There are other Parties

[JackLuis]

Libertarian White House hopeful: Hillary and Trump represent just 30 percent of the electorate

In a presidential campaign season featuring polarizing front-runners and infighting among Republicans and Democrats, Gary Johnson sees an opening.

That’s if more folks realize they have options outside of the country’s two juggernaut parties, says the former two-term New Mexico governor.

The Republican-turned-Libertarian got something of a pick-me-up late last month. He drew 11 percent support in a nationwide Monmouth University poll asking registered voters whom they would pick in a contest between Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Johnson, the 63-year-old fitness freak who has climbed each continent’s tallest mountain (Everest was the biggest challenge).

But even Johnson, who received about 1.2 million votes in a 2012 presidential run, admits the polling results probably don’t signal that he’ll soon become a household name. In the same poll, more than three-fourths of respondents said they did not know enough about his background to form an opinion about him.

“If Mickey Mouse would have been the third name, Mickey would have probably gotten 28 percent,” he told The Texas Tribune in an interview. “That’s how fed up people are.”

And there is Hypoxia's Green Party and how many others? You never hear about them in the mass media though?

 

[srgreene]

Libertarian White House hopeful: Hillary and Trump represent just 30 percent of the electorate



And there is Hypoxia's Green Party and how many others? You never hear about them in the mass media though?

No, you don't. The Rrepublicrats have things very tightly locked up for themselves. I have voted Libertarian in the past, and Johnson is certainly a serious person. But third parties have to practically knock themselves out to even get the on ballot nationwide. Politicians are all for competition- except when it comes to themselves.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because there are not more than two parties and cannot be more than two parties withour voting system. Most Libertarians are marginalized Republicans or at the very least fall in line when the time comes and most Greenies are far left Democrats who again fall inline and/or congregate in places where they don't matter. I could safely vote Sephiroth and it would cause absolutely no change.

 

[Hypoxia]

And there is Hypoxia's Green Party and how many others? You never hear about them in the mass media though?

I'm a registered member of the Green Party of California because it's safe here, just as previously when I was registered Peace & Freedom or Platypus. GOPs can't take the state now. Last time I voted for a mainstream national candidate (and the last time I won) was 1976.

Mea culpa: I've been a strong and constant Jerry Brown supporter. When facing a choice between voting for what I want and losing, or voting for what I don't want and winning, I'll take the former. So in November I'll cast my ballot for Dr Jill Stein.

GOP: Liars
Dem: Thieves
Libertarian: Eh
VOTE GREEN!​

 

[Sean Renaud]

For the sake of keeping this thread alive what precisely is the Green Party. I'd go google up their platform but the gulf between what Libertarians preach and what the libertarian platform is so vast I'd call it an ocean.

 

[srgreene]

Because there are not more than two parties and cannot be more than two parties withour voting system. Most Libertarians are marginalized Republicans or at the very least fall in line when the time comes and most Greenies are far left Democrats who again fall inline and/or congregate in places where they don't matter. I could safely vote Sephiroth and it would cause absolutely no change.

You as an individual could safely vote for anyone, and it would make no difference in the outcome of a presidential election.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, but that's isn't true for all Americans. If I lived in Ohio I wouldn't screw around with writing in Godzilla or following my heart to Rand Paul or something because however unlikely my vote might be the one that counts. Certainly I couldn't tell groups of people to be flippant about it like I can here.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm surprised the Tea Party isn't making a stronger separate-party bid yet.

 

[srgreene]

I'm surprised the Tea Party isn't making a stronger separate-party bid yet.

Not sure they want to. They fit in rather well with much of the conservative wing of the GOP. Not sure a third party would advance their goals. Libertarians, on the other hand, have their own distinct agenda.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Americans are too stupid to fire the scum and vote in their own self interest.

We deserve that (D)/(R) dick planted firmly up our collective asses.

The end.

 

[patient1]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Constitution Party is or was America's third largest political party. Considering that oaths of office are taken to The Constitution rather than the nation, why wouldn't everybody want to join?

Romney was even talking about abandoning the GOP in favor of The Constitution Party, it being on the ballot in most states, if it were too late to stop Trump in the Republican process.

Just as the Taxed Enough Already party started out to limit the federal government fiscally, but became hijacked by Ted Cruz type TheoCons, the Constitution Party seems much the same.

The Congressman I knew was much about advancing the social/cultural/fundamentalist Christian agenda in Constitutional language - school choice, school prayer, Pro Life, sanctity of marriage, and taking a 10th Amendment/state's rights stance accordingly OR NOT, if it advanced his Christian nation worldview.

The place where I see daylight between Ted Cruz and The Constitution Party is that the party wants to collect all debts owed to the USA by other nations, abolish all foreign aid and treaties that might lead to foreign wars, whereas Cruz is an Israel cheerleader. Putting it differently, while Cruz is an international hawk, The Constitution Party are isolationists.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Save their occasional overprotectionism I don't mind D's. And if R's could dial back the religion I probably wouldn't mind them.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Up here we have a a large third party, the NDP, that even made it to the opposition. Not likely to ever form a government though. But they do have enough pull to influence elections. Usually by stealing Liberal votes or have their own voters defect to the Liberals to defeat the Conservatives.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Not sure they want to. They fit in rather well with much of the conservative wing of the GOP. Not sure a third party would advance their goals. Libertarians, on the other hand, have their own distinct agenda.

The Tea Party aren't political ideologues, never were. They pretty much restrict their issues to what most people care about: Jobs, taxes, national and local security, and general prosperity. Their issues put them at odds with special interest groups of all stripes.

Its like how communists and fascists generally hate each other tho both are socialists, but communists are ideologues and fascists are issue pragmatists like the Tea Party.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Bullshit. They can claim that all day and night we can see however the legislation they have produced or attempted to.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Save their occasional overprotectionism I don't mind D's. And if R's could dial back the religion I probably wouldn't mind them.

I think if R's dialed back the fire and brimstone Theocratic rule or bust act they would attract a LOT more people.

Fuckin' D's would have to start coming up off the whole hyper regulating everyone out of their businesses bit to keep membership up.

I know if (R) wasn't intent on forcing Christianity down my throat and micromanaging every consenting adults genitals/drug habits/bedroom activities I would be a proud ass republican. Same as if (D) would stop doing everything they can to make opening a business as difficult and elite/select as possible I'd be a huge fan of D.

If only one party would pull the stick out of their ass......

 

[Sean Renaud]

If Republicans were less religious (which includes that genital crap) and were less fanatical about capitalism I'd be one as well.

Oh and if I didn't spend so much time trying to convince myself they aren't bigots. But I could ignore that if the other shit happened.

 

[srgreene]

If Republicans were less religious (which includes that genital crap) and were less fanatical about capitalism I'd be one as well.

Oh and if I didn't spend so much time trying to convince myself they aren't bigots. But I could ignore that if the other shit happened.

Fanatical about capitalism? Surely you are joking sir. Republicans support all kinds of transgressions against free markets- for the most part, they are hardly in favor of laissez faire capitalism, including the abominable practice of double taxation on dividends (taxed once at the corporate level, and once when they are distributed to non-tax exempt entities).

If you think Republicans favor unfettered capitalism, you have no idea what constitutes free markets. They mere squash free markets less than D's do.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fanatical about capitalism? Surely you are joking sir. Republicans support all kinds of transgressions against free markets- for the most part, they are hardly in favor of laissez faire capitalism, including the abominable practice of double taxation on dividends (taxed once at the corporate level, and once when they are distributed to non-tax exempt entities).

If you think Republicans favor unfettered capitalism, you have no idea what constitutes free markets. They mere squash free markets less than D's do.

They generally claim to be. And I want free markets squashed quite a bit more than they do.

I recognize that no such thing as capitalism has ever existed because it's simply not a good system to run by.

 

[srgreene]

They generally claim to be. And I want free markets squashed quite a bit more than they do.

I recognize that no such thing as capitalism has ever existed because it's simply not a good system to run by.

There has been very close to laissez-faire capitalism. The latter part of the 19th century in the USA and Japan were both examples, and they witnessed the greatest economic miracles in human history up to that time. Similar comments could be made about early 19th in England.

To the extent capitalism is tried, it works. It does not provide for all human needs. It also is the only economic system compatible with freedom in a large society (beyond the tribe).

 

[BotanyBoy]

If Republicans were less religious (which includes that genital crap) and were less fanatical about capitalism I'd be one as well.

Oh and if I didn't spend so much time trying to convince myself they aren't bigots. But I could ignore that if the other shit happened.

I don't mind capitalism as long as it's not allowed to buy government officials thus becoming an oligarchy of rich assholes who don't want capitalism because it's a threat to their being on top.

Yea...I could too.

If you think Republicans favor unfettered capitalism, you have no idea what constitutes free markets. They mere squash free markets less than D's do.

Bull fucking shit...they love squashing market's just as much, just different markets/methods than D.

(R)'s ban and punish...(D)'s 'regulate' and shit on poor people wholesale.

Not really sure which one is more fuckin' maddening....the fucking pieces of shit.

 

[srgreene]

I don't mind capitalism as long as it's not allowed to buy government officials thus becoming an oligarchy of rich assholes who don't want capitalism because it's a threat to their being on top.

Yea...I could too.



Bull fucking shit...they love squashing market's just as much, just different markets/methods than D.

(R)'s ban and punish...(D)'s 'regulate' and shit on poor people wholesale.

Not really sure which one is more fuckin' maddening....the fucking pieces of shit.

Another of your idiotic comments in which you so articulately defend your stupidity. Gad, sir, you truly must be deficient between the ears.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There has been very close to laissez-faire capitalism. The latter part of the 19th century in the USA and Japan were both examples, and they witnessed the greatest economic miracles in human history up to that time. Similar comments could be made about early 19th in England.

To the extent capitalism is tried, it works. It does not provide for all human needs. It also is the only economic system compatible with freedom in a large society (beyond the tribe).

Bullshit. By the time America was founded Capitalism was long since dead and with good reason. I mean you can argue that we've been closer than we are now and attempt to defend that but the result of the latter part of the 19th century was the rise of communism/socialism world wide because it wasn't working for most people

And you're also forced to say "to the extent that it's been tried" because nobody is stupid enough to actually try it. Freedom and a functional society are of course by definition at odds.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

There has been very close to laissez-faire capitalism. The latter part of the 19th century in the USA and Japan were both examples, and they witnessed the greatest economic miracles in human history up to that time. Similar comments could be made about early 19th in England.

Nonsense. The policies of the US and Japan were highly successful precisely because they were the dead opposite of laissez-faire. There was a commitment, particularly under Lincoln and McKinley, to a Hamiltonian promotion of science, industry and infrastructure development, with direct participation by the federal government. Lincoln sent one of his top economic advisors, Erasmus Peshine Smith, to Japan, to teach them how to do the same. It was similar to what you are seeing today in China, and it works. Under a laissez-faire regime, the money naturally flows in the direction of the fastest possible buck, so you wind up with a Las Vegas-style economy like what we have today: gambling and sleazy entertainment.

The British, who vociferously advocate laissez-faire to their imperial vassals, were forced to adopt some elements of an American-style program in order to keep up.

 

[Hypoxia]

When business buys government we get fascism. That was Mussolini's definition.