• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If A Third Party Went Mainstream...

If A Third Party Went Mainstream, Which One Would You Want It To Be?


  • Total voters
    53
Moderator's Warning:
Robby, Cephus... knock it off. No personal stuff.
 
I would love to see a truly progressive party emerge in the United States -- a socialist-democratic party, that would join the Socialist International and connect to the wider progressive/socialist infrastructure out there.

Obviously, Americans won't be able to stomach the actual word 'socialist' for another decade or so, so it could be called something else, like the Progressive Party or the Left Party or something.

But it's sorely needed to countre-balance this rightward shift in American politics: America truly might be in danger of becoming a politically reactionary state, and that has never, ever ended well in ages past.
 
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?

I picked other. I want a party that is pro-American,pro-bill of rights,opposes amnesty, opposes unrestricted immigration,opposes granting visas to countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with, opposes outsourcing,opposes any trade deal that costs Americans their jobs, opposes worker visas that are used to undermine the wages of Americans, opposes multi/bilingualism, opposes dual citizenship,opposes anchor babies/birth tourism, supports minimum wage,supports raising tariffs on imported goods in order to give American companies equal footing, opposes abortion unless it is to save the life of the woman,supports the 2nd amendment, opposes the government spying on Americans, supports mandating English as our official language and English only for our government functions, does not deep throat cocks of businesses or has their lips on the anuses on business owners(republicans in general and even some democrats are notoriously known for being in bed with businesses),opposes eminent domain(unless it is for PUBLIC roads),supports ease of access only for utilities like water gas and sewer, and does support a social program or two.
 
If the Green Party were to begin to approach mainstream status the Dems would shift their focus and absorb them in. Simply as a matter of its own survival. Many, if not most, Greens would accept this as it would quicken adoption of their desired beliefs.
 
I doubt the Tea Party will form it's own party. They are pretty much just an extension of the GOP anyway.

I doubt it too but think they're more likely to become a major party than any others.

Yes, they're an extension of the GOP but a very discontent critical of everybody extension often GOP. The only people they are practically willing to be worthy of being called Americans are fellow tea party followers and right-wing media pundits.
 
I picked other. I want a party that is pro-American,pro-bill of rights,opposes amnesty, opposes unrestricted immigration,opposes granting visas to countries we have the most illegal immigration problems with, opposes outsourcing,opposes any trade deal that costs Americans their jobs, opposes worker visas that are used to undermine the wages of Americans, opposes multi/bilingualism, opposes dual citizenship,opposes anchor babies/birth tourism, supports minimum wage,supports raising tariffs on imported goods in order to give American companies equal footing, opposes abortion unless it is to save the life of the woman,supports the 2nd amendment, opposes the government spying on Americans, supports mandating English as our official language and English only for our government functions, does not deep throat cocks of businesses or has their lips on the anuses on business owners(republicans in general and even some democrats are notoriously known for being in bed with businesses),opposes eminent domain(unless it is for PUBLIC roads),supports ease of access only for utilities like water gas and sewer, and does support a social program or two.

Sounds kinda like the Constitution Party.

Home | The Constitution Party
 
Have you ever been to a Libertarian Party meeting? Do you have personal experience with the party itself or is your experience just primarily with asshats on political forums who label themselves libertarians but supported Mitt Romney in 2012?

I, however, have had experience with the party. I consistently attend local meetings, and state meetings. I even attend national meetings and I can tell you from personal experience that we are united and all, save a few, share the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy.

My beef is with the Republican "libertarians", of which are basically fake libertarians trying to rope people into continuing to vote for the party. Don't mistake the Randbots for Libertarians.
I used to attend Libertarian party meetings. They are as predictable and mindless as are the two major parties (Ive attended caucus for both of them as well). Its not at all uncommon to hear "you cant believe that and be a 'real' libertarian."

There is a reason why there is absolutely no growth in the Libertarian party. You cannot be committed to ideology to the extent that you render yourself irrelevant and expect to be relevant. MOST of the concepts promoted by the Libertarians play well with people from both parties. Limited and responsible government. Strong individual and states rights. SOME of the party ideals simply need to be adjusted...reworked. The Libertarian party should NEVER AGAIN vocalize a single comment about legalizing drugs. Ever. Decriminalize drugs at the federal level, allow states to choose, and the fed should enforce international law. With those minor changes you have a palatable platform that actually accomplishes what its supposed to.
 
I think the two parties (Reps-Dems) have made the elective process, so complicated, involved and financially exorbitant that there may never be any competition, that doesn't get absorbed by necessity.
 
I'd want it to be the Constitution Party so that right-wingers would have their votes divided between the Constitution Party and the Republican Party, therefore allowing the Democratic Party to win more elections due to the divided vote and forcing the Republican Party to become more moderate.
The present day Republican Party is pretty much the Constitution Party in all but name, perhaps what the Constitution Party should do is change their political leaning to the old Reaganite Republican Party so it could go mainstream. ;)
 
Some sort of Christian Democratic Party.
 
I think the two parties (Reps-Dems) have made the elective process, so complicated, involved and financially exorbitant that there may never be any competition, that doesn't get absorbed by necessity.

You are right. Election laws are written by the Republicans and Democrats and they have written them as a mutual protection act. They have written the laws to make sure no third party can ever become viable and challenge them. If today’s laws were in effect back in 1856, the Whigs would still be with us and there would have been no Republican Party. Money, both major parties pretty much own the mega donors, both major parties have sold their hearts and souls to corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyists, special interests in their search for campaign cash. These special interests folks are not interested in third parties at all. Just donating to the major two parties cost them millions, tens of millions even for their inside favors from our elected politicians that they do not want to have to add more money to the till to support a third party. One can be sure all these corporations, lobbyists, etc. are not donating out of their civic duty. They expect something in return, a good return on their investment and they get it.

Yep, I would say you are right on the money.
 
Here is something I posted about what it would take for an independent to win the White House several months ago. Take the word independent out and add third party, it pretty still applies.

Having worked for Ross Perot, an independent candidate for president here is the criteria for an independent to win the White House.
1. Must be charismatic
2. Must have a message that resonates with the people that the two major parties are not addressing or it seems they are not addressing
3. Must have a vision where he wants to lead America
4. Must have common sense solutions to problems that the two major parties are not attempting to solve or are putting off
5. Must be independently wealthy.
A. This is due to the two existing parties write all election laws as a mutual protection act. The independent candidate will need to expand millions to get on the ballot by challenging a lot of these laws state by state.
B. The independent candidate will need to pay petitioners to get the required signatures for ballot access as described by the different laws of all the states.
C. Due to the fact that corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street firms, super pacs and pacs, huge money individuals etc. who all donate to the campaigns of the two major parties the independent candidate will not have access to he will have expand a huge amount of his own money to get his own message out.
6. There has to be a feeling among the electorate that the two major parties are out for themselves and not America. The electorate needs to be disgusted with both major parties.
 
The present day Republican Party is pretty much the Constitution Party in all but name,
Really? Hampering civil liberties? Justifying imperial ambitions? Butting their way into the bedroom? Loving big money?

the old Reaganite Republican Party so it could go mainstream.
I bet Iran Contra is really what the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution...
 
I bet Iran Contra is really what the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution...

The difference between means and morality.

I suppose a nice chat with Hamilton would probably muddy the waters a bit.

DemSoc, consider the fact that the United States at the time was pretty weak to deal with "foreign" adventures (out of its reach), but held plenty appetite within the same continent. Nefarious activities were not too taboo to American leaders in the time period you're mentioning. We loved to make promises to one foreign entity (or a domestic....forced labor source) so as to eliminate our geopolitical foes. We were down and dirty in it since the French-Indian Wars, after all. Such dealings only increased once our own independence was on the line.

The American empire has always rested upon economic thrust. The "empire of liberty" was trade. Traditional colonial matters were just too damned dirty, costly, and "mean." Economic influence was practically endorsed by most of the leadership, and had merely been more explicitly followed as the generations passed. Why go through all the bother of colonialism when you can get much of what you want through economic ties. It's less direct oversight, makes the others think they are benefiting to a great proportion as the U.S., and doesn't put the same imagery as the Brits in India or the Belgians in the Congo.
 
Last edited:
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?

None. I don't believe in voting for someone just because they are in X party. As far as i'm concerned if they made an amendment to the constitution banning being a part of any political parties I'd be all for it. A person should be elected to office based on past actions and personal merit. Not on party affiliation or the lies that they tell when running for office.
 
None. I don't believe in voting for someone just because they are in X party. As far as i'm concerned if they made an amendment to the constitution banning being a part of any political parties I'd be all for it. A person should be elected to office based on past actions and personal merit. Not on party affiliation or the lies that they tell when running for office.

Exactly, I agree whole heartily. You got my vote. I am all for getting rid of what the found fathers and framers called factions. Getting rid of those who put loyalty to party over loyalty to country, the good and need of party over the good and need of the nation. Right on my friend. Sign me up.
 
Exactly, I agree whole heartily. You got my vote. I am all for getting rid of what the found fathers and framers called factions. Getting rid of those who put loyalty to party over loyalty to country, the good and need of party over the good and need of the nation. Right on my friend. Sign me up.

:agree: You can sign me up, too! I can't believe that a group of our "servants" can get away with what they're doing in DC! Exempting themselves from the laws they make that we have to follow; voting to give themselves a raise when they want one; only working basically part-time at a very highly paid six-figure job; giving themselves free perks like preferred parking, and then topping everything off - putting party over country! What arrogance, and those of us who pay their salaries are supposed to like this? We need to get this turned around now, if it's not already too late! There are a lot of hard working people in this country who don't enjoy the benefits that the people who supposedly serve us have given themselves. Rome fell for much the same reason - shall we follow them? :no:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
:agree: You can sign me up, too! I can't believe that a group of our "servants" can get away with what they're doing in DC! Exempting themselves from the laws they make that we have to follow; voting to give themselves a raise when they want one; only working basically part-time at a very highly paid six-figure job; giving themselves free perks like preferred parking, and then topping everything off - putting party over country! What arrogance, and those of us who pay their salaries are supposed to like this? We need to get this turned around now, if it's not already too late! There are a lot of hard working people in this country who don't enjoy the benefits that the people who supposedly serve us have given themselves. Rome fell for much the same reason - shall we follow them? :no:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

That is the way it is, congress regardless of which party controls it will exempt themselves from the very laws they pass 95% of the time. As ofr raises, several years ago congress passed a law which automatically give them their raise unless they vote it down. They did this so the voter would not realize they are getting raises every year. They have the best health care and pension available.
 
That is the way it is, congress regardless of which party controls it will exempt themselves from the very laws they pass 95% of the time. As ofr raises, several years ago congress passed a law which automatically give them their raise unless they vote it down. They did this so the voter would not realize they are getting raises every year. They have the best health care and pension available.

The only thing that consoles me is believing that the universe is fair and balanced, and the current state of affairs won't continue, because it's wrong. I'm not sure what the flash point will be, but there will be one, and that is almost guaranteed! Things have gotten too far out of whack to expect otherwise.
 
The only thing that consoles me is believing that the universe is fair and balanced, and the current state of affairs won't continue, because it's wrong. I'm not sure what the flash point will be, but there will be one, and that is almost guaranteed! Things have gotten too far out of whack to expect otherwise.

Good luck with that. I believe it will only get worse as our politicians have figured out a way to make a mint without voting on making that mint for them.
 
If a third party suddenly went mainstream and got national footing, which one would you want it to be?

I am thinking it will be libertarian in bent and rise to the mainstream within a decade. But i also think it will cause growing pains and a forced moderation of a lot of stances as a broader group of voters coming will find that necessary for full buy in.

Within twenty years I suspect that it won't be too distinguishable from the current Republican Party as it will have largely the same voter base and inherit the same problems with corruption and cronyism we currently see in the mainstream parties.

Like a slower version of how things went with the tea party groups.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom