Why not a 5th, 6th 7th......party?
Started by: Albmore 4 months, 3 weeks agoGroup Conversation From:
The 4th Party
We are a group forming a new politcal party. Where you decide everything. Your thoughts,YOUR ideas, on YOUR future.
" VOTE EM OUT 2010"
As ...
Other Conversations from The 4th Party:
Other New Conversations:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 20
-
100%
Albmore4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To answer the question of Joval and even to appease the wit of Goppy to this question I have an answer.
Reply
The 4th party group was formed on the basic point of upholding OUR constitution and removing the power from the major parties and putting it back into the peoples hand.
The questions have came up about other parties. Well, As far as I am concerned we could have 50. In my eyes OUR forfathers NEVER intended OUR nation to be divived into two major parties holding ALL the power.Nor a congress filled with only 2 parties.
When we look at it logically we have a house and senate set up to avoid this completely. We are a large and diverse country.One of many different needs and views. No one party can honestly say they can fully represent ALL of America. We have allowed ourselves to be lied to in believing this though.
As soon as Americans take away the power of these 2 major parties, and replace them with several independent parties issues will begin to get solved. Issues close at home where these parties are more reachable.
I would propose term limits along with wage limits. There present vote would be removed from the voting process. No more pork barrell projects.
As stated in the constitution all things not covered by the constitution will be decided on by the individual state.
Now the ONLY way to acheive this is at the voting box. Most of these smaller parties are NOT involved or sit in with big business. Nor do they control major TV networks such as FOX or NBC.
If Americans want to get the power back into the peoples hand they must do it themselves locally at the voting box.-
-
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kung-chieu (usually called "Confucius" in the West) offered some good advice: those who are not required to make policy, should not concern themselves with politics.
Reply
As eezzbeat points out, the two-party system wasn't invented yesterday. It is pretty much what Plato said (about 2400 years ago) would be basic to all democracies -- a party of the rich and a party of the poor, dividing the nation and causing constant conflict with people coming to power by promising to protect one group or the other and then becoming tyrants.
If we want a multi-party state, we can expect that will lead to a governing coalition, but the result may not be much different from the two-party system. One way to obtain this is proportional voting systems -- our current system tends to produce two parties, as Plato warned.
You may admire minor parties with no power and may believe that the states should have more power, but I think you haven't thought this through well. Minor parties don't control the media and are of no interest BECAUSE they are minor. They do nothing wrong, because they have no power to do anything right or wrong. Give them power and you might be surprised to learn that they are just as corrupt and just as ambitious for more power as the major parties.
As for wage limits (or age limits) or term limits or rules against pork barrel projects or removing the "present" vote, you are doing what all government-lovers do: attempting to legislate to achieve a good result. What you fail to understand is that people are smarter than laws -- and that your good intentions will have unintended consequences.
To illustrate, many years ago I was asked by my company to get Congress to change a decision made by the Department of Transportation. I asked about our congressman. I was told that he was a bit of a moron, and was the third choice of the party, because community leaders couldn't find anyone else to run. Add term limits or age limits and you may find we are forced to replace morons with imbeciles and imbeciles with idiots (and all will most assuredly be less experienced).
The man I most admired early in the Bush Administration was the "dean" of the US Senate -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- who described Bush (around 2002, when he was popular) as the worst of the 11 presidents he had served under. He has 62 years in elected office, 56 in the US Congress, and 50 as a US Senator -- at age 92. When would you force retirement -- if you had more power to do such things? At 65?
As for so-called "State's rights", why is it that no one reads Article 10 of the US Constitution more carefully? It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or TO THE PEOPLE."
You can read more in "State's Rights and the Nullification of Reality":
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16... -
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kung-chieu (usually called "Confucius" in the West) offered some good advice: those who are not required to make policy, should not concern themselves with politics.
Reply
As eezzbeat points out, the two-party system wasn't invented yesterday. It is pretty much what Plato said (about 2400 years ago) would be basic to all democracies -- a party of the rich and a party of the poor, dividing the nation and causing constant conflict with people coming to power by promising to protect one group or the other and then becoming tyrants.
If we want a multi-party state, we can expect that will lead to a governing coalition, but the result may not be much different from the two-party system. One way to obtain this is proportional voting systems -- our current system tends to produce two parties, as Plato warned.
You may admire minor parties with no power and may believe that the states should have more power, but I think you haven't thought this through well. Minor parties don't control the media and are of no interest BECAUSE they are minor. They do nothing wrong, because they have no power to do anything right or wrong. Give them power and you might be surprised to learn that they are just as corrupt and just as ambitious for more power as the major parties.
As for wage limits (or age limits) or term limits or rules against pork barrel projects or removing the "present" vote, you are doing what all government-lovers do: attempting to legislate to achieve a good result. What you fail to understand is that people are smarter than laws -- and that your good intentions will have unintended consequences.
To illustrate, many years ago I was asked by my company to get Congress to change a decision made by the Department of Transportation. I asked about our congressman. I was told that he was a bit of a moron, and was the third choice of the party, because community leaders couldn't find anyone else to run. Add term limits or age limits and you may find we are forced to replace morons with imbeciles and imbeciles with idiots (and all will most assuredly be less experienced).
As for so-called "State's rights", why is it that no one reads Article 10 of the US Constitution more carefully? It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or TO THE PEOPLE."
You can read more in "State's Rights and the Nullification of Reality":
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16... -
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kung-chieu (usually called "Confucius" in the West) offered some good advice: those who are not required to make policy, should not concern themselves with politics.
Reply
As eezzbeat points out, the two-party system wasn't invented yesterday. It is pretty much what Plato said (about 2400 years ago) would be basic to all democracies -- a party of the rich and a party of the poor, dividing the nation and causing constant conflict with people coming to power by promising to protect one group or the other and then becoming tyrants.
If we want a multi-party state, we can expect that will lead to a governing coalition, but the result may not be much different from the two-party system. One way to obtain this is proportional voting systems -- our current system tends to produce two parties, as Plato warned.
You may admire minor parties with no power and may believe that the states should have more power, but I think you haven't thought this through well. Minor parties don't control the media and are of no interest BECAUSE they are minor. They do nothing wrong, because they have no power to do anything right or wrong. Give them power and you might be surprised to learn that they are just as corrupt and just as ambitious for more power as the major parties.
As for wage limits (or age limits) or term limits or rules against pork barrel projects or removing the "present" vote, you are doing what all government-lovers do: attempting to legislate to achieve a good result. What you fail to understand is that people are smarter than laws -- and that your good intentions will have unintended consequences.
To illustrate, many years ago I was asked by my company to get Congress to change a decision made by the Department of Transportation. I asked about our congressman. I was told that he was a bit of a moron, and was the third choice of the party, because community leaders couldn't find anyone else to run. Add term limits or age limits and you may find we are forced to replace morons with imbeciles and imbeciles with idiots (and all will most assuredly be less experienced).
As for so-called "State's rights", why is it that no one reads Article 10 of the US Constitution more carefully? It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or TO THE PEOPLE."
You can read more in "State's Rights and the Nullification of Reality":
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16... -
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kung-chieu (usually called "Confucius" in the West) offered some good advice: those who are not required to make policy, should not concern themselves with politics.
Reply
As eezzbeat points out, the two-party system wasn't invented yesterday. It is pretty much what Plato said (about 2400 years ago) would be basic to all democracies -- a party of the rich and a party of the poor, dividing the nation and causing constant conflict with people coming to power by promising to protect one group or the other and then becoming tyrants.
If we want a multi-party state, we can expect that will lead to a governing coalition, but the result may not be much different from the two-party system. One way to obtain this is proportional voting systems -- our current system tends to produce two parties, as Plato warned.
You may admire minor parties with no power and may believe that the states should have more power, but I think you haven't thought this through well. Minor parties don't control the media and are of no interest BECAUSE they are minor. They do nothing wrong, because they have no power to do anything right or wrong. Give them power and you might be surprised to learn that they are just as corrupt and just as ambitious for more power as the major parties. -
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kung-chieu (usually called "Confucius" in the West) offered some good advice: those who are not required to make policy, should not concern themselves with politics.
Reply
As eezzbeat points out, the two-party system wasn't invented yesterday. It is pretty much what Plato said (about 2400 years ago) would be basic to all democracies -- a party of the rich and a party of the poor, dividing the nation and causing constant conflict with people coming to power by promising to protect one group or the other and then becoming tyrants.
If we want a multi-party state, we can expect that will lead to a governing coalition, but the result may not be much different from the two-party system. One way to obtain this is proportional voting systems -- our current system tends to produce two parties, as Plato warned.
You may admire minor parties with no power and may believe that the states should have more power, but I think you haven't thought this through well. Minor parties don't control the media and are of no interest BECAUSE they are minor. They do nothing wrong, because they have no power to do anything right or wrong. Give them power and you might be surprised to learn that they are just as corrupt and just as ambitious for more power as the major parties. -
0%
fredricwilliams4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for wage limits (or age limits) or term limits or rules against pork barrel projects or removing the "present" vote, you are doing what all government-lovers do: attempting to legislate to achieve a good result. What you fail to understand is that people are smarter than laws -- and that your good intentions will have unintended consequences.
Reply
To illustrate, many years ago I was asked by my company to get Congress to change a decision made by the Department of Transportation. I asked about our congressman. I was told that he was a bit of a moron, and was the third choice of the party, because community leaders couldn't find anyone else to run. Add term limits or age limits and you may find we are forced to replace morons with imbeciles and imbeciles with idiots (and all will most assuredly be less experienced).
The man I most admired early in the Bush Administration was the "dean" of the US Senate -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- who described Bush (around 2002, when he was popular) as the worst of the 11 presidents he had served under. He has 62 years in elected office, 56 in the US Congress, and 50 as a US Senator -- at age 92. When would you force retirement -- if you had more power to do such things? At 65?
As for so-called "State's rights", why is it that no one reads Article 10 of the US Constitution more carefully? It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or TO THE PEOPLE."
No one speaks of "people's rights" -- but it is to the individual that the bulk of the first ten amendments assures rights. Only in an age of totalitarianism would we think that everything should be decided by the government -- some things by the national government, others by the state (still others by the county or city). What about individual rights (or what used to be called freedom). I have no confidence in the mental midgets who serve in state legislatures and do not think that moving from state to state to avoid these newly empowered totalitarians would be an improvement over our current national system.
You can read more in "State's Rights and the Nullification of Reality":
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16...
-
-
100%
Sludge-Guzzler4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I would propose term limits along with wage limits."
Reply
Add "AGE" limits as well. Get rid of these old fossils who do nothing more than sit around and drool all over themselves. How old is Ted Kennedy? Brain cancer? Still making decisions? Gimme a break! -
-
-
-
100%
splitrch4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is easier, in general, for incumbents to raise money for re-election. A challenger has a much tougher time. Having said that though, Obama has shown how to run a new kind of campaign regarding contributions. We may actually be seeing the beginning of a new form of political campaign finance.
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Join In On This Conversation!