3rd Party

[Ron]

Here's who I'm voting for, he represents the truth more than either of the majority party candidates. He was invited to the debates, but not allowed to participate... which he is currently fighting... his statement: "I will debate or be arrested."

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1344

Nobody ever thinks of these guys, most say that your vote doesn't count if you vote for them, but "they" do count real votes. Just like in 2000, (when I voted for Bush... aaaargh. It was the first time in my life that I voted for a major party candidate).

Maybe we can get a "grassroots movement" going here... think about it.

The truth? I dream that maybe in my lifetime (and I'm 40) I'll see a third party candidate as president, but with the bullying that this guy has had, I doubt if he'll ever be taken seriously. At least he'll get one vote from me.

[lonewolf]

I would support a strong 3rd party, but there hasn't been one since 1912. For that to happen, it would take a persona like Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan to break from their parties to form a third.

Meanwhile, I found something most of us can probably agree to vote for (at least here in western/central PA):

BEN ROETHLISBERGER for NFL Rookie Of The Week:

http://www.nfl.com/rookies/vote

For those of you who have been patiently waiting 20 years for a Bradshaw replacement, wait no more!

[Ron]

I would support a strong 3rd party

I guess that's the "catch 22"... the 3rd party can't get strong without support, but they can't get support because they aren't as strong.

[songsmith]

Ross Perot came as close as anyone recently, but he had untold millions of his own money invested. I'd be willing to bet that both "mainstream" parties would do whatever necessary to put the kibosh on any effort to strengthen a third party, anyway. Perot was "idiotized" by the mainstream media in the days leading up to the '92 election... Dana Carvey's impersonation of him was hilarious, but didn't win him any votes, and the press focused on his ears as much as his politics. What an odd system we have... the candidate I might have voted for was defeated in the primaries because his voice cracked... once. That strikes me as enormously shallow.
Maybe what we need is Bill Gates to drop about a billion on a third-party candidate. It would be interesting to see what the far left and right would do.----->JMS

[MOONDOGGY]

I'm up for third parties. (Yeah I know...Moondoggy taking part in a political discussion...that's a joke!) The 2 major parties and their candidates disgust me sometimes when they fight like a couple of monkeys, with the exception of the poop flinging. I would love to see something major like a 3rd party, an African-American, a woman, or a 3rd party African-American woman take office. Why??? Just for the sake of change.

[Imgrimm01]

A vote for anyone but Kerry IS a Vote for Bush !! That's the way it will play out this year as it did in 2000.

[Ron]

Bobby, that's what they want you to think. I've seen that cliche a million times, but never any facts to back it up.

If you vote dem/rep it is telling them that you agree with what the gov't is doing. In 2008 they will run two more insanely bad candidates to scare everyone into the "lesser of two evils" argument again.. then in 2012, then in 2016 etc.. All the while, each time you will have less money and less freedom then you did 4 years earlier.

Since both major parties are run by the "corporate lords", you are literally voting for your own enslavement. You have to vote for freedom every time, if you want freedom.

I fear the federal gov't more than I fear Arab terrorists.

[bassist_25]

Ron is exactly right. There has been research conducted that showed many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 wouldn't have voted at all if he had not been in the race.

When you start to vote with strategy in mind, rather than voting with your heart/head, then you might as well not vote at all. Voting with strategy in mind is why we're stuck with Kerry. Dean should have won the primaries, but then everyone was like, "Oh no, Dean is so extreme; he'll piss off all of the swing voters. We better vote for someone who doesn't show emotion at debates." Now we're stuck with some guy who's basically Bush, just without all the imperalistic war talk. Dean wasn't even as far left as the media portrayed him (another reason why I think all of the claims about the media being liberal is bullshit; they roasted him at every chance they got); he's more fiscally conservative than Bush could ever hope to be, and he's an NRA member for fuck's sake.

The only problem with a third party becoming powerful is it means they'll probaly be controlled by special interests. The country's controlled by the rich; I don't care what anyone says. It goes back to the financial issue; you need money to run a caimpaign. Since news outlets are no longer ordered to give equal coverage to all candidates, who you see is who has the most cash.

[bassist_25]

What an odd system we have... the candidate I might have voted for was defeated in the primaries because his voice cracked... once. That strikes me as enormously shallow.

That goes back to my point about Dean. He was rallying his supporters after losing a state in the primaries, and then the media spun it to make him appear like some nutbag.

The elections are a popularity contest. Why else would researchers conduct surveys on how attractive women think John Edwards is? Maybe that's why people vote for crooks year-in and year-out. Out of the democratic primaries, Kuchinich was probaly the one with the most integrity, but was the least charismatic. He was always last in the race of course.