Rise of the third party

[BlindMessiah]

In a recent interview, Wolf Blitzer discussed the rise of a thirdy party candidate with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. The two men laid out four issues that all major third parties agree on, and the republicans and democrats disagree on.

-Isolationist military policy

-Repealing the patriot act

-Abolishing the Federal Reserve

-A limited budget to end the increase of national debt

What I believe we are seeing is the beginning of the unification of the United States political third world. If united together by common ground, a viable party could eventually be formed, resulting in participation in the debates. If such a thing would occur, the world would be turned upside down. Men like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are just the beginning. They have succeeded in garnering national attention. Divided, we cannot hope to stand against a fascist two party system, united together, under one banner, our voices will be heard.

-Unite under one party

-Receive enough support to enter the debates with a viable candidate

-Fight the information war

-Reclaim our nation

This is a war we can win. Let 2008 be the year that America, land of liberty, supports freedom.

Edited September 15, 2008 by BlindMessiah

[Startraveler]

So, a disparate group of interests coming together around the issues on which they agree in order to maximize political power (all while balancing this with the fact that numerous issues will split their diverse constituency and thus leave many of them disappointed on different fronts). Sounds like exactly the lack of purity--implicit in the major parties--third parties rail against. But kudos to them if they decide to play the game.

[stevewinn]

will a third party make any difference, here in the UK our third party the libs dems are treated has a joke by the many and the other two parties,

[BlindMessiah]

So, a disparate group of interests coming together around the issues on which they agree in order to maximize political power (all while balancing this with the fact that numerous issues will split their diverse constituency and thus leave many of them disappointed on different fronts). Sounds like exactly the lack of purity--implicit in the major parties--third parties rail against. But kudos to them if they decide to play the game.

It's called uniting on common ground rather than bickering over petty differences. Compromise is the way the world works. Unless you live in an idealistic fairy tale, the only way to get "real change" is to work with others for the common good.

Edited September 14, 2008 by BlindMessiah

[Startraveler]

I don't think you can call the policy/ideological differences that separate Ron Paul Republicansim from Ralph Nader's brand of progressivism as "petty differences." I dare say some of their differences are irreconcilable. Moving to the middle to make things actually happen is the great offense third parties attack the two major parties for. I realize it's necessary. I'm just surprised they suddenly do.

[BlindMessiah]

I don't think you can call the policy/ideological differences that separate Ron Paul Republicansim from Ralph Nader's brand of progressivism as "petty differences." I dare say some of their differences are irreconcilable. Moving to the middle to make things actually happen is the great offense third parties attack the two major parties for. I realize it's necessary. I'm just surprised they suddenly do.

I disagree with you on this, as do they obviously. When your four core values about politics are not represented by the current system, then I have no problem sacrificing my other values for the more important. Like I said, and you obviously agree, the only way to get real change is to compromise. It's a matter of putting your pride behind you and looking forward toward genuine results.

[acidhead]

...30-35% of eligible registered voters in the USA voted on which Party ran their country in 2004...

...it's your choice to vote as much as its your choice to sit on your hands and do nothing...

...just to be clear, that's 30-35% of your population who decided for you...

...heck, 60% of American's may as well be drafted into the military or be sent to jail, since the numbers speak for itself...

..."the majority of American's don't care if they're controlled or have decisions made for them".. lol what a joke!

lol..... this is terribly sad...... it's your money..... it's your life...... but if they think for one second they're in control

of it, that's simply plain ignorance.....

[Startraveler]

...30-35% of eligible registered voters in the USA voted on which Party ran their country in 2004...

The Census Bureau would disagree with you.

[Whangarei]

I was thinking along the same lines. I felt that with the two choices facing off right now, there actually could be a successful third party candidate. If someone is standing in the election booth waiting to choose I could totally see a "I'm not gonna vote for either of them so I'll vote for this guy instead" mentality that could potentially win the election.

[Wickian]

will a third party make any difference, here in the UK our third party the libs dems are treated has a joke by the many and the other two parties,

Yeah it's pretty much the same here. I am going to vote third party myself, but the mainstream media doesn't even mention them if they can avoid it. It's the "out of site and out of mind" tactic.

[BlindMessiah]

Yeah it's pretty much the same here. I am going to vote third party myself, but the mainstream media doesn't even mention them if they can avoid it. It's the "out of site and out of mind" tactic.

Which is why we need to keep the internet free. The information war has been taken to the internet as the primary battleground. The internet alone can be attributed for the rise of the third parties this year.

[Guardsman Bass]

I disagree with you on this, as do they obviously. When your four core values about politics are not represented by the current system, then I have no problem sacrificing my other values for the more important. Like I said, and you obviously agree, the only way to get real change is to compromise. It's a matter of putting your pride behind you and looking forward toward genuine results.

Don't the Nader progressives generally support things like single-payer health care, stringent environmental regulations, and pro-unions - all of which tend to be big turnoffs for libertarians? That's quite a big difference on the ideological front, although they tend to agree on civil libertarianism.

In any case, I'm not optimistic about the prospects of a third party. You've occasionally seen them gain strength in specific states for one reason or another (the Reform Party in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura, and so forth), and on very rare occasions they present a significant-but-unwinnable run for the presidency (witness George Wallace in 1968, and Ross Perot in 1992), but generally they've never managed to rise to a significant, lasting national presence because the winner-takes-all system tends to favor two parties (the Liberal Democrats get by because they tend to be 1 of the 2 parties in certain areas of Great Britain). In America, they've never lasted unless they took the place of one of the prior two parties - such as the Whigs, who rose to power in reaction to Andrew Jackson's politics and filled in the gap left earlier by the slow-moving death of the Federalist Party, and the Republicans, who rose to prominence by sucking in former Whigs after the Whig Party collapsed in the 1850s over slavery.

[Oderint]

if that's what Paul and Nader are all about, I'd vote for them.

(note: I have no clue as to where they stand on other issues, and it doesn't really matter since I'm Norwegian )

[BlindMessiah]

Don't the Nader progressives generally support things like single-payer health care, stringent environmental regulations, and pro-unions - all of which tend to be big turnoffs for libertarians? That's quite a big difference on the ideological front, although they tend to agree on civil libertarianism.

Yes but they've decided that these issues are more important to them than the big turnoffs. I see this as a sort of experiment. We'll see where the third party priorities really lie.

[BlindMessiah]

if that's what Paul and Nader are all about, I'd vote for them.

(note: I have no clue as to where they stand on other issues, and it doesn't really matter since I'm Norwegian )

They don't agree on many of the other issues. They simply decided these four issues that they do agree on, and both the democrats and republicans disagree on, are more important than their differences. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and advocate of states' rights. I don't really know where Nader stands on many issues.

[Guardsman Bass]

Yes but they've decided that these issues are more important to them than the big turnoffs. I see this as a sort of experiment. We'll see where the third party priorities really lie.

Sounds like the current type of coalition keeping Angela Merkel in power over in Germany. It's not a compliment.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Guardsman Bass

[InHuman]

Our third party are the NDP (and a few times, the BLOC!)

We'll take nadar if you dont want him

[BlindMessiah]

Sounds like the current type of coalition keeping Angela Merkel in power over in Germany. It's not a compliment.

You're comparing an attempt by currently useless third parties to try and give people more options to a coalition controlling German politics? Sounds more like the Replican and Democratic control over our system. It's not a compliment.

[BlindMessiah]

Our third party are the NDP (and a few times, the BLOC!)

We'll take nadar if you dont want him

Who said we don't want him?

[MasterPo]

It's called uniting on common ground rather than bickering over petty differences. Compromise is the way the world works. Unless you live in an idealistic fairy tale, the only way to get "real change" is to work with others for the common good.

What you call "bickering" I say is standing for what you believe in. I may not agree with it but I respect someone who stands firm for their beliefs and doesn't just bend over to make things easier. Otherwise, why bother having any political parties at all if at the end of the day everyone is going to do the same thing just for the sake of getting along.

And "petty differences" I say are core values. How do you "compromise" on what you fully believe?

I'd rather get nothing done than get the wrong things done just to have something.

[Wickian]

Which is why we need to keep the internet free. The information war has been taken to the internet as the primary battleground. The internet alone can be attributed for the rise of the third parties this year.

I've been keeping track of the net neutrality movement for over a year now . It's still kinda iffy, but I think we're okay for now.

[BlindMessiah]

What you call "bickering" I say is standing for what you believe in. I may not agree with it but I respect someone who stands firm for their beliefs and doesn't just bend over to make things easier. Otherwise, why bother having any political parties at all if at the end of the day everyone is going to do the same thing just for the sake of getting along.

And "petty differences" I say are core values. How do you "compromise" on what you fully believe?

I'd rather get nothing done than get the wrong things done just to have something.

The key word here is priorities. Putting the emphasis on what matters. If you hold some things to be more valuable than others you have to sacrifice the less important values for the greater good.

[BlindMessiah]

I've been keeping track of the net neutrality movement for over a year now . It's still kinda iffy, but I think we're okay for now.

That's good. Keep us posted.

[Wickian]

That's good. Keep us posted.

Well the treatment and equality of information seems to be doing good. The FCC has ordered Comcast to stop it's throttling of bittorrent and other such programs as well as other things along that line.

Now companies are working on capping monthly internet usage. I think Time Warner is experimenting with a metering system in a small area in Texas right now, and Comcast is trying to decide on how best to cap it's customers to set amount of bandwidth a month. Right now they just choose the top 100 or 1000(can't remember which) bandwidth eating customers and cut them off early every month. I guess that's been deemed unacceptable and now they need an official point of cutoff.