Time for a third policitcal party
 

the independent voters are growing in size, why? Is it because of the clusterfuck of whats going on in congress?

Barry is using keynesian economics which has been blamed for prolonging the great depression, President Harding cut the size of the government in 1921 to get out of a recession that happened after WW1, Reagan used tax breaks to end that recession. But Barry will do what Barry does, Blame Bush.

The GOP has no clear leader, hell Palin has more clout getting someone elected than Barry does and Palin doesn't even hold an office, she quit her office and is getting more respect than the president. Out of 17 people she has backed, 10 won
Barry has increased the entitlements and the size of the government and the national debt more than anyone has ever done and he did this during a bad recession, he's acting like a teenager with his first bank account. It's like buying a brand new car when you're working at Taco Bell.

So at this point with the democrats completely out of touch and the GOP with no leadership, at least yet, I find that this would be the perfect time for getting a third party up, if they believed in less government, entitlements we could afford, less regulation on small business, securing the borders and throwing people that do illegal things on wall street in prison, I would so be ready to join. Never mind the talking points of the two parties, like abortion and gun rights. You shouldn't back a party because of either of those. And a third party would hopefully be devoid of religious influence

Good. Put the baggers in charge. Then we'll really get to see some fucked up shit.

I am all for trying someone in the Middle.
Right or Left doesn't seem to work!

I didn't vote for Obama, and I sure wasn't going to vote the other way if Mccain/Palin is the best they could do!

We also already have the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and a few dozen others. Which one do you want to be much larger and how do you propose to get it there?

I vote for ALL parties. Divide the Presidency into multiple positions. One candidate from each party. No law gets passed until all can agree.

Interesting....

I propose we do just the opposite. I say we all have one massive final irrevocable vote and install a King. From that point on, if the "majority" doesn't agree with his politics, they are forced to shut off their TVs, put down the cheeseburgers, get off their fat lily white asses and overthrow the fucker instead of whining about it incessantly for 4 fucking years, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on..... and on and on and on and on and on and on and on! :2 cents:

Most people I talk to these days hate the separation of the two parties, they believe in factors from both parties, the US in central leaning a little right

None of these parties have don anything noteworthy in the past and it would a waste of time to think they would start to do anything now

That would lead to more gridlock

Yes, in some aspects Obama uses keynesian economics with the stimulus plan, then again Bush did as well. But in other economic aspects, he doesn't and neither did Bush.

Reagan's tax breaks prolonged the recession of the 80's and had to be corrected under H. W. Bush. At that, Reagan increased the FICA tax rate, because he cut taxes too much. The growth rate of the economy under Reagan was one of the lowest in history, let alone what he did to the debt and a housing market that makes todays look like an explosion in growth is still going.

If you feel the Democrats are out of touch with America or Obama - then you explained exactly what's wrong with the GOP. It's not that they don't have a leader, it's all the leaders our completely out of touch with America.

If you don't like the way the Gov runs, operates, whatever... Vote Ron Paul.

There is loads of parties here and I really don't understand where the shittier ones get the motivation from to do anything when it's obvious they can't even come close to winning anything.

Sorry, don't buy that, most of downtown LA was built during Reagans Administration, I know, I was working there

Tucson is still growing, housing still being built... AZ is actually doing rather well compared to other States right now. Does that mean because I live here, every restaurant is super packed, houses sell in a few weeks to a month, does this mean the rest of the Country is doing perfectly fine because it's kicking ass here?

It's without question that the 80's had a hell of a recession, job issues and had crazy high interest rates, the housing market was dead in the water and personal savings was extremely low. With the 80's, after inflation adjustment, the 80's had a 19.04% growth rate. Compared to 45% during the 70's and 39-54% during the 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms
I would like you to pay attention to which party increases our National Debt and look at the %'s that Obama was left to deal with. Also notice Reagan sky rocked the Debt with his policy changes. Then Bush Jr does tax cuts and explodes our spending.

Clinton has a lot to thank H.W. Bush though, he took the heat of the correction and Clinton was able to capitalize on that greatly. But once we went back to the way it was done, shit went crazy once again.

Maybe you should give Obama another year.. it took the mighty Reagen two terms to do anything that could be counted as helpful, outside of the damage he did.

They haven't been able to get anywhere to affect anything because they don't have the financial domination the major two parties have. You somehow thinking a magical new party will slip into 3rd place and dominate, that has completely different views of the few dozen that already exist, is funny. I suspect it's because you don't have the slightest clue what the other parties are about. You're still chained to the Fox News mindset, where all of their choices want to throw you in jail for being a pothead.

Barry hasn't really done anything that would point to me that he's a good leader, when you polarize the people like he has, fuck him
He needs to start acting less like a professor and more like a president, there are congressmen in office that are not in HIS party, he needs to realize that

That's a mix of nostalgia and perception, which doesn't have a factual basis. One then must suspect most everything else you say.

"In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.

In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency."

As has already been pointed out...there are a multitude of parties...but not a single one of them are viable...and when one looks at their platforms and the people that they run for office...it is understandable why none are viable.

You apparently want some new party...but to think that a new party can become viable...is just kind of dreaming...because the two major parties pretty much have a lock on the financing it takes to become a viable party...even if the new party had a different and better platform and some outstanding people to run for office.

The fact is that no matter what the party or what their platform is or who the people that they run are...tens of millions will still be unhappy campers...just as they are now and have been with every administration/congress in my lifetime.

You get what you get and if you don't like what you get...every two years...every four years...and every six years...you have the opportunity to change what you get...but there will never be any major changes. The nation will keep stumbling along...pretty much as it has since the beginning.

Yes...he was the first President to borrow money from a foreign country and started the trend of borrowing which has been the norm for every administration since...which has led to this downhill slope.

Then nothing passes. That's the problem now, filibusters stop a majority getting shit done.

A good leader is someone that tells you what the game plan is and then sticks to it so you know what to expect. Statistically speaking he's done this and more than any President within two years in History. It's someone that adapts and changes, as Obama has without question done, in some areas that anger you. He has worked with both sides, without question, even criticized for the amount of it.

He does speak a lot... but without question he has take a lot of action as a President.

What other qualities in a President are you looking for?

A better idea would be to get rid of all political parties.

Leave laws to the people. We have the internet now. Majority rules.

Great because popualism always works so well.

How about having no central government, I'll run my life you run yours and we'll destroy capitalism whilst we're at it.

No gods, no masters; just Libertarian Socialism.