Blame the Libertarians. It's less Painful

[Accountable]

Looks like somebody's afraid his side is going to lose and is looking for someone to blame so that he doesn't have to take responsibility.

Libertarian voters will have a choice this November. They can vote for Mr. Romney, stop the expansion of government and give the marketplace an opportunity to repair our nation. Or they can cast third-party ballots and spend election night in self-righteous consolation about their roles in granting the government greater power.But they stuck to their principles! No, they didn’t.

Read more: MILLER: Obama or Romney? Libertarians must choose - Washington Times

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

America needs a credible third party.

 

[Alien Allen]

no

they need to have parties that are held accountable, have some core values, don't pander and etc, etc.

only thing a third party will do is add to the mix

and we have voters that are clueless and go with whatever is chic at the time so to speak

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

The classic two party protectionism argument.

You'll never get accountability with a two party system. The clueless voters tend to go against the incumbent rather than actually thinking. Since the US generally votes to narrow margins, the morons effectively decide who runs the country.

 

[Accountable]

We need no parties at all. We don't have a parliament.

 

[robdawg1]

We aren't parlaiment but we were originally built to mimic parlaiment. Political Parties are inevitable and unavoidable as people of a like mind are going to congregate and exchange ideas. The problem with the two party system we have in place now is that they feel (with some degree of certainty) that there is no accountability as they are the only "other choice". Adding another or other parties to the mix will only be effective if they become valid choices for election.

 

[Accountable]

We aren't parlaiment but we were originally built to mimic parlaiment.

I disagree. We have a president and no prime minister. The Senate members were originally established to represent the state governments to Washington. Parliament has nothing resembling that.

Political Parties are inevitable and unavoidable as people of a like mind are going to congregate and exchange ideas.

Assembing is unavoidable. Allowing political parties to set the rules within the very halls of congress is eminently avoidable, and should be stopped, imo.

The problem with the two party system we have in place now is that they feel (with some degree of certainty) that there is no accountability as they are the only "other choice". Adding another or other parties to the mix will only be effective if they become valid choices for election.

And they'll only become valid if they are allowed into the mix. And round and round we go.
Another option would be to have candidates run, then have run-off elections for the top two candidates, without giving repub and dem party primaries the same status as general elections.

 

[robdawg1]

I disagree. We have a president and no prime minister. The Senate members were originally established to represent the state governments to Washington. Parliament has nothing resembling that.

I should have clarified that while we have significant differences to parlaiment, the founding fathers set up a bicameral congressional house using parlaiment as an inspiration, because despite their problems with the King, they admired the system.

Assembing is unavoidable. Allowing political parties to set the rules within the very halls of congress is eminently avoidable, and should be stopped, imo.

Assembling is unavoidable, and in that assembling the groups will invariably name themselves, present a cornerstone of their beliefs, as well as a platform of issues that they stand by. When that occurs, and if there is enough numerical support, that group then has the power to influence if not out right control proceedings.
While we may not agree with that process it is historically inevitable, and the only way to garner change is to support a whole new group. I can imagine that the emergence of the tea party is one such example as they continue to gain support, and continue to seperate themselves from the more moderate republicans that they will become a viable(although unfortunately misguided) party of power.

And they'll only become valid if they are allowed into the mix. And round and round we go.
Another option would be to have candidates run, then have run-off elections for the top two candidates, without giving repub and dem party primaries the same status as general elections.

The Dems and Repubs control the government, they set the ways we do things. When the people begin to throw support behind a new group with different ideas, and they begin to garner some influence then things will change.


All-in-all I don't disagree with you about the ineffectiveness and general wrongness of the 2 party system we have now, or that the 2 parties are frankly causing the goverment to become locked down and inept. My singluar disagreement is that it would be possible to function without any political parties. They are inevitable as common thinkers will band together always.

 

[Accountable]

All-in-all I don't disagree with you about the ineffectiveness and general wrongness of the 2 party system we have now, or that the 2 parties are frankly causing the goverment to become locked down and inept. My singluar disagreement is that it would be possible to function without any political parties. They are inevitable as common thinkers will band together always.

We can still minimize their influence over the political and legislative processes ... and should. As it functions now, legislators owe fealty to party before the People.

 

[robdawg1]

We can still minimize their influence over the political and legislative processes ... and should. As it functions now, legislators owe fealty to party before the People.

Of course they do, they don't have anyone to hold them accountable. The common American and even the slightly more intelligent common voter has no knowledge or interest in what happens in party chambers/HQ. The legislators have Carte Blanche until we the people put a stop to it....Not going to happen in the near future.

What we actually need is a status quot moderate middle party that wants to make no real sweeping changes, and wants to make no swings either left or right. It might be boring, but in the long run it would be the most healthy...

 

[Accountable]

Of course they do, they don't have anyone to hold them accountable. The common American and even the slightly more intelligent common voter has no knowledge or interest in what happens in party chambers/HQ. The legislators have Carte Blanche until we the people put a stop to it....Not going to happen in the near future. [/quote]Agreed.

What we actually need is a status quot moderate middle party that wants to make no real sweeping changes, and wants to make no swings either left or right. It might be boring, but in the long run it would be the most healthy...

:24: We part ways here, bro. The status quo has been marching us steadily away from liberty and toward corporate oligarchy.

 

[robdawg1]

:24: We part ways here, bro. The status quo has been marching us steadily away from liberty and toward corporate oligarchy.

status quot was a bad choice of words, I simply meant keeping everything middle and moderate and majority based...not letting far left/right factions make sweeping moral/financial changes to suit the needs of the loud minorities that support them.

 

[Accountable]

These extremists are given time as a distraction, a farce. Ignore the words. Watch the actions. After all the complaints about trickle-down, the bailouts and stimulus went to the top of the largest corporations & union leadership - to trickle down in hopes of saving the economy. The repubs have suddenly become the saviors of Medicare. The dems chuckle that the current repub complaints about Obamacare are items originally proposed by the repubs. Romney has openly declared that repealing Obamacare isn't his goal, but replacing it - meaning that health insurance is permanently controlled in Washington no matter which side of the Twins is in the driver's seat.

While they point left and right & get Minor all upset, they work (and have worked for a century) as one to dismantle the decentralized masterpiece that is the US government and replace it with a centralized national socialist government.

 

[Minor Axis]

Looks like somebody's afraid his side is going to lose and is looking for someone to blame so that he doesn't have to take responsibility.

[/FONT][/COLOR]


Read more: MILLER: Obama or Romney? Libertarians must choose - Washington Times

Huh? If I read it right the author is a Libertarian promoting the idea of voting for the lesser evil- imagine that.

America needs a credible third party.

How? It's not mandated, it's created by people voting for candidates. The last ballot I looked at had about 6 political parties on the ballot for President of the U.S.

no

they need to have parties that are held accountable, have some core values, don't pander and etc, etc.

only thing a third party will do is add to the mix

and we have voters that are clueless and go with whatever is chic at the time so to speak

I agree, but I'm also sure we disagree on is which group of voters are clueless. I admit that any scare message thrown out there will gain traction with a huge number of people regardless of it's truth.

 

[Accountable]

Huh? If I read it right the author is a Libertarian promoting the idea of voting for the lesser evil- imagine that.

Wow. Your reading skills are worse than I thought ... that, or you're lazy.

How? It's not mandated, it's created by people voting for candidates. The last ballot I looked at had about 6 political parties on the ballot for President of the U.S.

How many of them used the same machines and venues for their primary elections that are used for the general elections?

I agree, but I'm also sure we disagree on is which group of voters are clueless.

The Republicrat group, of which you appear to be a charter member.

 

[robdawg1]

Ballots may have 6 parties but of those only 2 are viable parties they have more people, more money, and more support. This is NOT going to change as long as the country supports them....

 

[Accountable]

Correction: as long as they use gov't resources to give them false legitimacy.

 

[robdawg1]

They use what they have the power to use. If they didnt have the power they wouldnt have the money...Just Saying...you dont see the independents or green party with that kind of money...because they dont have the people or the support....support = power = money

 

[Accountable]

They use what they have the power to use. If they didnt have the power they wouldnt have the money...Just Saying...you dont see the independents or green party with that kind of money...because they dont have the people or the support....support = power = money

You sound like a newcon defending big business.

They have the money. Who do they pay to get the voting machines and venues?

 

[robdawg1]

You sound like a newcon defending big business.

They have the money. Who do they pay to get the voting machines and venues?

While we continue to elect members of these parties and not as a whole start voting in more moderate and honest representatives then big Corporate still gets to play. WE arent stopping them...we are just complaining about them.