third party

[SaGa]

id like to start a debate on voting for third party. or looking into it more. should we as amaricans look harder at the third party candidates and perhaps put them in our mix. or should we just go with the flow of the two tickets we here about the most on the media.

iv heard a lot of excuses on avoiding third parties. with no REAL hope of winning they just surve to switch around the votes of the two big tickets. other just say they really dont know anything about it and unless the news will cover them they wont bother looking into it

of course this leads to them not getting media coverage as much, less funding. and thus puts them back on the same "no hope for winning" excuse next election.

so what is all of your opinions, do you like third party or think they will disrupt the election unintentionally.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'd like a wide-open party system similar to many European countries (I think) where they have like in some cases 10+ or more viable (at least in comparison to the us) parties. I definitely would like to see a large Libertarian party at least (personal bias admittitly but by no means am I a "card carrying" libertarian).

But there is an argument that says the reason why US government has worked well. Yes, despite the complaints the US government works very well in comparison to the vast majority of other systems. One reason I've read anecdotally for the (fairly recent) historical success of the US system is that it doesn't have as many political parties, thus making it easier (although not easy) to get consensus on things that would be near impossible if you had say 10 different parties.

I've not really spent much time looking into this aspect of government other than I'm always irritated by both the big parties, despite the rhetoric, almost always increasing, rather than decreasing the size of government. We'd probably need a totally different platform to get that done.

[SaGa]

whats interesting is many of the third party candidates are friends with each other. even if they dont agree with there political views. and i was suprised to see more unity in there general idology of liberty. and the uncontrolled abuse of the fed. iv been reading up on the candidates other then obama and mc cain that are running.

"I'm always irritated by both the big parties, despite the rhetoric, almost always increasing, rather than decreasing the size of government"

i think thats been the case for many amaricans. which whould bring a distrust to the main tickets on how entangled they are in this. campaigning for these two, thanks to the media. has reached a profoundly high level. almost as if amaricans feel there is no option number 3 thats viable. we simply have to pick one or the other.

[Rev.Reverence]

NADER / GONZALES

To illustrate how little has changed in four years, other than conditions becoming worse, the 2008 Nader/Gonzalez campaign is posting these policy positions on various injustices, necessities, and redirections that were prepared initially for the 2004 Nader/Camejo campaign. Such a short historical context should give our supporters and viewers an even greater sense of urgency to stop the corporate interests' and the corporate governments' autocratic control -- and the resulting deterioration -- of our society and country.

Allot of really good ideals in here... so far.

[Fin]

To be taken seriously in today's U.S. political arena (IMO), a third-party candidate needs to reach broadly across the moderate range of American politics (say, like Ron Paul).

Thus far, third-party contenders have most often been seen as fringe (too far right or too far left). Perhaps one day fringe candidates will gain a foothold, but not in the forseeable future.

[Rev.Reverence]

To be taken seriously in today's U.S. political arena (IMO), a third-party candidate needs to reach broadly across the moderate range of American politics (say, like Ron Paul).

Thus far, third-party contenders have most often been seen as fringe (too far right or too far left). Perhaps one day fringe candidates will gain a foothold, but not in the forseeable future.

What the heck happened to him?

[Simon Bar Sinister]

...and if I'm elected, I promise the formation of a new party...a 3rd party...the WILD PARTY!

[n0Mad]

What the heck happened to him?

He's still on the ballot as far as I know. The media just pays no attention to any party other than Democans and Republicrats which is unfortunate. Maybe if we all voted third party and encouraged everyone we know to vote third party, it might make a big enough dent that next time around the media starts taking alternatives a bit more seriously. It's not like the two big parties have any good offerings so we might as well roll the dice and take a chance on Paul or Nader.

[Rev.Reverence]

RON PAUL

WOW...& there he is...

[SaGa]

if ron paul beat mc cain out of the primaries. obama whould have a TOUGH time smeering him. his voting is very much in line with his ideology

[Rev.Reverence]

if ron paul beat mc cain out of the primaries. obama whould have a TOUGH time smeering him. his voting is very much in line with his ideology

...funny you bring it up...I was just coming over with this info...la-la--la...

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record

* He has never voted to raise taxes.

* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

* He has never taken a government paid junket.

* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

* He voted against the Patriot Act.

* He votes against regulating the Internet.

* He voted against the Iraq war.

* He voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.

* He votes against the United Nations.

* He votes against the welfare state.

* He votes against reinstating a military draft.

* He votes for conservative principles.

* He votes to cut government spending.

* He votes to lower healthcare costs.

* He votes to end the war on drugs.

* He votes to preserve civil liberties.

* He votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.

* He votes to eliminate tax funded abortions & to overturn Roe v Wade.

* He votes to protect religious freedom.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

[Rev.Reverence]

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

* Property should be owned by people, not government.

* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

I really like allot of this guy's stuff...

[n0Mad]

I really like allot of this guy's stuff...

He's pretty much the epitome of Libertarian, which, if I had to associate myself with a party, that would be it.

[SaGa]

I really like allot of this guy's stuff...

his model is great for everything. only downside to his ideals in my opinion is education. could crossing a class barrier be harder without some goverment funded higher education.

He's pretty much the epitome of Libertarian, which, if I had to associate myself with a party, that would be it.

perhaps just bye joining the party officially it whould boost its standings next election, that plays into factors on promotion. im sure 50% of amaricans still dont know about the libertarians. accually aside from hearing the name obama and mc cain, most people dont pay attention to politics unless theres a huge spin in the media about it

[Rev.Reverence]

..Yeah, but he wants to overturn Roe v Wade... dosen't that mean that abortion will be illegal? or will it not be protected from being made illegal

in a regional fashion?

Also what is NAFTA and CAFTA, to save me another web-wading expedition (no, when I do it; it is not surfing)...

[Rev.Reverence]

his model is great for everything. only downside to his ideals in my opinion is education. could crossing a class barrier be harder without some goverment funded higher education.

I did not see his stance on that...must not be very 'appetizing'..

[Simon Bar Sinister]

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would return the matter to the individual states.

[Rev.Reverence]

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would return the matter to the individual states.

Ah...well..that sucks anyways...but not as bad as all of that...

[n0Mad]

his model is great for everything. only downside to his ideals in my opinion is education. could crossing a class barrier be harder without some goverment funded higher education.

I don't think so. Government subsidized loans would probably still exist not to mention the plethora of private scholarships. Minorities qualify for far more scholarships than I do. Many of the blacks and hispanics I had as classmates were getting pretty close to free-rides due to private scholarships.

[SaGa]

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one of the most powerful and wide-reaching treaties in the world. It governs the entire spectrum of North American trade and has at its roots hemispheric cooperation on a scale never before seen.

NAFTA is a treaty between Canada, Mexico, and the United States that was designed to foster greater trade between the three countries. NAFTA has been in effect since 1 January 1994. It has since been updated with two major additions, the North American Agreement for Economic Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement for Labor Cooperation (NAALC). A very recent addition was the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, designed to foster cooperation on issues of national security.

One important thing that NAFTA did right away was to eliminate a large number of tariffs on goods shipped between the three countries. American goods, mostly, were being sold to Canada and especially to Mexico and carried with them a high tariff. Mexico and Canada did not wish to pay the tariffs, so the goods were not sold in North America. Prime examples of these goods were cars, car parts, computers, and food.

As a result of NAFTA, Mexico especially has purchased goods from the US in much greater numbers than before. This saves Mexican companies money on imports, and it saves American companies money on export shipping costs. Canada has benefited in this way as well, although not nearly to the extent that Mexico has.

One prime benefit of NAFTA is that goods shipped between the three countries have labels printed in three languages: French, Spanish, and English. The English is for Canada and the US, the Spanish is for Mexico, and the French is for Quebec and other French-speaking parts of Canada. Another prime benefit, at least for Mexico, is that the NAFTA agreement ostensibly also encourages greater immigration between the three countries. In recent years, the increased immigration from Mexico to the US has become even more of a flashpoint than it had been previously. The same sort of relationship does not exist between Canada and the US or between Canada and Mexico.

Many observers consider NAFTA to be the same sort of economic and political union that the European Union (EU) is. This is both true and untrue. The EU, like NAFTA, is an economic union that fosters greater trade and cooperation between a large handful of the countries of Europe. EU members, however, have a common currency, while NAFTA members do not. Also, the EU has a political element and its own government, neither of which NAFTA has.

taken from wise geek

his reasons for not voting no on nafta is apperent.

[Reaper]

I liked Ron Paul as well and would still cast a vote for him even if it wouldn't do much. I just don't care for either party ticket.

As for Nafta, I can say it has helped with my job as a truck driver, increasing the freight coming from other countries. But now with the creation in progress of the super highway from Laredo up I-35 into Canada to Toronto, I am worried that jobs will soon be cut away as mexicans can freely drive the freight all the way up to Canada themselves. That is bad in many ways because their trucks are not very run-worthy and breakdown. They also haul the freight cheap because their standard of living is cheap, so companies would go with them more. Nafta is also what helped give tax breaks to companies who shipped their companies over the borders. That is the bad mark against Clinton, whom I thought had a good tenure. He helped start Nafta from what I heard, although fact checking would need to be in order.

I think we are shipping stuff back into the US more than shipping out, so I am not so sure that nafta is really that great, even though it may affect prices to lower themselves over trade competition.

[SaGa]

the fear with nafta is either companies will find it much faster to move to mexico and manufacture there abusing the low wages. the fear from mexico is that we will swallow up mexico into a us colony owned bye companies. canada on the other hand is on par with our standard of living so theres not much worry from them

[Reaper]

Actually with talk of the North American Union, that fear may be legit anyway. I have read in many articles that the US dollar is falling for a reason and when it does, the US, Canada, and Mexico will be united as one nation like the EU. The current dollar would be changed over to a currency called the Amero. So I am wondering if that is slowly playing out. I am thinking if the financial crisis continues, the next President is going to be dealing with this transition. So far its just a rumor and Snopes classifies it as just that. But it does make sense.

Here is the link if you have heard about it and are interested.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp

[Guest greyhalo]

I've liked Ron Paul all along and still might vote for him.

[Rev.Reverence]

Actually with talk of the North American Union, that fear may be legit anyway. I have read in many articles that the US dollar is falling for a reason and when it does, the US, Canada, and Mexico will be united as one nation like the EU. The current dollar would be changed over to a currency called the Amero. So I am wondering if that is slowly playing out. I am thinking if the financial crisis continues, the next President is going to be dealing with this transition. So far its just a rumor and Snopes classifies it as just that. But it does make sense.

...Who would be in charge of the government?