• 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!

Congratulations to the Third Parties

Mac77 said:
I understand

That was the responsible thing to do

But if building a new party from the ground up to compete with repubs and dems is so expensive why not take my advice and join them?

You eill have more influence as an insider than as an outsider.
Click to expand...

I have no influence. Both parties are beholding to the people who pay their way. Most rich and powerful banks, corporations, etc fund both parties and really don't care which one we vote for. Either way their man wins. Trump might be an exception but he is still handcuffed by congress, the senate, the supreme court, and the media who will twist every thing he says or does into something evil. I foresee an impeachment or if he exposes to much he will end up like JFK and RFK.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I have no influence. Both parties are beholding to the people who pay their way. Most rich and powerful banks, corporations, etc fund both parties and really don't care which one we vote for. Either way their man wins.

Trump might be an exception but he is still handcuffed by congress, the senate, the supreme court, and the media who will twist every thing he says or does into something evil.

I foresee an impeachment or if he exposes to much he will end up like JFK and RFK.
Click to expand...

everyone has been underestimating trump since he announced his candidacy almost two years ago.

If the conventional wisdom represented in your quote above was correct trump would not be the president-elect today.

He would have been trounced by jeb bush and the inside washington establishment funded by the rich corporations that you fear so much

I dont think trump will have an easy time of it after taking office.

He will win some and lose some.

But thanks to ordinary Americans like you and me he will get get the chance to try.
 
Mac77 said:
everyone has been underestimating trump since he announced his candidacy almost two years ago.

If the conventional wisdom represented in your quote above was correct trump would not be the president-elect today.

He would have been trounced by jeb bush and the inside washington establishment funded by the rich corporations that you fear so much

I dont think trump will have an easy time of it after taking office.

He will win some and lose some.

But thanks to ordinary Americans like you and me he will get get the chance to try.
Click to expand...

I am hoping he is a candidate of the people not the rich and powerful. That is why I voted for him. I knew Hillary was bought and paid for.

The problem is we know for sure the democrats will not work with him even if he had the cure for cancer. Plus a lot of the republicans in congress are bought and paid for party puppets as well and will not work with him. We will see. Then there is our corrupt media to contend with. Our local media has already said he will start WW3, take health care away from every one, destroy social security, and put every American out of work. This is before he has even taken office. One local clown on the radio wants him tested for cocaine because he has the sniffles. My mom is 70 and has the sniffles maybe I better have her tested as well. Unbelievable.
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...
The Libertarians would have had a higher total if even Weld was the primary on the ticket. Johnson is a clown. As a registered Libertarian I was annoyed in 2012 when they shoved Wayne Root aside for Johnson and was even more concerned about him in 2016. Sadly...he proved me right and embarrassed himself and the party. If his ass gets near the Libertarian party in 2020 they ought to just fold up shop and quit.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I am hoping he is a candidate of the people not the rich and powerful. That is why I voted for him. I knew Hillary was bought and paid for.

The problem is we know for sure the democrats will not work with him even if he had the cure for cancer. Plus a lot of the republicans in congress are bought and paid for party puppets as well and will not work with him. We will see. Then there is our corrupt media to contend with. Our local media has already said he will start WW3, take health care away from every one, destroy social security, and put every American out of work. This is before he has even taken office. One local clown on the radio wants him tested for cocaine because he has the sniffles. My mom is 70 and has the sniffles maybe I better have her tested as well. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I have high hopes for trump.

But typically presidents take office with a strong domestic agenda but leave with a foreign polcy record.

We will just have to wait and see how well trump does
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree but Johnson was such a horrible Libertarian. If only Ron Paul was a little younger there wouldn't have been a "What is Aleppo?" moment. That man knew his **** and probably set up Bernie for his strong showing.
 
Mac77 said:
"Is allowed?"

Johnson was on the ballot just like trump and hillary

No one "allowed" you to vote for him or prevented anyone from voting for him

The thing holding libertarians back is libertarians themselves.
Click to expand...

He was not on the ballot in CT.
 
VanceMack said:
The Libertarians would have had a higher total if even Weld was the primary on the ticket. Johnson is a clown. As a registered Libertarian I was annoyed in 2012 when they shoved Wayne Root aside for Johnson and was even more concerned about him in 2016. Sadly...he proved me right and embarrassed himself and the party. If his ass gets near the Libertarian party in 2020 they ought to just fold up shop and quit.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I abandoned the Libertarian party after the nominated Bob Barr. I'm willing to give them a look but I don't want to be tainted with their party registration if they're not going to be serious about even trying to win.
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

Ross Perot says hi!
 
A third party will never have a chance because it's a rigged game for both parties. The dems are becoming more socialist in their progressive agenda and 1/3 of the country has spoken. Half of that 1/3 said F off with your progressive agenda. Most midwestern folks want to be left alone to live their lives. Now they have progressive douches from the city trying to dictate how they should live their lives. Sorry, it don't work that way. You want a progressive movement? Give the power back to the states. One size fits all on the Federal level is an utter failure and caused a split divide. I haven't seen polar opposites quite this bad before. It's shocking to me Hitlary supporters couldn't grasp how she was the war hawk, not trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it was because of the third party platform and not people voting against both candidates?
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes. Especially since it's a requirement put forth by a non-transparent, private organization that is apparently answerable to no one. How we let a small group of private individuals control access to arguably the largest platform in presidential politics is completely beyond me.
Click to expand...

There were a couple of thousand people running for the Presidency this year.

Who should decide which ones can be on the debate stage?
 
Mason66 said:
There were a couple of thousand people running for the Presidency this year.

Who should decide which ones can be on the debate stage?
Click to expand...

The Presidential debates occur after the primaries. At that point there were 4 candidates. I would think that at a minimum any candidate who gets on ballots in enough states so that they can win the election should be on the debate stage.
 
Gaius46 said:
The Presidential debates occur after the primaries. At that point there were 4 candidates. I would think that at a minimum any candidate who gets on ballots in enough states so that they can win the election should be on the debate stage.
Click to expand...

That is not true.

The primaries are only for the Republicans and Democrats.

There were still thousands of people running for President at that point.

Where did you get the idea that the primaries were held for all the other people that were running?

Neither Johnson nor Stein were voted on in the primaries but you still wanted them to be at the debates.

Why not all the other people that were running?
 
Mason66 said:
That is not true.

The primaries are only for the Republicans and Democrats.

There were still thousands of people running for President at that point.

Where did you get the idea that the primaries were held for all the other people that were running?

Neither Johnson nor Stein were voted on in the primaries but you still wanted them to be at the debates.

Why not all the other people that were running?
Click to expand...

Johnson was voted in the Libertarian Party primaries and Stein was selected by the Green Party - I don't know how the Greens select their candidate.

In the U.S. all political parties are private organizations. They can, and do, have their own rules about how they nominate their candidates. The only thing special about the Democratic and Republican party is that they have lots of members. That's it. And the system is designed to keep it that way.

What you have with the debates is a private organization - the council on presidential debates - deciding which other private organizations get free televised access to the entire country. The country does not get a chance to weigh,side-by-side, the merits of all the people running for President. With a system like that 3rd party candidates are pretty much forever excluded from ever having a realistic chance of winning.

Again the entire primary and nominating process is a private system. The Constitution says nothing about it. The government has nothing to do with it. It's a completely private thing that becomes public only with candidates being put on state ballots for the general election. If you are on enough states ballots for the general election to have a possibility of winning - as both Johnson and Stein were - you should be included int he debates or the debates be done away with.
 
Mason66 said:
That is not true.

The primaries are only for the Republicans and Democrats.

There were still thousands of people running for President at that point.

Where did you get the idea that the primaries were held for all the other people that were running?

Neither Johnson nor Stein were voted on in the primaries but you still wanted them to be at the debates.

Why not all the other people that were running?
Click to expand...

Thousands? Where are you getting that from? There were 13 Republicans, 2 Democrats, some small number of third party candidates. The number of was probably a couple dozen - not thousands.

Let's get this straight. All parties have their own nominating process. The reublicans and democrats have a primary systemn. The libertarians have a convention. The greens probably do too


At the point of the Presidential debates run by the the committee on presidential debates there were exactly 4 people who could possibly win the general election:

Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Gary Johnson
Jill Stein


That's it. When I voted in New York those were the only 4 on the ballot. Those were the only 4 on the vast majority of ballots across the country - as far as I know there was a fifth in Utah but that was it. All 4 l, without the Utah guy because he could never win, should have been in included in the debates.
 
Gaius46 said:
Thousands? Where are you getting that from? There were 13 Republicans, 2 Democrats, some small number of third party candidates. The number of was probably a couple dozen - not thousands.

Let's get this straight. All parties have their own nominating process. The reublicans and democrats have a primary systemn. The libertarians have a convention. The greens probably do too


At the point of the Presidential debates run by the the committee on presidential debates there were exactly 4 people who could possibly win the general election:

Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Gary Johnson
Jill Stein


That's it. When I voted in New York those were the only 4 on the ballot. Those were the only 4 on the vast majority of ballots across the country - as far as I know there was a fifth in Utah but that was it. All 4 l, without the Utah guy because he could never win, should have been in included in the debates.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of people on the ballot none of us every heard about.

They sent in their applications and they were on the ballot.

My point was that there has to be some governing body to decide who is going to be on the debate stage with certain criteria, otherwise it would be caos.
 
Zyphlin said:
For quite some time now, I've used how poorly the Libertarian Party has done as evidence of the ridiculousness of their expectations that they'd win if they could only get a chance to debate, or that they have any chance of putting up an actual good fight. And while my conclusion with regards to those are unchanged, my measurements will have to. I've previously used 1% as my baseline, because outside of the bid by Ross Perot, that's been a number that hasn't really been achievable.

This election changed that, and for that I'd give third parties congratulations. The Libertarians got 3.2%, the Greens got 1%, and even Evan McMullin managed to get .4%.

The downside for third parties is that if there were ever an election where they should've been able to do significantly well, this was it; and combined they still got less than 5%. Regardless, this was a massive improvement compared to their historical participation and is a sign of how dissatisfied people were with the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

I personally detested both Trump and Clinton, I voted for Johnson so I could have a say on the down ticket offices. For any third party to be successful or viable, I think they should first forget about the office of the president, forget about the senate, perhaps mount a challenge or two for a House seat. But their concentration should be on getting representatives and senators to different state legislatures elected. Perhaps mayors, county commissions, etc.

The two major parties have a huge infrastructure advantage. To become viable, one will have to build your own infrastructure and get members elected to the state legislatures where the election laws are enacted, where congressional and state districts are drawn. Just running candidates for the presidency isn't going to cut it or make any third political party viable, even if by chance one of their candidates were to win. It has to be grass roots, bottom up.

I learned a lot working for Ross Perot, our Reform Party was top driven. Top to bottom and as soon as Ross said that's it, boom, no more Reform Party. The lesson I learned is one must organize from bottom up, not top down as both the Libertarian and Green Parties are doing. They will go nowhere unless they can come up with viable candidates at the state and local level first.
 
Mason66 said:
There were a lot of people on the ballot none of us every heard about.

They sent in their applications and they were on the ballot.

My point was that there has to be some governing body to decide who is going to be on the debate stage with certain criteria, otherwise it would be caos.
Click to expand...

Correct. My suggestion for the first presidential debate is any candidate on enough state ballots to obtain 270 electoral votes should be included. Only those candidates who could possibly win. For the second debate I would up the ante, say to 400 electoral votes and the third and final, all state ballots. Johnson was on all 50 state ballots and would have qualified for all three. Jill Stein was on the ballot in 42 states, enough to qualify her for the first two debates, 270 and 400 electoral votes. No other candidate or party was able to be on enough ballots to make the 270 electoral vote threshold in my suggestion.
 
Mason66 said:
There were a lot of people on the ballot none of us every heard about.

They sent in their applications and they were on the ballot.

My point was that there has to be some governing body to decide who is going to be on the debate stage with certain criteria, otherwise it would be caos.
Click to expand...

Who? Who was on the ballot that we never heard of? Did you see people on the the Presidential ballot in your state other than the ones I listed?

I haven't said the debates should be a free for all. I have said that people who are on ballots in enough states to win should be included. That would have included both Johnson and Jill Stein. The system as it is now means a private organization has largely tilted things towards the two major parties. With a set up like that we will only ever get Presidents who are Democrats or Republicans.
 
Gaius46 said:
Who? Who was on the ballot that we never heard of? Did you see people on the the Presidential ballot in your state other than the ones I listed?

I haven't said the debates should be a free for all. I have said that people who are on ballots in enough states to win should be included. That would have included both Johnson and Jill Stein. The system as it is now means a private organization has largely tilted things towards the two major parties. With a set up like that we will only ever get Presidents who are Democrats or Republicans.
Click to expand...

Gary johnson had zero chance to win even if he was in the debates

15% is a reasonable threshold that he was unable to qualify for
 
Mac77 said:
Gary johnson had zero chance to win even if he was in the debates

15% is a reasonable threshold that he was unable to qualify for
Click to expand...

Keep him out of the primary and that becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, not only for Johnson but for every third party forever.

15% is arbitrary - it isn't tied to anything relevant to the election. It's a dartboard number nothing more
 
Gaius46 said:
Keep him out of the primary and that becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, not only for Johnson but for every third party forever.

15% is arbitrary - it isn't tied to anything relevant to the election. It's a dartboard number nothing more
Click to expand...

Life is arbitary.

If Tweeners dont like the rules too bad

But that is the price you pay for choosing to remain on the outside

The two major parties make those decisions between them.
 
Dragonfly said:
On that one aspect of American politics, Trump was correct about the system being rigged.

It's rigged to prevent any third/alternative party outside of the D's an R's from ever having a chance.

And that is just WRONG.
Click to expand...

Well, given Gary Johnson's antics... That moron gimped himself this time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom