How can we really get a third party?

[Coinneach]

Short answer is, we can't, thanks in no small part to the defeatist mindset.

People, you can't win if you keep voting for losers! If you keep voting for the same old, you GET the same old! Why don't you understand this?

[44 AMP]

How about this, instead of trying to create a third party and win political dominance (tough sell), why not try to get the existing govt. to change a few rules, so we can try what I once heard on Paul Harvey (he didn't take credit for the idea, but I can't remember where he said it came from).

Have a last line on the ballot marked "None of the Above", and if that line gets the majority, then hold a new election in 90 days, with none of the previous candidates eledgible to run.

I figure the 90 days might be a little tight, on the other hand, it keeps things movin'. I also figure that , if we did this, we would go through alot of candidates, but that might not be a totally bad idea. I can't help but wonder if we would be any worse off without "professional" politicians.

Another idea, (just for ....and giggles), what if we could change the legislatative process to requiring 2/3 or even 3/4 to get a bill PASSED, and a simple majority to get a law REPEALED.

It makes good sense to me, after all, if the proposed law is actually a good thing, then we should have no problem getting all the votes needed to pass it.

And, if it turns out that it really wasn't such a good thing after all, we shouldn't have to fight so hard to get rid of it.

Sadly I am haunted by the thought of "if I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America turn them all in..."

Just because someone can get 51% to go along doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This is mob mentality. Pure democracy in action.

[azfredv]

There is a political party that was founded in 2003. Most have not heard about them, because they are doing things the correct way- They have been moving slowly, making sure the people they take in are people who will be dedicated to the party. They did not call themselves a party and immediately run all the big races, crying they didn't have a chance. They have started in the town councils, state legislatures and such. They take their time to make sure the few they reach totally understand them. This is so the informed will spread the word.

If you truly want a government to represent you the voter, please take a look at the AMERICA FIRST party. They can be found at www.americafirstparty.org and by telephone at 1-866-SOS-USA1 (1-866-767-8721.)

They are really good people, they have their complete platform and principles posted on their website. ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, New Mexico & TEXAS...You are the states that need to look at, join and support this party. If anyone is interested, Arizona only needs 9 more members to be enabled with an organizing committee. That includes replacing my wife and I, as we will be moving out of state before summer starts. However, I am going to continue to assist in creating and nurturing Arizona's party, so if anyone has interest, please go to the website, call that free telephone number, or ask me questions through private messaging. The website is awesome; not fancy, but very informative.

If they can build the momentum starting now, they could awaken as a 2008 contender in many local, state or congressional races. Unfortunately, they would probably not be able to run a presidential candidate in time, but again, the idea is to start small and plant your roots into solid soil.

I was an officer in the Arizona and Maricopa County Liberterian parties, and I could not stay with them. Although we were successful in making the Liberterians the third registered major political party in Arizona, I cannot accept their support of open boarders, abortion or one or two other major issues.

I believe in the America First party because you will find NOTHING they support that is not in the US Constitution. You will find them opposed to EVERY authority our governemnts at all levels have taken for themselves that is not granted to them by the Constitution and they are not hypocrites. Let us remember that the 2nd Amendment is not the only one;They all count.

[Coinneach]

Another idea, (just for ....and giggles), what if we could change the legislatative process to requiring 2/3 or even 3/4 to get a bill PASSED, and a simple majority to get a law REPEALED.

44, Heinlein suggested exactly that in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

[Redworm]

The America First Party looks pretty good but I just can't agree with some of their issues. I certainly wouldn't want a ban on cloning or genetic manipulation, I see no reason homosexuals cannot be considered "honorable men and women" to serve in the military, I don't want them deciding the context of marriage based on their religious beliefs...

sry

[Phetro]

If you truly want a government to represent you the voter, please take a look at the AMERICA FIRST party. They can be found at www.americafirstparty.org and by telephone at 1-866-SOS-USA1 (1-866-767-8721.)

Wow! I have always disagreed with the Libertarians on a couple things, and the Constitution party on one thing...but this...

This is the perfect political party! I mean, every single one of their values is pure America, no BS, no double talk!

If this isn't ripe for a signature line, I don't know what is. From now on, they have my support.

[JerryM]

As one examines the comments here it is obvious that we could not ever agree on enough issues, that are not negotiable, to form a third party.

For me, the moral issues, abortion and homosexuality, are not negotiable.
The moral compass of a nation is what keeps it on track, and is the underlying key to whether it flourishes or falls.

This nation has largely abandoned the moral standards upon which it was formed and became great. It is on the downhill slope now.

So it is obvious that while we have some common goals re the 2nd, there are other issues that greatly divide us.

Jerry

[Redworm]

This nation has largely abandoned the moral standards upon which it was formed and became great. It is on the downhill slope now.

You're forgetting the fact that the nation has also abondoned some pretty immoral standards that it was founded upon. Everyone seems to think that the good ole days of John Wayne and Teddy Roosevelt were the golden age of America but it's a bunch of crap. This country was founded on principles of freedom and liberty but ironically enough it was done so by mysoginists and slave owners.

Many things are worse but many things are better. To claim the country is on a downhill slope is to ignore the many positive changes that have come about.

[JerryM]

No, Redworm, you are incorrect. Yes, there were some immoral things, such as slavery.
However, I cannot think of too many immoral things that were accepted.
Shacking-up, homosexuality, abortion were not accepted, although it happened, but to a much less extent.

People had a work ethic that is not present today. They cared more about others. Today there is no respect for others, and we see vulgar T-shirts and hear language that would not have been spoken in mixed company.

Children were taught respect, and were spanked for infractions as necessary, but they were not abused and killed as today. There is unbridled sex, and it is encouraged. The girls dress like sluts, and the boys like it.

In fact, today it is a self-centered society that worships entertainment, and pleasure. It rejects that anyone has a right to tell someone what to do, within the law.

It is a very much morally deteriorated society/nation. It has turned its back on the living God who blessed us more than any nation in history.

I have personally witnessed the moral degradation. It is getting worse.

Jerry

[tyme]

For me, the moral issues, abortion and homosexuality, are not negotiable.

For me also, the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality are not negotiable.

The moral compass of a nation is what keeps it on track, and is the underlying key to whether it flourishes or falls.

The nation does not have a "moral compass." It has laws. The people of this nation each have a moral compass, and they can orient it however they want. Those laws of this nation based solely on a religion-based "moral compass" have caused certain areas of scientific and social progress to approach a standstill.

Aside from that, if I seriously tried to tell someone how and with whom they could go for a ride, I would expect to find myself in a fight, and probably not the yelling kind.

Back to third parties, before I rant about abortion and get banned. The Constitution and America First parties are unacceptably naive. The latter has some particularly disturbing platform planks.

America First Party Platform, selections
Cloning/Genetics

Outlaw the cloning of human beings and of other mammals, fowl, fish, and reptiles.

I guess amphibians are fair game for cloning? What about extinct species? Something about a reference to "fish or fowl" in public policy activates my idiot early warning system.

Outlaw the modification of the human genome to eliminate undesirable traits, to enhance existing abilities or traits, or to create new abilities or traits.

Where's the proposal to mandate random breeding and cull anyone too far up the bell curve? Oh, if only this policy had been in place back when we were apes, the Earth would not be suffering this plague of idiotic humans.

Outlaw the use of fetal tissue for genetic or other research, but permit the use of placenta tissues collected following the natural birth of a child.

Another brilliant policy point. Parents can choose to cremate a (naturally) aborted / stillborn fetus, but can't choose to donate it for science?

Judicial Activism

Congress shall have the power to overturn federal judicial decisions that misinterpret the laws Congress has passed.

They have got to be kidding. Everyone has a gripe with one or several SCOTUS decisions, but shifting unaccountability from the Courts to Congress is not a solution.

Homosexuals in the Military

The America First Party will not support any proposal that allows homosexuals into the military service of the United States of America, in any capacity.

The United States military service is an honorable vocation for honorable men and women.

Please tell me this is some kind of joke. This policy ignores all the valid concerns about sex and sexual activity in the military (pregnancy, more interest in a fellow soldier than on the mission, lowering of physical standards to allow more women to pass, etc.), and it takes the ridiculous step of banning homosexuals rather than homosexual conduct. I wonder what the America First Party's stance is on bisexuals and transsexuals in the military. I suppose the first fall under "homosexuals," but what about trannies? Are they homosexuals as well? What if they're homosexuals (post-op)? That would make them naturally heterosexual, so there shouldn't be a problem, right? What about eunuchs?

Religious Expression

No society can survive in the absence of moral governance. In recognizing America's historic Christian roots, the America First Party firmly supports the necessary restoration of God to the public square.

That's none of the Government's business. References to God by private persons or entities in a community are perfectly legitimate. References to a particular God (outside of historical/cultural discussions) in publicly funded programs like schools are forbidden through the 1st and 14th amendments. A citizen can feel however he wants about God, but cannot claim it's fair to recite only a Christian Prayer in a school with Muslims and Buddhists. Not even local communities are democracies when it comes to basic rights, and religious freedom is one of those rights. If these America First and Constitution Party loons don't like that, they can move to Saudi Arabia and find out what religious oppression really is.

[Eghad]

I appreciate the ideas of a moral compass. However, this is America with liberty and justice for all. You are allowed the pursuit of hapiness. For me what you do in your own bedroom is your own business. I have served with gays in the military who were professional in every aspect. The kept thier private life private and did thier duty. You are allowed to practice your moral beliefs as you see fit. You do not have the right to impose upon others your moral standards or religious standards. I personally oppose homosexuality. However, I fully support a gay persons constitutional rights in this country and society. Democracy is all inclusive or it is mutually exclusive. I do not think it right to say we will give gay persons the rights as we see fit according to our moral standards. The British Crown only wanted us to live as they saw fit.

As long as a persons lifestyle is not endangering public safety, they are hardworking and contributing to society..they have the right to pursue happiness and excercise thier constitutional rights free of what others self imposed moral and religious standards are.

[Eghad]

My solution....

I am going to sign Kinky Friedmans petition for Gov of Texas.

In the next election for President lets all find a good Independent candidate and roll the dice..... I dont think we could do worse than the potential candidates.

[JerryM]

Hi Tyme,

On the contrary, a nation does have a moral compass. It?s laws reflect that fact. I won?t use the word ?all? but laws have their origin in the religious views of the nation. We were settled, and ?formed? by people who did in fact follow the precepts of Christianity.

Various presidents, including George Washington, acknowledged God as creator. He is quoted as saying, ?It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.? You might argue what or who he meant by God, but the Bible is a specific book.

To think that the nation?s leaders are to set aside their own morality gleaned from their religion is totally unrealistic. One?s religion, and his dedication to it, defines who he is, and he cannot act contrary to it and be true. I am proud that GWB does not hide it.

We do have laws that tell people what they can do within the Constitution. That is necessary for an orderly society.
In truth the nation was found upon Christian principles, and not Buddhist or Muslims or any other religion. We were formed as a Christian nation. Our laws in general reflect that, as do the 10 Commandments which were posted in public places.

I might add that sexual deviates do not belong in the military.


Eghad,

Liberty and justice for all does not include the right to do anything he might desire, and not things that are detrimental to a nation. Homosexuality is such a thing. It is harmful to the nation, and has cost a lot of money with AIDs. It was considered illegal until just recently so the founders and early "fathers" obviously agreed it was not acceptable.

Yes, we do have the right to impose moral standards upon others. That is what laws do. We do it within the process set up by the Constitution, by voting. I will always do what I legally can to stop the murder of the unborn, and to stem the tide of the acceptance of homosexuality. I will do so within the legal process. Maybe I will be successful, and maybe not, but I will try.

Jerry

[tyme]

To think that the nation?s leaders are to set aside their own morality gleaned from their religion is totally unrealistic. One?s religion, and his dedication to it, defines who he is, and he cannot act contrary to it and be true. I am proud that GWB does not hide it.

The religious should be able to distinguish between moral precepts that have a social function and those that are entirely a subjective matter of their religion (like the "life" of a 1st-term embryo/fetus, or the propriety of homosexuality). If they cannot distinguish such things from traditional crimes (acts that do real harm to those who are already part of the social contract), they should be barred from public office.

As for this country being founded on Christianity, you are just plain wrong, and this has been pointed out numerous times on TFL and THR and I see no reason to rehash it in depth. Quite simply, some founders were Christian, and some were not, and those who were not did not sign on to the creation of a Christian nation.

[JerryM]

Well we will just disagree with each other on that. I do not know how many of the founders were born again Christians, but I do know some of the quotes such as the George Washington quote, and together with laws that followed Christian ethics and principles, plus the 10 Commandments being posted just shows the attempt to change historical facts.

I agree that in the area of morality or religion there must be no attempt to make a particular Christian view the state religion. GWB is a Methodist, but he does not impose that particular view on others. But that does not negate the fact that he does hold to the Christian principles of the Bible. No one has said we should have a state religion. The founders did not intend that, and neither do I. But what we see is an outright hostility to Christianity.

That, maybe, should not be surprising, as fewer and fewer want to consider that there are moral absolutes that in due time will judge them. It really took off in the 60s, and they became the professors and leaders. Most never changed their godless outlook. It is now coming home to roost with single parent families and latch key kids. The drug culture, abortion, sex at ages so young in earlier years they did not even know what it was.

TFL is not the authority as to how this country was founded, and the subsequent way we thought and acted. It is a poorer nation than even a half century ago. More money, fewer morals of the right kind. Kids having kids, and kids who do not know who their fathers are. And the acceptance of homosexuality and murder of the unborn. I accept neither. Both are terrible sins for which we will suffer the consequences, and are to some degree.

Jerry

[Redworm]

Shacking-up, homosexuality, abortion were not accepted, although it happened, but to a much less extent.

Just because you find cohabitation and homosexuality immoral doesn't mean it is. What's immoral about sharing an apartment with a roommate? What's immoral about being with someone you love?

It has turned its back on the living God

The difference is that I think that's one of society's greatest accomplishments. Not everyone believes in the same thing you do, try to remember that.

And the acceptance of homosexuality and murder of the unborn. I accept neither. Both are terrible sins for which we will suffer the consequences, and are to some degree.

Didn't some persian jewish guy once say "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

or something to that effect?

[JerryM]

Hi Redworm,

Your problem is shared by many today who do not believe the authority of the Bible as God?s revealed truth to mankind. One?s conscience can only operate within the parameters it understands. A native raised as a headhunter thinks that headhunting is moral, if he ever thinks of morality.

[Just because you find cohabitation and homosexuality immoral doesn't mean it is. What's immoral about sharing an apartment with a roommate? What's immoral about being with someone you love?]

There are moral absolutes. I do not define what is moral. Only God can do that, and He has in his Word. He has given some clear instructions and commands as to what is moral and immoral, and they are absolutes. He does not need either your or my approval as He is sovereign. If you reject that then who or what is to define morality? It is harmful to a society, and all you have to do is to look at things like teen pregnancy, and AIDS to see that.

[The difference is that I think that's one of society's greatest accomplishments. Not everyone believes in the same thing you do, try to remember that.]

Strange that you would find it a great accomplish to reject God, the Creator of the universe. But you are not alone. Those who do that will stand before Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20, and spend eternity in Hell. Not much of an accomplishment.

[Didn't some persian jewish guy once say "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."]

I totally accept that. However, it is not well understood. Note that he is talking to hypocrites who were doing that for which they condemned others. Then, Jesus said, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Note that he never said that one couldn?t make judgments, but judgments must be made without hypocrisy, and in accordance with His words.

In fact, we are commanded to make judgments as the Bible tells us not to have fellowship with certain people, and homosexuals would be one group.

Jesus said that we could know men by their fruits.

You see you have no understanding of the passage, but use it to deflect one from making judgments that we are commanded to make.
I fully expect to be judged by the judgments I make. They are in the Bible and pertain to me and to you, and to all mankind.

Have a good day,
Jerry

[Redworm]

Your problem is shared by many today who do not believe the authority of the Bible as God?s revealed truth to mankind.

Actually I don't believe it's a problem at all. I certainly respect your right to believe in whatever diety you choose but you should respect the right of others to believe in other dieties or no diety at all.

There are moral absolutes. I do not define what is moral. Only God can do that, and He has in his Word. He has given some clear instructions and commands as to what is moral and immoral, and they are absolutes. He does not need either your or my approval as He is sovereign. If you reject that then who or what is to define morality? It is harmful to a society, and all you have to do is to look at things like teen pregnancy, and AIDS to see that.

But what about those of us who don't believe in a god? Who defines morality then? To suggest that those of us who don't share your religious beliefs should be held to the moral standards presented by your diety of choice goes against the very concept of freedom of religion.

Teen pregnancy and AIDS are the result of more issues than simply cohabitation or a rejection of religion. I would venture that conservative parents who refuse to educate their children on the realities of sex at an early enough age are just as responsible.

Strange that you would find it a great accomplish to reject God, the Creator of the universe. But you are not alone. Those who do that will stand before Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20, and spend eternity in Hell. Not much of an accomplishment.

It's because I don't believe in the same things you do. I have never claimed that they're not true but I do feel that our society's quest for knowledge and a rejection of superstition is far more beneficial than rejecting science and simply accepting things on faith.

I appreciate your concern but I don't believe in hell. Unless of course you're refering to Reno.

You see you have no understanding of the passage, but use it to deflect one from making judgments that we are commanded to make.

I was raised Roman Catholic, I have a pretty good understanding. The bottom line remains "judge not lest ye be judged". Your god also commands that he is the only one with the authority to judge the actions of others because no one is without sin.

But then again some people don't believe in the concept of sin so it's all gravy anyways.

Have a good day,
Jerry

Gracias And may the Force be with you.

[Rich Lucibella]

I'm not going to have religious debate become the focus of any topic at TFL, and that is well known here. I have my own spiritual beliefs, but this is neither the place to testify, to witness nor to convert on issues of Faith.

Religious debate is a non-sequitur, except for true religious scholars. I see none of those here. Simply persons demanding that others accept "my truth" as "The Truth". That's not debate; it's a question: Is your God my God? Save it for elsewhere.

I expect I won't have to intervene on this point here again. Enough said. Back to the topic at hand.
Rich

[JerryM]

Rich,
The platforms of the various parties are what we base our choices upon, along with the candidates and what they say. Accordingly, the moral choices we must make are the most important to many of us, and myself in particular.

When a discussion surfaces where the choices get down to the morality of the party platform it is necessary to discuss it if we are to have a true discussion. The subject as to "How to get a third party" is such a discussion. I cannot accept the amoral and immoral parts of some of the third parties. That is a reason we cannot get one.

I intend to always do such until banned, which I expect to be, but I had rather state the truth than belong to any forum. I realize this is your house and you make the rules, but I do not intend to compromise my discussions as I believe this type is important to the overall good of the nation.

As for scholarship, I am not sure you would really recognize it in the religious arena.

Sorry, but this is the way it is for each of us and you have the last word.

Jerry

[Scott Conklin]

(like the "life" of a 1st-term embryo/fetus,

I don't even need a moral compass for this. Since there is no actual debate about whether it is "alive" can you show my genetic evidence it is not human? When you can, get back to us...

[Rich Lucibella]

Jerry-
You're right, I do have the last word; your offer to martyr yourself on the Godless policies of TFL (to which you agreed), notwithstanding.

You've already been instructed that morality is not identical to religion for most. In fact, the finest religious scholars in the history of the world have made that very distinction, from treatise to simple instruction like "Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar". A moral obligation is not always a religious obligation except for those who consider their every act to be directed by their God. Nothing unhealthy about living your life that way...it's your life; mine is mine. I simply won't allow people to put it on a billboard when Staff pays for and works to maintain the space. Get a blog.

OK?

I intend to always do such until banned, which I expect to be, but I had rather state the truth than belong to any forum. I realize this is your house and you make the rules, but I do not intend to compromise my discussions as I believe this type is important to the overall good of the nation.

In that case, I'll suggest that you voluntarily take your leave of us. It would be immoral to demand an audience for your personal views in a man's living room, when you agreed to abide by his limits to the range of discussion and he has asked you to cease and desist.

Rich Lucibella
Hardly a religious scholar; proudly Jesuit educated from age 18 thru 24