The last time a third party candidate was President of the United States....

The last time that a third party (neither a Democrat nor a Republican) was president of the United States of America was in the year 1850. This persons name was Millard Fillmore. He was Vice president to President Zachary Taylor. When president Taylor died (suddenly) Fillmore took over. Both Fillmore and Taylor ran under the Whig party.

The interesting thing is that the last time that a third party was President was the fact that the Vice President Fillmore was actually a member of the Anti-Masonic Party. Fillmore first ran under the Anti-Masonic party.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The Anti-Masonic Party (also known as the Anti-Masonic Movement) was the first "third party" in the United States. It strongly opposed Freemasonry."

Strange how after we have an Anti-Masonic president we have never again seen a third party President of the United States.

162 years with a two party system. Does this have anything to do with the Anti-masonic party and the deep roots grown by Masons into every facet of business, politics and religion?

Is it simply a coincidence that the last time a third party was president of the United States that he was Anti-Masonic?

Or is there something more to this?

I will not tell you what to believe, I will only show you some interesting facts and puzzle pieces. How you arrange them and into what picture is up to you and ONLY you to decide for yourself.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


The bloods (reps.) and crips (dems) fight hard for their turf. With SOO much money now involved in politics we won't see a third party again, I'm afraid...

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


A lot of the masons I know would gladly vote for Ron Paul under a third party.

Before you can prove masonry had anything at all to do with the destruction of the third party system, you need to prove how masonry is controlled. Since I know the answer, it will be fun to see what you come up with.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


I'll give you another one to think about…

There have been 14 Presidents of the United States who have been Master Masons (and LBJ, who left Freemasonry after only getting the first degree.)

You say the last 3rd party president was a VP who took office after the President died, and that VP was a member of the Anti-Masonic Party.

Just for curiosity's sake:

Ford, Master Mason, became US Pres. after being vice president when Nixon resigned.
Lyndon B. Johnson, Entered Apprentice Mason, became US Pres. after being vice president when Kennedy was shot.
Truman, Master Mason, served as vice president under FDR and became president when FDR died. (He was elected to a 2nd term, coming from behind to beat Dewey).
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Master Mason, elected to office, died in office
Harding, Master Mason, elected to office
Taft, Master Mason, elected to office
Teddy Roosevelt, Master Mason, served as vice president under McKinley and became president when McKinley was shot.
McKinley, Master Mason, elected to office, died in office
Garfield, Master Mason, elected to office, died in office
Andrew Johnson, Master Mason, served as vice president under Lincoln and became president when Lincoln was shot.
Buchanan, Master Mason, elected to office.
Polk, Master Mason, elected to office.
Andrew Jackson, Master Mason, elected to office.
Monroe, Master Mason, elected to office.
Washington, Master Mason, elected to office.

So, of the 15 presidents who have been affiliated with Masonry, 5 made it from VP to Pres. after the president they were serving under died or resigned (and three died in office themselves.)

Just to fuel any conspiracy theories you might have…

reply to post by network dude

I plan on writing him in, but if he were to take a 3rd party endorsement, I'd run with that party.

You said you stated facts, but the only fact you stated was that (edit) Millard Fillmore was a third party President from the Anti-Masonic party.

We don't (and can't) discuss politics in lodge, but I can tell you that discussing these subjects with my brothers in every day life that you would find a LARGE AMOUNT of support for third party candidates.

---my opinion below---

Going by the masonic principles as I interpret them, and my own beliefs, I think you would find a lot of support for direct/pure democracy from masons, than support for this stupid fraudulent electoral college.

Inferring, however, that the failure of the Anti-Masonic party and a total lack of compelling leadership from Taylor resulted in some sort of two-party agenda by masons is a total non-sequitor.

Using Freemasonry to affect politics or political processes is not allowed and any Mason that used his "status" as a Freemason for political purposes would be suspended and brought up on Masonic Charges.

We are directed to be peaceful citizens who cheerfully obey the nation's laws where we live.

Freemasonry is completely unconcerned with temporal 'government'. The political agendas of dishonest politicians do not affect the Work we are obliged to complete. Our work will not be complete and ready to be evaluated until we are dead.

At that point we won't be subject to any government of man.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DirectDemocracy

 

A lot of the masons I know would gladly vote for Ron Paul under a third party.

Before you can prove masonry had anything at all to do with the destruction of the third party system, you need to prove how masonry is controlled. Since I know the answer, it will be fun to see what you come up with.

I absolutely agree. It's not something we can talk about IN lodge, but we are all citizens outside of lodge and nearly all the brothers I've casually discussed the issue with are disgusted with two-party politics.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


I also have to disagree with the portrayal of the Anti-Masonic party being the first 'third party' outside Republicans and Democrats.

There were many political parties (and Presidents) before the Democratic and Republican parties were formed.

- The Federalists
- The Whigs
- The Democratic-Republican Party

In the first half of the 1800s the Presidency was mainly traded back and forth between the Democrats and Whigs.

In fact - The Republican Party WASN'T EVEN CREATED until nearly a decade after Taylor left the presidency. It began in 1859.

Believe me - I WOULD LOVE to investigate any possible conspiracy, but there isn't even a factual basis to start a discussion, much less draw any meaningful conclusions.



Sorry for the edits, I'm discovering more issues as I go.

Fillmore wasn't elected to the Presidency.

Is it more likely that some unseen, alleged "masonic" cabal is manipulating elections, or that the Anti-Masonic party was irrelevant and ineffectual because it was based on an absurd philosophy and nobody in America outside it was buying the premise?

WAIT WAIT WAIT....

Now I'm a little ticked off.

EVERYTHING IN THE OP IS AN UTTER FALSEHOOD. The only thing that was true was that Fillmore assumed the Presidency.,

FILLMORE WAS A MEMBER OF THE WHIG PARTY!

The Anti-Masonic Party ceased to exist more than ELEVEN YEARS before Fillmore was elected Vice-President.

NO MEMBER OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY WAS EVER ELECTED TO NATIONAL OFFICE.

Fillmore was admittedly a member of the Anti-Masonic Party, but left in 1832, SEVENTEEN YEARS before he was elected Vice-President.

So to put the nail in the coffin of this absurd notion of Masonic involvement with the two party system...

Why in the hell would Freemasonry concern itself with a completely useless political "party" that never held any national office?

Where is the missing link between the end of the Anti-Masonic Party in 1838 and the formation of the Republican Party in 1859, TWENTY ONE YEARS LATER?

If you have these puzzle pieces to present, then do it. Just realize that I don't stand by and let the real work of "DENY IGNORANCE" get pushed aside for speculative side trips based on personal bias.

I am not saying this as a Mason, but as a member of ATS that is interested in trying to prove a real conspiracy.

reply to post by emsed1


Seems like your having a conversation with your self here aha.

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by emsed1

 

Seems like your having a conversation with your self here aha.

I've alienated all my friends and family so I'm the only one who will listen to my nonsense!

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by DirectDemocracy

 

The bloods (reps.) and crips (dems) fight hard for their turf. With SOO much money now involved in politics we won't see a third party again, I'm afraid...

so true. the cia and the police fund these street gangs with drugs and guns while the banksters like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs fund the politicians with bribes.

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by DirectDemocracy

 

The bloods (reps.) and crips (dems) fight hard for their turf. With SOO much money now involved in politics we won't see a third party again, I'm afraid...

But due to advances like the internet it might take less and less recources to organize oneself and reach the masses.

Originally posted by Merinda

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by DirectDemocracy

 

The bloods (reps.) and crips (dems) fight hard for their turf. With SOO much money now involved in politics we won't see a third party again, I'm afraid...

But due to advances like the internet it might take less and less recources to organize oneself and reach the masses.

I agree that's why they are trying to lock down the internet it gives the people power. I think people are waking up to the corruption they just aren't sure what to do about it.

reply to post by network dude


I see you post a lot about masonry, due to being a member.

But I have to ask, how do you know 100%, as a matter of fact, how masonry is controlled? It just seems like you are appearing to have more credentials or knowledge than you actually do.

Personally, I do not believe for a second that you are in cahoots with the upper echelon of masonry.


And im not jumping onto the anti-masonry bandwagon. A few members of my family are involved in masonry at a local level and they are good people.

I just think it is a rash decision to think you know the controlling factors of masonry.

.

.

reply to post by VonDoomen


Go and ask the family members about the structure of masonry. Don't just take my word for it. Ask around. Find out about the Grande lodge. Then see who they answer to. What does the Scottish Rite have control over? Which Jurisdiction? What influence does the UGLE have on US masonry?

If you aren't interested in this subject, then don't bother trying to find the answers. But I post here to answer questions with the knowledge I have gained by being a member on the inside. When I was on the outside, interested in what masonry was all about, I asked lots of questions to masons who I trusted to give me answers.

I will never be at the "top" as far as the uneducated person thinks. They will always move the goal posts when they find out who we are, or where we have been.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
But I have to ask, how do you know 100%, as a matter of fact, how masonry is controlled?

Because we get to participate in its control and government because it is a direct democracy. In my jurisdiction all policy decisions affecting the Grand Lodge by-laws are voted upon in a non-secret election. All officers are elected by direct vote and serve a one year term. I do not see how anyone who is a Mason could not know how their jurisdiction is controlled as they can actively participate in its government.