billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 9:37:31 GMT -5
... We need to get rid of the electorial college, limit campaign spending, and basically start from scratch IMHO. And the election of a person not nominated by the Republicans nor the Democrats just could be the bump to get us out of the deep rut we are in.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 9:45:18 GMT -5
Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary. Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money. Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed. Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to. It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan. Third party seems like a big unknown. Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. Absolutely there's risk involved. However, I do believe that a candidate's willingness to step broadly outside the two-party framework says something positive about his/her core independence. I sincerely believe an independent candidate would strive harder to deliver a platform as advertised. Moreover, the interests that rule the major parties would be the last ones to desert the status quo, thus mitigating their influence. We need to get rid of the electorial college, limit campaign spending, and basically start from scratch IMHO. You're not going to get it without an armed revolution. Voting for a third-party candidate, hopeless and ineffectual as it may seem at this point, is the only recourse you're given within the framework of your republic.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 10:00:05 GMT -5
Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils. You can't think that way. It is pretty natural to think that way since it has happened in the past. It is possible that voting 3rd party will allow the worse of your 2 evils to win & that is a scary thought at times. Even better, if a 3rd party ever gets 5% of the vote their party is eligible for part of the presidential campaign fund in the next election. Basically you get a huge grant in the next election for being popular. Locally when we have mayoral elections, if no party gets 50% of the vote, then there is a runoff between the top two. Initially I thought it was incredibly stupid. But, if they did this in presidential elections, then I think 3rd party candidates would get a ton of votes in the first round. At that point you aren't risking throwing your vote away.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 10:00:20 GMT -5
This should be moved to the Virgil's Current Events page. As a third party candidate of any stripe is not even remotely close to the White House, this thread is just the current one that helps to keep Virg from being a bored Canookian. I think the fact that there is no chance for a third party candidate should be comforting enough for those who support either major party to not be afraid of a thread on Politics talking about them. i disagree that there is "no chance", and there is at least one modern example that comes to mind who seriously disrupted the process. in addition, i think the chances are much better at a state and local level.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 10:03:56 GMT -5
You can't think that way. You're going to get war with Iran, US engagement in Turkey and the Ukraine, zero action on patching up the US's porous southern border, new spending, negligible cuts to existing spending, higher healthcare costs, larger deficits, more executive office power, greater powers to intelligence agencies, further erosion of civil liberties, and a broadening divide between rich and poor regardless of which major party candidate makes it into the White House. Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary. i gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, even though i was pretty sure he was wrong about WMD. so, it would appear that your faith in the intelligence is perhaps a bit too steadfast.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 10:06:34 GMT -5
... Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary. Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money. Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed. Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to. It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan. Third party seems like a big unknown. Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. Sure, sticking with the status quo is safer but maybe it is time for change. given how UNSAFE sticking with the status quo has been, it is hard to imagine how things could be worse by voting one's conscience.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 11:51:25 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 13:17:30 GMT -5
i know, i know. you were probably saying the same thing.....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 13:49:46 GMT -5
i know, i know. you were probably saying the same thing..... I was just having fun with a name and making a somewhat side point with the other. It would have made more sense for you to quote the postings that I also quoted for my on reasons rather than including my responses.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 22, 2015 14:14:55 GMT -5
... We need to get rid of the electorial college, limit campaign spending, and basically start from scratch IMHO. And the election of a person not nominated by the Republicans nor the Democrats just could be the bump to get us out of the deep rut we are in. I saw where Hillary was advocating for election spending reform to keep the millionaires out of the elections and get it back to the one person, one vote idea, and she was roundly criticized on Morning Joe by several talking heads because 'no one in America is interested in campaign finance reform - they want wage increases.' Well, I'm certainly interested in campaign finance reform....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 14:26:01 GMT -5
And the election of a person not nominated by the Republicans nor the Democrats just could be the bump to get us out of the deep rut we are in. I saw where Hillary was advocating for election spending reform to keep the millionaires out of the elections and get it back to the one person, one vote idea, and she was roundly criticized on Morning Joe by several talking heads because 'no one in America is interested in campaign finance reform - they want wage increases.' Well, I'm certainly interested in campaign finance reform.... I have no problem with billionaires spending money. I don't have a problem with them spending it to influence voters. I have a problem with voters being influenced by the money that is spent. Wouldn't it be great if they liquidated all their wealth for campaign spending on the D's and the R's and the American people voted for none of their candidates?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 22, 2015 14:47:41 GMT -5
I think the fact that there is no chance for a third party candidate should be comforting enough for those who support either major party to not be afraid of a thread on Politics talking about them. i disagree that there is "no chance", and there is at least one modern example that comes to mind who seriously disrupted the process. in addition, i think the chances are much better at a state and local level. I've got someone in mind, but I'm curious as to whom you think this person is... As far as the changes at the state and local level, have to say I'm a LOT less cynical on this front than I was even a month ago. We got two write in !!! candidates elected to our city council (independent even!!!) when neither party would let them run on their platform. I know, small beans but maybe chance is possible in IL (this is in a huge democratic machine county BTW).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 14:53:06 GMT -5
i disagree that there is "no chance", and there is at least one modern example that comes to mind who seriously disrupted the process. in addition, i think the chances are much better at a state and local level. I've got someone in mind, but I'm curious as to whom you think this person is... I'm fairly certain DJ is talking about Nader. He took quite a few votes that would have gone to Gore. In Florida he won over 100,000 votes. Bush won the state by something like 1,000 votes & as a result won the election.
I think it is easy to agree that more than 1% of those voting for Nader would have chosen Gore over Bush. Probably at least 90% would have chosen Gore over Bush if they knew it was coming down to them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 15:22:15 GMT -5
And the election of a person not nominated by the Republicans nor the Democrats just could be the bump to get us out of the deep rut we are in. I saw where Hillary was advocating for election spending reform to keep the millionaires out of the elections and get it back to the one person, one vote idea, and she was roundly criticized on Morning Joe by several talking heads because 'no one in America is interested in campaign finance reform - they want wage increases.' Well, I'm certainly interested in campaign finance reform.... It would make for an interesting mini research project to look up whether there has ever been a US presidential candidate who wasn't gung ho on election spending reform. To my shame, I believed Pres. Obama would take action in 2008. At that point he seemed to have enough grassroots support that finance reform wouldn't murder his chances in subsequent elections. I bought it. I drank the Kool-Aid. I'm not proud of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 15:27:29 GMT -5
i know, i know. you were probably saying the same thing..... I was just having fun with a name and making a somewhat side point with the other. It would have made more sense for you to quote the postings that I also quoted for my on reasons rather than including my responses. the imbedding feature is kinda lame at this site, and i only copy what it keeps.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 15:28:39 GMT -5
i disagree that there is "no chance", and there is at least one modern example that comes to mind who seriously disrupted the process. in addition, i think the chances are much better at a state and local level. I've got someone in mind, but I'm curious as to whom you think this person is... PerotAs far as the changes at the state and local level, have to say I'm a LOT less cynical on this front than I was even a month ago. We got two write in !!! candidates elected to our city council (independent even!!!) when neither party would let them run on their platform. I know, small beans but maybe chance is possible in IL (this is in a huge democratic machine county BTW). didn't someone win either Alaska Governor, Senate or Congress as a write in? I think SO.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Apr 22, 2015 15:35:33 GMT -5
I saw where Hillary was advocating for election spending reform to keep the millionaires out of the elections and get it back to the one person, one vote idea, and she was roundly criticized on Morning Joe by several talking heads because 'no one in America is interested in campaign finance reform - they want wage increases.' Well, I'm certainly interested in campaign finance reform.... It would make for an interesting mini research project to look up whether there has ever been a US presidential candidate who wasn't gung ho on election spending reform. To my shame, I believed Pres. Obama would take action in 2008. At that point he seemed to have enough grassroots support that finance reform wouldn't murder his chances in subsequent elections. I bought it. I drank the Kool-Aid. I'm not proud of it.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Apr 22, 2015 15:43:51 GMT -5
Virgil,
most of us drank the Kool-Aid, again and again, and we will drink it again. What exactly are you proud of, being duped?
Electoral reform and term limits for congress would be a start.
As far as a viable third party...in my life time, I'm skeptical? But anything is possible.
What would it look like, what would it advocate? How would it differentiate itself from the elephant and the donkey in any meaningful ways that would resonate withe the average person?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 22, 2015 16:20:44 GMT -5
Virgil, most of us drank the Kool-Aid, again and again, and we will drink it again. What exactly are you proud of, being duped? Electoral reform and term limits for congress would be a start. As far as a viable third party...in my life time, I'm skeptical? But anything is possible. What would it look like, what would it advocate? How would it differentiate itself from the elephant and the donkey in any meaningful ways that would resonate withe the average person? Personally I think a 'common sense' party who advocated tax reform, spending reductions across the board, strong national defense (but keeping out of international fights), infrastructure improvements, debt reduction, and a focus on moving the country forward by getting congress of it's ass and out of the pockets of lobbys and the uber wealthy would attract a strong following - especially if this candidate refused to answer questions about his religion/ abortion/gay rights, insisting on the importance of keeping church and state separated and allowing those kinds of 'social' issues to be settled by individual states. The problem would be getting enough name recognition - there would have to be a massive grass roots campaign via social media - and then once he got elected, figuring out how he would beat both the parties into submission so that they would stop with all the finger pointing and bitching and start doing something useful. The other problem would be the single issue voters. People, for instance, who are pro-choice or pro-abortion may not want to vote for a candidate who insists he won't advocate federal regulations one way or another on the issue. So you'd lose some hard right and hard left voters, but I think you could get enough middle of the road voters to win.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Apr 22, 2015 16:30:30 GMT -5
Virgil, most of us drank the Kool-Aid, again and again, and we will drink it again. What exactly are you proud of, being duped? Electoral reform and term limits for congress would be a start. As far as a viable third party...in my life time, I'm skeptical? But anything is possible. What would it look like, what would it advocate? How would it differentiate itself from the elephant and the donkey in any meaningful ways that would resonate withe the average person? Personally I think a 'common sense' party who advocated tax reform, spending reductions across the board, strong national defense (but keeping out of international fights), infrastructure improvements, debt reduction, and a focus on moving the country forward by getting congress of it's ass and out of the pockets of lobbys and the uber wealthy would attract a strong following - especially if this candidate refused to answer questions about his religion/ abortion/gay rights, insisting on the importance of keeping church and state separated and allowing those kinds of 'social' issues to be settled by individual states. The problem would be getting enough name recognition - there would have to be a massive grass roots campaign via social media - and then once he got elected, figuring out how he would beat both the parties into submission so that they would stop with all the finger pointing and bitching and start doing something useful. The other problem would be the single issue voters. People, for instance, who are pro-choice or pro-abortion may not want to vote for a candidate who insists he won't advocate federal regulations one way or another on the issue. So you'd lose some hard right and hard left voters, but I think you could get enough middle of the road voters to win. Well thought out and well said, but we are still after that "common sense" middle ground. Thank you for taking the time to think about this...later.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 16:40:21 GMT -5
Virgil, most of us drank the Kool-Aid, again and again, and we will drink it again. What exactly are you proud of, being duped? Electoral reform and term limits for congress would be a start. As far as a viable third party...in my life time, I'm skeptical? But anything is possible. What would it look like, what would it advocate? How would it differentiate itself from the elephant and the donkey in any meaningful ways that would resonate withe the average person? I expect most platforms will resemble Democratic and Republican platforms. The problem with the major parties isn't their messages. They both have legions of analysts telling them exactly what Americans want to hear and how to say it to make people believe them. The problem is that neither party has the slightest interest in honouring promises that don't mesh with the goals of their controlling interests. Lower taxes? Sure, Republicans can deliver on that. It's what their controlling interests want. Cutting spending? It's on the menu. You can order it. Sweet mercy, you haven't lived until you've tasted Jeb's spending cuts with gnocchi in a white wine reduction. Boy, it sounds great. But you'll never get it. Obamacare? Absolutely. The greatest gift to insurance companies in US national history. Millions of happy, newly-insured voters. Only a fool wouldn't deliver. The Republicans can only wish they'd done it first. Government transparency? It's in the catalog. You can order it. I tell you, Hillary is going to make you a government so transparent, you'll be able to cut it into panes and use them as windows on show homes. Boy, it's just what the doctor ordered. But you'll never get it. Third party candidates have three things going for them: - they aren't guaranteed funding by deeply-entrenched interests; they have no longstanding relationships with such interests; they hold no obligations to such interests
- third parties are presently the only parties that will benefit from any kind of campaign finance reform; they are the only parties for whom campaign finance reform happens to mesh with political self-interest
- most third-party candidates are not confined to the small pool of American dynasties; they may become agents of the oligarchy, but they are not agents a priori
My personal belief is that these three factors will at least make a TPC significantly more likely to honour his/her promises (or at the very least, strive to meet them with the powers afforded to the presidency).
There are no guarantees. As Thyme points out, it's a risk. My thesis in this thread is that it's never been more worth taking.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 17:02:42 GMT -5
The Powers That Be in the Republican and Democratic Parties might in the depths of their souls late at night fear the electorate voting in a candidate not of their parties but I don't think that they think that it will ever happen. If the American voters even just gave them a good scare, I think that would be a positive.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Apr 22, 2015 17:20:58 GMT -5
How 'bout Bernie Sanders. Isn't he running? I can't believe that site listed the crazy language woman and left out Bernie Sanders. He hasn't declared yet, but they include a lot of expected and exploratory third party people.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 17:25:13 GMT -5
How 'bout Bernie Sanders. Isn't he running? I can't believe that site listed the crazy language woman and left out Bernie Sanders. He hasn't declared yet, but they include a lot of expected and exploratory third party people. He is listed on Democratic Party candidates.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Apr 22, 2015 17:37:14 GMT -5
Thanks, I was looking under their list of "all" candidates and didn't check in the Democrats.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Apr 22, 2015 18:38:01 GMT -5
Remember: there is a hard ceiling on the unsuitability of a candidate for the US Presidency, embodied by the inevitable nominees for the two major US parties. You risk nothing by voting for a third-party candidate. If ever there was a time to embrace radical change, this is it. Except splitting the vote of the slightly less distasteful candidate and getting the worst of two evils. Hey, that is how we got Billy Clinton.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 19:29:04 GMT -5
The Powers That Be in the Republican and Democratic Parties might in the depths of their souls late at night fear the electorate voting in a candidate not of their parties but I don't think that they think that it will ever happen. If the American voters even just gave them a good scare, I think that would be a positive. bills- doesn't it seem to you like if somewhere between 20 and 50 people in the House and 3 to 5 in the Senate were independent or 3rd party that they could control things pretty well, given the strong divisions in the two major parties? neither party would hold a majority, so the third party would constitute part of a "coalition government", and could set the agenda, right?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 19:32:35 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 22, 2015 19:43:54 GMT -5
Ugh, Tami reminds me of Camilla. What a nightmare!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 19:45:17 GMT -5
You can't think that way. You're going to get war with Iran, US engagement in Turkey and the Ukraine, zero action on patching up the US's porous southern border, new spending, negligible cuts to existing spending, higher healthcare costs, larger deficits, more executive office power, greater powers to intelligence agencies, further erosion of civil liberties, and a broadening divide between rich and poor regardless of which major party candidate makes it into the White House. Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary. Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money. Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed. Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to. It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan. Third party seems like a big unknown. Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. Well, we KNOW the status quo doesn't work. Isn't it worth the risk to try something new? 100% known that it doesn't work v. 50/50 that it might or might not work.
|
|