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.

 

Democrats or Republicans or do we need a third choice ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Democrats or Republicans or do we need a third choice ?

Why is there a taboo in American politics for a 3rd or 4th party ?

We have a history of dozens of political parties over the last 230years or so.

The Republicans and Democrats act like they are the only game in town . And historically they are the came from the same party Democratic-Republican Party as they were named in the 1790s . And they were in opposition to the Federalist Party

law.jrank.org...


The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Jefferson and his followers favored states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They believed that a powerful central government posed a threat to individual liberties. They viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest



As I see the Democratic party they have long since left this interpretation of the Republic .


Virtually all the leading political figures of the new country, starting with Washington, believed that political parties would polarize citizens and paralyze government.



Funny how we have come to embrace the very thing Washington and other great leaders were afraid of .

The Demo /repub party split to the Democratic party and National Republican party then became the Whig party .

And the federalist gradually faded into history .


The whig then flourished for a short term then fractured the result was the republican party of today .


The republican party gain success opposing the Kansas and Nebraska act which would allow slavery into Kansas and not Nebraska And the Democrats supported the act . The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "republicanism" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.


en.wikipedia.org...

During this time there were a few remarks that seem to linked democrats to slavery that the nicknamed them as Slavocrats

books.google.com... rylOJTOtAPh0ZztAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA398,M1


The slaveholders for many years had worked with the Democratic party. The consequence was that, to secure the unanimous slave section, the Democratic party gradually relinquished all its fundamental principles, and became an association for the propagation and extension of slavery and the annihilation of the safeguards of liberty. The consequence of this in turn was, that as the party left its principles the best


www.sonofthesouth.net...



The new Republican Party was formed largely around opposition to the westward expansion of slavery. Many prominent Republicans, such as William Seward and Abraham Lincoln, had publicly expressed their moral opposition to slavery.Taking advantage of the Republican Party's association with anti-slavery sentiment, Democrats charged the Republicans with advocating racial equality. Republican leaders knew that the party could never win a majority if it were associated with such radical ideas, so it frequently couched its opposition to the expansion of slavery in terms of a commitment to the welfare of white workers. In response, the Democratic Party argued that the welfare of white workers depended not upon the limitation but upon the preservation of slavery. Any moves to weaken slavery would result in a decrease of white workers' economic and political power, because it would bring free black workers into wage competition with whites. This position allowed Democrats to appeal to both northerners and southerners, and thus allowed it to remain a strong political force.


www2.vcdh.virginia.edu...

Ironic the party that upheld slavery is the first party to have a minority president . And the party that opposed slavery is now branded as racist .

To read threw history on the political parties on their platforms they have moved back and forth left to right swapping places . when a party says it needs to get back to its roots what are thier roots ?

After reading the policies of the political parties over the last 230 years I have come to the firm conclusion

both parties are choosing platforms more for their continued popularity and power rather than for the good of Republic and the American people.

I would say force one of our present 2 parties to Put Americans and the constitution first but I feel that is a lost cause .

As the American people we need to Embrace a 3rd party that puts the American people and the Us constitution First. Candidates who put the core values of the USA and constitution and its people above all else .


Virtually all the leading political figures of the new country, starting with Washington, believed that political parties would polarize citizens and paralyze government.


I love that quote it seems so prophetic and so true on what has been going on in the halls of congress for way too many years.




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Lostinthedarkness
 


Having only two party choices is like choosing which side of a pick axe you want to be killed with.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
It's kind of messed up. When I registered to vote, I wanted to register as Green, because I felt more closely tied to that party. But everyone said "Don't do that, because come primary time you will be sorry when your vote really doesn't help the democratic or republican candidate that you would rather see in office, because one of them will win."

So I registered Democrat.

But I think it's wrong that you can only vote for the candidate of the party that you are registered with, and that it takes awhile to switch parties. It's kind of unfair. You should be able to vote for who you prefer, end of story.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I am a registered Libertarian and I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 Election. I am from the state California which would go to Obama unless he had no chance of winning anyways. So I felt the only logical choice was to vote 3rd party because even if I voted republican the states votes would go for Obama. Anyone in a permanently Blue or Red state has no reason not to vote 3rd party. And in swing states with a close race votes for third party really only need to grab like 34% of the vote to have a good chance at winning.

That being said I think we are in a time of Party Realignment. Because there is no small government/constitutional party anymore. And that is essentially what America is and what most people want out of the government. Now whether the Republicans will fix their party or if the Libertarian Party will take over is all up to the voters.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
How bout NO parties? How bout the AMERICAN party? Can't we all just label ourselves as "AMERICANS" and work towards a common goal of preserving our great nation and the things that it stands for? Can't we remove ourselves from "teams" and all get on the same side, the American side?

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Diplomat]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
We need a Conservative Party where liberals and part-time liberals cannot hide as "Republicans."

The Republican Party had it's chance, and tossed it away.

Sometimes you gotta get rid of the old clunker and get some new wheels.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


No parties I think is what G.Washington had in mind and some other figures in those days.

I believe the way our current 2 party system is working now the average Joe really does not have a chance in the political arena unless he or she gets backing from a PAC and the media . Which leads them to favoring the PACs agenda and the medias agenda .



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Will Republicans start following the values from when they were created . Heck if the Democrats would follow the ideas they had when they were created we wouldnt be in the fix we are in now


Jefferson and his followers favored states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They believed that a powerful central government posed a threat to individual liberties. They viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest


Before the split they both believed in these values .



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Well we do have lots of parties. The problem is that they never get any coverage. I think the "debates" should put all parties on public display. Would make for a long debate, but we would get some idea of what they are about.

Here is a list of fielded parties with candidates -

Democrat
Republican
Constitution Party
Green Party of the United States
Libertarian Party
America First Party
American Party
American Independent Party
American Nazi Party
American Reform Party
Boston Tea Party
Christian Falangist Party of America
Communist Party USA
Democratic Socialist of America
Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women
The Greens / Green Party USA
Independence Party
Independent American Party
Labor Party
Light Party
Moderate Party
National Socialist Movement
Natural Law Party
New Union Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party
Prohibition Party
Reform Party
Social Democratic Party of America / Social Democrats USA
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Action
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Workers Party
U.S. Marijuana Party

U.S. Pacifist party
Veterans Party of America
Workers World Party
Working Families Party




[edit on 12-5-2009 by timewalker]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by timewalker
 


That is a good list of alternative parties . But when the time comes to register or vote the Media and the big 2 make it sound like if you chose any thing out side of the big 2 you are throwing away your vote or worse helping the other side to win by not voting for one of the big 2.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by timewalker
 


There is only two parties. Untill the election laws are fixed, or 'un-fixed' as the case is, so that all parties can get on the ballot without continually having to 'qualify' (which the Republican and Democrat parties do not need to do), effectively there is only two parties.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I really want to say so much on this thread but no matter what I say or anybody else we will never change the situation. We are here because we wanted change but the change we get will be just like all the other changes we've gotten through the decades. We are here because we depend on others to help us along our journey. We are here because of government schooling that was never meant to enlighten our future but to only make us aware of the things we need to do like pay taxes, be good citizens and to learn enough to make the elite wealthy. Will anyone stand up and say " NO " to government schools and that we the " parents " know better than a few elite do? Can we gather enough will to say no to both parties and end this ridiculous scam that we know better than you? Can we say " NO!" to you and yes to him or her without all the spending of money to run a commercial or to travel the world? If you take all the money that was raised to elect a president we would of solved the world deficient and helped the third world catch up and children would have never starved.

As far as party goes, I say the HELL with all of them and invite someone who gives a crap about this country ( America ) and the rest of the world. There should never be a hungry human being anywhere in this world with our food manufacturing processes and our technology. No one wants to admit it but I see it everyday when food gets tossed out and left on dinner tables around the world. I want to see a man or woman black, white, red, brown, yellow, it doesn't matter. I want to see that person stand up and say I run for this leadership position because a care. I run for the President of the United States under "NO " party but the human race.

I know it's a long shot but until then the government can kiss my " where the sun doesn't shine " !



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The debates used to be controlled by the League of Women Voters, who were supposed to be non-partisan. This is why you used to see people like Ross Perot allowed in the debates.

But the League of Women Voters gave up their control of the debates to guess who? The Republicans and Democrats. Here is the League of Women Voters official statement:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 
This is when things went down hill


Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.


Diplomat you beat me to the punch



[edit on 12-5-2009 by timewalker]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


You have good points there . One problem with the worlds people going hungry is many of these countries divert the aid from those who need it to the people in power in the poor country . The next is The corporations many times are a stumbling block for advancement of poor people .

Our schools I believe are designed to produce complacent tax paying factory workers with little critical thinking skills .

In a perfect world no one would go hungry or be miss treated .

I cant change the world but I hope we can change our own little corner of it first .

The political game needs to be cleaned up before we can get any real change out of our government.

It really would be great to see a presidential candidate just for the people not and party or special interest just the people and the constitution



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The debates are a joke when only the big 2 are really involved . Dr Paul wasn't given a fair shake nor were any of the 3rd party candidates. If they were not in the medias favor the only thing you heard about the rest they were kooks or fringe . Backed by crazies .

Some non mainstream had some good ideas and thought which should have been debated .



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Ron Paul has some very intelligent things to say about this issue, from the Third Party Press Conference that he hosted with Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin:



He drops a Carroll Quigley quote that is the key to understanding this entire issue.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join