Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Third Party cannot survive in the US

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 6:32 p.m. EST by Growth11 (7)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Because there is not enogh money to fund it. Is this true?

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 11 minutes ago working through the FBI? you mean the same organization which funnels drugs into this country? the same organization which is known to be corrupt all the way to its core? the same organization which is known to be involved in all sorts of caste war enforcement at the secret levels? the same organization that was probably responsible for wiping thousands of documents off of my external drive? Excuse me? the rest of us do not have any confidence left in them and if you do, you have not been paying attention.

there is every chance of us getting a new government- you just don't understand how that plays."

gawdoftruth,

I have to reply up here, because the thread is at an end. A member of my family worked with the FBI to uncover criminality, back in the 1970's, so they do fight bad guys. Heck, I asked the FBI to help me, when crooked cops tried to frame me for a crime, the crooked cops were actually committing. The FBI and my NY State Police came through for me and busted open massive local police criminality. There are a lot of great men and women in the FBI and while there are bad apples, I trust the FBI to stand by the American people and the rule of law. -MJ Morrow

[-] 1 points by listtowardlight (6) from San Francisco, CA 3 years ago

At some point, I feel the Occupy Movement ought to endorse not political candidates, but a new political process. I think instant run-off voting with no distinction for political parties would be a start.

You see, in 2004 I was still in college and we had mock Presidential debates. They turned out to be way more interesting than the real ones. We had Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists (a kind of paleo-conservative group), and I was there on the Green end of the Democratic party. The level of dialogue and debate was surprising.

The two parties don't speak for us. We need an electoral system that doesn't lock us into them, publicly funded, and I think instant run-off is a part of that.

I also think we need a means to override or recall any politician that flagrantly violates their campaign promise. It's not acceptable that they do that and get away with it anymore.

[-] 1 points by Dost (315) 3 years ago

Actually, it can work. Not likely, not probable, but possible. Perot's Reform Party garnered 19% of vote in 1992 (assuring Bill Clinton's election otherwise, Bush would have won. BTW< shows how conservative the country has become). And that was with horrible VP candidate and Perot shooting himself in foot. If the conditions are ripe (and they may be in the next few years), a Progressive Movement, if it build an organization, could evolve into a serious political force. But it would take work and commitment. Dynamic leadership or spokespersons necessary.

[-] 1 points by Jefferson (5) 3 years ago

My high school us history teacher once said that a third party would never survive because the dems or reps or both would take on their causes, making the new party insignificant.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

nope. the time is ripe, a third party with the right platform could take every office in this nation and never spend anything more than shoe string budget and run cheap on the internet.

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 3 years ago

my understanding is that if a third party gets >=5% of the popular vote in a presidential election for two consecutive years, they get federal matching funds.

[-] 1 points by Evabodine (18) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You can't have a presidential elections for "two consecutive years" since they're 4 yrs. apart.

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 3 years ago

I should have wrote two consecutive elections. Pease

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

That is ridiculous. Ever hear of the republican party? In its infancy it was the third party.

[-] 1 points by Evabodine (18) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Yes, but they're talking about NOW. Modern politics doesn't leave room for anything else, and no one would support a 3rd financially. Who'd want to take the risk? Will there really be 3 parties in Congress? Maybe. Just not likely. But then, a Black president wasn't likely a few years ago...

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Just because the Tea Party is a part of the Republican caucus doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that they aren't really a third party. The core ideology of the Tea Party is far removed from today's Republicans.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 3 years ago

Not true, so perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo and then direct questions or comments to our group's 19 members committed to that plan at: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

[-] 1 points by efschumacher (74) from Gaithersburg, MD 3 years ago

A 3rd party cannot go from zero to In Power in one election cycle and therefore it is doomed as the existing 2-parties will exploit it as a wedge to gain power over the other party. We need a 435 party system, i.e. everyone in Congress to have an independent position that is tied to their constituents. More of a delegate than a representative, if you like. Each congress-person must be closely and absolutely accountable to their voters, above anybody else.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

thats silly. we can take the majority of offices in the country in one election cycle and can certainly then take them all in two.

we do need a 435 party system, but that starts with one 99 percenter party we all opt out of th old system.

i like your ideasregarding direct democracy... but all in all we do need a third party.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

A third movement that is willing to align with the interests of all of America, that is willing to be domesticated into the established order of things, most definitely will survive and thrive. Revolutions, anarchy and hostility of any criminal nature, will not survive in the USA. For this reason, OWS needs to be prepared to accept domestication into the existing parties and should be open to the advancement of its interests through our existing and legitimate Government institutions, when our elected officials get a clue.

We are a Republic, not a direct democracy. Clearly, it is good to be a part of the NYCGA, but we are not the Confederacy of States. We must clearly recognize the importance of working closely, with our duly elected officials; respecting the legitimacy of our Government. Our aspirations will naturally, ultimately and rightfully be filtered through the lawful and legitimate institutions of our Nation. Still, in the mean time, growing the protest movement makes great good sense, until the US Government gets off its collective behind; to deal with corruption, criminality and the joblessness of the two most highly educated generations in the history of the US.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

sorry, no, we must get rid of all the dems and all the repubs and get the oligarchs out. a third movement is quite possible and certainly could in fact take all wins in this political climate. you give no reasons why it would not survive. i think you are in essence arguing for ows to be co-opted. no thank you. ows needs to form a third party and take all the offices in the land.

we need to becoem a direct democracy, not a republic and not an oligarchy.

it is not rightfull that our aspirations be filtered and distorted, the current system is too corrupt to be trusted that way.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

OWS is not a political party. Let us keep an open mind and allow for the possibility that there are politicians, bankers and corporate executives willing to ensure that there are high paying careers and a mitigation of corruption and criminality. While there is a great deal of money being made off of this, so called, New World Order, there is no reason why we can not re-imagine it, so that the USA is a part of a Global economy, not merely torn apart by a Global economy. There was a time when the US Government had a spine and did not wear a leash held by I-Bankers. Perhaps they will remember how to stand for the people, as our movement grows in popularity? I do not think that we should presume that there is no win win, for Main Street, Wall Street and Washington.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

your right, right now it is not. but if its going to effect change, it must become one. the real solution is of course win/ win, is a paradigm shift, and changes the rules of the game without serious harmful consequences to the perons in the system. things get better from then on out even for the onepercent. i will again repeat. there is no possible win/win scenario which involves allowing the one percent to also run the government.

obviously. not.

either you are for change or you are for more of the same with new bells and whistles.

make up your mind fast.


http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

OWS can be a national movement and affect change. Still, I wouldn't send a run away to a pimp and I wouldn't send an OWS candidate to the US Congress, for much the same reasons. The U.S. Congress needs to do its job and sending in yet another naive lamb to Lobby lane, isn't in and of itself, my idea of a great good plan for change. We need a marriage of the inside and the outside. Members of Congress betrayed the American people for Wall Street, maybe they will betray Wall Street for something better than the New World Order? We need to seduce Congress with a better future, a new... New World Order, if you will. [wink]

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

you have two choices. we can have oligarchy or we can have democracy. your way only gives us oligarchy.

saying that ows candidates are all hopeless children is a failure of imagination and really rather offensive.

the 99 percent do have a lot of yahoos out here but we also have a lot of very sane and responsible people.

there is no reason why we can't find members of the 99 percent fit to take office and no reason why we can't as a party bar ourselves from even seeing any kind of "lobbyist".

seduce? congress? what are we a trashy slut movement? NO. WE need to END the current congress, replace it with Occupy people with strong educational backgrounds, and have genuine democracy.

your argument is the argument the 1 percent would make. "just calm down and let us co-opt you."

NO.

we can't afford anything less than a total and complete end of the oligarchy.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

We are a Republic, not a direct democracy. I cannot stress enough, that in any event, there will be a Congress and a need to marry our interest, to wed our movement with the interests of the insiders and their families, with that of our elected officials. It doesn't have to be a co-opting, but there must be a mutually beneficial and enduring relationship; an intimacy, now only enjoyed by the ultra rich.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

a republic is a form of oligarchy. we are NOT a republic, that would require actual representation.

again, it is time to kick the oligarchs out. period. "the insiders" need to be removed from public office, period.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

If you define a Republic as an oligarchy, than of necessity, we must have such oligarchy, here in the USA, since she is a Republic. OWS must remain loyal to our Republic, if OWS is going to get the support of men and women, like me. Clearly, the NYCGA must submitt to full recognition of our Government; the legitimacy of our Government and her laws. I am not going to be an enemy of my people, after all. We are a movement seeking an end to corruption, criminality.We seek the employment of the two most highly educated generations in US history, we are not the Confederacy of States, after all! [giggle]

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

She is NOT a republic. she IS an oligarchy. we do NOT want a republic, thats a form of oligarchy. we do want direct democracy.

support of men and women like you? what? who can't manage to grasp after having it explained three times to them that we live in a corporate oligarchy not a republic? Sooner or later you will wise up, after things get worse and its hurts perhaps but i always get to say "i told you so." cuz i am always right.

full recognition of our government? what? its a patently corrupt government and there is no reason to submit to full recognition of such.

you already ARE an enemy of the people and any republic would be an enemy of the people, any kind of oligarchy is the enemy of the people only real democracy is not the enemy of the people.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

I want a high paying career and the mitigation of corruption and criminality. With regard to the mitigation of corruption and criminality, I have every confidence that working through the FBI and other elements of HLS, we can come up with much better means of detecting, preventing and punishing Corporate and banking criminality. The US Congress can actually do its jobs too, with sufficient pressure from the American people. High paying career creation will require that our Government works for our interest and not the interest of the Jeff Sachs Globalist goon squad. With regard to direct democracy, we do have a Republic and unless the US Government forgets to pay the CIA and US Military, there is no chance of you getting a new Government in! [giggle] Take care, MJ

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

working through the FBI? you mean the same organization which funnels drugs into this country? the same organization which is known to be corrupt all the way to its core? the same organization which is known to be involved in all sorts of caste war enforcement at the secret levels? the same organization that was probably responsible for wiping thousands of documents off of my external drive? Excuse me? the rest of us do not have any confidence left in them and if you do, you have not been paying attention.

there is every chance of us getting a new government- you just don't understand how that plays.

an article 5 convention and a third party.

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 3 years ago

i learned some things in life. money isn't everything. money is nothing actually. we can help each other and get past money just fine. probably better. you need some, but i don't think it's like politicians think it is. we have numbers on our side.

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 3 years ago

my understanding from 8th grade civics is that its more that the parties would block each other. that was the case for voting straight tickets. because they would work with each other if they were on the same team. we need to dump congress for sure, and president on same side would be good. i would say go for it. but go big...go for the whole thing...everything. even the dog catcher.

[-] 1 points by rarebird (14) from Portland, ME 3 years ago

No this is not true. There is enough money to fund 60 parties - isn't that the point of the protest?? We don't want that. We want money OUT of politics. If money WERE out of politics it would be easier to grow a 3rd party. What we have to remember is that it's a grassroots approach, it is not about getting a Presidential candidate from a 3rd party (in the beginning anyway). As we have seen in this election cycle, the Congress can completely disable the office of the President when it wants to. As many polls point out anywhere from 25% - 35% of the public identify as Independent. If we had even 5 members of Congress from a Green Party or a Libertarian Party or a "Peoples Party", we would not have had the complete immobilization of Congress that has occurred in the last 18 months. The controlling party of each house of Congress would have to gain the support of the 3rd party to establish a majority in most cases. This is why it is so important to start drafting candidates locally NOW!! Elections are in 13 months!! Get folks on school boards and city councils and county commissions and everywhere. It only takes a couple of election cycles and then someone is the first Peoples Party Congressperson!! For a thoughtful debate on a 3rd party, listen here: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-divided-us-politics/

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 3 years ago

Those in power want us to believe this. Every revolution was from that 'third party' composed of citizens who said 'Enough'! And it will happen again.... Never give up! NEVER! Remember the movie 'The Mist': a great lesson on what can happen if you give up.

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 3 years ago

I think the problem is even more fundamental.

A winner takes all system tends to converge to a two-party system, where both parties try to move the center.

Only proportional representation can change the two-party system. Not an easy job to get that changed.

[-] 1 points by Growth11 (7) 3 years ago

That makes sense. Thanks

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

the media will never back them either

[-] 2 points by Growth11 (7) 3 years ago

But if this movement is about getting the money and media out of politics and having the 99% voice heard, is there anything that could be done to change the status quo?

[-] 2 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

the only hope we have is to let it collapse and build something better in the post american empire world.

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 3 years ago

do we have to hit rock bottom? i don't think so. if you were the CEO that was sent in to a failing company, the first thing you would try to do is get this up and running the way it was designed to be run (in this case, regulate and uncorrupt asap), then get data on that (a lot to type here, but there are known ways to measure progress that appear to be overlooked in this this country - industrial engineers know this stuff). If you aren't getting results you want out of that system, you can be designing another one in the background. But, we don't have to collapse to get something smarter. We just have to get people on the same page so we can go forward together. Smarter.

[-] 0 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

the reality is that most ceo's are getting raped too. the people in charge are more like the top .1 percent. they openly state that they want a collapse in the usa. they state it through the UN, The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group and other such roundtable groups. most of those people have already relocated to china.

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 3 years ago

where is it stated? can i go read it?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

i could not find anything online. their mission statements of the cfr and rockefeller foundation. go read that

here is a video i found talks about a john p holdren and their planned policies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Eo2YTQUr8&feature=related

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 3 years ago

i don't think that's our 1%. is it? do they belong to us or someone else (please say someone else...so we can say not my kid)?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

You been smoking shrooms if you think the oligarchs are getting the shaft in any way shape or form.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

im just saying the oligarchs are a lot smaller group than you think. they will destroy the world if it means that they stay in power...

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

I debate on whether a collapse would be good. Sometimes I think so but what about unintended consequences? There's a lot that will be up in the air with a collapse. They could declare martial law and then we're even more of a police state.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

i fear more that a "strong man" with evil intent would fill the power vacum. i dont fear martial law because the collapse is going to come from the government running out of money. therefore, it would be hard to keep martial law when you cant pay the soldiers. if we get martial law, it will happen way before the collapse.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

that's a good point. This republic has been the most successful form of government that the world has ever seen. We have been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'd like to go back and do what was working.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

I would like to take the philosophy of the constitution and take it further... I see the United States and its constitution as an example that no piece of paper can stop the growth of government. i have concluded that we need to have no government with people create a society based on peace and voluntary action. even if we go back to a constitutional government, in another 100 years we will be in the same spot.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

well maybe some generation in the future will learn from history and not repeat this mistake. Ben Franklin warned us that we would have to be able to "keep it".

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

true, at the moment anarchy would not work because we live in a society obsessed with corruption... even some of these peace loving liberals want to turn to violence.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

I'm libertarian and we want miniscule government but not anarchy. Gov't plays an important role. But with this corrupt government I think we should drastically cut the funding. They'll go home without a paycheck coming in.

[-] 1 points by Growth11 (7) 3 years ago

I found this article about Promotional Representation Reform. Very interesting. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/whatispr.htm Sounds difficult, but possible

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

the recurring problem in human history is that we always submit to power and power always corrupts. i have concluded that the only way we can have a fair society is anarchy with people that emphasize voluntary action and peaceful upbringing...

[-] 1 points by Sid81 (30) 3 years ago

And that will never happen/work it is human nature to do what is in our best interest. We rarely, if ever do something that we know will not benefit us as an individual. Donate to charity you say? You benefit for it by feeling good. Helping others? You benefit by expecting (knowingly or not) to be able to call on their help in the future. There is no "selfless act", all our actions are for our benefit or perceived benefit as an individual.

So if anarchy would take place you will always have individuals or groups that find it in their best interest to hurt others, take advantage, steal or abuse to better themselves.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

i also believe that is in everyone interest over the long run to not take advantage of other. people who take advantage of others would fail over the long run if it was not for them using government to protect them and take out the competition.

[-] 1 points by Sid81 (30) 3 years ago

I believe the same in that it is in everyones interest over the long run to not take advantage. This is why as a race for the most part we do try to work together. However not everyone thinks in the long term, and not everyone is actually able to (disorders etc...) . I also do not feel that it is possible to make EVERYONE be peaceful or keep some from taking advantage of others to be on the top. This is the main reason true communism has never and will never happen on a national level, let alone a world level. And also why anarchy will lead to power struggles and more suffering.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

yes, but at least these people wont have the monopoly of force that governments have to use for their interests... i am suggesting that we stop doing what has already failed repeatedly. take the philosophy that has been momentarily successful and take it to another level.

[-] 1 points by Sid81 (30) 3 years ago

These people may not, but other people will. Ask yourself: how did the idea of government start in the first place?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

i think it was older people trying to keep the power away from younger people. back then power was based on physical strength. but this proves that the problem is power itself. if we want to believe that humans are hopeless then there is no point in trying to change things. i believe that if we want to have a truly peaceful world, it will not come from submitting power to government!

[-] 1 points by Sid81 (30) 3 years ago

I did not say I thought humans are hopeless. I am merely stating that you need to understand human nature before proposing ways of living for the collective.

As for the older people trying to keep power away:

1st: how did they get the power in the first place. You said physical strength, if this is the case then the older wouldn't be able to keep it, so this would have to have evolved in some way.

2nd: Back then it was physical strength, now it is with money. What will keep people from attempting to gain and hold power (in any form) even if at the detriment of others?

Also people look for leaders, for others to guide them. Not all people mind you but many do. A form of leadership and regulation will reform one way or the other. It may reform worse than it is now.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 3 years ago

the elders created government so the younger males could not overthrow them...

[-] 1 points by Sid81 (30) 3 years ago

Even just assuming this is what happened what will prevent it from occurring again?