Congressman Ron Paul along with Presidential Candidates of the non-major parties including Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney spoke at the National Press Club recently. Ron Paul reasoned that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were virtually the same and he would not support either one in the upcoming election. He argued that 3rd Party Candidates have been continuously shut out of the Presidential Debates. He asks for people to vote for one of the 3rd party candidates to break the corrupt two-party system. You can read his speech here.
Tags: 3rd Party Candidates, Cynthia Mckinney, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Two-Party SystemPeace
- 22.Jul
- Wake up democrats, President Barack Obama is not a progressive
Glenn Greenwald nails it again Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama’s legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left’s political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, [...]
Health
- 17.Mar
- Health Care Graphic
Check out the healthcare graphic made here, I modified it below.
A New Third Party Alliance is Formed
Congressman Ron Paul along with Presidential Candidates of the non-major parties including Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney spoke at the National Press Club.
5 Comments
Sounds good to me.
This is actually the most revealing, in a negative light, move these candidates could have made. Do they have nothing more important to their (often very contrasting) respective policies and agendas than just casting a vote for any of the three? If a vote for Paul is the same as a vote for Nader, have they not just completely marginalized themselves, their decades of advocacy, and proved the two-party elite correct a vote for each is little more than a gesture with no implication?
Each of these candidates, uniquely, once offered something to vote for, not just against. Now it appears these “3rd party” candidates all are more invested in career ambition.
Many, many parties are a great idea. This alliance is a step in the wrong direction for the actual reepresentation of well designed policies to benefit the progress of our country.
For the sake of constructive criticism, how about a live debate of these candidates broadcast online? Youtube debates? Publishing of policy books for free download? Free appearances, interviews, speeches (Im sure the college speaking circuit would gladly welcome and of these candidates to their campuses )….. but this alliance, again, makes a mockery of their personal convictions and beliefs, and reveals their personal ambitions as superior to their commitment to American and global progress. This isnt the way to the goal they purport to advocate.
I agree with you Todd in some respects. But actually I failed to mention in the blurb that the 3rd Party Candidates agreed on 4 policies which they would like to see get national attention. They agreed that our foreign policy has been, and will continue to be, reckless and that our national debt is out of control under Repubrocrats. I think the point is to get 3rd party candidates more media attention, and to say that the Repubs and Dems are two sides of the same coin.
Hi Mike, thanks for responding. I really like talking about all this and have some opinions, so I hope they’re not too venemous as so much of politics has become. Thanks again for taking the time to read. Hope all is great……..
I believe if we had flipped and landed on the other side of the coin 8 years ago, we would not be in Iraq (and the debt it partly drove us to), would have made progress on reducing our recklessness towards our environment, would have a more fair health care policy, would not have the tax cuts that play a part in our current debt, would have a broader committment to public and secondary education, have spoken with our adversaries, would not have squandered our many alliances, would not have abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty, would not have approved torture as policy, would not have consolidated power into the executive branch, would not have a worrying-ly (my opinion) conservative supreme court with two new republican appointees, and would not have opened Guantanamo………….. We’d be far from utopia, and a dem administration would have its own shortcomings, its hard to say where we’d be, but the “two sides of the same coin” argument used in the last two pres elections has, in my opinion, proved itself to be false. The idea these candidates keep using it is only more revealing of their personal and political ambitions, as it clearly hasn’t held up the past 8 years. It just doesn’t fly to me, but if the argument is the two parties are both reckless, but with starkly different policies, that may be true.
Your list is powerful Todd, and I think probably entirely true. I do have a few questions though. Should we not aim for utopia? Why does the “two sides of the same coin argument” necessarily equal suspect political and personal ambitions? To my mind, you have to lay a lot more groundwork to make this argument.
I think these politicians believe what they say, mostly because I share their opinions. Even if we accept your list to be true, I don’t think different leadership would significantly impact the military-industrial complex, the revolving door between industry and government, the belief in a “just war”, the manifest destiny and imperialism of the United States, or our faith in global capitalism as a mechanism for progress.
I am aiming for utopia.