View Poll Results: Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    70 88.61%
  • No

    6 7.59%
  • I dont know

    3 3.80%
Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 261 to 264 of 264

Thread: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

  1. #261
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,923
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm less concerned about party and more concerned with lean. Most of our representatives today are liberals. Liberal democrats want a nanny state. Liberal republicans want massive military and forign aid.

    I don't support either one. Liberals suck regardless of the party they belong to. If the next President is a Liberal Democrat like Obama, a Liberal Republican like Bush, or some Liberal Liberiterian or Liberal Green Party...it's still a Liberal and so it's still the wrong answer.

    Give me the Conservative Democrat who supports abortion and reinforces the importance of waiting to have sex, knowledge and importance of using BC, and of people acting more responsible for their lives even if they still choose abortion. Give me the Conservative Democrat who wants to strengthen NICS for gun buyers but reasserts, through tangible legal action, the right of any citizen who passes all such screening to own virtually any firearm their heart desires. Give me the Conservative Democrat who support same-sex marriage but also addresses the 50% divorce rate, and for the same reason: healthy marriages are good for society.

    I will take the Conservative over the Liberal every day of the week, even when the Conservative comes from a party I don't otherwise agree with. Liberals are always divisive, always polarizing, always negative and on the attack. Liberals are a hateful breed. Hell, of the lowest, most destructive economic styles, the socialist, give me the Conservative from among them who will actually balance the budget while establishing the nanny state; if the nanny state is to be then let it be for a thousand years in peace.

    There are bigger concerns than party, more important things than recreational drug use.

    Besides, I'm half convinced America would be better served by a Parliament than a President anyway.

    Very interesting Jerry. Quite a bit of what you describe would be classic liberalism, not to be associated with what the Democratic Party or most American’s think of liberalism today. The same can be said of traditional conservatism which has nothing to do with the conservatism of today.

    Our founding fathers, the likes of John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, et al were the liberals of their day and what could be classified as classic liberals. A liberalism that was against the Monarchy, against any aristocratic forms of government or any other type of totalitarian, authoritarian types of government. They believed in individual freedom, individual liberty not in group security that liberalism of today has become at the very expense of what Classic Liberalism was all for. Classic Liberalism believes in individual liberty within the scope of a Democratic government.

    You speak of the nanny state, when a widow from the revolutionary war approached George Washington, then president about a widows pension, President Washington refused. He didn’t believe taxpayers should foot the pension, but he gave her money out of his own pocket. This is the sign of a classic liberal, giving freely of ones own time, energy and money. Not taking other peoples money to give to others, but giving of ones own. Just keep in mind, our country was founded on Liberalism, classical or traditional liberalism. Not what is called Liberalism today.

    Ben Franklin once said, “Those who choose security over liberty soon shall have neither.”

    Thomas Jefferson said, “A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is also strong enough to take everything you have.”
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #262
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Very interesting Jerry. Quite a bit of what you describe would be classic liberalism, not to be associated with what the Democratic Party or most American’s think of liberalism today. The same can be said of traditional conservatism which has nothing to do with the conservatism of today.

    Our founding fathers, the likes of John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, et al were the liberals of their day and what could be classified as classic liberals. A liberalism that was against the Monarchy, against any aristocratic forms of government or any other type of totalitarian, authoritarian types of government. They believed in individual freedom, individual liberty not in group security that liberalism of today has become at the very expense of what Classic Liberalism was all for. Classic Liberalism believes in individual liberty within the scope of a Democratic government.

    You speak of the nanny state, when a widow from the revolutionary war approached George Washington, then president about a widows pension, President Washington refused. He didn’t believe taxpayers should foot the pension, but he gave her money out of his own pocket. This is the sign of a classic liberal, giving freely of ones own time, energy and money. Not taking other peoples money to give to others, but giving of ones own. Just keep in mind, our country was founded on Liberalism, classical or traditional liberalism. Not what is called Liberalism today.

    Ben Franklin once said, “Those who choose security over liberty soon shall have neither.”

    Thomas Jefferson said, “A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is also strong enough to take everything you have.”
    Indeed, and this is why it is imperative that the system be open and competitive. What the Republocrats have become is exactly because everyone thinks they're the only options. Because they are always presented as the only options. They have no fear of losing power; they cannot lose power not when group think is strong enough. Not when it's "they can't do anything, so we can't present them to the People". It's very baffling on many fronts.

    As the Republocrats further isolate themselves from the People, they will become more and more out of control, they will serve us less, they will go against their platforms and promises so that they may serve the corporations which fund them. So why is there so much resistance to opening the system up? To presenting more options? To force the Republocrats to defend their positions and follow through with their words otherwise we'll replace them with a party that can?

    The future of the Republic is at stake, this is serious business; and so many people seem to want to revel in and cheer for the status quo which only causes us to lose freedom. Every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich; but we have to take it because there's no other viable option. And there will not be another "viable" option until you allow third parties the ability to freely participate and compete with the main party.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #263
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,923
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Indeed, and this is why it is imperative that the system be open and competitive. What the Republocrats have become is exactly because everyone thinks they're the only options. Because they are always presented as the only options. They have no fear of losing power; they cannot lose power not when group think is strong enough. Not when it's "they can't do anything, so we can't present them to the People". It's very baffling on many fronts.

    As the Republocrats further isolate themselves from the People, they will become more and more out of control, they will serve us less, they will go against their platforms and promises so that they may serve the corporations which fund them. So why is there so much resistance to opening the system up? To presenting more options? To force the Republocrats to defend their positions and follow through with their words otherwise we'll replace them with a party that can?

    The future of the Republic is at stake, this is serious business; and so many people seem to want to revel in and cheer for the status quo which only causes us to lose freedom. Every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich; but we have to take it because there's no other viable option. And there will not be another "viable" option until you allow third parties the ability to freely participate and compete with the main party.
    Why is there no other viable other options? I have posted most of what I have to say before. Reason one is the Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act. They write them to discourage any third party from becoming viable, to even get on the ballot, to challenge them. The two major parties got really peeved that the League of Women’s voters allowed Ross Perot into the presidential debates, so they, the two major parties took the debates away from the League of Women’s Voters and formed their own so called bipartisan debate commission. Never again will any third party candidate be allowed to participate in the presidential debates.

    Reason two is money, when each of the major parties are able to raise a billion dollars, each party raised a billion, the Republicans a billion, the democrats a billion. Probably closer to two billion if you count the senate and house candidates, governors etc. from corporations, Wall Street firms, special interests, lobbyists, big money donors that donate millions, super pacs and money bundlers, probably some more I forgot, any third party does not stand a chance in the money race.

    These special interests have a vested interest in keep just the two major parties viable and no other party. It would cost them another billion or more to buy them off like they have the Republicans and Democrats. Better to keep all this campaign cash just going to the major parties, it is a lot cheaper that way and both major parties know where their bread and butter comes from. They make sure all these special interests are well taken care of.

    I have said many times that we really have only one political party in the United States, but that party has two wings, the Republican one and the Democratic one. They give us a grand illusion of being polar opposites. They are in their rhetoric which is all the voters and party members pay attention to. But if one were to step back a few paces, remove their deep colored red or blue tinted glasses and only watch how these two parties govern, they would see very little difference. It is the rhetoric, the talking points, the slogans that are 180 degrees apart. Not how they govern.

    When the vast majority of Americans buy the rhetoric as fact, when the vast majority of Americans do not check or research into how these parties govern, there will never be a viable third party. The one party with two wings will continue to run things and do their legislative favors for all those who donate the money to them, putting America and her people way down the list of priorities.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  4. #264
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes, where "them" = a party who had a right to be there. You have to earn 5% to have the right to debate. These guys did not have 5%, the better of the two had 1.5%, which means they did not have a right to be there. Thank you for proving my point.
    Ah wait a sec. You earlier said no one was keeping third parties out and that armed guards were not letting them enter. Then i proved to you there are armed guards keeping them out now you seem to be retracting your statements.


Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •