Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the current hot mess that is our 2016 presidential election, it seems the US could stand the emergence of a new political party. More and more people are becoming disenfrancheised with the republican and democrat parties and it's becoming increasingly obvious that they're both sellouts to corporate influence. I'd even go as far as to say they're both two sides of the same coin using hot-button social issues to pit us against one another, when in fact they both share a core interest of keeping certain power structures in place.
Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform.
Statism is entrenched in the hearts and minds of well over 99% of the population. This is why within the non-aggression movement people focus on parenting so much. It will take a few generations to disavow physical violence inside and outside your personal life.
Until people stop legitimizing the State, violence, usury, and other exploitive practices we are doomed to an endless cycle of slavery.
It happened in India with Aam Aadmi Party (common man party). Congress & BJP were the only strong parties for decades. Pakistan also chooses one of the 2 big ruling parties despite there being a stronger third party in picture for a few years now. Seems like a pattern to me. Makes me believe in NWO.
With the current hot mess that is our 2016 presidential election, it seems the US could stand the emergence of a new political party. More and more people are becoming disenfrancheised with the republican and democrat parties and it's becoming increasingly obvious that they're both sellouts to corporate influence. I'd even go as far as to say they're both two sides of the same coin using hot-button social issues to pit us against one another, when in fact they both share a core interest of keeping certain power structures in place.
Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform.
Could this be a thing? Why or why not?
We almost need two more political parties. The power structure is entrenched, though.
The question is pointless. Why exactly do you think there are only two political parties in the first place? Do you really believe that everyone who came before you was too stupid to make a similar proposal? In fact, there were far more political parties in the past than today. Why?
Things are the way they are, because things are the way they are. Or as Hegel said "the rational alone is real", and "When we look at the world rationally, the world looks rationally back."
And what that really means is, if you understand why things are the way they are, then you'll realize why things have to be the way they are.
Thus, it is silly to complain about what you don't like about the world, if you don't understand why things are the way they are in the first place.
Once you realize why things are the way they are, then you'll realize that the only way to change the world, is to change the system(IE to change the "forces" which have guided our world to where it is now). And to change the system, would require a revolution. And most-likely a "world-wide revolution".
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx
If you think you can vote for a revolution, you're an idiot. If you think a bunch of peasants can successfully revolt on their own, you're an even bigger idiot, and most-likely a soon-to-be-dead one.
I don't think it will happen too soon, but it seems both major parties have reached their peaks on membership. Both have seen declines for a number of years nationally. The number of independents has risen drastically in the last decade.
As the US becomes more politically diverse it seems inevitable that a major third party will arise or replace an existing party. That, or one of the major parties, perhaps both, will go through a drastic change.
Too much of the US is conservative for a farther left party, but I believe a more centrist party could arise, especially if the democrats keep moving left. If the republicans continue the path of liberal trade policies, then a centrist party who favors free trade could be a serious contender. Gary Johnson is picking up 42% of Indepdents in New Mexico, almost equal to Trump and Clinton combined, in his latest poll there, and he is beating the republican with millinials. Getting close to 30%. Johnson polling that high with those 2 demographics definitely show a shift in attitude towards the major parties and that could mean a significant change in a decade or 2.
The libertarian party under a different name that is accepting of basic government welfare and other various government regulations could be a serious power imo.
As the US becomes more politically diverse it seems inevitable that a major third party will arise or replace an existing party. That, or one of the major parties, perhaps both, will go through a drastic change.
Look, both of the major political parties are not ideological parties. Both parties are nothing more than coalitions of various ideologies, who come together for the purpose of winning elections(IE to get a majority or a plurality of the vote).
The Democratic party of 1860, or 1960, is not the same Democratic party of 2016. The Democratic party shifts its policies in an effort to get ~51% of the vote. And likewise with the Republican Party.
The Republican Party started out as basically a big-government, protectionist/nationalist party. It was the Republican Party who pushed through things like the "Homestead Acts", and the "Freedman's bureau". Which were basically welfare/wealth-redistribution programs.
The Democratic party has obviously gone through huge changes as well since 1860. And for that matter, the Democratic Party of even 20-years ago was quite a bit different from what it is today.
In the early 1990's, Bill Clinton wanted to drastically limit immigration, was very opposed to same-sex marriage, wanted to cut back welfare, among other things.
Let me add one more thing. The two-party system is actually the best system of all. And let me explain why.
What do you think the real purpose of democracy is? Why would democracy even be a good thing? Who honestly thinks it is a good idea to give a bunch of morons a right to vote?
The real purpose of democracy, is not to give people choice, it is to give the government, and everything it does, the appearance of legitimacy. Its real purpose is to promote obedience to the government, and thus to destroy dissent.
The government pretends to be by "the will of the people", or that we are a "government of consent". And thus, if you are going against the government, then you are going against the people themselves.
Now, imagine for a minute that there were eight political parties, and the eventual winner of the election won only 20% of the vote. On what basis could his "rule" ever be considered legitimate? Being that 80% of the voters didn't even vote for him.
On the other hand, if he receives 51% of the vote, he can come out and say "The people have spoken", or that "I have a received a mandate from the people", giving him, and his administration, the appearance of legitimacy. And if he is doing something the overwhelming mass of the people don't agree with. They don't have to overthrow the government. They are told "just wait for the next election".
Basically, the two-party system is actually far more stable than any other system. I mean, if it was so terrible, why would it exist?
And if you actually know why it exists, why would you possibly think you could change it?
With the current hot mess that is our 2016 presidential election, it seems the US could stand the emergence of a new political party. More and more people are becoming disenfrancheised with the republican and democrat parties and it's becoming increasingly obvious that they're both sellouts to corporate influence. I'd even go as far as to say they're both two sides of the same coin using hot-button social issues to pit us against one another, when in fact they both share a core interest of keeping certain power structures in place.
Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform.
"Corporate reform, harm reduction (as an alternative to criminalization) and in general putting the well-being of people before corporate profits could/would lie central in this party's platform."
Gary Johnson seems to be the proto of our Global Party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New Party - The Global Party
