization & secrecy necessary to be Conspiratorial Groups in their own right. There's the "party leaders" who work out strategies & pass on only the "need to know" to their lessers, who carry out the tasks that put the leaders in braoder & firmer control of the nation.

This calls for another quote:


Source: Proofs of a Conspiracy--John Robinson

"The pupils (of the Illuminati) are convinced that the order will rule the world. Every member therfore becomes a ruler."

Now let's look at the Republicans & the Democrats...
Both parties want to acheive absolute control over the US, but they're applying different idealologies to carry out their dominance; the liberals want everybody to either work directly to support the Government (by making everybody maintain myriad "social programs" through excessive taxation) while the conservatives just want to over-regulate society & the law structure so that everybody will just "carry out orders" without applying any critical thinking about those orders (basically, ruling over a nation of obediant robots).

This is the biggest source of friction between the two parties, from the top all of the way down to the lowest Citizen who supports their party. This "friction" is commonly referred to as "bi-partisanship."

So, all things considered, the Republicans & Democrats are the two biggest "Conspiracy Groups" in the US! And the whole of the Citizen Body is nearly at each other's throats over the differing "political loyalties!"

Needless to say, both parties see the Constitution as a threat to their paths to dominance, which is why both parties have been trampling on the Constitution since before the ink dried on it. So far, it's been the Bush Administration that has done the most damage in the shortest period of time.

The reason that the Constitution is a threat to them is because it's a short (the entire body of text is contained on just a few pages), concise body of laws & (more importantly limitations on the Government's power. Just as God's Ten Commandments are short & concise while laying the foundation on "civilized behavior," the Constitution sets the groundwork for ensuring Human Rights while keeping the Government itself limited to enforcing those Rights & preventing anarchy.

While the political parties, as a matter of public record, have been stealing those Rights & promoting limited anarchy (if they pushed for total anarchy, they'd lose control).

[edit on 12-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I'm glad you like the conspiracy angle. I took some flak from the critics when I made that point in my published work, but as you have so nicely pointed out...I'm not wrong. As soon as the podcast upload option is back, I will have two installments for you.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I have u2'd quite a few people about the matter of the podcast upload, and nobody has gotten back to me. We'll see what happens on Monday.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Hmmm...If you're referring to 2 new Pcasts, I haven't been able to find them, assuming that I must be looking in the wrong place.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
PODcast:

What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America? (reply 2)


Reply to Justin Oldham's podcast on 3rd party in US politics






length: 08:31
file: atscpod_2417.mp3
size: 7989k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join