patrick.net

We really need a viable third party that will represent the problems of the people. Sort of like the democratic socialists or something. We need to being back industry. We need to have a real economy instead of one built on pipe dreams and located in the ether. Neither party that exists is for that. The GOP likes tw status quo: rich get richer, poor get poorer, vast profits to be made from off shoring. The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit. We've had both, majority of both in house and senate, both parties have fielded presidents, and the situation has grown steadily worse.
Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

CL says

The higher income people voted for him in even smaller numbers in 2012. They
chose the Plutocrat.

This is rather shocking I must say, I thought americans all want bathrooms they can play baseball in, so psychoanalytic theory would predict that they would vote for Mr Bain as a form of wish fulfillment.

Quigley says

The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit

Interesting... especially seeing as how the US is set to become the largest producer of both petroleum as well as natural gas, which incidentally is occurring at the same time as a Democratic President is in the white house.Quigley says

Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

Obama won re-election. He did so via a democratic process meaning people voted and the person with the most voted won. Last time I looked, that is how a democratic society functions in regards to elections and hence more people thought the Democrats were a wiser decision than those who don't.

There have always been third parties in the US. I too would like to see a third party, but until one that actually has any meaningful input appears the Democrats ( for me) are a better option than the current GOP. Again- my preference.

edvard2 says

And as far as Obama being voted in by "rich people", well the numbers more or
less disprove that notion. He was elected by the largest popular vote margins in
decades. The overwhelming support he got came from minorities, recent
immigrants, and other growing demographic groups which the GOP has zero
influence over.

It was a very interesting time when he won his first term in office. It really did seem like people were genuinley yearning for 'hope and change', then reality set in and showed that no single person not even the 'leader of the free world' has that much control of the situation. At this point I am not really sure how much it matters who the pres is......

Quigley says

We really need a viable third party that will represent the problems of the people. Sort of like the democratic socialists or something. We need to being back industry. We need to have a real economy instead of one built on pipe dreams and located in the ether. Neither party that exists is for that. The GOP likes tw status quo: rich get richer, poor get poorer, vast profits to be made from off shoring. The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit. We've had both, majority of both in house and senate, both parties have fielded presidents, and the situation has grown steadily worse.
Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

Analyzer says

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

The two party system has its faults but has more or less worked for the better part of 200+ years. There have also almost always been third parties on the sides. I am not against a 3rd party myself. But if there is to be one that has a chance they need to take a moderate approach and bridge the gap between the two parties and siphon off the moderates of both parties

edvard2 says

Analyzer says

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

The two party system has its faults but has more or less worked for the better part of 200+ years. There have also almost always been third parties on the sides. I am not against a 3rd party myself. But if there is to be one that has a chance they need to take a moderate approach and bridge the gap between the two parties and siphon off the moderates of both parties

Elections are now won by money, media, and lobby support. Very difficult for a 3rd party to get in the game.

Edvard says, "Obama won re-election. He did so via a democratic process meaning people voted and the person with the most voted won. Last time I looked, that is how a democratic society functions in regards to elections and hence more people thought the Democrats were a wiser decision than those who don't."

Bush won reelection as well, do what's your point? Obama was paired (intentionally) against a plutocrat who is so out of touch with middle class America he practically spit on us. Obama wasn't well liked either, and hadn't brought back industry or jobs or done much at all to help people or grow the economy long term, but his opponent was much worse.

My question is: how is it democracy if you have to vote for one of only two choices, neither of whom will represent your interests or the interests of your 60% majority?

A third party is not only a valid choice. It's the only choice.

I do agree about it needing to draw in moderates tho.

edvard2 says

I am not against a 3rd party myself

I'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

CL says

edvard2 says

I am not against a 3rd party myself

I'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Quigley says

Bush won reelection as well, do what's your point? Obama was paired (intentionally) against a plutocrat who is so out of touch with middle class America he practically spit on us. Obama wasn't well liked either, and hadn't brought back industry or jobs or done much at all to help people or grow the economy long term, but his opponent was much worse.

If Obama wasn't well-liked he would not have won re-election. There certainly isn't a lack of third parties. But most I've seen of these have such far-fetched idealism and platforms that they stand no chance in hell of winning. As far as Bush winning two terms, his Presidency marked the last election where a GOP candidate won via their base, which as of now is too small to now make that happen again. CL says

'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

I would like to see the name "party" removed from "Tea Party". They were never a real party to start with.

dublin hillz says

CL says

The higher income people voted for him in even smaller numbers in 2012. They

chose the Plutocrat.

This is rather shocking I must say, I thought americans all want bathrooms they can play baseball in, so psychoanalytic theory would predict that they would vote for Mr Bain as a form of wish fulfillment.

Hispanics, Asians and Women moved towards Obama, consolidating Democratic advantage there.

Despite what Thomas.Wrong says!

Analyzer says

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Not that big of a barrier for them. They have representatives already, and they can easily get on the ballots. Their problem is that it would be stupid for the very heart of Republican ideology to become its own party, and force the remaining moderates or business minded into the arms of the Dems.

That's why the GOP "leadership" is so bent on acquiescing. The consequences are dire for the party.

edvard2 says

If Obama wasn't well-liked he would not have won re-election. There certainly
isn't a lack of third parties. But most I've seen of these have such far-fetched
idealism and platforms that they stand no chance in hell of winning. As far as
Bush winning two terms, his Presidency marked the last election where a GOP
candidate won via their base, which as of now is too small to now make that
happen again.

The Republicans blew it. It was their election to lose and sure enough they did a fine job of sealing the deal.

CL says

Analyzer says

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Not that big of a barrier for them. They have representatives already, and they can easily get on the ballots. Their problem is that it would be stupid for the very heart of Republican ideology to become its own party, and force the remaining moderates or business minded into the arms of the Dems.

That's why the GOP "leadership" is so bent on acquiescing. The consequences are dire for the party.

Like I said if you don't have the money, media, and lobby you don't have much of a chance. Who cares if you can get on a ballot.

bgamall4 says

Many jobs have been created Wong, but the problem is, they don't pay squat. This is a globalization issue.

You forgot to mention that these low paying jobs we have created are all in Mexico, China, India, Thailand, etc.

Analyzer says

Like I said if you don't have the money, media, and lobby you don't have much of a chance. Who cares if you can get on a ballot.

But see? At that point you are blaming the voters. And what good does that do in a Democracy?

If the candidate has merit and can gather enough voters he/she can get elected. The odds are against it because each constituency is smart enough to know that they have an "in" with a major party and moving away from that means that their interests will almost certainly be ignored.

And keep in mind that once the fabled independent gets elected, he/she will find that actually acting on their promises is a lot harder than what they proposed while running for office. You think the GOP is going to work with a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader presidency?

They would face even larger hurdles than Obama has, even with his tepid, mainstream, Republican friendly policies.

Nothing changes because the voters don't change, aren't taught civics and are lured by the teevee man. And money=speech, as the right has dictated but for that I'd also assign blame to SCOTUS.

So, the idea works great, as long as everything else in the system changed too, and it won't.

If Obama was George Zimmerman, cops would have been called out for Obama's lies as many time as police have responded to guns on Zimmerman in the last year.

His lies are his guns and he can't put them down. You'll take away Obama's lies when you pry them from his lips.

CL says

Hispanics, Asians and Women moved towards Obama, consolidating Democratic advantage there.

Despite what Thomas.Wrong says!

edvard2 says

Meanwhile back in reality-land, today reports came out that showed the highest levels of job growth since 2005 and the unemployment rate dropped to 7%.

Reality ? its a bitch alright ! how many millions were excluded from "Unemployed".

thomaswong.1986 says

Reality ? its a bitch alright ! how many millions were excluded from "Unemployed".

I am almost willing to get that if it were GW in the office you guys would be jumpin' for joy absolutely sugar coating this thing. As I mentioned in another post Wall Street clearly likes the fact that millions more people are now employed. Hence the market was up almost 200 points. Boo-hoo for the GOP...

Call it Crazy says

Well, it's a good thing the government is hiring to help push the UE number down...

And you know what? Guess what those people who work for the government do?

why.... they get paid, pay taxes, buy houses, shop at the store, buy cars, send their kids to school, and all the other 'stuff' that normal ordinary citizens do. In other words, they contribute to the economy while doing useful things- like paving the sidewalks you walk on, pave the streets you drive on, and teach your kids.

this notion that "government workers don't count" makes zero sense.

Call it Crazy says

Where do the funds to make those payrolls come from????

It comes from taxes. Last time I looked the government provides services. So if you have a point, let me know. otherwise I assume you must think somehow we can totally do without any government services.

edvard2 says

I am almost willing to get that if it were GW in the office you guys would be jumpin' for joy absolutely sugar coating this thing. As I mentioned in another post Wall Street clearly likes the fact that millions more people are now employed. Hence the market was up almost 200 points. Boo-hoo for the GOP...

Either way, i would be replacing the current manual survey system with a much more IT system solution to get precision and focus on fixes. By that i would implement Citizen ID/Voter /Medical cards for citizens to use when they are unemployed. Therefore real govt spending to cure unemployment is not wasted as it was in prior years.

bgamall4 says

The ultimate liar was W, Captain. But they all lie covering up 9/11.