PDA

View Full Version : Why not combine all third parties...




CavortingChicken
10-26-2008, 10:40 PM
into one large super third party. Are the Constitutionist, Green, Independant, and Libertarian parties too diverse to find common ground? In this time of dire need could we all agree on a single leader to represent a giant Freedom Party?

Perhaps this is too little too late but maybe if all the third parties joined forces earlier the polling numbers might have warranted an invitation to the debates. Would doing this now anyway improve our chances for the next election??? What kind of a following could come of it four years from now?

Jeremy
10-26-2008, 10:44 PM
would be a miracle... and a great asset if it happened

Kludge
10-26-2008, 10:44 PM
More probable, agreeable, and non-offensive would be an alliance to support one party's nominee for one year. There are very distinct and heated differences between the third parties, but those that agreed to Ron's key points should consider allying in 2012, with state parties looking at it in 2010.

The CP and LP should definitely ally. Their platform is so similar, that it's a shame to see members make such a huge deal out of petty and usually inconsequential differences.

nate895
10-26-2008, 10:46 PM
It wouldn't work now, but I think you could for a Libertarian-Constitutionalist-other right-wing third parties together, and then have a left-wing version. You couldn't combine left and right-wing together, though.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-26-2008, 10:47 PM
I have been suggesting this to every person in power I meet, including Chuck Baldwin.

Jeremy
10-26-2008, 10:53 PM
I have been suggesting this to every person in power I meet, including Chuck Baldwin.

whatd chucky say?

Havax
10-26-2008, 11:10 PM
I made a thread topic about this a long time ago suggesting we call it the "Freedom Party". It would put a damper on the stigma of Libertarians being a bunch of potheads, and something fresh for people to join. Merge the Libertarian and Constitution party, and form an agreement between all other 3rd parties to endorse the one with the most popularity. This endorsement plan could be in effect until a 3rd party or independent candidate legitmately starts battling the two-party system (probably possible in 2020).

The Freedom Party - "Freedomists"

Core principles:
- very limited government, with strict adherence to the constitution (remember it can always be
ammended!)
- a sound monetary policy with backed currency and no central bank, income tax, or IRS
- non-interventionist foreign policy with no alliances

If they could agree on those few points, that would be a lot more substaintal agreement than there would be in the Republican or Democratic parties. Let there be differences within the party, but the core principles will remain the same. Let the candidate into the debates with a unified following.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-26-2008, 11:26 PM
One very interesting thing I noticed in the Illinois local election lineup is that Troy Dennis, who was originally running for congress as a RP republican, is now working under the Green Party banner.

Not that I needed this to solidify my conviction that the antiwar/anticorporate left-right should be friends (and that, indeed our prejudicial notions of the left-right spectrum are absolutely false), but thankfully people are actually out there making it happen.

dr. hfn
10-26-2008, 11:47 PM
I don't think all the 3rd parties could unite, however the left and right wing ones could unite together separately.

However, the 1st and biggest problem is OPENING THE DEBATES!!!

robert4rp08
10-26-2008, 11:49 PM
The CP and LP should just go Republican. It would be game over for the neocons if they would set aside their egos.

mtj89
10-26-2008, 11:57 PM
Welly really what we need is a pure independent who has no real affiliation with any of these third parties. They would have to be well known and very wealthy. I think Bloomberg could do well. I've even heard people suggesting Bill Gates, if his humanitarian efforts in the nearby future don't show enough progress.

Then naturally many of third parties voters would probably transfer support to the independent who probably has the best shot instead of dispersing across little candidates.

tonesforjonesbones
10-27-2008, 06:46 AM
I agree ..the CP and the LP should meld back into the GOP. The common ground for all three of those is maintaining our Constitution and our sovereignty. We NEED religion for a moral society. I found that the LP are more concerned with drug war, porn, gambling..well..the "sins" than anything else..sorry to say. I DO believe the LP are great on economics. If we could get the GOP to move towards Austrian Economics...we would have a victory there. The founding fathers put GOD first...if we don't get back to that..we're sunk as a nation. Tones

speciallyblend
10-27-2008, 07:31 AM
I have been suggesting this to every person in power I meet, including Chuck Baldwin.

same here. i have repeated this idea for the last yr but ,too many egos in the parties, that is why if they do not unite soon or retake the gop, the 3rd party will be a joke, they better wake up soon, Ron Paul proved that people of different ideas can unite ,now we just need to remove the stick from the lp/cp azzez!!!! if the lp/cp would of listened to ron paul in the first place we could of retaken the gop,until we retake the gop. I doubt 3rd parties will have much of a voice and i am a firm 3rd party supporter,please wake up CP/LP or get the hell out of the way and go away!!!!!

torchbearer
10-27-2008, 07:41 AM
I couldn't get any campaign to support a commercial featuring all of the candidates, why would they willingly support people with different views of government?
Should the LP quit being the LP and support socialist?

What good is a party if there is no principle? ask the reform party how that's working out for them.

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 07:46 AM
May I bring the red Kool-aid? :D

TruthAtLast
10-27-2008, 08:06 AM
I made a thread topic about this a long time ago suggesting we call it the "Freedom Party". It would put a damper on the stigma of Libertarians being a bunch of potheads, and something fresh for people to join. Merge the Libertarian and Constitution party, and form an agreement between all other 3rd parties to endorse the one with the most popularity. This endorsement plan could be in effect until a 3rd party or independent candidate legitmately starts battling the two-party system (probably possible in 2020).

The Freedom Party - "Freedomists"

Core principles:
- very limited government, with strict adherence to the constitution (remember it can always be
ammended!)
- a sound monetary policy with backed currency and no central bank, income tax, or IRS
- non-interventionist foreign policy with no alliances

If they could agree on those few points, that would be a lot more substaintal agreement than there would be in the Republican or Democratic parties. Let there be differences within the party, but the core principles will remain the same. Let the candidate into the debates with a unified following.

why not just let these right-wing parties hold primaries just like the other parties? and the winner gets the support of all members and the combined ballot access. The key is really getting enough support that the "winner" gets into the debates. Without national media attention they really stand NO chance of winning.

TruthAtLast
10-27-2008, 08:07 AM
I couldn't get any campaign to support a commercial featuring all of the candidates, why would they willingly support people with different views of government?
Should the LP quit being the LP and support socialist?

What good is a party if there is no principle? ask the reform party how that's working out for them.

good point. :D

OferNave
10-27-2008, 08:11 AM
As recently as a few months ago I may have agree with this, but I'm starting to realize, as discussed in the following video, that the "hood ornament doesn't matter":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB6uQcGo60I

Andrew-Austin
10-27-2008, 08:13 AM
I agree ..the CP and the LP should meld back into the GOP.

:rolleyes:


We NEED religion for a moral society.

x2 :rolleyes:


The founding fathers put GOD first...if we don't get back to that..we're sunk as a nation. Tones

You've been listening to Theocrat too much.

Truth Warrior
10-27-2008, 08:26 AM
http://www.newparty.org/ (http://www.newparty.org/) :p :rolleyes:

Obama really likes HIS version of your combining parties idea. ;)

TruthAtLast
10-27-2008, 08:45 AM
As recently as a few months ago I may have agree with this, but I'm starting to realize, as discussed in the following video, that the "hood ornament doesn't matter":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB6uQcGo60I

I've watched all of Stef's videos and though most agree that the "State" is the problem, it is the solution that people disagree with.

Even if you don't agree with everything in the videos I recommend everyone watch them. As we move to a path of enlightenment and attempt to free the people of the world, it is important to keep our mind open and view all of the various angles.

His philosophy is that the SYSTEM itself is corrupt and enables the enslavement of the People. He also believes that the people are so dependent on it and those in-power are so heavily invested in it, that it would be impossible to infiltrate it and change it. Even if Ron Paul was somehow elected, he thinks it would be a disaster as his attempt to unwind this tightly bound ball of twine we call a government would trigger huge backlashes from the People who rely on this infrastructure. Furthermore, because the media would be showing constant images of millions of families being torn apart as they are deported from being illegal, or teachers striking when the Department of Education was abolished, or elderly starving when we dismantle Social Security, Medicade and the welfare state... he believes that "freedom" and libertarian principles would be blamed just like "free markets" where blamed for this financial crisis.

He argues that the Constitution was actually set up to create the smallest Government in the history of world as a Constitutional Republic (NOT a Democracy) but the result has been the exact opposite (the largest most powerful Government in the world) despite many better funded, better educated, more respected people constantly fighting it over the centuries.

For this reason he believes that even if we somehow restored the State to its original size at its founding, it would just start growing all over again.

He further believes that if we want to live free, we require no savior to make this happen. It is a personal choice that we make and it isn't until we finally disconnect from this SYSTEM do we ever stand a chance of breaking its rule over us.

Many of his arguments may have merits and they certainly give you a different perspective. But I personally believe in some rule of law, which is really where Ron Paul differs from him. Ron Paul believes that if we just follow the Constitution we wouldn't be in this mess. Stef believes that though it might be better than right now, a truly Free person doesn't need permission from ANY Government or person to be free and that same SYSTEM that founded this country is itself the cause of the slavery.

I believe he had a quote that went something like:

"Imagine if the Constitution said it was ok to have slaves as long as you only beat them twice a week. In time that number grew to twice per day. As slaves, we might rejoice if we just got the beatings down to the original twice per week, or even once per day would be better than what we are getting now. But we haven't looked at the core moral question of 'should we be slaves?'"

He makes the point of saying that our Government and the bankers are really slave owners and we are in-fact enslaved by their laws, their taxes, etc. and we keep fighting for less beatings rather than coming to the realization that we should have never been enslaved in the first place.

The philosophical arguments are very intriguing. I have a problem with some of his solutions but that is a whole other topic.

***sorry if I hijacked this thread, I just had to respond to the video comment.***

mczerone
10-27-2008, 08:51 AM
More probable, agreeable, and non-offensive would be an alliance to support one party's nominee for one year. There are very distinct and heated differences between the third parties, but those that agreed to Ron's key points should consider allying in 2012, with state parties looking at it in 2010.

The CP and LP should definitely ally. Their platform is so similar, that it's a shame to see members make such a huge deal out of petty and usually inconsequential differences.

Recognizing that we are all servants to a xtian deity isn't an inconsequential platform difference, even if it is argued that this god preaches tolerance.

I would not be able to vote for someone under the CP, Green, or Nader-ish banners, because the reason I vote 3rd party is that I need to voice my support for issues, not be a part of the 'winning' crowd.

brandon
10-27-2008, 08:53 AM
A much better question would be why not combine the Democrat and Republican parties. These two parties actually have a whole lot in common and agree on almost every single issue.

Now the third parties on the other hand are as different as night and day. It would make no sense at all to combine them.

TruthAtLast
10-27-2008, 09:01 AM
I agree ..the CP and the LP should meld back into the GOP. The common ground for all three of those is maintaining our Constitution and our sovereignty. We NEED religion for a moral society. I found that the LP are more concerned with drug war, porn, gambling..well..the "sins" than anything else..sorry to say. I DO believe the LP are great on economics. If we could get the GOP to move towards Austrian Economics...we would have a victory there. The founding fathers put GOD first...if we don't get back to that..we're sunk as a nation. Tones

There are many people in this Movement who don't believe in God and yet they are also here searching for Freedom and Liberty and doing all they can to help Ron Paul. Are they less equal or deserving of Freedom in your eyes. Religion is not the prerequisite to Freedom.

I agree that many of the founding fathers were Christian and their beliefs influenced their work and governance. They may have been great men, but they were still just men. They weren't perfect. We have great men in today's world too other than just Ron Paul.

Why are we all so convinced that the founding fathers had it EXACTLY right? We are all independent thinkers (at least I hope we are because if we believe anything we're told regardless of rational, critical thought, we are no better than any of the other political cults).

We revere these founders so much that we assume they were omnipotent and that their "solution" to tyranny was the correct one. Certainly it was a very good one created (or negotiated) with good intentions. It was definitely a better solution than their alternative at the time, but if we truly believe in Freedom... then it comes without contingencies. It requires no other prerequisites.

Are we just concerned about having a "victory" no matter how small, or do we believe what we really say we believe, which is TRUE Freedom without the control or permission from anyone to give us this Freedom?

mczerone
10-27-2008, 09:34 AM
Here is my response to the CP:

Instead of saying "Christian" say "white". Since all the signers of the Constitution were "white" we should be a "white" nation. Sound appalling yet? This is okay, though, because being a good "whitey" is to be tolerant of people of other "colors". But we all know that we need "white" people to properly devise "white" law.

Seems a little oppressive to me. What would you think if this was the philosophy of a Middle Eastern Country, instead claiming "Arab" or "Muslim" as the basis? Would you, as a white xtian consider moving there for the Freedom that they supposedly espouse?

v00513
10-27-2008, 02:47 PM
From what I've noticed, all of these parties have their differences, but it is only the libertarian and constitution parties that have any common ground at all. The greens and independents have some far-left ideologies that very rarely differ from those of the mainstream political parties. The constitution and libertarian, although also very much different, seem to be leaning more towards the right. So, in my opinion, it would be an outrageous idea to combine all of these parties together in hope of bringing any kind of change. The entire reason they are different parties after all, is because they have different ideologies, or supposedly do. Put them all together and you have true democracy -- nothing gets done, but everyone complains. I am however, against the very principle of having a bloody thirty "different" political parties. It's absolutely ridiculous to have that many "choices," and even more ridiculous to expect all of them to even be mentioned on networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox, MTV, VH1 and others that are probably owned by the same one individual.

OferNave
10-27-2008, 04:50 PM
***sorry if I hijacked this thread, I just had to respond to the video comment.***

Don't be sorry - I'm glad to know you're interested in this stuff, and that was a useful summary for others.

Akus
10-27-2008, 05:30 PM
into one large super third party. Are the Constitutionist, Green, Independant, and Libertarian parties too diverse to find common ground? In this time of dire need could we all agree on a single leader to represent a giant Freedom Party?

Perhaps this is too little too late but maybe if all the third parties joined forces earlier the polling numbers might have warranted an invitation to the debates. Would doing this now anyway improve our chances for the next election??? What kind of a following could come of it four years from now?

that would make way too much sense

alaric
10-27-2008, 09:01 PM
why not just let these right-wing parties hold primaries just like the other parties? and the winner gets the support of all members and the combined ballot access. The key is really getting enough support that the "winner" gets into the debates. Without national media attention they really stand NO chance of winning.

yes, and the individual parties can work on ballot access so the combined parties are on the ballot in all states, just that the CP and LP would have the same nominee.

mport1
10-27-2008, 09:47 PM
To the original post. Only the Libertarian Party kind of wants freedom so there is no point in combining them to form a "Freedom Party."

Original_Intent
10-27-2008, 10:20 PM
Too many little kingdoms have been built, only the CP had the lack of ego to back RP wholeheartedly and give him full support, the LP leadership I spoke with whined about their bylaws and although certainly LP members were a huge part of RP's support, the party leadership sat this one out, simple fact most of the LP leadership are about building their party, not Liberty, not libertarianism.

Combining into a big party is a great idea, if we could unite like we did behind RP. But from what I have seen even on these forums there are a vocal few that would work only to drive people apart by their differences than uniting by our common ground.

nbhadja
10-27-2008, 11:49 PM
Too many little kingdoms have been built, only the CP had the lack of ego to back RP wholeheartedly and give him full support, the LP leadership I spoke with whined about their bylaws and although certainly LP members were a huge part of RP's support, the party leadership sat this one out, simple fact most of the LP leadership are about building their party, not Liberty, not libertarianism.

Combining into a big party is a great idea, if we could unite like we did behind RP. But from what I have seen even on these forums there are a vocal few that would work only to drive people apart by their differences than uniting by our common ground.

Like the jackasses who hate Baldwin with a passion and yell "theocrat".

mczerone
10-28-2008, 07:22 AM
Like the jackasses who hate Baldwin with a passion and yell "theocrat".

And the jackasses who hate Barr and yell "CIA operative".

I hold nothing against Baldwin, but when "Christian" is your modus operandi, don't expect atheists to be jumping on your bandwagon.

m72mc
10-28-2008, 07:46 AM
I thought the point was to have more options not less....

the problem is media bias and election frauds...
what you need is more candidates in the debates