jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (90 posts)

America Needs A New Strong Third Party To Stop All The Bull****

  1. crazyhorsesghost profile image85
    crazyhorsesghostposted 5 years ago

    As a American Veteran I used to support the Democrat Party but over time I changed to the Republican Party. But I have always been the type of person to really investigate and as I began to check into what both parties were saying I began to realize that both parties are lying to the American People. And I found out the below things that really bother me and make me mad as hell as a American Citizen.

    15.000 Homeless People live under the bridges in downtown New Orleans. And many of them are women and children. Another 300.000 people can't come home to New Orleans. But you don't see this story on the evening news.

    According to the US Government as many as 13 million American children go to bed hungry every night but all I see are ads to send food off to third world countries. America is slowly but surely becoming a third world country.

    Whole cities in the American South are ghost towns because the textile jobs that used to be there were sent over seas. And it was both political parties that did this to the American people with NAFTA. Why was there no politicians standing up and yelling hell no. Why indeed.

    Americas infrastructure including many bridges and roads are at the end of their useful life's. Falling down bridges are in Americas future. We must worry about the USA first and not worry about rebuilding countries tens of thousands of miles away.

    We continue to fight a war on drugs that is never going to work. Make marijuana legal and tax it. Prohibition never worked. Study about it and you'll see I'm right.

    The Republicans and Democrats try to keep your minds off the serious problems facing our country by their staged political infighting. We need a strong political party to emerge as a third party that will be for America first and to hell with the rest of the world.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But of course any third party would just be more of the same unless America got over its irrational fear of socialism. Your system precludes any real solution to the problems that you list.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What about socialism is it that you like?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think like is an appropriate word to use for something that is just right, but if you are happy to see your fellow man consigned to living under a bridge, dying through lack of basic amenities, like health care and food, to see his children cut off in their prime.
          To see your whole infrastructure falling around your ears because it is not profitable for somebody to fix it, to basically be a pawn in some rich fools game, then go for it.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ditto!

            1. Moderndayslave profile image60
              Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Pretty much nails it

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cool Symbols
          Cool Language
          Cool Song - What's not to like??

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCFibtD3H_k

          But sometimes sounds like a Monty Python Parody

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcXNXKtu8z4

      2. maven101 profile image77
        maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        John...The solution IS a third party...A party that listens to the American people, a party that concerns itself with America first, a party that insists on constitutional governance, a party that refuses to be the police force of the world...A third party that respects private property, educational choice, and fiscal discipline...

        Americans are naturally highly individualistic, with free minds that refuse subordination to collectivism, or socialism as you call it...Many have fallen under the spell of the Nanny State through prolonged welfare and other social disincentives to work, but the majority of Americans still value their individual freedoms and the responsibilities that comes with insuring those hard-won freedoms continue for our children...

        The very idea that the individual is less important than the masses is totally foreign to most Americans...Wilson shoved a progressive socialism on an unsuspecting populace and failed miserably...

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Once again simply brilliant. I bow to your wisdom.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Firstly, I don't call collectivism socialism, I am an individual!
          Neither is socialism an incentive not to work, it is a protection for those who cannot work either through ill health or the system requiring unemployment to contain wages.
          Maybe some people abuse that protection but that is no reason to deny that protection to those who really need it. I'm sure that,like me,you have worked with people who make an art out of doing as little as possible to justify their pay.

          I can assure you that I too consider myself more important than the masses but that doesn't stop me feeling demeaned by the poverty of others.

          1. maven101 profile image77
            maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            John...Compassion, true compassion for our fellow man is not the sole province of socialists...Indeed, socialists were the progenitors of fascism...Starting with Rousseau, Sorel, Santayana, Bismarck and others the idea of a socialistic aristocracy ( admit it, you have such in Great Britain ) and that society can be bent to the will of the state through the benign efforts of social engineers...The aim being, of course, to make the middle classes dependent on government ( read Bismarck's top-down socialism )...

            Free minds and free markets are the greatest force for human compassion ever realized by society...But of course its flawed, needs regulations ( not handcuffs ), should be apolitically monitored, but also encouraged to grow from within...

            Johnson, for all his compassion and dedication to promising a " War on Poverty ", his rhetoric did not match reality...In reality it was a dismal failure, morally, culturally, and economically...That legacy of misguided altruism lives with us today in the millions of fatherless homes in the African-American community, the abject loss of personal pride, of personal responsibility, and the generational progression of welfare families...

            I'm going a bit long here, sorry...But this is a very complex issue, socialism vs a true republic...Perhaps, as a species, we have yet to evolve into that Marxist tag, " New Men " ...

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Indeed, socialists were the progenitors of fascism.."

              So not only don't you understand socialism, you don't understand fascism either!
              Fascism is antithetical to everything socialist. It is an extreme right wing movement opposed to anything even slightly resembling socialism.

              I don't know about the US, but I know that in the UK unemployment benefit was introduced by the capitalist business owners and strongly opposed by the socialists who saw it as a means of control, give the unemployed workers just enough money to subsist on, but not enough for them to feel comfortable or have the time and the energy to think. In short, to control them.

              There is no compassion in a free market, there is only greed. People do good despite a free market,not because of it.

              1. maven101 profile image77
                maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The fact is I do know socialism, its origins, and its objectives...Unlike you, I've read history, extensively, have a degree in it, and taught it for several years...The progressive movement, read American socialism, was enamoured with Italian fascism and Bismarck's social order...Mussolini ( and Hitler for that matter ) both initiated free health care programs, women's suffrage, free education, including college, and full employment for those that could work...They established generous pensions for the aged and free day care centers for working mothers...Sounds pretty socialistic to me...

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, presumption! So you reckon I haven't read history, you'd be wrong on that as well.

                  Although when founded during the first world war fascism took ideas from the left and the right by the 1920s it was firmly of the right and described by Italian fascists as a party of the right.

                  They are nationalistic, anti communist, anti Marxist, anti democratic, anti liberal, pro war, in fact, anti socialist.

                  Fascist are for private property, the market economy and the profit motive.

                  I think you've been reading the wrong books. I see more similarities with fascism in the American system than I see in socialism.

                  1. maven101 profile image77
                    maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think we are talking apples and oranges here...Your idea of socialism is much different from the progressive liberal fascist socialism being promoted here...And no, fascism did not devolve from ideas  of the left and right...progressive liberalism evolved from ideas and programs originated by fascists, such as Mussolini, whom they praised and imitated...Mussolini himself has said " I am a man of the left "...

                    FDR, furthering the Wilsonian idea of " enhanced government control " over every aspect of Americana was begun as a " war on poverty " allowing for unprecedented presidential powers being evoked where every American was required to " do his duty "...This great Socialist even had a symbol, the Blue Eagle, which closely resembled the Nazi eagle in detail...Businesses were required to have a Blue Eagle posted on their premises to proclaim their government support...Consumers were encouraged to patronize only those businesses that displayed the symbol...This is Socialism on steroids, quite a different bird from the European model...There has never been a tradition of rugged individualism in Europe, hell, you people even clap in sync...

            2. habee profile image89
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Dang, Larry, that was GOOD!!

        3. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...look beyond the sound bites media put out about Ron Paul and you will see the "new view" of politics, and the fading of the old two party system...

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Irrational fear of socialism?

        Jeez.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes Evan, irrational.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How about we just discuss what it means when power gets centralized (a strong trend in socialism is a powerful central government).

            http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistor … stalin.htm

            Now let's use pictures:

            ... Ugh, I was going to post them, but I don't want to do that to the casual blog reader. Do an image search for "Stalin Famine" and you can see why Americans don't trust centralized power.


            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5469873_f248.jpg

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Another one who does not understand socialism, only what the right has told them to believe.

              Socialism is not about centralised government, it is about devolved government, power to the people.

              BTW, why Stalin? He was no socialist.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                sure he wasn't.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Good, but somehow I don't believe you really think that. Why not?

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't trust a third Party anymore than I trust the Democrat Party.  The Republican Party needs to be called out onto the carpet for their hogwash and held to their Party Platform.   And the Democrat Party, well, where do I begin with that?----First of all, that Party should've actually nominated a Democrat for President instead of a progressive social activist.

  2. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I agree! I don't think the Rs or the Ds actually represent my views, and it seems to be getting worse - the Rs moving to the right and the Ds moving to the left. Where are the moderates??

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I agree in theory; but there would still be a problem.  I think a lot of people go into politics to make a positive difference, but it will never happen until Washington itself has been changed. The corruption is so rampant and the pockets of the corporate lobbyists so deep that it appears it takes less than one term in office to completely corrupt even the purest of hearts.

    I've lost so much faith in our political process at this point that I don't know if anything will solve our problems.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I feel that way too. Even if someone feels they have solutions and could make a positive difference, they do not want to subject their families to such a lack of privacy. Plus they can never cut through all the nonsense and lobbyists in DC anyway. I am a D, but unhappy with Obama, and don't believe the R philosophy, I think we do have a moral obligation to help people who really need it. I'm not sure what will happen. The US is a relatively new country, maybe it's time for a Revolution!

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I've usually voted Republican in the past, but Bush turned my stomach so badly and the religious right has over run the party to the point that it is ruined.

        I agree with you. We have a moral obligation to help others. I believe in fiscal responsibility also. Neither party is trying to find a middle ground that can fairly address both issues.

        I was reading the Declaration of Independence yesterday and there were so many parts I felt spoke to us now, maybe you're right. We may just have to have a revolution to regain our freedom and vision.

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have the solution. It will reduce the use of electricity in huge amounts. Let's all turn our kitchens into dens let the government send us out to eat 3 meals aday. Now that is a plan. No more grocery shopping,  always going out for dinner. No cooking. No washing dishes. Now, that's a plan. Think about it  Really. Saves electricity. I like it.

          1. mom101 profile image60
            mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh and food stamps could be cut out therefore reducing the fraudulent use. Oh yeah, it just keeps building goodness. No one hungry.

  4. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Why do we need lobbyists??

    1. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To guide the clueless.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The wrong way

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To supplement the Congressmen's incomes and their retirement, and their vacation accounts and any other way they can funnel money into their pockets to buy the votes.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think the president isn't lobbied? For some reason I bet you don't.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think anyone could rationally argue that the office of the president isn't continually lobbied. The problem with the system runs top to bottom.  No branch remains untainted.

      2. crazyhorsesghost profile image85
        crazyhorsesghostposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think  we need strict term limits and we need to ban any lobbyists from Washington DC. If Senators for example were limited to one six year term we would have far different politicians than what we have now. maybe the president should be one term of six years as well. If those two things were put in place we would have a far different political system than today.  People like George Washington and Francis Marion would never agree with our current political system. In fact they just might want to start a revolution.  I am sure Thomas Jefferson would also have serious problems with our current political system.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lincoln was a railroad lobbyist.

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No one has access to all knowledge about a thing.  Lobbyists do provide that information.  There is a legitimate function for lobbyists.  If government was less interested in regulating and interfering with everything there would be much less corruption and fewer lobbyists.  Lobbying is, often though not exclusively, a reaction to the interference and ignorance of the state.

      Breast cancer, Autism, AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc... name the disease and there are lobbyists working to get government funding for its treatment and eradication.  Wheat, corn, oats, barley, rice, sugar, soy beans, pork, beef, poultry, etc...name a food and there are lobbyists seeking favorable treatment in tax, trade and regulatory policy.

      The image of the fat, cigar smoking, lawyer buying hookers, champagne and Italian Villas for politicians is a misconception.  A much better word than lobbyist is advocate.  What endeavor doesn't need an advocate when dealing with the all powerful Federal government?

  5. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I'll bet Jefferson's slaves had a problem with him.

  6. kerryg profile image88
    kerrygposted 5 years ago

    I'd go beyond a strong third party and say we need a fourth, fifth, or even sixth. We've got at least six major political affiliations in this country right now: the progressives, the moderate left, the moderate right, the libertarians, the theocrats, and the wingnuts. If you toss in smaller groups like the anarchists, the true socialists, and the paramilitarists, you could probably even support up to ten different parties.

  7. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    The third party concept is a real two edge sword for several reasons.  Take for example, if you use the Tea Party as a concept then you can expect that the major result will be a splintering of the vote on the conservative side of the aisle which will split the conservative voice and basically give elections to the left.  The same could be true if a more liberal or moderately liberal party arose on the left.  At present, I believe we have a distribution of voters who call themselves democrats or republicans that falls about equal in the 30% range on each side.  That leaves about 40% who describe themselves as independent voters who go either way, moderates or just conservatives or liberaterians.  I am not sure that 40% could be collectively herded into a party of the same mindset as these folks change with the political winds.  The two party system has a lot of problems but when things are attempted from a majority vote basis, there is less complication in many ways.  I am not advocating the two-party system but simply pointing out the reason it logically exists in the USA.  WB

  8. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    I think the amount of money it takes to run is what is limiting us to two parties. If we can eliminate that problem we might get somewhere

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – J. Edgar Hoover

  9. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul is the closest we'll have to having a third-party candidate in the White House. I advise voting for him.

  10. crazyhorsesghost profile image85
    crazyhorsesghostposted 5 years ago

    Great diversified posts here. It is sad but it will probably take a revolution or very serious problems to make the American people wake up and demand change. I can see the day when America might break up into several countries much like what happened in Russia. I know people will say it could never happen but I'm sure people would have said it could never happen in Russia either.

    We as an American people must demand change. If it takes a revolution so be it. We must do what ever it takes to save America.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, a Russian scholar said just that! It was in an article on the Global Research site years ago!
      He says the US will be divided into sections, with other countries owning them.

      But I say we are already owned anyway.

      The quest for power has destroyed us, IMO.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        With the increase in the debt ceiling and the immediate spending up to that new level, hasn't Barrack Obama continued the sale of America to the Chinese?  Over forty cents of every dollar spent by Obama is borrowed from the Chinese.  The debt payments received by China last year is equal to the increase in their military budget.  Sounds like they are getting ready to collect on Barry's debt.

        I guess the price of America is $1.4 trillion a year for four years - big thumbs up Economics ignoramus, Barrack Hussein Obama.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Errr, we had to borrow that money to pay for the Bush era tax cuts...

          "Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

          Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners."

          So don't tell me about spending OK?

          Bush era tax cuts....used as a political football by your side.

          Iraq war Bush.--borrowed $$ from China. Afghanistan Bush.--borrowed $$ from China. 9/11 Bush.......WON'T EVEN GO THERE.

          Keeping one eye closed at all times is worse than blind.

          You basically ensure that the same thing will happen over and over and over and over again.

          At least if you're blind, you don't know what going on.....but to see with only one eye makes you think you do!

          I don't know how many times I can say this, but I will say it again:

          Deal with Bushco before you talk to me about Obama!

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Believe as you will.  Obama signed an extension to those horrid tax cuts last December - they are now his.  Obama as Commander-in-Chief can withdraw from Iraq and Afgahnistan at any time - he has not.  In fact he has expanded American involvement in Afganistan to include Pakistan.  Those two wars are now his.  Spending under Obama is  $1 trillion a year above the highest deficit GWB ever had.  The budget deficit is his. 

            With majorities in both Houses and the GWB tax "cuts" ready to sun set their extension was all his.  What politics could be played with them, they expired after the Democrat's resounding and monumentally historical, disastrous repudiation in November, 2010.  If they were so bad for everything and everyone than why did Obama sign them unless he is either an idiot(neither one of us think that) or a liar about the impact of those tax cuts on the budget.

            By the way, $3.7 trillion equal to this year of spending under Obama.  It would not even pay for next year.  $3.7 trillion over 10 years(an absurd way of measuring anything as dynamic as an economy) is $370 billion a year.  That is far less than the gluttonous spending of Obama.  He has spent a TRILLION dollars more than that every year so far. 

            It must be spending.  But that is okay.  You think about the impact of Jackson Pollack on Abstract Expressionism in the 1950s and not worry yourself with Economics or those pesky numbers.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Heh? Earth to Chris Earth to Chris......goofy transmission.

              Nothing has been all Obama.....it has been all Tea Party.

              Obama, as PRESIDENT has had to work around a bunch of big cry-baby losers, who cannot ever admit defeat, and do NOT know how to share!

              They treat him with disrespect, and treat those of us who voted for him as if we don't matter.

              The GOP spends plenty. It just goes to the top.

              Peole who like that, like the GOP. IMO

              WEll, that is NOT all of America! "The American People" they claim to know so much about voted for Obama,and want his ideas implemented.

              So far, it has been like pulling teeth to get a morsel of crumbs.

              This is a new paradigm: Kissing butt of the losers. So, my question is: Why do they have so much power?

              That is the million dollar ? for me.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, I forgot how much power those crazy tea people had in February 2009 when Barry had a filibuster proof Senate and a big majority in the House.  I forgot how many elective offices they held before November 2010.

                You are right, it wasn't just Barry - it was Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. 

                GOP spends plenty?  $3.6 TRILLION every year since Barry was elected what was the largest budget before that?  GWB and the Democrat Congress loved spending but not nearly as much as Barry and the Democrats.  Belief is a funny thing - it doesn't need to be predicated on anything.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  GOP spends plenty. It all goes to the top.


                  Aks (s/o to Russsshhhhhhh) Bachmann or Perry.

                  They din't mind taking gubmint money for themselves! Unless you think that their farm susidies benefitted all of America?

                  Granted, $250,000 and $80,000 respectively isn't THAT much in the grand scheme of things, But how many "weak" seniors do you think that would feed?

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Merely asserting something doesn't make it true. The assertion that the GOP spends plenty and it all goes to the top ignores two seminal differences.  One, the primary recipients of Democrat spending have been wealthy friends of the Democrats, like Goldman-Sachs.  Two, in less than three years, the Democrats have already spent more than GWB did with a Republican majority Congress.

                    From January 2007 until January 2011 Democrats ran the House of Representatives, that would be the one the pesky Constitution charges with spending.

    2. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm increasingly inclined to just divide us up into separate countries as well (even wrote a hub about it), maybe tied together in some sort of loose confederacy like the EU, but with our own individual national governments. I'd have to move - I have little in common, politically, with most people in my state, and being ruled by their idea of a good set of laws would pretty much be my worst nightmare - but I could deal with that in exchange for living in a country that doesn't disappoint me on nearly every front. The US political system was great once, but at this point it seems hopelessly broken. sad

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think I agree.

        Why suffer fools gladly...it's becoming increasingly maddening.

        To THINK that it's OK to give welfare to the rich, but then condemn a poor person as "weak"......makes me want to punch someting.

      2. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds good. I'll stay in GA...or North FL!

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "I see more similarities with fascism in the American system than I see in socialism."

    Me too! Rigid, sadistic fascism.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And nationalistic and war liking!

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And demonizing everyone who is not just like them!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In short, fascist!

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    This election cycle, you have a chance to vote for a third party candidate who has a real shot of getting elected.

    Ron Paul - Sure, there's an (R) in front of his name at the ballot, but he is a third party candidate.

 
working