Posted on 11/11/2013 2:34:07 PM PST by AdaGray
Contrary to what establishment GOP types would have us believe, a third party would not be lethal to the conservative cause.
Could NOT agree more. Taking over the GOP is a pipe dream. Oh we can cause some problems, but for the long haul we don’t have the money or the news entertainment Network. Keeping us bottled up in the GOP will kill both the GOP and Conservatism. But the “but the Dems will win if we don’t vote for whoever the GOP nominates” meme will keep this from happening. Terribly unfortunate.
To some extent, I disagree. It seems a very large portion of the Libertarian vote are young, disaffect Dems who would sit out and not vote GOP.
The Libertarian vote is a funny fish.
What they should do, is do what the Conservative Party in NY state has done all along, but on a national scale: Endorse Republican candidates who share your views, or run someone if the Republican wants to be a RINO.
The LP should remain its own party, but they should start endorsing conservatives in the primaries, and run candidates in hopelessly blue states where the Republican doesn't stand a chance.
There’s another “angle” not mentioned in this piece: If the Presidential Debates were opened up to include all candidates for President and Vice President who could get, at least, 3% or more in the majority of major polls taken, AND, if all political ideologies were, always, allowed to take part in each and every aspect of all debates, from now on, then, all of U.S. politics would be improved upon. Many of the other debates involving races for a variety of other political offices do include more than the major political parties in their debates, but they continue to be controlled by the left ONLY. Ending the left’s domination of all political debates as well as their ongoing domination of: the worldwide mainstream media; the entertainment world; government controlled schools, universities, and colleges, worldwide; and ending judicial activism, worldwide, would do a lot to help improve worldwide politics.
>>Thank you, but I don’t think I want to be part of a national socialistic party.
OMG. Socialists are a subset of Progressives. So are National Socialists.
The common root of the entire Progressive ideology is Transnationalism which is the abolition of nation-states and borders. Their ideas of collectivism cannot happen when nations have individual sets of laws because then you have poor states and rich states. Naturally, the poor states wants sharing the rich states want property rights. The Progressive seeks to abolish the state so that the wealth can be redistributed globally.
So, the enemy of the Progressive is always the Nationalist. The National Socialist is ugly cousin of the Progressive because they do believe in the nation, but they still want to abolish the idea of borders since they want Transnationalism to be enacted through conquest.
You forgot to mention that in NY both the Conservative and Liberal Parties are nothing more than patronage mills. They sell their cross endorsements to the Republican or Democrat candidates for promises of government jobs for the relatives of the leadership of these 3rd and 4th parties. For years NY and NYC government was overrun with the surnames Long or Harding. When Mario Cuomo needed a strawman to win reelection he could always turn to the Conservative Party of NY. As The Captain says, there is no better straw than one who doesn’t know they are a straw.
According to you the national socialist cannot be a progressive because the entire Progressive ideology is Transnationalism which is the abolition of nation-states and borders.
I disagree with you that the root is transnationalism, the true root is collectivism. In collectivism the nationalist, the communist, and the socialist are all in agreement: it is the group which is primary element of society, not the individual. This is why NAZI Germany, N. Korea, Russia, and China have all had millions of their own people killed by their own government: the group is of ever more importance.
Actually, if the [governments of the] world were truly and justly ruled, there would be no need for nations. Such a thing will only happen when Jesus comes back and rules with all authority.
Why bother talking "3rd party"? If the socialists can take over the democrats, we can take over the GOP and make it Republican instead of "traitor" again.
3rd party = stupid
You wrote: when conservatives are close to taking over the Republican party.....
You mean like “the Republicans almost grabbed victory out of the mouth of defeat but then compromised, lost their spine, and when the money changers told them to vote their way and do what were told to do ...... then turned and snatched defeat from the mouth of victory.
As lemmings, you think we should simply sit on the political rail-road tracks and wait for the train to Auschwitz or actually do something about it.....LIKE FORMING A NEW THIRD PARTY.
At least if we go down to Marxism and Communism, we actually did something about it by not waiting for the Republican party to help load us on the trains.
We tried the two party thing and it has ran us off the cliff. Time to try a 3rd Party for a change. I suggest the tea Party bolt the GOP and go to an established 3rd party—Like The Whigs, The Conservatives, the Reform. We need more than a charismatic person for President (like Perot did) We need a full slate of people— Such a party will pull the GOP to the right.
The Tea Party has used the most effective technique, and has already eroded the RINO faction. After the next primaries, if they are able to take down a few more RINO senators, the RINOs in the senate are close to being cowed. The house leadership will be challenged after the midterms, and could go completely conservative.
Yes, it really is *that* close. There are currently even odds that the conservatives may wrest control of the party at the next Republican National Convention. Once they do, the RINOs will be purged from any position of authority.
Slow and steady wins the race. If you want to sprint, you burn out.
A new 3rd party would guarntee total democrat control of government forever!!!
>>According to you the national socialist cannot be a progressive because “the entire Progressive ideology is Transnationalism which is the abolition of nation-states and borders.”
Read the SECOND paragraph.
>>I disagree with you that the root is transnationalism, the true root is collectivism.
Collectivism is their final goal, but it cannot work as long as nations have their own laws. This is why the Progressive supports the UN over their own nation. They support Agenda 21 over their own laws. If you strengthen the concept of the nation-state, then you block collectivism. This is why Nationalism is the enemy of Progressivism AND Collectivism.
If you fail to block Transnationalism, you will fail to prevent Collectivism because once there is no more border, your nation’s wealth will just disappear like smoke in a windstorm.
But, you make a good point: National Socialism is better than Transnationalism. At least with NS, you keep your nation’s wealth in the hands of the nation and if you get tired of NS, you can throw it off. Once you lose the border, you are committed forever.
>>Actually, if the [governments of the] world were truly and justly ruled, there would be no need for nations. Such a thing will only happen when Jesus comes back and rules with all authority.
This is the official discussion ender on FR. I am a Christian and I want Jesus to return right now. But, until he does, we live in this world and we work to make it better. We do not have the luxury of saying, “it doesn’t matter how much we mess things up, because Jesus is going to save us.”
where a third party Libertarian pulled enough votes away to give a Democrat a victory.
**************
Maybe, maybe not. Where did the Libertarian votes come from? Dems, GOP,
traditional non voters, malcontents out to get someone? True the Lib
candidate got over 6.5% and the other two less than 50% each. But
the bottom line the candidates have to get their own base out.
-— There are currently even odds that the conservatives may wrest control of the party at the next Republican National Convention. Once they do, the RINOs will be purged from any position of authority. -—
LIKE +1
Thank you! That is precisely what will happen. The only way to ensure a Jeb or Christie nomination is to divide the vote in the primary.
Who said that? I didn't.
In any case I really disagree with your premise that national socialism is the answer, the answer is that people on an individual level behaving in a moral manner. Socialism is merely theft, indirect and by the hand of government, but nonetheless theft. — We are seeing the erosion of all personal liberty [and responsibility] in favor of 'collective morality', as evidenced by the recent escalation of the War on Drugs to include involuntary invasive medical procedures, humiliating/degrading dehumanizing actions, and possibly rape… all because "the collective" has been brainwashed to believe that the War on Drugs is just and that the government is good.
>>In any case I really disagree with your premise that national socialism is the answer,
Well, I’m glad that you disagree with THE premise that national socialism is the answer because it wasn’t MY premise. I was just pointing out that it is preferable to Transnational Progressivism. However, NEITHER is the answer because they are socialist.
The erosion of liberty is the work of the Progressives. As I said earlier, you can fight “collectivism” all you want, but no one self-identifies as “Collectivist” so everyone will just say that you are fighting someone else. People actually DO self-identify as Progressive. So, when picking a fight, pick one with an enemy who knows who they are!
Doesn't that make it more sensible to fight against collectivism then? If the Progressive thinks that the Collectivist is someone else
, won't he be more open to the ideas expressed than that of one who is attacking what he identifies with?
To switch gears, homosexuals tend to really self-identify with their sexuality. This makes addressing their homosexuality rather hard; I've gotten into rather long arguments over whether or not the state should prohibit "homosexual marriage". This is, IMO, the completely wrong track as using the legal arena doesn't address the actual issue: sin.
Similarly, if we can talk to progressive people about collectivism and get them to think about its evils we're a step closer to converting them.
Actually, sometimes all it takes is framing it in different language to let them see what's wrong with something: I've gotten people to agree that 'social justice' without justice is merely social
and using that to show that [forced] redistribution of wealth/property is injustice because it is theft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.