Third parties in this country seem to get too hung up on the presidency. Ralph Nader had no shot at the White House. But I believe he's from Connecticut. Can you imagine the hubbub he could create if the Green Party had gotten a House or Senate seat that year with Ralph Nader heading to Congress with no attachment to a party? Grass roots and building a party up by running for local office or for Congress is how to get it rolling' date=' not running a Libertarian or Green for the presidency and seeing if you can get two percent. A well-known third party candidate can be a catalyst if he's the right guy. Jesse Ventura had what it took to win the office, but not the gravitas and leadership skills to turn it into something that party could build into future elections. A serious candidate with a good reputation could win a local or statewide race and absolutely get something going for the future.[/quote']Even in some states they will face the ballot access roadblocks that have hurt many a 3rd party candidate

I guess my political belief is, to some point, aligned with Nader. I believe that it is ignorant to have a set mindset to either be left or right. Issues facing this nation need to be tackled head on and together. " We may fail on our own, but together, we shall prove victorious". Not saying the issues we face today could be solved right away, but this country, would make amazing strides if we should some unity throughout our government.

He suggested that his ilk of the left should impeach Obama, condemn Hillary and her military interventionism and embrace Rand Paul. That's interesting.

He suggested that his ilk of the left should impeach Obama, condemn Hillary and her military interventionism and embrace Rand Paul. That's interesting.

 

Rand Paul is an intriguing guy. For the most part, he's a true libertarian which means that progressives, at least to some extent, are going to be right in agreement with a lot of his ideas.

It should also be noted Nadar says if it comes down to Hillary or Rand for president, he'd tell a voter to vote neither. But he implies Paul as a leader of his "dream coalition" because of his stances on civil liberties and his hesitation to go to war.

The two party system is failing the people but at the same time I admire those politicians who manage to make a living in the two party system and honestly I would love an opportunity to represent people in politics. Two party system or not.

The Republicans have been in control of at least one of the major branches of congress since 2000 and it has caused a plethora of problems. If they are voted out this November, which may happen given the results 2012 showed, then Obama would be able to do a much better job governing because he won't have people who struggle to be open-minded and are rather difficult to work with. It's hard to govern when the Republican party is more about party politics instead of working for their country as they are elected to do.

Interesting idea. Let's say Rand does win POTUS, what would it do for the two-party system if he decided to buck the GOP and run as a libertarian next time around as an incumbent?

Rand Paul is an intriguing guy. For the most part, he's a true libertarian which means that progressives, at least to some extent, are going to be right in agreement with a lot of his ideas.

Progressives are far removed from libertarians, although many of them are too poorly educated to realize it. Being a libertarian requires a strong believe in economic and personal liberty.

 

Intrusion of a big federal government into the daily lives of Americans is a cornerstone of American liberalism. The two philosophies are not close on the political spectrum. I chuckle every time that I hear Juan Williams claim that he is a libertarian.

Interesting idea. Let's say Rand does win POTUS, what would it do for the two-party system if he decided to buck the GOP and run as a libertarian next time around as an incumbent?

A third-party president would be even worse than Obama has been. With little or no political support in Congress and both the Republican and Democratic parties opposing him or her, what do you expect that a third party president would accomplish?

 

Obama has loyal Democrats blocking all attempts to investigate his corrupt administration on a wide range of scandals. That, and the threat of racial violence erupting over his impeachment, is all that is keeping him in office. Not even Republican leaders have the stomach for an impeachment fight with the first black president. If Ralph Nader had been elected president, he would have been the first impeached president to have been convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, IMO.

 

A third party will not challenge the two-party system until one can elect a large number of candidates to the House and Senate. People like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot know this and they run to publicize their positions and to have a voice in the debate. I think that is the reason Perot blew up his own campaign. He never expected or wanted to win the White House.

A third-party president would be even worse than Obama has been. With little or no political support in Congress and both the Republican and Democratic parties opposing him or her, what do you expect that a third party president would accomplish?

 

Obama has loyal Democrats blocking all attempts to investigate his corrupt administration on a wide range of scandals. That, and the threat of racial violence erupting over his impeachment, is all that is keeping him in office. Not even Republican leaders have the stomach for an impeachment fight with the first black president. If Ralph Nader had been elected president, he would have been the first impeached president to have been convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, IMO.

 

A third party will not challenge the two-party system until one can elect a large number of candidates to the House and Senate. People like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot know this and they run to publicize their positions and to have a voice in the debate. I think that is the reason Perot blew up his own campaign. He never expected or wanted to win the White House.

 

Do you truly believe the bolded? Is this even a serious thought process? :lol2: :lol2:

The Republicans have been in control of at least one of the major branches of congress since 2000 and it has caused a plethora of problems. If they are voted out this November, which may happen given the results 2012 showed, then Obama would be able to do a much better job governing because he won't have people who struggle to be open-minded and are rather difficult to work with. It's hard to govern when the Republican party is more about party politics instead of working for their country as they are elected to do.

 

Historically, our best times as a nation have been when power is split between the parties, and if I recall correctly the best is a Dem President and Rep. Congress. Our worst times are when one party has complete control, regardless of which party it is.

 

Based on what has happened economically over the past few years, that seems to be happening now. If you are paying zero attention to the markets and our economy and listening to the media, you may have missed that.

 

Also, our last real economic boom was the 1990's - Clinton president and Republican Congress.

Edited May 3, 201412 yr by Voice of Reason

Do you truly believe the bolded? Is this even a serious thought process? :lol2: :lol2:

 

You mean you don't have your pitchforks and torches ready in case that happens:up:

Do you truly believe the bolded? Is this even a serious thought process? :lol2: :lol2:

I certainly do. Do you have an alternate theory to explain how such an incompetent corrupt president has managed to avoid impeachment? Clinton is a corrupt, lowlife politician but at least he was a competent leader who was able and willing to reach across the aisle. Clinton managed to sign enough popular legislation to avoid a Senate conviction. Yet, Clinton was not able to avoid impeachment.

 

Likewise, Nixon was a criminal whose assaults on our constitutional form of government paled in comparison to Obama's, but the only thing that spared Nixon impeachment was his resignation.

 

How do you explain Obama being spared impeachment? He has repeatedly trumped his political foes by pre-emptively playing the race card to distract attention away from his many failures.

You mean you don't have your pitchforks and torches ready in case that happens:up:

Two-time Obama voter? Am I right? :lol2: