If you factor out how much they actually count for in the end, I say they get enough coverage. Should we talk about them in an even time frame? It would be a waste of time to the serious parties.

All political parties suck equally.

Well, all I can say is that it can be done. Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote in 1992, and that is a lot of votes.

What's the difference between then and now? Maybe today's third party candidates don't have an urgent message, though the fodder is certainly out there. Maybe it's in the delivery.

Anywhere else, yes. There are more than two parties that are always elected everywhere but in US.

"Forgetaboutit".

See, its easier to hold on to power if you have to lobby just two instead 5 strong parties.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
I think it's time for ATS members to see the media for the farce that it is, if they haven't already. In designating one part of it to support the democrats and the other the republicans, they have proven that (if left up to them) they will never allow any other political party to have any chance in U.S. politics.

Where is the unbiased portrayal of ALL POLITICAL PARTIES? When are the Libertrarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Independent parties' candidates going to be covered in the mainstream media?

WHERE IS THE FAIR MEDIA COVERAGE?

When HELL freezes over and then some. America is a 2 Party System country. Why don't we just get rid of POLITICAL PARTIES all together. Candidates should represent the PEOPLE not POLITICAL PARTIES and that would end PARTISAN politics.

I agree. I was interested in voting for Ron Paul, but when it looked like he wasn't running anymore I switched to Chuck Baldwin because his platform is almost identical to Ron Pauls (without the support for hemp maybe.)

My mom asked me what I think of Sarah Palin. I said, "she is great, but I'm still not voting for McCain, I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin". She said, "who is that? Never heard of him". Yeah, of course not, because unless you get online and research your options, you will only hear about the Republicans and Democrats. Ok, maybe a tiny bit about Nadar and Barr, but that is it.

I posted in another thread about Chuck Baldwin vs writing in Ron Paul. Alot of people are going to stick with writing in Ron Paul. The Montana Constitution party has replaced Chuck Baldwin's name with Ron Paul on the ballot now. Interestingly enough, I am starting to think that maybe writing in Ron Paul's name, is not such a bad idea after all. If enough people do it, we could overthrow the two party system after all. (Of course, I think Bush will attack Iran and declare Martial law before November anyway so it wont matter. Just for the record, I'm fairly new at wearing the tin foil hat!)

edited for spelling

[edit on 6-9-2008 by wendyworn]

It was in my youth that I obtained my first shortwave set. Stringing an olde copper wire antenna out to the tree in the back yard was to give me hours and hours of listening pleasure in foreign broadcasts ..when they transmitted in English. What I began to realize in this is how big a paper curtain there was over the United States and how little news and information was allowed to get into Americans.
I don't think this has changed much with today's media. Pretty much the same thing. The desktop and laptop computers, with some skill applied, can get us more information. It is a wonderful thing as long as one knows the character of the sources one is reading or viewing.

It has become obvious to me that the two party system is a farce...spoon fed to us to keep us satisfied. It is a placebo to give the illusion that we really change things. Election after election little seems to change.
What the media does is shill for these two parties...never changing things ...and attempt to get us to believe in change...enough to continue pulling the correct levers and pushing the right buttons.

It is only on threads like ATS/BTS/PTS that I see people beginning to question this status and also people who are grasping the idea that the system is one of sugar pills...placebos..not real results.

Someone on page 1 mentioned the Federal Reserve System. I agree. This is one of the sore points of people like Ron Paul. I have known about this for over 20 years. IF you want to keep a government in its place and doing the people's business..keep them broke. Keep them within budget.
This is limited government. Not so with the farce we currently have.

In previous elections I liked what Alan Keyes was saying. I wanted to hear more but the media stopped covering him back then. As I recall the history they would not even allow him into the conventions after a certain point. This clearly indicated to me how much of a rigged show it actually is. I have seen this same fingerprint happening at union meetings.

The two party system has become to me the selling and bartering of the souls of the American People between two sugar pills. The democrat and republican parties. I have lost faith with both of them.

I do not put much stock in all the hoopla about this Woman Vice Presidential candidate. I am of the opinion it will be more of the same thing as before. In like manner I don't put much stock in Obama's camp.
I say this simply because of the nature of a government with the ability "unlimited" to create moneys on accounts and "steal" by deficit spending on the backs of the American Taxpayer....you and me.
No Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate can or will change this system in operation.

By stealing the production of this country by phony deficit spending...the government can outbid us in the very marketplace we work to sustain. We must survive off of what is left after the government has already months before removed goods and services from this same marketplace.

This is a view and knowledge no media will attempt to cover in truth...what is really happening. This is why nothing will change.
Until the government can be made to operate within budget and not be able to expand their budget..unlimited...the power of the media in like manner will continue to be the same...covering and hiding for the two party placebo system. Playing "gotcha " politics with the public caught in the middle.

No third, forth or fifth party candidate will be allowed to enter this controlled. fray...
No third party ideas or questions will be allowed to enter this controlled fray.

Thanks,
Orangetom

the last few election cycles....
there has been low key coverage of a couple of the 'other' parties
on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2... their conventions are usually in a hotel
sized meeting/conference hall, very low key...
Libertarians are almost always covered, the Green Party is off & on in my experience.

To be fair.... the fringe party coverage isn't announced or promoted very much at all, in fact one has to be a pretty regular viewer of the C-SPAN networks to know when to tune in.


i will once again cast my vote for Ralph...
he's been wanting to clean up our political house of the creeping corporate-fascism for years now...
and now both main stream party puppets want to give the Federal Reserve a status equal to presidental cabinet appointees
& the keys to the banks & mortgage industry,
while 'guiding' the insurance Industry & bond/ratings Agencies & the Treasury too.

Nader is (as i see it) our last & final hope!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


whoa... looking at my points total; there is a symmerty there,
likely in accord with the post content...a well balanced sequence of numbers 32 1 32... there is a 32 on each side of the wall

[edit on 6-9-2008 by St Udio]

Didn't you forget the American Nazi Party, the KKK, Aryan Nations, and other extreme political views?

The media covers, mostly, what the great majority of people want to see, and know about. There is no media bias, in my opinion, when ignoring the thousands of fringe political parties, and movements, that exist in America. These parties have, at best, a few thousand supporters, and are thus rightly ignored.

I am that if Ron Paul, or any other major political actor, where to form a party, or movement, and present nationwide candidates, they would get media coverage.
The proof is in the Presidential race launched by Ross Perot, in the 1992 election. He got as much media coverage as the other candidates.

Or are you suggesting that the American Nazi Party's Candidate receive as much coverage, and airtime, as the candidates, from the major Parties?

With the advent of satilite and cable tv, there are enough channels out there to cover all of the politidal parties. I agree that the MSM screwed Ron Paul by not covering him, and by not allowing him to participate in all of the debates.
However, BBC-America broadcasts a news program called Democracy Now, which seems to be an alternative news program, putting a different slant on the news. If the producers of this program really are interested in true democracy, then perhaps they could arrange to cover the alternative candidates during the next electiion cycle. If they put forth the effort to advertise and cover the conventions of these alternative parties, perhaps the MSM would fall into place.
Not that I think this is going to happen. Democracy Now seems to have it's on agenda.
Just my $.02 worth.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
I think it's time for ATS members to see the media for the farce that it is, if they haven't already. In designating one part of it to support the democrats and the other the republicans, they have proven that (if left up to them) they will never allow any other political party to have any chance in U.S. politics.

Where is the unbiased portrayal of ALL POLITICAL PARTIES? When are the Libertrarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Independent parties' candidates going to be covered in the mainstream media?

WHERE IS THE FAIR MEDIA COVERAGE?

, That's not how this game is played.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a classic Catch-22: the MSM don't want to cover the other parties because there isn't enough interest (hence poor ratings/circulation), and there isn't enough interest because the MSM don't cover them.

Originally posted by matttheratt

Maybe not, but that would then indicate that certain people at the top are deliberately acting in unison to prevent people from hearing certain ideas.

Exactly. I think they have to much to loose if if they allow certain ideas to be heard out in the open.