First, it should be evident to all that the Democratic and Republican parties are ‘in cahoots’. There’s not much real difference between them. Together they form a duopoly with absolute political and economic power. They distract public attention by arguing about superficial differences, obscuring the fact that they agree on the major issues like:

the BIG GOVERNMENT
model is the only option
America needs a huge military budget
war is not insane
no term limits
the ‘war on drugs’
Then why not just vote third-party? Here’s the reason many people give: “If I vote for a third party, wouldn’t that throw my vote away?“.

Let’s dispel that myth once and for all. First, if one thing is plain, it’s that you have thrown your vote away if you vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate. The two parties are basically the same, and regardless of which party is in power, things don’t improve. Recall that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who rushed into the Iraq war, waving the flag, without a plan.

The truth is, the Republicrat duopoly has arranged so that we have a Democrat for one or two terms, then a Republican, and then back again. It’s a sweet system where both parties win. Neither is out of power for very long.

Consider also how both parties together have succeeded in making you feel you have to vote against someone. In 2000, for example, you may not have liked Bush much, but felt you needed to vote against Al Gore, or vice versa. That, I propose, is precisely what the two parties want. They have, by picking the right issues, managed to completely polarize the American public into two camps, split almost 50/50. Further, they’ve set the tone of American politics as one of constant acrimony and argument. Far too much attention is spent criticizing the other camp, and not enough on presenting new, positive ideas. It’s a divide and conquer strategy. By polarizing the American public, the Republicrat power coalition has kept people too busy fighting with each other to see what the real problem is. It’s the old case of ‘let’s you and him fight’.

This makes each person think, “My vote is essential to prevent the other party from winning; I can’t afford to vote for a third-party candidate, or someone with original ideas.” But considering the dearth of good ideas among the current Republican and Democrat candidates, it’s evident that, whichever wins, we’ll be stuck with another bad president for at least another four years.

This November, then, you’ll have two choices:

1. Vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate, in which case you truly will throw your vote away, or
2. Vote for a third party candidate.

In the second case, it’s true your candidate will not likely win. But you haven’t thrown your vote away. If enough people do this, then the Democrats and Republicans will get the message. By the time the next elections come around, they will be thinking about adopting some of the ideas from the third parties. Further, any vote for a third party encourages the founding of new third parties, with valuable new ideas.

The potential for positive change in America exists. What we must do is create a climate in which these ideas will come to the fore in public discussion, and find implementation as social policy. Third parties can meet this vital need.

Therefore, here are two suggestions for you to consider:

1. Investigate the current third party candidates. Read their platforms and identify any promising ideas they have. In just doing this you will have broken free from the mind-conditioning of the two-party system. You will be actively contributing to making American a true democracy. Then, just consider voting for the candidate whom you would like to be president, not worrying about the issue of ‘throwing your vote away.’

2. Most of all — though this is really a separate issue — approach the election with a positive attitude. This shouldn’t be about whom you dislike or disagree with. It should be about developing positive vision of the future. Pay particular attention to noticing how the big-party candidates (and their buddies, the news media) try to manipulate public consciousness by eliciting anger and hatred — and then don’t oblige them.

Be the change you want see in the world!

I didn't bother to read any further than this, since the largest problem with American politics is clearly the inability of the Democratic and Republican parties to get into "cahoots" on anything.

Given how far off base this first statement was, I felt it best not to waste my time reading the rest of this and jump right to criticism.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Fooglmog you're wrong. The difference between republican and democrat is very minimal at best.

It's a one-party system with a two-card monte.

TL,DR

Highly unlikely that anything I read on AT is going to affect the way I vote.

That's good archaic. You should probably never let AT affect anything in your life!

Well, nothing you've ever said has affected me, thats for sure.

Sure it has :) I've made you mad a few times!

I'm voting Libertarian.

I don't think we're too far off from having a legit 3rd party in the presidential race.

fixed that for you

I'm not American but it seems to me the plurality voting system makes it really hard for other parties to gain ground. That system would need to change first for any third party to realistically be able to gain some influence.
I'm not so much thinking of the presidential elections per se, but if let's say in the house of representatives neither the democrats nor the republicans have a majority and have to work with a third party things could get interesting.

I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT, ERIC.

EACH PARTY, WHILE OUT OF POWER, WILL SAY (CORRECTLY) THAT THE FEDERAL DEBT IS INTOLERABLE. ONCE IN POWER, THEY DO NOTHING BUT INCREASE IT. IT CANNOT BE LONG BEFORE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY REMEMBER 4, OR 8, OR 12 YEARS AGO ACTUALLY CATCH ON AND WAKE UP.

TO STEAL A PHRASE FROM ANDREW NAPOLITANO, THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT PARTIES ARE TWO WINGS OF THE SAME PREDATORY BIRD.

HA!

SAM

You make a good point Magellaan. But like you concluded I have serious doubts that a 3rd party will ever take ground in the current state of affairs.

I'd love to see the party system go out the window completely. Having a "party" system benefits no one.

i dont understand why the debates and such dont include the independent party too.

yeah just because one obstructs the other, doesn't mean they don't have 90% of the same policies. the obstructionism is part of the political game.

why would the republicans and democrats want it to? put a socialist and a libertarian up there and the overlap of the two major parties would become pretty clear pretty fast haha

What about putting a socialist, a libertarian, and a libertarian socialist up there?

Well you wouldn't be in America anymore Rockman :p

I can dream, can't I?

i honestly do believe the republican politicians hate the dems as much as the republican voters do, and vice versa. but the wedges are all stuff like whether or not to support a mandate to buy for-profit, private insurance, which is then hysterically framed as "socialism," even though both sides are operating from within the same capitalist framework.

meanwhile, the parties agree 100% on international relations and it's just a contest of who can flex their muscles the hardest: "i killed osama" "you're not closely aligned enough with israel!" "i picked a side in the libyan civil war and helped overthrow the existing government" "thats cool i admit it, but four americans died in that one attack" L-O-L

Um Ombama's international relations are terrible if you ask me. The Libya incident is a prime example of his incompetence as leader and chief.

Anyone who would even remotely side with the president, who is lying to the American public, needs to step back and realize that he fluffed up big time.

lol yeah, some minor incident wherein an embassy got stormed and four people died: that's a major divergence between the parties on international policy.

But blid Obama said it was a protest because of a youtube video, not a terrorist attack on US soil (an embassy is US soil). Also they called out for help, the fight lasted 7 hours, and were ignored. This was despite the white house having a live feed from drones in the sky of what was going on.

Not to mention the President indicated he was never informed this was going on, even though it was like 3pm our time. He would like us to believe that no one would of said "oh yeah mr. president, we have an issue here". I find that increasingly hard to believe.

Also the day after the attack, where 4 Americans were killed, he flew to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. And to this day he has yet to give a press conference about it. What a disgrace.

you see now the reason for the talk about third parties? neither candidate is even gonna approach saying "hm maybe we shouldn't have actively participated in overthrowing the libyan government" are they?

http://www.countercurrents.org/cramer040511.htm

whoops! just toppled the government of the most well-off nation in africa. oh wait, we actually both are onboard with that, it's what obama said about these four americans who died that's in question. but yeah, what obama said, that's a HUGE issue and it's gonna determine how i vote.

this thread should be titled why my man BLUEEEEEEE should join imag :P

<3 you BLUEEEE

I should edit the topic!!!!
jajajaja

How does that make me wrong? It's a completely separate issue. I said they're not "in cahoots"... you say their policies are similar. It's possible to agree with someone on broad approaches to issues without being in cahoots with them.


Same thing here, "one obstructs the other" (ie. they are not "in cahoots"). Whatever similarity exists in their policies as a whole is an entirely separate issue.

If you're going to claim I'm wrong, at least make a statement which contradicts mine.

On a related note; I'd also like to take exception to the implication that the Democrats and Republicans maintaining similar stances on a vast number of issues is a bad thing. The fact that they do is definitely a positive thing, and is sign of the general unity and strength that exists within America as a whole.

Further more, I'd like to point out that while the two major parties probably do largely agree on 90% of issues, the third party candidates being espoused here almost certainly agree (to a similar extent) with one major party or the other on 90% of the issues as well.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Simple, really. The three "major" televised debates were organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates. While that sounds like some oh-so-"official" organization, what it really is is a private organization that was set up by the Democrat and Republican parties in the 1980s. Prior to that the League of Women Voters organized Presidential debates, but they walked away in disgust because the demands of those two parties would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

So the Republicans and Democrats stood up the CPD (which is run by former leaders of -- you guessed it -- the Rep/Dem parties) and every election cycle they negotiate a contract that spells out the terms of the debates. They include in that agreement a clause that says each candidate will refuse to participate in any debates other than those put on by the CPD, and then the CPD puts in place criteria designed to keep third-party candidates out of the "major" debates. For example, this year, the requirements were:
* Must be Constitutionally eligible to win the Presidency (e.g., natural born, 35-years old, and so on). OK, makes sense.
* Must have qualified for ballot access in enough states to have the potential to capture 270 electoral votes. Yes, this is a good idea! This criteria alone would have narrowed the field to 4. Barack Obama (D), Mitt Romney (R), Gary Johnson (L), and Jill Stein (G).
* Must have received at least 15% in 5 "selected" national polls. WHOA. Hit the brakes! Aren't those the same polls that almost always ask about only two candidates? Why gosh yes that would seem to be the case.

And there you have it. It works exactly the way they planned it to work.

fluff the Republicans and Democrats.

LIVE FREE.

BILL WTF FONT??!?!?

SORRY, I HAD TO BREAK CHARACTER FOR SOMETHING I FEEL VERY VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. FEAR NOT, IT IS ONLY WITH GREAT GRITTING OF THE TEETH, CLENCHING OF THE STOMACH, AND GRASPING OF THE fluffTICLES THAT I AM ABLE TO ABANDON USE OF THE LETTERS OF POWER FOR MORE THAN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.

HA!

BILL

The point being made here, I would say, is that they are being "politically correct" in espousing populist policies for public consumption, while not actually working to implement them by using the other's "intransigence" as an excuse.

A puppet show or modern day bread and circuses, making supporting political parties not unlike supporting your favorite WWF wrestler or team. Something inherent in making any contest a 2 horse race.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE NOTION OF ROMBAMA AND OBAMNEY BEATING THE fluff OUT OF EACH OTHER WITH CHAIRS, WWF STYLE.

Enough armchair politics! Go get involved, go make a difference!

Almost certainly not!

We have this in Canada. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois. It gets interesting at times especially when there is a minority government. Then they MUST work together with a different party to get things done. When Conservatives have a majority, on the other hand, the other parties need to do what they can so they can get elected again the next time.

I think the two party system is broken too... but I don't think the two parties are in "cahoots". It's a ridiculous idea.

ARCHAIC: SOMETIMES BILL AND I FORGET WHAT OUR FATHER TAUGHT US WHEN WE WERE JUST TINY, SHOUTING TODDLERS. "IF YOU CAN'T SAY SOMETHING WITH THE LETTERS OF POWER, DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL".

FOOGLMOG AND DISSIDENT: I WOULD AGREE THAT THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT PARTIES ARE NOT ACTIVELY "IN CAHOOTS" ON MOST ISSUES. HOWEVER, ON THE ISSUE OF PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, THEY MOST DEFINITELY ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO KEEP ALL DISSENTING OPINION OUT. AND IN SOME STATES (MINE FOR EXAMPLE) THEY HAVE PUT IN PLACE RULES FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS WHICH ENSURE THAT NO THIRD PARTY WILL LIKELY EVER BE REPRESENTED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

ON ISSUES OF POLICY, WHILE THEY ARE NOT ACTIVELY WORKING TOGETHER, THEY ARE DOING SO PASSIVELY. ALL OF THEM ARE DRUNK WITH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHICH WE HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM MORE AND MORE OF FOR THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS. THEY ALL *CLAIM* TO BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, THEY TAKE TURNS *CLAIMING* TO BELIEVE IN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, THEY ALL *CLAIM* TO HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS THE ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND.

THE REALITY HOWEVER, IS THAT ONCE IN POWER, ALL THEY CAN THINK ABOUT IS MORE POWER. AND SINCE WE HAVE KNOCKED DOWN MOST OF THE BARRIERS TO TYRANNY IN THE LAST CENTURY, THEY ARE USUALLY SUCCESSFUL AT GAINING THAT POWER THEY CRAVE. AS SOON AS THEY TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE, THEY SET TO WORK SHREDDING THE EDGES OF THE CONSTITUTION.

REPUBLICANS WHO CLAIM TO BE ALL ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WILL GO IMMEDIATELY TO WORK ON LIMITING OR ELIMINATING THE FREEDOM OF SOME GROUPS TO MARRY WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE. REPUBLICANS WHO CLAIM TO BE ALL ABOUT REDUCING FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY GET TO WORK INCREASING SPENDING, INCREASING FEDERAL POWER OVER ISSUES THAT STATES SHOULD BE HANDLING, ETC.

DEMOCRATS WHO CLAIM TO BE ALL ABOUT PERSONAL FREEDOM WILL WRITE LAWS WHICH GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - NOT THE CITIZENS - THE POWER TO CHOOSE HOW WE ARE ALLOWED TO SPEND OUR OWN MONEY... OR RATHER, HOW WE *MUST* SPEND IT.

AND BOTH PARTIES - THOSE FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS - WILL CONTINUE TO SEND BANDS OF HEAVILY ARMED MEN TO KICK IN THE DOORS AND SHOOT THE DOGS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE SUSPECTED OF THE TERRIBLE CRIME OF MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES ABOUT WHICH INTOXICANTS TO CONSUME.

I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN (AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN)... OUR FOUNDERS RECOGNIZED THE DANGERS OF POWER AND HOW EASILY IT CAN CORRUPT EVEN A GOOD PERSON. THEY CAREFULLY CRAFTED A DOCUMENT WHICH GAVE AS LITTLE POWER AS POSSIBLE TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE BEEN LETTING OUR "REPRESENTATIVES" WIPE THEIR FEET ON THAT DOCUMENT FOR FAR TOO LONG. UNTIL WE DEMAND A RETURN TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, "THE PEOPLE" WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE LESS AND LESS SAY IN HOW OUR COUNTRY RUNS.

HA!

SAM
CHAMPION OF THE EUGLAF DIVISION,
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

That's bullfluff. The CIA jumped in from a secret base (about a mile away) as soon as they heard about the attack along with friendly local militias to save and evacuate the embassy staff, even if it was too late for that Ambassador. It was only one dead guy and few others (including two dead CIA security staff/ex-seals) so I don't get what all the furor is about. It's a hostile area that the US helped invade/overthrow. Just think of it as a "mini-Iraq". People die every day in those situations.

http://www.nytimes.com/...a-attack.html?hp&_r=0

Obama stated multiple times, in the same speech that it was a terrorist attack (on camera) so I fail to see how you're reaching those assumptions.

Sooooo... Bush let 9/11 happen and he got a second term. But 4 people get killed while Obama's president and suddenly he's not suitable for a second term?

As for voting for an independent, you may as well just stay home. The last president who was entirely unaffiliated with a party was George Washington...

Republicans want Libya to be Obama's Iran Hostage crisis.

I've never seem supposedly patriotic people (Republicans owns the whole patriotism thing ya know) be so giddy Americans were killed.

One of the 4 killed is actually a young tech dude who is BIG EVE ONLINE player and a key architect of their current politics. I can totally see it being an Earther being in the same position.

Also chances of Romney actually winning is slipping as polls consistently show Obama ahead in key swing states such as Ohio, NH and IA. And he really only needs those 3 to clinch 270. But he will also likely get CO, NV, NM and VA.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

There's no Romentum, Obama has actually gained on the polls in the last 10 days, and all Fox news has left is to play up Benghazi.

Also don't throw away your vote to a third party.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A SECOND TERM BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IT IS THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL US HOW TO LIVE AND TO FORCE US TO LIVE THAT WAY IF WE DISAGREE. FOR THE SAME REASON, GOVERNOR ROMNEY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A FIRST TERM.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A SECOND TERM BECAUSE HE LIES CONSTANTLY. FOR THE SAME REASON, GOVERNOR ROMNEY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A FIRST TERM.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A SECOND TERM BECAUSE HE SIGNED A BILL AFFIRMING THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO ARREST AND DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENS INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT TRIAL OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION. GOVERNOR ROMNEY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A FIRST TERM BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED IT AS WELL.

AS FOR VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, IF YOU'RE A LIBERTY-MINDED INDIVIDUAL, YOU MAY AS WELL JUST STAY HOME. THE LAST PRESIDENT TO ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS SET BY THE CONSTITUTION WAS GROVER CLEVELAND.

https://www.youtube.com/...edded&v=nY0M7IdNl7U#!

Awesome. The lady at 4:10 is batfluff insane. The whole video was probably rigged to show the worst of Romney supporters but it's scary since a significant proportion of people are really like that IRL, and not just in the US.

uninformed + bad economy + no healthcare + bootstrap mentality
makes people scared. They're on their own. It's Zombie apocalypse everyday. Everyone for themselves!

Screw the poor (even though they are one of them). No poor people ever gave them a job etc. etc.

Then you throw in the Fox News factor

The result is an awful electorate that will vote for some rich guy who won't release his tax returns outside of the two years he engineered to look 'better' because otherwise, it would be uncomfortable explaining to people working two jobs why they paid more Taxes as a % of their income than he did.

dex, I'm a little confused. At first I thought you were talking about Romney, but then you mentioned 2 years of tax returns when Romney released 20 of his and his dads. On top of Romney giving something like 35%+ of his income to either the government or charity...

Who were you talking about there?

probably not. the largest problem would be that people only want to vote for the winner, instead of voting their conscience.

20 years of returns? http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...011-taxes-at-3-pm-summary

oh sorry I guess 20 was a bit of an overstatement, but...
http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure

for you to read.

I'm no great defender of Romney, there are many things I don't like about him, but complaining about his tax returns is laughable at best.

Hang on... you're asking us to read something from the Mitt Romney website as objective and trustworthy? Come on now.

Also posted is a letter from the Romneys' tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, which gives an overview of the Romneys' tax returns covering an additional 20 years, from 1990-2009.

it's a letter from a tax preparer giving a summary, he didn't release those returns.

Romney hasn't released his taxes.
Romney hasn't explained his economic plan -- at every possibility all he actually claims is more of the exact same Republican plan that put the economy in the ditch.
Romney wants to dismantle FEMA, the governmental agency with the responsibility of actually responding to disasters. Nobody should be shocked that Bush's leader was incompetant and Obama's leader was on point.
Romney wants to roll back Lily Ledbetter and other laws mandating that women receive equal pay for equal work.
Romney doesn't acknowledge the war in Afghanistan in public speeches, despite his being in the Republican party.
Romney wanted to suppress this report because he doesn't like facts: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/...Economy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
Mitt Romney has lied 917 times while campaigning in 2012: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/...ts-mendacity-vol-xli?lite

Diss, did you go to the website, it doesn't actually say anything other that offer up the actual documents for you to download. If you don't trust the actual paperwork from him, then why are we having this conversation?

learn to read and comprehend CKHustler

A vote for the 3rd party is a vote for Obama. Simple as that.