This is a good example of 'fair' democrats...

[danzig]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro...4932-4054r.htm

A black republican who is currently Lt Governor is running for US Senate, he has been pelted with Oreo cookies (black on the outside white inside insult), called Uncle Tom and shown as a black faced 'slave' all fully supported by Democratic party and some party officals openly saying the 'race card' is fair game. The catch in all this? Most of the people behind the attacks on Steele are black themselves including Kweisi Mfume who himself is running for senate and is former head of the NAACP.

This is their defense
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level, If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy.", State Senator Lisa A. Gladden who is black and a democrat. The problem is it isnt voters its the party and politicans leading it that because Steele is black and a republican he is open to little more then racist attacks in an attempt to scare away black voters from voting for the "Uncle Tom". In a bizarre twist one Democrat even have the nerve to say its not racial unless someone calls him a :wub:...now imagine this Senate Race reversed and just picture the result and outcry it would provoke. Evidently to alot of African American politicans in the DNC and activist its ok to be racist if the target is a Republican.

This is an example of inability to attack the man on issues and so scared of facing the reality that blacks DO tend to vote for blacks officals in a very large % so now that the person running is a republican something must be done to stop that. Recently a number of fairly high profile African Americans have questioned the black community's undying loyalty to the Democrats...they are a given voter block for the most part and it is one reason why Republicans have been trying to chip away at the block. If Republicans can pull away 10% of black vote to their side in national elections and win the 'white' vote slightly Democrats are simply unable to win. Democrats realizing this have increasingly stepped up attacks on black Republicans to scare African American support away from them. This is a core problem of Democratic party imo, they simply dont understand their message is a message that doesnt sell anymore so they are left to these 'dirty tricks' any election wins by democrats in 2006 will be more of a result of Republican backlash then any support for Democrats...there simply isnt any other choice and what an inspiring way to win an election. Democrats 06 slogan shall be "Vote for us because we are your only other choice".

We really need a third party, there is no 'good' side or 'bad' side in American politics both sides are basically the same (which btw is the point of my post, republican party is no more 'evil and rotten' then democratic party is). Power hungry asses mixed in with some good people who have to play the game to be in it, wish guys like McCain, Lieberman etc all had the nerve and will to break off from their parties and form a real, credibile third party. Imagine a political party in the US that every decision didnt come down to pro choice or pro life, pro gun control or pro gun and instead focused on the important crap. It drives me crazy that Judge Alto's nomination will come down to one issue, abortion...enough already with the gooddamn issue take all the pro choicers and all the pro lifers and drop them in middle of Baghdad wearing shirts that say Allah Sucks and be done with the issue.

Anyway rant mode off!

[Justinian]

Everyone knows Democrats can do whatever they want. Democratics are good people, Republicans are racist bigoted gay-haters! Everyone knows this!

The performance of both parties in the past few years makes me sick. I agree with you on needing a third party (in fact I made a topic about this a week ago). It's the only way to keep our government from stagnating even more.

[Hamelkart]

Don't you already have Greens, Constitutionals, Socialists etc.?

[Justinian]

Don't you already have Greens, Constitutionals, Socialists etc.?

They are incredibly minor parties. Sure, they've won a few county/state victories, but nobody votes for them so they might as well not be there.

[Hamelkart]

So none of these parties have any chance of becoming third largest party in USA?

[Justinian]

So none of these parties have any chance of becoming third largest party in USA?

Basically, no, they don't. For a third party to work, it would have to be moderate with strong leaders and a great campaign.

[Wags]

With the way the political rules are setup, third parties are at a huge disadvantage.....not allowed in debates, no access to taxpayer funding, and several others. Republicans and Democrats will work together to keep third parties out of the election scene.

[danzig]

With the way the political rules are setup, third parties are at a huge disadvantage.....not allowed in debates, no access to taxpayer funding, and several others. Republicans and Democrats will work together to keep third parties out of the election scene.

That is why we need high profile (and obviously quality) politicans to make the move and split off from the GOP and Dems, I know it wont happen but I really wish it would. Perot showed you can buy your way into it (lets not forget Perot is basically the reason Clinton got elected in the first place ) so it can be done but it needs something to wake politicans up to realize the status quo isnt working anymore. The standard of what passes a politican these days really isnt qualified to mop a floor. Most republicans/democrats in office today should be mowing my grass not running the country.

[Francisco Montana]

Most republicans/democrats in office today should be mowing my grass not running the country.

I know you're frustrated, but that's a little over the top.


Some, maybe. But most? Even someone like Shumer who I can't stand has every qualification to be there. Orin Hatch, on the other side, same thing. Some may disagree with him, but the man is elequent and intellegent.

[danzig]

I know you're frustrated, but that's a little over the top.


Some, maybe. But most? Even someone like Shumer who I can't stand has every qualification to be there. Orin Hatch, on the other side, same thing. Some may disagree with him, but the man is elequent and intellegent.

Orin Hatch allowed MPAA and RIAA lawyers to write a copyright law he signed his name to, yes its common to allow lobbyist to have influence on proposed laws but to write the entire law? He also suggested entertainment companies should be immune from lawsuits if they cause damage to people's computers in an effort to combat piracy...ie basically proposing to give them a green light to hack 'suspected' pirates. Schummer cant see beyond the left, he has sunglasses on he is completely and totally blind he is also an attention *****...he seems to relish in the PR spotlight its why anytime anything pops up he is the first person to open his mouth usually. The guy schedules news conferences on weekends just to get on tv, there is a joke that the most dangerous place to be in Washington is between a camera and Schumer one of Bob Dole's witter remarks. Though I should have qualified my remark, the senate has a slightly higher standard then what I meant (with exception of fat boy Kennedy) most of the problems are in the House.

[Justinian]

My over all point. We've basically been a 2 party system since the second election in 1792.

Yes, but there always were other parties which could pose a small risk. Now that the entire nation is divided into two camps, corruption can run wild and the only people who will complain are the other camp ... who would complain anyway.

By the way, Danzig, could you check your PM?

[Francisco Montana]

Yep. The framers set it up this way for a reason, however. They didn't want a President to be elected with less than 50% of the vote, for one (electoral that is).

2 party system isn't perfect, but then have you seen the 100s of new parties that crop up every cycle in Japan, for example?

That's not pretty either. The grass is always greener on the other side. This 2 party system, with all it's falisies, has still mananged to work for over 200 years.

And no, I'm not a huge fan of the Dems or Reps right now.

[Wags]

Yep. The framers set it up this way for a reason, however. They didn't want a President to be elected with less than 50% of the vote, for one (electoral that is).

2 party system isn't perfect, but then have you seen the 100s of new parties that crop up every cycle in Japan, for example?

That's not pretty either. The grass is always greener on the other side. This 2 party system, with all it's falisies, has still mananged to work for over 200 years.

And no, I'm not a huge fan of the Dems or Reps right now.

Actually, thats not completely correct. The framers did not setup the rules that restricted third parties. Laws weren't setup until ballot-access laws starting in 1888. There were numerous 3rd parties prior to these laws but as democrats and republicans increasingly took control, state legislations started enacting restrive laws that weeded out smaller groups.

[Shaun]

The 2 party system wood be good if they were actually good parties with a clever and strong leader, not like today.

[Empyrean]

So none of these parties have any chance of becoming third largest party in USA?

Aha! There already is a third largest party! (It's the Libertarians) I think you meant to ask whether any of them have a chance of become a significant third party.

I support unemployment for politicians.

[Francisco Montana]

Actually, thats not completely correct. The framers did not setup the rules that restricted third parties. Laws weren't setup until ballot-access laws starting in 1888. There were numerous 3rd parties prior to these laws but as democrats and republicans increasingly took control, state legislations started enacting restrive laws that weeded out smaller groups.

Starting with our second election in 1792, there were 2 parties. Federalist and Republican. Washington didn't join a party and won the election. Ever since then, there have been 2 parties involved, except for 1820 and 1824 where you had all candidates from the same Democratic-Republican party. Then, in the next election of 1828, you had 2 parties again; The Democrats and the National Republicans. The 1st real 3rd party election was in 1832 with a little to unknown man named William Wirt (Anti-Masonic Party) Virginia capturing 100,715 votes or 7.8%. In 1836, we went back to 2 parties with the Democrats and the Whigs. Again, in 1844 we saw another minor showing by a 3rd party. Another abscure figure named James G. Birney (Liberty Party) New York recieved 62,103 votes, or 2.3% The following election, Martin Van Buren (Free Soil Party) New York did well with 291,501 votes, but still only 10.1% His collegue, John Parker Hale (Free Soil Party) New Hampshire fell off substantially, and the 3rd party only recieved 155,210 votes, or 4.9% In 1856, the 3rd party had its best showing, Millard Fillmore (American Party) New York got 873,053 votes for 21.6% Still, a distant last place in the 3 man race. In 1860, we start to see what I was talking about in Japan (ok to a much lesser extent)
Abraham Lincoln (Republican Party) Illinois 1,865,908 39.8%
John Cabell Breckinridge (Southern Democratic Party) Kentucky 848,019 18.1%
John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) Tennessee 590,901 12.6%
Stephen Arnold Douglas (Northern Democratic Party) Illinois 1,380,202 29.5%

Things started to get strained with the war lumming. In 1864, we were back with 2 parties. Republican-National Union and Democrat. In 1872, it was basically 2 parties but you did have the break up of the Dems and Charles O'Conor (Straight-out Democratic Party) New York took a miniscule 18,602 votes or 0.3%

From there you have basically 2 parties with a 3rd party, once in a while like Perot, making noise. I'm guessing some legislation was passed because the Dems kept splitting their votes. That's what 3rd parties usually do in the US. Split the vote and make it so the actual minority wins the election.

My over all point. We've basically been a 2 party system since the second election in 1792. And to say there were 'numberous' 3rd parties is quite a stretch IMO.

[Francisco Montana]

You don't agree with them, so you suggest they are not worthy of anything above grass cutter?? I stand by my remarks.

It's a little over the top.

Plus, if your dream candidate acted the way you wanted him/her to, they wouldn't survive more than one fluke term in office. Is it perfect? NO. Is a 3rd party the answer? Also NO.

Of course, IMO.

[Francisco Montana]

Sorry Justinian. In 200+ years only twice, maybe 3 times did the 3rd party get anything approaching what Perot got with 20%.

How can 3%, .3%, 2%, 7%, 4% and the likes even be considered 'small risks', let alone viable candidicies?

[RZZZA]

What about the parties preceding the modern democratic and republicans? What about the whig party, and the other parties we learned about in 11th history that I dont remember now? Those could be considered succesful third parties in American history.

[danzig]

Sorry Justinian. In 200+ years only twice, maybe 3 times did the 3rd party get anything approaching what Perot got with 20%.

How can 3%, .3%, 2%, 7%, 4% and the likes even be considered 'small risks', let alone viable candidicies?

Small % do matter, Ralph Nader is pretty much the reason GWB Jr won. Almost 3 million votes and the margin came down to what 2000 votes in Florida? Now you can argue no certain prediction that Nader voters would have voted for Gore but I think its pretty clear they would have almost certainly voted Gore over Bush and since you only need a tiny number of them the outcome would have been tipped. Regardless spoilers dont matter imo. a vote for Perot in 92 was basically a throw away vote as were votes for Nader in 2000 and that is the problem that is the only role 3rd parties can play now a days...siphoning votes.