Jump to content

Which Third Party Would You Support


Which Party is the best third party of your choice  

7 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Libertarian. I read up on two of the four (as I knew what the other three were about) and I just can't bring myself to support the whole one-country-one-language deal. This is a place that is supposed to be about you doing what you want to unless you are infringing on another person's rights, and the right to understand is as much a right as the right to not be offended is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a place that is supposed to be about you doing what you want to unless you are infringing on another person's rights, and the right to understand is as much a right as the right to not be offended is.

You have no right as an American not to be offended. That's absurd. It's this type of reasoning used by organizations such as the ACLU to encroach on the legitimate rights that citizens enjoy. You know, those little ones like freedom of speach, religion, et cetera et cetera.

Every thing is going to offend someone for some reason that is incomprehensable to most clear thinking Americans. If you don't like what you hear, pay it no mind.

While you don't have the right to "not be offended" you do have the right to disregard that which is offensive to you.

Which Third Party Would You Support?

I would never support a third party because it is tantamount to wasting my vote.

There has never been a viable third party in America because that is how the founders intended it to be. Personlly, I would rather get some of what I want rather than nothing at all, which is what you get if you cast your vote for a third party candidate (in the US anyway).

If it is change you desire, you are more likey to affect change through your existing party, not by abandoning it for a third party joke.

Democrats are affecting change in their own party for example by embracing the far left to a much greater extent than even 10 or 20 years ago.

On the other hand, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germeny in 1933 by a plurality vote in a multiparty system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party (Formerly US Taxpayers party)

It is the only party that is stuanchly and unapologetically pro-life.

The Libertarian Party was once good in the Ron Paul days (Ron Paul is a staunch pro-lifer, who now sits as a Republican Congressman from Texas) but has now become a party of complete moral degenerates. They say "We are pro-choice on everything". They think that a woman should have a right to have an abortion, but would place only one restriction on it: That abortion should not be paid for with tax dollars, but then ahgian, NO medical procedure should be tax funded. This is philosophical contradiction of epic proportions. How can the LP cklaim to support the right to life, when they reserve the right for some people to decide the fate of others, in the case of abortion? You are either pro-life, or you are not. They clearly are not.

The Greens: While I can understand that many people are concerned about Environmental issues (see linked thread), and i am too, the Green Party has ventured way to far out into left field on social issues. They favour abortion as a means of birth control, gay marriage, the repeal of all public decency laws, the repeal of all drug laws. I can never support them on those grounds, nor can I support their solutioins to environmental issues.

Finally, about wasted votes, the only wasted vote is a vote cast for a prty or candidate that you don't believe in.

Voting for a smaller party may not bring immediate results, but you will have voted your conscience, and the party may live to fight another day, and possibly elect someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, about wasted votes, the only wasted vote is a vote cast for a prty or candidate that you don't believe in.

Voting for a smaller party may not bring immediate results, but you will have voted your conscience, and the party may live to fight another day, and possibly elect someone.

It's interesting that you should attribute conscience to making voting decisions. From my perspective, to vote for a candidate that doesn't have a change in hell of implimenting any part of my agenda does not constitute voting my conscience.

It's impossible to achieve everything you want to achieve, therefore compromise is nessecary. What you are doing by encouraging people to vote for third party candidates is telling those people to essentially stay home on election night. It's like giving your vote to Gary Coleman for the Govenership of California; you may think he's a great guy, but you can't seriously expect him to win.

Furthermore, while I believe it is a mistake to make ones voting decisions based primarily on the evaluation of a single social issue, abortion in this case, lets use it as an example: Republicans are, in large part, pro-life while Democrats are almost exclusively pro-abortion. For you to vote for Howard Phillips has effectively helped to elect a Dem candidate who's stance on abrotion is ten times worse than the Republican alternative.

My point here is that while you mean well, your support of a third party candidate does not further your agenda or that of the country's. In fact, it effectively facilitates the very destructive liberal agenda that you seem to oppose to vehemently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That many people, some 3.5% voted their conscience in the 2000 Presidential election (ie: Greens) possibly saved the US from An Al Gore Presidency.

For the record, I would have voted for McClintock in California because he was the best, a true consrvative republican, pro-lifer, and who knew the political ropes.

In some states, I might get stuck with an Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe as my Republican candidate. What difference doies it make in those cases, whether a republican orn Dumbocrud gets elected? In such a case, I'd vote Constitution.

On the other hand, If my Republican candidate was someone like Rick Santorum, or Orrin Hatch, I'd vote for them in a second.

In Canada, things work a bit differently. In my riding, the Liberal generally wins with 70% plus. I can vote my conscience easily there. But in another, I might have to compromise to stop a Liberal by voting for a Conservative, or even a Bloquiste on the grounds that a Bloquiste is less likely to do damage on the opposition benches than an extra Liberal in government.

It's a call each and every voter has to make on their own. We all have our own reasons for voting the way we do. and circumstances sometimes dictate our actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That many people, some 3.5% voted their conscience in the 2000 Presidential election (ie: Greens) possibly saved the US from An Al Gore Presidency.

Absolutely right. However, Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton. It's true that Reps as was as Dems can benefit from third party interference but I think, in general, they distract the American people, who are already incredibly apethetic, from evaluating serious, electable candidates.

For the record, I would have voted for McClintock in California

I too thought that McClintock was, by far, the most qualified and appropriate choice and indeed I would have voted for him if I thought he could have won. Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger's star power and noteriety made that highly unlikely. I know that Arnold falls well short of what conservatives expect from a Republican candidate however the alternative, in Bustmante, would have been disasterous for California and the country.

I think that if Arnold had not been in the race, McClintock would have won by a decent margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe that Pat Buchanan would make a great president. While I do have some trouble with some of the people who claim to support him, he seems to be a lot more moderate than most claim.

On immigration he belives that those who commit crime, and those who come to exploit America should be expelled, how would this be considered extremist.

On Abortion he is staunchly pro-life

His view of America is one of a traditionalist, color blind, society, one which valued the sanctity of life, the importance of family and community, and pride in our nation.

Neo-conservative's seem to have token over the Bush Administration. It seems to me that the war in Iraq has been a waste, considering their was no real threat. And even while the government spends billions on Iraq, the manufacturing jobs are being cut by the day, creating problems for families.

America should return to the days when it took a non-interventionist approach, in World War 2, the strategy which the Allies should have had in place, was one where the Germans and Soviets, duked it out destroying each other, and then the Allies took over Germany, and then took eastern Europe from Italy, once this was done, the Allies could have easily contained the spread of communism, and Eastern Europe would not have been enslaved by commie pigs.

On free trade, I do not see how free trade has helped the family, free trade has worked for Canada and the US, I support free trade between Canada and the US, and always will. However free trade should not extend to other parts of the world, this serves corporations good since they can get cheap labour, however families which rely on manufacturing jobs will be in a rut. Free trade to Mexico has also made it easier for drig dealers to transport drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted Libertarian (of course). Although most of them can not successfully argue the philosophical basis for their positions and as a result may stray occassionally, they are the closest to advocating an existence proper to a human being. They correctly recognize individual rights as paramount and recognize the protection of those rights as the only proper purpose of a government.

That of course, bothers the liberals who if the libertarians were running the show would not be able to further their socialist agenda of forcing us all to work for the collective instead of for ourselves. It also bothers the conservatives who could not live with the thought of being unable to impose their mystical, supernatural doctrine on the rest of us. This includes their wish to impose their inability to make a proper distinction between the rights of a conscious independent human being and a fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...