Third-Party Candidates

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so now that the Republican party has committed political suicide in the shutdown cave-in, what do we do?

Put simply, we need third-parties to get into office, not the president, but the House and Senate, where the real battle is being fault. The Republicans continue to talk strong, but once again, they completely and utterly caved to the Democrats when crunch time came. Once again, they fell for the "we'll discuss it later" line that has been beating us dead now since January 20, 2009.

The reason is pretty straightforward: We need more than one group responsible for calling out the complete bullshit on both sides of the aisle. Boehner's adding in of a rule that stated that only he or his designate could vote on a measure to end the shut down was horrible, but equally horrible was the way the Dems completely absolve themselves of any guilt or responsibility for being unbending, unreasonable bullies who refused out of hand every measure the Republicans put forward, while tar and feathering the Republicans as terrorists.

This isn't about socialism vs democracy, it isn't even about right vs left. It is about having representatives who will represent and fight for us. Yes, even when it means that you have to step off that ledge because the opposition is completely unwilling to listen.

That the ACA even got this far is what bewilders me. A secretive bill gets put forward, with the words, "Well you'll have to vote it in to see what's in it", and the Republicans couldn't stop it? It contained a directly unconstitutional mandate to buy insurance for the American public, and they just let the SCOTUS ruling stand? I mean, seriously, the Dems clearly played the word game in front of SC justices by calling the fines "tax penalties", until the court proceedings were finished, and they started calling them fines again. And the Republicans couldn't stop them? The system has HUGE loopholes, some of which I've pointed out already, and no one could stop it?

[Gaffer]

Come primary time think Tea Party. Get rid of the rinos. And your correct, as I have been saying for years, we need to take control of the house and senate before worrying about the presidency.

[fj1200]

Okay, so now that the Republican party has committed political suicide in the shutdown cave-in, what do we do?

Put simply, we need third-parties to get into office ...

I disagree that the Republicans necessarily committed political suicide but the deck is stacked against any actual third parties (see my proposed amendment ;) ) which leaves...


Come primary time think Tea Party. Get rid of the rinos. And your correct, as I have been saying for years, we need to take control of the house and senate before worrying about the presidency.

The only realistic chance of real intra-party change comes in the primaries. Overall change still comes in winning those elections, educating the populace on why we're correct, and governing accordingly. The last part is vetting those TP candidates to keep instances of foot-in-mouth disease from dooming them before they can even get into office.

[revelarts]

I disagree that the Republicans necessarily committed political suicide but the deck is stacked against any actual third parties (see my proposed amendment ;) ) which leaves...

The only realistic chance of real intra-party change comes in the primaries. Overall change still comes in winning those elections, educating the populace on why we're correct, and governing accordingly. The last part is vetting those TP candidates to keep instances of foot-in-mouth disease from dooming them before they can even get into office.

"realistic chance"
more political compromise is what's realistic. your just suggesting a little less seems to me.

all of the tea party guys are starting to bend the knee to the party machine. principals? well lets be realistic.

I've the slide has gone ways pass more compromise with the republican establishment and RINO's that control the party.
many right wingers talk about "revolution' and "revolt" things are so bad, but can't bring themselves to consider 3rd party work. "its unrealistic". How realistic is revolution and revolt.
the water is boiling now. how long will it take to dislodge the R party of Rinos and establishment status quo fat cat republicans... realistically?

[revelarts]

Doug Wead, former Ron Paul Campaign operative, after the R nomination speaking about "politics" and compromise and the situation we are in.
I don't agree with all of it, but he makes some outstanding points.

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fHxn-h3fHdA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[hjmick]

We don't need parties right now. What we need is one viable third party that puts the people and the country first rather than their own money and power.

[fj1200]

"realistic chance"
more political compromise is what's realistic. your just suggesting a little less seems to me.

all of the tea party guys are starting to bend the knee to the party machine. principals? well lets be realistic.

I've the slide has gone ways pass more compromise with the republican establishment and RINO's that control the party.
many right wingers talk about "revolution' and "revolt" things are so bad, but can't bring themselves to consider 3rd party work. "its unrealistic". How realistic is revolution and revolt.
the water is boiling now. how long will it take to dislodge the R party of Rinos and establishment status quo fat cat republicans... realistically?

There was nothing incorrect about my post, though I know you don't like it, because it deals with reality. The Republicans would get savaged IMO if they had held the line. BO wasn't going to cave because he didn't have to and he's stubborn enough to not to anyway. Which leaves how things get done in DC, compromise. There won't be any real change until the Republicans gain control and are able to institute an agenda. The problem is that the country is not ready to move that far to the right and things don't suck enough to force them there.

[fj1200]

We don't need parties right now. What we need is one viable third party that puts the people and the country first rather than their own money and power.

Never happen. We need one rock star Republican to sweep the independents and is able to explain conservatives principle to them or we need a rock star independent, a non-flaky Ross Perot, who can do the same.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We don't need parties right now. What we need is one viable third party that puts the people and the country first rather than their own money and power. WE LOSE THE NATION WHILE ATTEMPTING TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A THIRD PARTY LONG ENOUGH FOR IT TO START TO WIN SEATS. Far too great a threat exists now for any third party attempt to bear fruit. A third party of the quality and caliber you rightly envision would have to destroy first it's opposition on this side -the Republicans . And that would cede total control onto the dem party for a couple decades . During that time they'd be so far down the SOCIALIST TRACK they are on now that we would fall as a nation IMHO. I AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STARTED AT LEAST TWO DECADE AGO. I also agree we must not continue to play this losing game we are locked into. Sad to say it's so rigged that most likely only a revolution can solve this now! And that's by design as well for I am sure it's in the plan by the dem party and Obama. Only they plan on cranking it off on their schedule with the deck so stack that it'll be a cake walk for them! The patriot's job is to upset that little applecart and defend the Constitution and preserve the nation as it was founded. A very daunting task but one that has been accomplished several times before! The very reason this has so far been accomplished by degrees was to avoid a proper peaceful response until that is no longer possible. Its not as if this has been a happenstance kind of thing IMHO. IT'S BEEN A LONG RANGE PLAN DECADES IN IT'S EXECUTION. To believe otherwise is folly IMHO. -TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There was nothing incorrect about my post, though I know you don't like it, because it deals with reality. The Republicans would get savaged IMO if they had held the line. BO wasn't going to cave because he didn't have to and he's stubborn enough to not to anyway. Which leaves how things get done in DC, compromise. There won't be any real change until the Republicans gain control and are able to institute an agenda. The problem is that the country is not ready to move that far to the right and things don't suck enough to force them there. DAMN , AGREE TOTALLY WITH THAT OVERALL PREMISE. Especially the last sentence. The dem party and Obama have banked on being able to slide by with their agenda because the people, the Republican party, still refuse to play very hardball. The game that is afoot is not by any means politics as usual. Rather it's being conducted as total war by the dem party! And with total disregard for human life by them. The Republican party leadership and Washington elites are loathe to fight as the dems do! That mistake will cost us dearly and almost certainly give our opposition the overall win. In fact, the deck is so stacked right now we may not be able to win in the political arena. If that bears fruit only recourse will be available to save the nation and it's the worst possible thing that ever happens in man's history, the most brutal type of fighting/warfare= civil war. We had best pray to God for any means possible to avert such a calamity!!!! Yet we had best also prepare if we must to not surrender for surrender to want they want will be even worse IMHO. -TYR

[Larrymc]

Okay, so now that the Republican party has committed political suicide in the shutdown cave-in, what do we do?

Put simply, we need third-parties to get into office, not the president, but the House and Senate, where the real battle is being fault. The Republicans continue to talk strong, but once again, they completely and utterly caved to the Democrats when crunch time came. Once again, they fell for the "we'll discuss it later" line that has been beating us dead now since January 20, 2009.

The reason is pretty straightforward: We need more than one group responsible for calling out the complete bullshit on both sides of the aisle. Boehner's adding in of a rule that stated that only he or his designate could vote on a measure to end the shut down was horrible, but equally horrible was the way the Dems completely absolve themselves of any guilt or responsibility for being unbending, unreasonable bullies who refused out of hand every measure the Republicans put forward, while tar and feathering the Republicans as terrorists.

This isn't about socialism vs democracy, it isn't even about right vs left. It is about having representatives who will represent and fight for us. Yes, even when it means that you have to step off that ledge because the opposition is completely unwilling to listen.

That the ACA even got this far is what bewilders me. A secretive bill gets put forward, with the words, "Well you'll have to vote it in to see what's in it", and the Republicans couldn't stop it? It contained a directly unconstitutional mandate to buy insurance for the American public, and they just let the SCOTUS ruling stand? I mean, seriously, the Dems clearly played the word game in front of SC justices by calling the fines "tax penalties", until the court proceedings were finished, and they started calling them fines again. And the Republicans couldn't stop them? The system has HUGE loopholes, some of which I've pointed out already, and no one could stop it?I agree with Gaffer, requiring Tea Party affiliation from candidates may be the answer to the Third Party.

[Kathianne]

Never happen. We need one rock star Republican to sweep the independents and is able to explain conservatives principle to them or we need a rock star independent, a non-flaky Ross Perot, who can do the same.

A 'rock star' would be someone who can articulate the principles of small government: budgets, paying down debt, fewer regulators and regulations, more reliance on the individual and local support systems; while encouraging the coming together of Americans and the principals and exercise of freedoms provided for in our constitution, regardless of past affiliations, color, creed and wealth.

A bevy of candidates at local, state, & federal levels that speak towards civic education and how our country was founded on principals that led to a long period of strength and wealth and how the 'gradual erosion of those principals and freedoms' have led to the rise of an elite class and subjugation of those not part of that class. In other words we need a modern version of a Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison to tell the stories of why the systems chosen were chosen and how in the past 100 years the trend towards 'democracy' has been straying from the path, leaving us where we now are.

The new leaders must soundly lay out these principles, including how the founders struggled with the issue of slavery over 2 decades ago, choosing expediency at the time, with some idea of the Civil War that would come. Knowing our own history, as well as the ancient underpinnings, the new leaders can disavow those who want to return to a country of discrimination.

The Tea Party faction has good ideas, but either through the actual acceptance of some separatists or through political tricks has been tarred with labels of racist rednecks. There's no doubt in my mind that some racist rednecks have bought that and have made this group their source of 'hope.' It would be the leaders job to disavow that type of thinking.

The key messages would need to be hard/smart work and innovation are encouraged and when successful the owners keep what they've earned. Taxes would increasingly be used to pay down debt as government size is brought down. In time, tax burden will be lowered, and why that would help all Americans.

[Larrymc]

A 'rock star' would be someone who can articulate the principles of small government: budgets, paying down debt, fewer regulators and regulations, more reliance on the individual and local support systems; while encouraging the coming together of Americans and the principals and exercise of freedoms provided for in our constitution, regardless of past affiliations, color, creed and wealth.

A bevy of candidates at local, state, & federal levels that speak towards civic education and how our country was founded on principals that led to a long period of strength and wealth and how the 'gradual erosion of those principals and freedoms' have led to the rise of an elite class and subjugation of those not part of that class. In other words we need a modern version of a Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison to tell the stories of why the systems chosen were chosen and how in the past 100 years the trend towards 'democracy' has been straying from the path, leaving us where we now are.

The new leaders must soundly lay out these principles, including how the founders struggled with the issue of slavery over 2 decades ago, choosing expediency at the time, with some idea of the Civil War that would come. Knowing our own history, as well as the ancient underpinnings, the new leaders can disavow those who want to return to a country of discrimination.

The Tea Party faction has good ideas, but either through the actual acceptance of some separatists or through political tricks has been tarred with labels of racist rednecks. There's no doubt in my mind that some racist rednecks have bought that and have made this group their source of 'hope.' It would be the leaders job to disavow that type of thinking.

The key messages would need to be hard/smart work and innovation are encouraged and when successful the owners keep what they've earned. Taxes would increasingly be used to pay down debt as government size is brought down. In time, tax burden will be lowered, and why that would help all Americans.Im afraid that sounds to much like sacrifice, something that seems foreign to both sides in the times we live in.

[Kathianne]

Im afraid that sounds to much like sacrifice, something that seems foreign to both sides in the times we live in.

Not to get votes, polling shows most self-identified Republicans and independents agree with those principles. It's 'tea parties' they don't identify with, due in part, to MSM coverage, thus the reason to articulate distancing from 'racists'.

[Kathianne]

Im afraid that sounds to much like sacrifice, something that seems foreign to both sides in the times we live in.

Most of the sacrifice would, should the candidates resonate would be elite politicians, those on the federal government teat, and down the road, federal civil servants. Long run, more opportunities for all.

[Arbo]

We don't need parties right now. What we need is one viable third party that puts the people and the country first rather than their own money and power.

I agree. But I honestly think it's too late to save the nation. The (R)'s and (D)'s are too much alike, and have far too much power to shut out any real competition. And bet your ass if there was a serious threat to their power they'd work together to get rid of that competition.

[revelarts]

There was nothing incorrect about my post, though I know you don't like it, because it deals with reality. The Republicans would get savaged IMO if they had held the line. BO wasn't going to cave because he didn't have to and he's stubborn enough to not to anyway. Which leaves how things get done in DC, compromise. There won't be any real change until the Republicans gain control and are able to institute an agenda. The problem is that the country is not ready to move that far to the right and things don't suck enough to force them there.

FJ your point is NOT realitic then.
your saying we must compromise and you STILL won't get what you want.
how is that a realitic plan. Compromise to get a RINO in and watch the country fail EVEN more.
then do it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN because the people "aren't ready".

It's not a matter of i don't like it.
It's a raod to MORE of what you say you don't want.

we don't believe in eating poison but be must eat more and more and encourage our children to do so until we are all SO SICK that we can then tell people they need to stop eating poison and eat real food again. lol so who in the leadership ...whos been happily feeding off and feeding others poison for years... will be qualified to point the way back to real food?
It's a ridiculous "plan" not a a realistic one.

Um no i don't like it FJ. but you folks keep being realistic. Lets see where that gets you.

[revelarts]

Here's anothr analogy to go along with the poison.

a few time people have accused me of this in a different context. I think it applies better here with to many republicans.

the NEVILE CHAMBERLAIN comparison.
the APPEASER. too many republicans are appeasing the left, the big gov't types, international gov't types and corrupt gov't fat cat establishment folks.
what it sounds like to me is"
---We have to make peace with them. or we'll lose it all. we can't fight it for real. that'd be to dangerous. that's just unrealistic.
We'll just make a pack that they won't TAKE ANYMORE GROUND. They PROMISED! SEEEE we got this agreement. the gov't will only grow by 3% a year instead of 7%. the abortions will only be legal and Not paid for by the gov't, well until the ACA sorta, the gov't will only Control and regulate some industries to death not all, a few more next year but WE HAVE TO ALLOW IT or we won't win seats, We have to allow more taxes here and there and not CUT A THING... the people aren't ready yet, we have to allow some guns laws but no more we've got an agreement now, we have to allow the feds to search and spy everyone the Constitution is great but be have to be realistic and Not INSIST that we follow the law or repeal unconstitutional laws on the books that's to RADICAL we must appease the other side or we'll lose everything and it's just unrealistic to do otherwise. until we are are almost DEAD at least. THEN we can do something THEN we NEVILE CHAMBERLAINS and our popularly elected NEVILE CHAMBERLAIN leadership will lead us to victory and we'll get back ALL we've given up.

That's the path to victory. And gov't seats in our time.---

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hitler-chamberlain.jpg

[Kathianne]

What the GOP has been doing for the past 30 years is just a different version of what the Democrats want, big government with their spin and cronies benefiting.

OTOH Rev and others who are looking to 'purify' American politics, good luck with that.

If anyone wishes to see significant changes in government, the 'start' has to be in giving the public reasons to vote for the unknown, that means reflecting back what they already are clamoring for-NOT what you think is right for them.

Over 60% believe Obamacare is bad for the country.
Over 80% believe Congress is untrustworthy
Over 70% believe the country is heading in the wrong direction
60% believe the government is too big and too powerful
60% would like to see a 3rd party

Those are 'the basics'

However, widespread agreement exists for 'safety nets' and while the people are for some 'tough love' on how long, when say there should be a 'hard date' they aren't so sure.

People do not want wars without 'clear & present danger' type of assurances, but they KNOW they do not have all the facts, they are forced to rely on government for those.

Those are the areas where there are wide fissures between Washington elites and the 'People.' Those are where a message may be heard. Compromise doesn't necessarily have to be with the or between politicians, but with the people.

Calls for just doing away with SSI, SNAP, Welfare, huge cuts in military and American presence world-wide, legalizing all drugs, not going to win on those.

However, addressing how debt is coming down incrementally-SINCE the sequestration-without widespread pain to the people? That's a message that may be heard.

Addressing size and power of government-consolidation and elimination of duplications may be heard, if explained with specific information.

Addressing SNAP, WIC, and breakfast/lunch/dinner school programs for duplications, waste, parental responsibility? That may resonate.

Addressing government collection of health, phone, purchases, emails, all computer records by government without their knowledge or subpoenas-people are concerned

IRS choosing with bias whom to audit, which groups qualify for certain exemptions?

Realistically Americans do not want favoritism of some groups over another. They acknowledge that there are some that will not carry their load, they don't want them starving or on the streets. OTOH, they don't necessarily believe that they should enjoy a lifestyle of those that work. They do want the children of those not working, to have the skills to break the cycle-how to address that? Tricky, but perhaps some looking at Israeli kibbutz system in modified form?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's anothr analogy to go along with the poison.

a few time people have accused me of this in a different context. I think it applies better here with to many republicans.

the NEVILE CHAMBERLAIN comparison.
the APPEASER. too many republicans are appeasing the left, the big gov't types, international gov't types and corrupt gov't fat cat establishment folks.
what it sounds like to me is"
---We have to make peace with them. or we'll lose it all. we can't fight it for real. that'd be to dangerous. that's just unrealistic.
We'll just make a pack that they won't TAKE ANYMORE GROUND. They PROMISED! SEEEE we got this agreement. the gov't will only grow by 3% a year instead of 7%. the abortions will only be legal and Not paid for by the gov't, well until the ACA sorta, the gov't will only Control and regulate some industries to death not all, a few more next year but WE HAVE TO ALLOW IT or we won't win seats, We have to allow more taxes here and there and not CUT A THING... the people aren't ready yet, we have to allow some guns laws but no more we've got an agreement now, we have to allow the feds to search and spy everyone the Constitution is great but be have to be realistic and Not INSIST that we follow the law or repeal unconstitutional laws on the books that's to RADICAL we must appease the other side or we'll lose everything and it's just unrealistic to do otherwise. until we are are almost DEAD at least. THEN we can do something THEN we NEVILE CHAMBERLAINS and our popularly elected NEVILE CHAMBERLAIN leadership will lead us to victory and we'll get back ALL we've given up.

That's the path to victory. And gov't seats in our time.---

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hitler-chamberlain.jpg Bampunk = Hitler, Dem party = Nazis and let's not for get the Republican leadership= Chamberlain. A recipe for eventual war most likely just like it was back in Hitler's time. We can look back at history and shake our heads in disbelief how gullible we were back then and terrible it was that Hitler was allowed years to gain before ever being opposed by us! That delay came very close to causing us to lose when we actually did decide to fight!! I see a repeat of that same thinking and hesitation now. In fact, Obama , the muslims and the rest of this nation's enemies bank on it!!!!--Tyr

[revelarts]

What the GOP has been doing for the past 30 years is just a different version of what the Democrats want, big government with their spin and cronies benefiting.
OTOH Rev and others who are looking to 'purify' American politics, good luck with that.
If anyone wishes to see significant changes in government, the 'start' has to be in giving the public reasons to vote for the unknown, that means reflecting back what they already are clamoring for-NOT what you think is right for them.
Over 60% believe Obamacare is bad for the country.
Over 80% believe Congress is untrustworthy
Over 70% believe the country is heading in the wrong direction
60% believe the government is too big and too powerful
60% would like to see a 3rd party
Those are 'the basics'
However, widespread agreement exists for 'safety nets' and while the people are for some 'tough love' on how long, when say there should be a 'hard date' they aren't so sure.
People do not want wars without 'clear & present danger' type of assurances, but they KNOW they do not have all the facts, they are forced to rely on government for those.
Those are the areas where there are wide fissures between Washington elites and the 'People.' Those are where a message may be heard. Compromise doesn't necessarily have to be with the or between politicians, but with the people.
Calls for just doing away with SSI, SNAP, Welfare, huge cuts in military and American presence world-wide, legalizing all drugs, not going to win on those.
However, addressing how debt is coming down incrementally-SINCE the sequestration-without widespread pain to the people? That's a message that may be heard.
Addressing size and power of government-consolidation and elimination of duplications may be heard, if explained with specific information.
Addressing SNAP, WIC, and breakfast/lunch/dinner school programs for duplications, waste, parental responsibility? That may resonate.
Addressing government collection of health, phone, purchases, emails, all computer records by government without their knowledge or subpoenas-people are concerned
IRS choosing with bias whom to audit, which groups qualify for certain exemptions?
Realistically Americans do not want favoritism of some groups over another. They acknowledge that there are some that will not carry their load, they don't want them starving or on the streets. OTOH, they don't necessarily believe that they should enjoy a lifestyle of those that work. They do want the children of those not working, to have the skills to break the cycle-how to address that? Tricky, but perhaps some looking at Israeli kibbutz system in modified form?

I can a agree with a lot of that K,
But you say I'd like to "purify" the polcicits sure wouldn't you. But my points above was that AT LEAST those who do believe in the Constitution and/or Conservative politics be FAITHFUL to those beliefs. is it really to hard to ask Adherents to Conservative views to stand up for them consistently. to draw a line that say we'll go NO FURTHER on this issue or that issue.

I know many here despise Ron Paul, but one of the tactics he tried to practice was this.

He'd vote for ANY bill that moved the nation closer to the constitution and his conservative position. and Never vote any Bill that moved the country AWAY from the constitution or conservative standards.

That's not ZERO compromise but it does make it plain exactly which direction your headed.
As you say for over 30 years the R have been moving in the wrong direction.


And here's the thing that I've forced myself to consider concerning those in the country that do not believe in the constitution or conservative values. What if we can't convince enough of them that "our" way is better. what if, despite our best educational and political efforts MORE people still want socialism and big gov't and safty and and abortion and homosexual marriage and free housing and health care and gov't jobs and free education and no guns and no "offensive" religious talk etc..
what if they are the majority.
Do we compromise with it all? Or do we do as the people at the Alamo, if need be, and stand our ground on our principals despite the odds.

Saying "good luck with that" is a great way to dismiss my position. but your assuming that your way can change the cultural that's been drifting fast away from the ideals that you want to educate them to slowly embrace. Doing it with MORE compromises to seduce them back too what we've already give up so much ground on.

There no guarantees either way though. maybe your way CAN be successful, (can you give me a historical reference where it's worked that way?) but to assume that it's the way to go is JUST as much wishful thinking as my position K.

So try to teach the undecided that conservatism is better and get them to consistently vote that way, while we "true" conservatives compromise it more and more each year to help make it happen. Good luck with that.

[fj1200]

FJ your point is NOT realitic then.
your saying we must compromise and you STILL won't get what you want.
how is that a realitic plan. Compromise to get a RINO in and watch the country fail EVEN more.
then do it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN because the people "aren't ready".

It's not a matter of i don't like it.
It's a raod to MORE of what you say you don't want.

we don't believe in eating poison but be must eat more and more and encourage our children to do so until we are all SO SICK that we can then tell people they need to stop eating poison and eat real food again. lol so who in the leadership ...whos been happily feeding off and feeding others poison for years... will be qualified to point the way back to real food?
It's a ridiculous "plan" not a a realistic one.

Um no i don't like it FJ. but you folks keep being realistic. Lets see where that gets you.

You, me, and a vast minority of the country doesn't want it but there in lies the problem. It's a vast minority who will back you. That's the realistic point. Goldwater had no chance to win, Reagan was elected POTUS but didn't control all the levers, and the Republicans only had Congress with Clinton and then Bush squandered what opportunities he had. The window has not moved far enough where government is going to get rolled back. Either good candidates need to get elected that can keep the window moving right or the country needs to go to crap where a restart happens. Just complaining about it won't force anything to happen and certainly won't help get good candidates elected... Primaries my friend. That and my most excellent Amendment suggestion that lessens the two-party reality that we face.

[Gaffer]

I can a agree with a lot of that K,
But you say I'd like to "purify" the polcicits sure wouldn't you. But my points above was that AT LEAST those who do believe in the Constitution and/or Conservative politics be FAITHFUL to those beliefs. is it really to hard to ask Adherents to Conservative views to stand up for them consistently. to draw a line that say we'll go NO FURTHER on this issue or that issue.

I know many here despise Ron Paul, but one of the tactics he tried to practice was this.

He'd vote for ANY bill that moved the nation closer to the constitution and his conservative position. and Never vote any Bill that moved the country AWAY from the constitution or conservative standards.

That's not ZERO compromise but it does make it plain exactly which direction your headed.
As you say for over 30 years the R have been moving in the wrong direction.


And here's the thing that I've forced myself to consider concerning those in the country that do not believe in the constitution or conservative values. What if we can't convince enough of them that "our" way is better. what if, despite our best educational and political efforts MORE people still want socialism and big gov't and safty and and abortion and homosexual marriage and free housing and health care and gov't jobs and free education and no guns and no "offensive" religious talk etc..
what if they are the majority.
Do we compromise with it all? Or do we do as the people at the Alamo, if need be, and stand our ground on our principals despite the odds.

Saying "good luck with that" is a great way to dismiss my position. but your assuming that your way can change the cultural that's been drifting fast away from the ideals that you want to educate them to slowly embrace. Doing it with MORE compromises to seduce them back too what we've already give up so much ground on.

There no guarantees either way though. maybe your way CAN be successful, (can you give me a historical reference where it's worked that way?) but to assume that it's the way to go is JUST as much wishful thinking as my position K.

So try to teach the undecided that conservatism is better and get them to consistently vote that way, while we "true" conservatives compromise it more and more each year to help make it happen. Good luck with that.

You and Kath both make good points, but nothing is going to change as long as the govt controls the media and hollywood. The soviet propaganda machine is in full operation. They will keep the ignorant in the majority.

[Kathianne]

You and Kath both make good points, but nothing is going to change as long as the govt controls the media and hollywood. The soviet propaganda machine is in full operation. They will keep the ignorant in the majority.

I'm not convinced of that, Gaffer. When the Tea Parties first hit the scene, they got coverage, enough so they were co-opted by Gingrich/Palin et al. Doom. Those folks allowed the elitists in GOP to call them nutters, drowning out the message. Then came the Confederate flags. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the First Amendment, though I will not affiliate with racist policies. Now whether those flags showed up mostly due to dirty tricks? More than possible, but the image was created.

Thus some new leaders or at least a new name with a pledge from the get go to work for the benefit of all, with sacrifices by all. Emphasis on unity and open debate/discussion.

At heart the problem with Ron Paul was his connections with racists and his own newsletters.

[revelarts]

I'm not convinced of that, Gaffer. When the Tea Parties first hit the scene, they got coverage, enough so they were co-opted by Gingrich/Palin et al. Doom. Those folks allowed the elitists in GOP to call them nutters, drowning out the message. Then came the Confederate flags. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the First Amendment, though I will not affiliate with racist policies. Now whether those flags showed up mostly due to dirty tricks? More than possible, but the image was created.

Thus some new leaders or at least a new name with a pledge from the get go to work for the benefit of all, with sacrifices by all. Emphasis on unity and open debate/discussion.

At heart the problem with Ron Paul was his connections with racists and his own newsletters.

While i still do not grant that Ron Paul was a Racist or a supporter of racist. (we've been over that )

Let's imagine for a moment that there where NO newsleters and NO "connections with racists".
are you telling me K that you would have voted for him? Gaffer that you would have? Or that most R party supporters would have?

somehow i doubt it.

[Gaffer]

Being a civil war buff myself I have nothing against the Confederate flag. I agree it doesn't have a place in a gathering like this one. But when self righteous liberals condemn it I will jump up and support it.

What many people don't realize is the confederate flag is a symbol of democrat power. It was the democrat south that seceded from the union. It was the democrats that created the KKK which used the flag. And now they have the audacity to be offended by it. It's not a symbol conservatives should be using as it does not represent what they stand for.

I too have to wonder if this was a plant. The media will go to any extreme to make the tea party look bad and anyone else that disagree with the communist in charge.

[Kathianne]

While i still do not grant that Ron Paul was a Racist or a supporter of racist. (we've been over that )

Let's imagine for a moment that there where NO newsleters and NO "connections with racists".
are you telling me K that you would have voted for him? Gaffer that you would have? Or that most R party supporters would have?

somehow i doubt it.

I was interested enough in what Paul had to say in 2010 to find out more about him, thus began our long saga on the newsletters. You can't have that type of baggage and hope to start a movement out of minority numbers.

While in the main you and I are like minded politically and morally, I can tolerate diversity of opinions on things like gay marriage, even pro-choice. I would not work for candidates that espouse those positions, but would not disassociate others in my party that do.

A viable 3rd party, hell even a truly on track GOP must allow for diversity of opinions.

I think we differ in that I'm all for personal stands on what each thinks is right, but the 'party' must be tolerant of the diversity of opinions within its whole.

for me, social issues influence whom I vote for, whom I'd give of my time and money to. BUT, I'd rather a pro-choice, small government candidate be leading than a pro-choice big government candidate.

[revelarts]

I was interested enough in what Paul had to say in 2010 to find out more about him, thus began our long saga on the newsletters. You can't have that type of baggage and hope to start a movement out of minority numbers.

While in the main you and I are like minded politically and morally,
-sure-

I can tolerate diversity of opinions on things like gay marriage, even pro-choice.
I would not work for candidates that espouse those positions, but would not disassociate others in my party that do. -I'd Consider thoses no goes worse than ooollld Baggage of the past, but something they want to embrace TODAY for the party.-

A viable 3rd party, hell even a truly on track GOP must allow for diversity of opinions.
I think we differ in that I'm all for personal stands on what each thinks is right, but the 'party' must be tolerant of the diversity of opinions within its whole.
-sure but those ideas that cross the line of constitutionally or conservatism, to WHAT POINT is it tolerated. what's the final price 'viability'. is there a place we won't go? I've seen no line yet among the Rs-.

for me, social issues influence whom I vote for, whom I'd give of my time and money to. BUT, I'd rather a pro-choice, small government candidate be leading than a pro-choice big government candidate.

ok soo, um not to put you on the spot K but..

Let's imagine for a moment that there where NO newsleters and NO "connections with racists".
are you telling me K that you would have voted for him?

[Kathianne]

ok soo, um not to put you on the spot K but..

Let's imagine for a moment that there where NO newsleters and NO "connections with racists".
are you telling me K that you would have voted for him?

Actually better than even chance of a yes. Much of what he said and as you say, his principled votes, made me interested in the first place. Off to work now.

[tailfins]

We don't need parties right now. What we need is one viable third party that puts the people and the country first rather than their own money and power.


Canada has tried that. The ideology that doesn't split wins. When Canadian Conservatives got past the Reform Party fever, they got a majority. The Left hasn't smartened up yet and continues to divide their vote between the NDP and the Liberals. The Canadian electorate is far to the left of the US, but the Conservative Party still manages to get elected. If a third party becomes viable, please let it be the Green Party or some such thing. Ralph Nader should be on George W. Bush's Christmas gift list.

[Arbo]

When both the (D)'s and the (R)'s are trashing a party, perhaps that's a good indication that a better look is needed at that new party, as it might be a good one.