Simple question. It just bothers me that the two sides have to play to the lunatic fringe of their party when the majority of people in this country agree on most of the important subjects.

Discuss?

I'd argue that the problem is that the two parties are too much alike. One man's "lunatic fringe" is another man's principles on which the country was founded.

No.

Follow the money. Until some serious dollars support a third party we will be stuck with the D's and the R's.

queencitybuckeye;945089 wrote:I'd argue that the problem is that the two parties are too much alike. One man's "lunatic fringe" is another man's principles on which the country was founded.

/thread

I would say that there will never be an actual 3rd party, or 3 party system. Assuming a party starts whether left or right, it would pull like minded people from one of the 2 existing parties. Once it would get to certain point it would either die or grow. By growing, it would kill the other party that it took people from. We would still be left with 2 parties. The only way to get a legimate 3rd party would be to get more people active in voting. Then it would be possible. The problem is that most people that don't vote are too lazy or uninformed to get out there. The people that would create and be active in a 3rd party are already involved and voting.

^^^^Makes sense

^^^^Makes sense

Lakebluestreaks;945763 wrote:I would say that there will never be an actual 3rd party, or 3 party system. Assuming a party starts whether left or right, it would pull like minded people from one of the 2 existing parties. Once it would get to certain point it would either die or grow. By growing, it would kill the other party that it took people from. We would still be left with 2 parties. The only way to get a legimate 3rd party would be to get more people active in voting. Then it would be possible. The problem is that most people that don't vote are too lazy or uninformed to get out there. The people that would create and be active in a 3rd party are already involved and voting.

you don't think there are people from both parties who would meet in the middle? I don't think it would kill the Ds or Rs...and I don't think you'd see a disproportionate number from one side. I think there are tons of people that generally associate themselves with one party but are about fed up with their own party as they are the other side. Just give me a simple no-bull shit party please. Common-sense type shit. I know I know, put down the crack-pipe.

derek bomar;945961 wrote:

you don't think there are people from both parties who would meet in the middle? I don't think it would kill the Ds or Rs...and I don't think you'd see a disproportionate number from one side. I think there are tons of people that generally associate themselves with one party but are about fed up with their own party as they are the other side. Just give me a simple no-bull **** party please. Common-sense type ****. I know I know, put down the crack-pipe.

Maybe, but I don't think so. Even though there are a ton of "Independents" that doesn't mean they are in the middle. I think that a lot are, like you said, fed up with the 2 parties. I am one of them. I have been an independent since the late 90's. I am pretty conservative on most issues though. So someone, or a party, that tries to walk down the middle of the road is of no use to me. I think you are more likely to see 3rd parties like the Green party, the Tea party, etc. They are more of farther right or left types. That is what appeals to people though. You are not going to get a whole lot of action for a luke warm party in my opinion.

Lakebluestreaks;945993 wrote:Maybe, but I don't think so. Even though there are a ton of "Independents" that doesn't mean they are in the middle. I think that a lot are, like you said, fed up with the 2 parties. I am one of them. I have been an independent since the late 90's. I am pretty conservative on most issues though. So someone, or a party, that tries to walk down the middle of the road is of no use to me. I think you are more likely to see 3rd parties like the Green party, the Tea party, etc. They are more of farther right or left types. That is what appeals to people though. You are not going to get a whole lot of action for a luke warm party in my opinion.

by luke-warm you mean taking common-sense positions? I think you'd get plenty of action if there was a party that used that as their guide. And I don't think some of the common-sense positions I am talking about are "blah" issues - there's plenty of debate around some of them.

I could throw these out there as the issues the BOMAR party (B) stands for:

1) War/Invasion shouldn't be the first option, it should be the last
2) Re-institute the draft. This would force people to realize the costs of war instead of having it be an after-thought.
3) End corporate bailouts. All of them. Too big to fail only gets worse the longer you let it happen. Pull the band-aid off.
4) Throw the current tax code out and replace it with something that doesn't punish success and applies to everyone above the poverty line evenly. Make it easy to understand, and make it enforceable for everyone - individuals and corporations alike.
5) Legalize Marijuana. Aside from the instant economic spark, it would also have the added benefit of relieving a crowded prison system and would stop punishing people for doing something that is less harmful to their bodies than cigarettes or booze.
6) End Public Sector unions aside from those who are first responders (work in harms-way). There is no reason for them and they only promote inefficiency and waste.
7) Legalize gay Marriage. There's no logical reason they should have all of the same benefits (domestic partnership) but not be allowed to be called "married". Religions won't be forced to recognize them. This issue will at some point be a no-brainer as the boomers die off and the younger generations take over...just get in front of the curve for once.
8) Balanced budget amendment that can be bypassed with some sort of majority in the House/Senate in times of distress.
9) Meaningful campaign finance reform
10) Throw out Obama-Care. It's terrible. Replace it with something that actually makes sense - like allowing for larger HSA's and allowing people to shop across state lines.
11) Term limits - I would change the time you can be a Senator from 6 to 8 years, but you can serve as a Senator once. I would change the House from 2 to 4, and you can only serve twice. I am tired of people not doing their jobs and constantly running for re-election.
12) Education Reform - make the school year longer. Make teacher's unions illegal, but offer very competitive compensation for teachers rewarding good teachers and throwing out the junk - we all know they're there (certain Gym teachers named CC for instance - I kid I kid)
13) Put a limit on the #of words/pages a bill that is passed can be and require that all Members of Congress read the bill before voting on it. (Not sure how to enforce this - maybe a pop-quiz on it?)

The list could go on and on...

derek bomar;946146 wrote:I could throw these out there as the issues the BOMAR party (B) stands for:

2) Re-institute the draft. This would force people to realize the costs of war instead of having it be an after-thought.

The list could go on and on...

Never ever ever going to happen

I agree with most of those except the draft. That's a "ends justify the means" sort of solution. No one should ever be forced by their government to fight a war.

derek bomar;946146 wrote:by luke-warm you mean taking common-sense positions? I think you'd get plenty of action if there was a party that used that as their guide. And I don't think some of the common-sense positions I am talking about are "blah" issues - there's plenty of debate around some of them.

I could throw these out there as the issues the BOMAR party (B) stands for:

1) War/Invasion shouldn't be the first option, it should be the last
2) Re-institute the draft. This would force people to realize the costs of war instead of having it be an after-thought.
3) End corporate bailouts. All of them. Too big to fail only gets worse the longer you let it happen. Pull the band-aid off.
4) Throw the current tax code out and replace it with something that doesn't punish success and applies to everyone above the poverty line evenly. Make it easy to understand, and make it enforceable for everyone - individuals and corporations alike.
5) Legalize Marijuana. Aside from the instant economic spark, it would also have the added benefit of relieving a crowded prison system and would stop punishing people for doing something that is less harmful to their bodies than cigarettes or booze.
6) End Public Sector unions aside from those who are first responders (work in harms-way). There is no reason for them and they only promote inefficiency and waste.
7) Legalize gay Marriage. There's no logical reason they should have all of the same benefits (domestic partnership) but not be allowed to be called "married". Religions won't be forced to recognize them. This issue will at some point be a no-brainer as the boomers die off and the younger generations take over...just get in front of the curve for once.
8) Balanced budget amendment that can be bypassed with some sort of majority in the House/Senate in times of distress.
9) Meaningful campaign finance reform
10) Throw out Obama-Care. It's terrible. Replace it with something that actually makes sense - like allowing for larger HSA's and allowing people to shop across state lines.
11) Term limits - I would change the time you can be a Senator from 6 to 8 years, but you can serve as a Senator once. I would change the House from 2 to 4, and you can only serve twice. I am tired of people not doing their jobs and constantly running for re-election.
12) Education Reform - make the school year longer. Make teacher's unions illegal, but offer very competitive compensation for teachers rewarding good teachers and throwing out the junk - we all know they're there (certain Gym teachers named CC for instance - I kid I kid)
13) Put a limit on the #of words/pages a bill that is passed can be and require that all Members of Congress read the bill before voting on it. (Not sure how to enforce this - maybe a pop-quiz on it?)

The list could go on and on...

Throw out the draft and the poverty line stipulation and I'd actually consider voting for you.

Yeah, get rid of the draft part. You are essentially forcing someone against their will and this contradicts the basic principles the country was founded upon.

The best part of the Bomar (B) party is that we're reasonable. Draft is outta here. See how easy this is?

derek bomar;946146 wrote:by luke-warm you mean taking common-sense positions? I think you'd get plenty of action if there was a party that used that as their guide. And I don't think some of the common-sense positions I am talking about are "blah" issues - there's plenty of debate around some of them.

I could throw these out there as the issues the BOMAR party (B) stands for:

1) War/Invasion shouldn't be the first option, it should be the last
2) Re-institute the draft. This would force people to realize the costs of war instead of having it be an after-thought.
3) End corporate bailouts. All of them. Too big to fail only gets worse the longer you let it happen. Pull the band-aid off.
4) Throw the current tax code out and replace it with something that doesn't punish success and applies to everyone above the poverty line evenly. Make it easy to understand, and make it enforceable for everyone - individuals and corporations alike.
5) Legalize Marijuana. Aside from the instant economic spark, it would also have the added benefit of relieving a crowded prison system and would stop punishing people for doing something that is less harmful to their bodies than cigarettes or booze.
6) End Public Sector unions aside from those who are first responders (work in harms-way). There is no reason for them and they only promote inefficiency and waste.
7) Legalize gay Marriage. There's no logical reason they should have all of the same benefits (domestic partnership) but not be allowed to be called "married". Religions won't be forced to recognize them. This issue will at some point be a no-brainer as the boomers die off and the younger generations take over...just get in front of the curve for once.
8) Balanced budget amendment that can be bypassed with some sort of majority in the House/Senate in times of distress.
9) Meaningful campaign finance reform
10) Throw out Obama-Care. It's terrible. Replace it with something that actually makes sense - like allowing for larger HSA's and allowing people to shop across state lines.
11) Term limits - I would change the time you can be a Senator from 6 to 8 years, but you can serve as a Senator once. I would change the House from 2 to 4, and you can only serve twice. I am tired of people not doing their jobs and constantly running for re-election.
12) Education Reform - make the school year longer. Make teacher's unions illegal, but offer very competitive compensation for teachers rewarding good teachers and throwing out the junk - we all know they're there (certain Gym teachers named CC for instance - I kid I kid)
13) Put a limit on the #of words/pages a bill that is passed can be and require that all Members of Congress read the bill before voting on it. (Not sure how to enforce this - maybe a pop-quiz on it?)

The list could go on and on...

Why does me saying luke warm mean that I don't agree with common sense issues? You said "meet in the middle". Typically I have found that people who try to walk down the middle on an issue won't take a side, "luke warm". That's what I meant by it. That is the biggest problem that I find when trying to decide who to vote for. I want someone to stand up and say "I believe this, this, and this", and stick to it. Whether I agree or not, at least I would know where they stand. There aren't too many who do this anymore. They are all worried about offending people.

With regards to your list, I love the theory of the draft, but would prefer conscription. I would say that everyone has to serve 2 years after high school. It doesn't have to be the military. It could be peace corps, or whatever. I think that would help tremendously when it's time to go to college. People would have a better idea of what the real world is like and you might have less people drop out or flunk out.

derek bomar;946597 wrote:The best part of the Bomar (B) party is that we're reasonable. Draft is outta here. See how easy this is?

Your party is weak and caves to demands. We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't negotiate with anyone else that disagrees with us either. We're real USA Americans.

dwccrew;946658 wrote:Your party is weak and caves to demands. We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't negotiate with anyone else that disagrees with us either. We're real USA Americans.

lol

Lakebluestreaks;946629 wrote:Why does me saying luke warm mean that I don't agree with common sense issues? You said "meet in the middle". Typically I have found that people who try to walk down the middle on an issue won't take a side, "luke warm". That's what I meant by it. That is the biggest problem that I find when trying to decide who to vote for. I want someone to stand up and say "I believe this, this, and this", and stick to it. Whether I agree or not, at least I would know where they stand. There aren't too many who do this anymore. They are all worried about offending people.

With regards to your list, I love the theory of the draft, but would prefer conscription. I would say that everyone has to serve 2 years after high school. It doesn't have to be the military. It could be peace corps, or whatever. I think that would help tremendously when it's time to go to college. People would have a better idea of what the real world is like and you might have less people drop out or flunk out.

No one should be forced by their government to join a military or humanitarian organization.

I Wear Pants;947077 wrote:No one should be forced by their government to join a military or humanitarian organization.

Why do you say this? Maybe that is the way you feel, but many governments don't agree with you including ours. We have had many drafts in this country before.

The only party worth joining!

Lakebluestreaks;947188 wrote:Why do you say this? Maybe that is the way you feel, but many governments don't agree with you including ours. We have had many drafts in this country before.

And they were all ethically wrong.

I Wear Pants;947077 wrote:No one should be forced by their government to join a military or humanitarian organization.

No one should be forced by their government to forfeit a percentage of their labor in service to the government. Right Pants?

One thing to note about a viable 3rd party in the US concerning presidential elections. A three party system would likely throw some presidential elections into the house of representatives as it would be more difficult for a candidate of one party to achieve the necessary 270 electoral votes. Though constitutional I am not sure how some people would react by having the president and vice president selected by one branch of the federal legislature. Or having the sitting Vice president serve as interim president.

12th amendment.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.