Why not form a third party?

[Dianne]

Why all the protest about forming a third party. The Demo's and Repub's both suck, and I'm embarrassed to be involved with any of them.

If you look at the tea party hijacking by the GOP; you see how ignorant and manipulative they can be. They are the party of more wars, more national security in other countries; while our security sucks.

The Democrats are absolutely hopeless, and believe in the same thing the GOP believes in... just says it differently to get elected.

Why don't we start a third party called the "Tea Party" before the GOP gets the idea.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think it would be better if we focused on state level politics instead of National (as our primary goal).....Free State Project anyone?

[lynnf]

Why all the protest about forming a third party. The Demo's and Repub's both suck, and I'm embarrassed to be involved with any of them.

If you look at the tea party hijacking by the GOP; you see how ignorant and manipulative they can be. They are the party of more wars, more national security in other countries; while our security sucks.

The Democrats are absolutely hopeless, and believe in the same thing the GOP believes in... just says it differently to get elected.

Why don't we start a third party called the "Tea Party" before the GOP gets the idea.

what you say is true; however Ron Paul has said before -- third parties (suck) too.
the two main parties have the system rigged against them and it takes too long to get enough traction to get on the ballot.

won't work, but if you must, branch off and see how far you get and how long it takes you. don't say you weren't forewarned.

lynn

[Flash]

We've tried third parties and look where they turned out. If anything we need independents like Jake Towne (who is now polling 8% by the way) who aren't connected with a party. And as the poster above said, working at a local level is what really (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2515976&postcount=1) matter.

[TCE]

The laws are so rigged in so many states that it would take two to three times as much work winning on a Third Party ticket than winning on the GOP or Democratic ticket. You also have to spend more money than both the Republican and the Democrat, and prove to the electorate that you're not going to be a "wasted vote."

Austrian is correct. If we focus on state level politics, we can get a lot more bang for our buck and have a lot more influence. Unfortunately, that won't garner as much money and interest as a Senate/Presidential race.

Case in point: If we get GunnyFreedom (Glen Bradley) $100,000, he can easily steamroll Lucy T. Allen in his State House race. Instead, Kokesh is going to end up getting around $200,000 and he'll need close to $750,000 to be competitive. For that amount of money, we could snag 8 State House seats. Rand is coming in at close to $2 million for one Federal Senate Seat. That is an easy 20 State House seats or 10-15 State Senate seats.

[Bergie Bergeron]

I think it would be better if we focused on state level politics instead of National (as our primary goal).....Free State Project anyone?
+1

[TCE]

+1

The thing is, even outside the context of the Free State Project focusing on local races is a good idea. I know Gunny has a lot to say on this, so hopefully he'll notice this thread.

Even for people who believe in the New World Order, do you think they care about local and state governments? Not a chance. The federal is where it's at. By starting from the ground up with municipalities, cities, school boards, etc, we have a framework from which to work in. By targeting all of these federal races, we are trying to swing for the fences on our first ever at-bat.

[MN Patriot]

Nothing lasts forever, including political parties. Many people in the Liberty Movement are trying to take over the Republican Party, since they mostly agree on many of our ideas. But taking over the Republicans has its own set of problems, mainly it is controlled by the same Establishment insiders who control the Democrats.

I really would like to see a third party, my name of choice would be Liberty Constitution Party, start up and put the Republican Party out of business. Then there would be a REAL choice: freedom or fascism.

Third parties in the past have had a hard time getting any respect, but if the Liberty Movement continues to grow, and the Establishment Republicans don't co-opt and undermine it, the time may be right for a third party.

[Original_Intent]

Why all the protest about forming a third party. The Demo's and Repub's both suck, and I'm embarrassed to be involved with any of them.

If you look at the tea party hijacking by the GOP; you see how ignorant and manipulative they can be. They are the party of more wars, more national security in other countries; while our security sucks.

The Democrats are absolutely hopeless, and believe in the same thing the GOP believes in... just says it differently to get elected.

Why don't we start a third party called the "Tea Party" before the GOP gets the idea.

If you had ever been seriously involved with a third party, you wouldn't ask.

As Ron paul himself says, the system is too stacked against a third party. If you worked in a third party you would agree.

It will take far fewer committed people to take over one of the existing parties and win than it would to build up a third party.

[TastyWheat]

Did the neo-conservatives form their own party that eliminated the Republican party? No, they hijacked the Republican party and changed it into what they wanted it to be. Whatever the reasons are, and I blame plurality voting most of all, 3rd parties just don't make any progress because they're instantly viewed as a "wasted vote".

Parties have come and gone in our history, but the Republican party isn't weak or corrupt enough to dissolve and let a new party have the spotlight.

[awake]

Go for 4th or 5th parties while your at it... it will not make a lick of difference.

Under this logic, If football was found to be the cause of cancer, adding a few more teams to the league should cure it right?

[Dianne]

Did the neo-conservatives form their own party that eliminated the Republican party? No, they hijacked the Republican party and changed it into what they wanted it to be. Whatever the reasons are, and I blame plurality voting most of all, 3rd parties just don't make any progress because they're instantly viewed as a "wasted vote".

Parties have come and gone in our history, but the Republican party isn't weak or corrupt enough to dissolve and let a new party have the spotlight.

I'm not so sure about that. I do agree with the other statements above, that the republicans and democrats are hired by the same people.

Well... now that Sarah Palin and that tea party organizer jerk have raped the grassroots tea party effort; maybe we need to come up with another name and this time copywrite it so losers don't have an easy time. We can probably still work with teaparty, but how do we define we are not part of the bimbo's movement?

[WaltM]

I heard about a new 3rd party last month, maybe 2, one was called tea party i think, the 2nd was called america's third party, if I remembered right

[MN Patriot]

I'm not so sure about that. I do agree with the other statements above, that the republicans and democrats are hired by the same people.
Abolishing the income tax and the Fed are the litmus test, in my opinion. Neither party has candidates that propose abolishing either of them. Except our own true Tea Party candidates.



Well... now that Sarah Palin and that tea party organizer jerk have raped the grassroots tea party effort; maybe we need to come up with another name and this time copywrite it so losers don't have an easy time. We can probably still work with teaparty, but how do we define we are not part of the bimbo's movement?

We need to emphasize our goals the Establishment doesn't want talked about: end the income tax and the Fed. Reduce the size of government. Propose legislation to outlaw payroll withholding of all taxes so workers have to write checks to government once a month. Propose legislation to privatize or eliminate the majority of government agencies. We have our agenda of freedom, they have their agenda of exploiting the citizens. People will eventually see the difference.

[WaltM]

Go for 4th or 5th parties while your at it... it will not make a lick of difference.

Under this logic, If football was found to be the cause of cancer, adding a few more teams to the league should cure it right?

wtf?

[fj45lvr]

Why do people always think FEDERALLY??????

end the U.S. (local government is where it is at, forget "central planning") Secession is the solution to the failed "confederation" experiment.

[MN Patriot]

Why do people always think FEDERALLY??????

end the U.S. (local government is where it is at, forget "central planning") Secession is the solution to the failed "confederation" experiment.

The last War of Secession killed 600,000 people. The Constitution that establishes the federal government is a brilliant document that has been subverted by ruthless power hungry charlatans, who were allowed to rise to power by dis-informed citizenry. The internet has been around for only 15 years, and look at the changes in the political landscape.

We are approaching a Civil War; collectivists vs individualists. I think a third party will eventually have a prominent role if our efforts to convert the Republican Party fails this election or next.

[cindy25]

why not take ove the Dem party, using the wars as an issue? Dem base=anti-war
Dem candidates support the war

[Original_Intent]

why not take ove the Dem party, using the wars as an issue? Dem base=anti-war
Dem candidates support the war

I would say it is because as a whole, the Dem base is less inclined to liberty and more inclined to the nanny state. The GOP, while having strayed a long way fromthe path, does have a lot more liberty ideals at its roots. (my opinion)

[cindy25]

I would say it is because as a whole, the Dem base is less inclined to liberty and more inclined to the nanny state. The GOP, while having strayed a long way from the path, does have a lot more liberty ideals at its roots. (my opinion)

I agree with you 100%-but the war can be the number 1 issue in a Dem primary (example Ned LaMont vs Lieberman, Gene McCarthy vs LBJ )
we agree with Republicans on domestic issues, so no advantage there. and the GOP base remains pro-war.

I can see a Progressive pro-health care , pro-nanny state Democrat choosing an anti-war Libertarian over a pro-war socialist

[rancher89]

The laws are so rigged in so many states that it would take two to three times as much work winning on a Third Party ticket than winning on the GOP or Democratic ticket. You also have to spend more money than both the Republican and the Democrat, and prove to the electorate that you're not going to be a "wasted vote."

Austrian is correct. If we focus on state level politics, we can get a lot more bang for our buck and have a lot more influence. Unfortunately, that won't garner as much money and interest as a Senate/Presidential race.

Case in point: If we get GunnyFreedom (Glen Bradley) $100,000, he can easily steamroll Lucy T. Allen in his State House race. Instead, Kokesh is going to end up getting around $200,000 and he'll need close to $750,000 to be competitive. For that amount of money, we could snag 8 State House seats. Rand is coming in at close to $2 million for one Federal Senate Seat. That is an easy 20 State House seats or 10-15 State Senate seats.




The thing is, even outside the context of the Free State Project focusing on local races is a good idea. I know Gunny has a lot to say on this, so hopefully he'll notice this thread.

Even for people who believe in the New World Order, do you think they care about local and state governments? Not a chance. The federal is where it's at. By starting from the ground up with municipalities, cities, school boards, etc, we have a framework from which to work in. By targeting all of these federal races, we are trying to swing for the fences on our first ever at-bat.


If we can get in control of our own house (IE our own state's legeslature and as many local races as possible) AND we do it in enough states, we have more power than you may realize. Look into the "Real ID"--it passed, but enough states refused to particpate, so the law is unenforceable. This is what we are working toward. This is what may keep us from spiralling into Cival War. (I know, that's the Debbie Downer side of me speaking, but.....)

Hand in hand with this effort is the education of Sheriffs and the election of people to that position who understand what being a Sheriff REALLY means.

As I have been saying anytime I get a chance, we need to gain a majority of our state's House and Senate. I applaud those who are running for National office and I'm glad they are doing so, but someone once said that all politics is local, and it was never more true than now.

[KCIndy]

We are approaching a Civil War; collectivists vs individualists.

If that's true, we're screwed. Getting individualists to work as one is inherently contradictory. Cat herding, anyone?

This is EXACTLY why the Libertarian Party can't get any traction, and it's why NO party of individualists/libertarians is ever very likely (in my very unhappy estimation) going to be successful as a viable Third Party.... too many well-intended but stubborn people pulling in too many directions at the same time.

We, as lovers of Liberty, are also unwilling to perform the sleazy political compromises that both the Republicans and Democrats use to their advantage. And I'm NOT saying we should. Quite the opposite. But that DOES make it much tougher to make real progress as a party...

*sigh*

But it's not going to keep me from trying to push forward a Liberty agenda.... and trying, and trying, and trying....

[MN Patriot]

If that's true, we're screwed. Getting individualists to work as one is inherently contradictory. Cat herding, anyone?

This is EXACTLY why the Libertarian Party can't get any traction, and it's why NO party of individualists/libertarians is ever very likely (in my very unhappy estimation) going to be successful as a viable Third Party.... too many well-intended but stubborn people pulling in too many directions at the same time.

We, as lovers of Liberty, are also unwilling to perform the sleazy political compromises that both the Republicans and Democrats use to their advantage. And I'm NOT saying we should. Quite the opposite. But that DOES make it much tougher to make real progress as a party...

*sigh*

But it's not going to keep me from trying to push forward a Liberty agenda.... and trying, and trying, and trying....

One way or another, if we don't want to be slaves to the collectivists, we will have to seek power and dismantle the nanny state. We don't need a majority, we just need enough people to get the job done.

Watch this, if you haven't already. 1 hour 23 minutes, but worth the time spent to motivate yourself:

An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958#)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Why all the protest about forming a third party. The Demo's and Repub's both suck, and I'm embarrassed to be involved with any of them.

If you look at the tea party hijacking by the GOP; you see how ignorant and manipulative they can be. They are the party of more wars, more national security in other countries; while our security sucks.

The Democrats are absolutely hopeless, and believe in the same thing the GOP believes in... just says it differently to get elected.

Why don't we start a third party called the "Tea Party" before the GOP gets the idea.

First off, the legal precedence of goverment isn't supposed to be the goal but the focus should be on the Civil Purpose of the people. So, government at best should be considered imperfect and at worst corrupt (as in a "necessary tyranny" founded with the intentions of serving the people's sake).
The two party system was created originally to serve as a way to judge constitutionality as the Supreme Court in the beginning had no earthly idea what it was supposed to do. It did not discover itself until years later when it actually made a determination that, according to the Constitution, it was not qualified to sit over a case.
The two party system is still important in keeping the constitution from being thoughtlessly altered. The point wasn't supposed to be to set up a competition between pimps (powers), but to set up an ideal "necessary tyranny" for the sake of the people's Civil Purpose.
Our nation being the only one established on a natural law (and not on a deep political science), we Americans shouldn't even be using the old, outdated Aristotilian golden mean, the left and right, conservative and liberal models of measuring Aristocratic governments that the primitive Europeans have.
You see, we have inherited a superior system as our Founding Fathers advanced the long standing social contract theory.

[ronpaulhawaii]

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

[DeadheadForPaul]

Because the Libertarian Party (1972) and the Constitution Party have accomplished SO much over the past 30 years...

I know the original poster is well-intentioned. In fact, I thought once like her...that is, until I actually was an active member of a third party (the LP)

The game is just not in our favor. The LP wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars just making sure that they have ballot access. It is FAR easier to take over an established party

[MN Patriot]

Because the Libertarian Party (1972) and the Constitution Party have accomplished SO much over the past 30 years...

I know the original poster is well-intentioned. In fact, I thought once like her...that is, until I actually was an active member of a third party (the LP)

The game is just not in our favor. The LP wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars just making sure that they have ballot access. It is FAR easier to take over an established party

Third parties AREN'T a waste. They bravely tread where the Establishment parties fear to go. The Tea Party movement is a direct result of third party agitation of the system. So third parties HAVE accomplished much.

It takes time and effort to get liberty minded people into positions of power in the Republican Party, and it IS happening. But the Establishment still holds the ultimate reins of power, the media spin that they dispense on a weekly basis to fool the people into thinking there is a difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Look at their attempt to co-opt the Tea Parties.

I wouldn't dismiss the third party route. Especially if several million people in the Liberty Movement decide to go that route. Run candidates in every election, put the statist Republicans out of business. Give the citizens a REAL choice.

[MN Patriot]

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

Ballot access is time consuming, but use it for outreach and a demonstration of why the two old parties are corrupt.

[Gleaner]

Why all the protest about forming a third party. The Demo's and Repub's both suck, and I'm embarrassed to be involved with any of them.

If you look at the tea party hijacking by the GOP; you see how ignorant and manipulative they can be. They are the party of more wars, more national security in other countries; while our security sucks.

The Democrats are absolutely hopeless, and believe in the same thing the GOP believes in... just says it differently to get elected.

Why don't we start a third party called the "Tea Party" before the GOP gets the idea.

Forming a third party is the sure ticket to becoming ineffective.

The best option is to take back control of the Republican party forcing the RINO's back to the democrat party. When someone talks of forming a third party Barrok Hussein Owebama smiles. A third party assures Owebama a second term.

Just watch liberals on MSNBC and CNN jump with joy when discussion of a third party is on. They know that is their best chance of victory.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If that's true, we're screwed. Getting individualists to work as one is inherently contradictory. Cat herding, anyone?

This is EXACTLY why the Libertarian Party can't get any traction, and it's why NO party of individualists/libertarians is ever very likely (in my very unhappy estimation) going to be successful as a viable Third Party.... too many well-intended but stubborn people pulling in too many directions at the same time.

We, as lovers of Liberty, are also unwilling to perform the sleazy political compromises that both the Republicans and Democrats use to their advantage. And I'm NOT saying we should. Quite the opposite. But that DOES make it much tougher to make real progress as a party...

*sigh*

But it's not going to keep me from trying to push forward a Liberty agenda.... and trying, and trying, and trying....

Before we get all to work as one, we must figure out how to get one to work at all.

[heavenlyboy34]

Before we get all to work as one, we must figure out how to get one to work at all.

I can agree with you on that. :cool:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only way a third party will ever work is if they focus on LOCAL politics. If you can't even win local office what makes you think you have a shot at anything higher? This is where all third parties fail, and fail hard. I still think parties are an abomination. I also don't think we have more than 2 to 4 years at most before SHTF, so talking about a third party is irrelevant.

[andrewh817]

Seems a lot of people on these forums think another political party is going to make us more free. I've got a hypothetical situation for you to ponder....

So there's the rise of this third party that overtakes, or at least is competitive with the Repub. and Demo. parties. It doesn't matter what the ideology of this party is, (could be on any side of the Nolan chart) only that the party is very successful in implementing its ideas. We'll assume the party's minarchist here....... so at this stage in the country everything is privatized except for the police force, water system, and health care (again, just examples).

Situation 1: The population sees how much better things work without government involvement in EVERY OTHER aspect of the economy, so doesn't it make sense that they'd support privatization of everything? And wouldn't that involve getting the members of said political party (and any other government workers) to essentially step down from power, since there's no way to vote for no government?

Situation 2: The population likes the minarchist system the way it is, so why even have a political party? If no new laws are wanted by the people then why do you need politicians?

My point being, every political party has an agenda. Once the agenda is complete, why would you even need to put forward legislation? It's obvious there's many freedoms which haven't been taken away yet because there's always legislation going on in Washington. The "elites" agenda is obviously not complete.

[TCE]

If we can get in control of our own house (IE our own state's legeslature and as many local races as possible) AND we do it in enough states, we have more power than you may realize. Look into the "Real ID"--it passed, but enough states refused to particpate, so the law is unenforceable. This is what we are working toward. This is what may keep us from spiralling into Cival War. (I know, that's the Debbie Downer side of me speaking, but.....)

Hand in hand with this effort is the education of Sheriffs and the election of people to that position who understand what being a Sheriff REALLY means.

As I have been saying anytime I get a chance, we need to gain a majority of our state's House and Senate. I applaud those who are running for National office and I'm glad they are doing so, but someone once said that all politics is local, and it was never more true than now.

Did you just attack me and agree with every single thing I said in the same post? :o