Democrats, generally, work incompetently toward goals and a worldview I agree with.

Republicans, generally, work competently toward goals and a worldview I disagree with.

It really sucks that more people can't own up to it when their party does wrong, be it through incompetence or shitty ideas.

It really sucks that speaking honestly and being a true leader aren't rewarded in Washington.

It really sucks that despite the frustrations of so many Americans with our two-party system, a viable third party cannot emerge because of the entrenched power of the current two.

It really sucks that I'm forced to vote for the incompetent, good-ol'-boy power structure assclowns in the Democratic Party because I disagree with the ideas of the assclowns in the Republican Party that. much.

Not libertarian? No,I understand-I agree with both sides on different points but the GOP aint gonna work for me and mine,they just don't care...

Libertarians I agree with on a whole shitload of stuff. I also disagree with them on a whole shitload of stuff. I also know that unless they do some serious PR and marketing and makeovers, they will NEVER play a significant role in American politics, even if a growing number of Americans agree with them on many issues. I have seen few instiutions/groups/people with less poise and charm in communicating than Libertarians. And like it or not, image counts for something. Often, most everything in American politics.

Republicans throw better parties and have more money.

Democrats, generally, work incompetently toward goals and a worldview I agree with.


I don't think they work imcompetently- I simply think most Americans reject their extremist agenda. What specifically is it that you agree with?


Republicans, generally, work competently toward goals and a worldview I disagree with.


Again I disagree. Republicans, IMO, tend to muddle through issues. What exactly is it that you disagree with? I would support Republicans more often if they actually stood for what they claim to.


It really sucks that more people can't own up to it when their party does wrong, be it through incompetence or shitty ideas.


I don't know what this has to do with being a Democrat and not a Republican but it's called politics- then only way to avoid such behavior is to support an ideology of anti-politics.

Republicans throw better parties


I can't see how that's possible. Sitting around reading the Bible and talking about what "liberal" you hate the most and what Mideastern country you want to bomb doesn't sound very fun.

Now this party (http://www.sfpartyparty.com/) probably knows how to throw parties.

A third party winning the presedential election sounds good about now. Both partys aren't my idea of "good". Even though i agree more with democrats i still want someone better than that to come along.

Just becuase something is more popular doesn't make it any better.

Both Democrats and Republicans do what they have to do to keep themselves in power and competing ideaologies suppressed.
Some days, I would even go so far as to say if you support either party you're a traitor to your country. But that is an extreme position so I don't express it often.

Republicans throw better parties and have more money.

Not so! (well, maybe about the money), but no one throws a better party than I do! :D

I consider myself a Republican because generally I believe that people should take care of themselves rather than expect government to take care of them. That being said I would have no problem supporting a candidate from any party if I liked em. However when in doubt, or if left without a good choice, I vote Republican.

As for the parties...any party I go to is a good party....LOL!!!

Both Democrats and Republicans do what they have to do to keep themselves in power and competing ideaologies suppressed.
Some days, I would even go so far as to say if you support either party you're a traitor to your country. But that is an extreme position so I don't express it often.That sentment should be expressed on a regular basis. It becomes extreme when no one agrees with you, and that's not the case here.

Libertarians I agree with on a whole shitload of stuff. I also disagree with them on a whole shitload of stuff. I also know that unless they do some serious PR and marketing and makeovers, they will NEVER play a significant role in American politics, even if a growing number of Americans agree with them on many issues. I have seen few instiutions/groups/people with less poise and charm in communicating than Libertarians. And like it or not, image counts for something. Often, most everything in American politics.

Libertarians give straight and honest answers, even if the answer is not what people want to hear. If a person who held libertarian ideals was afraid to speak his mind and offend people, he would join the GOP :p

And you're right that third parties will never win elections, UNLESS YOU VOTE FOR THEM.

I'm not saying it's right that voters are swayed more by image than by substance and thus aren't inclined to vote Libertarian, but it's the truth.

And the minor parties in this country are all back-asswards and f'd up. They need to learn that they need to cultivate some support among voters BEFORE they throw their candidates out their campaigning. News flash to Ralph Nader and others: until and unless more of the country knows about and supports your ideas, it is a total and complete waste of time and money and effort to run a political campaign. With 1% of folks behind you, you're just being an ass by running. There are far more effective and cost-effective ways of raising support than campaigning for office. Spend a few years doing that and THEN run, rather than throwing money and time down the toilet every four years.

I don't know that I agree,James-free national media coverage and people will spend a chunk of change...

I'm not saying it's right that voters are swayed more by image than by substance and thus aren't inclined to vote Libertarian, but it's the truth.

And the minor parties in this country are all back-asswards and f'd up. They need to learn that they need to cultivate some support among voters BEFORE they throw their candidates out their campaigning. News flash to Ralph Nader and others: until and unless more of the country knows about and supports your ideas, it is a total and complete waste of time and money and effort to run a political campaign. With 1% of folks behind you, you're just being an ass by running. There are far more effective and cost-effective ways of raising support than campaigning for office. Spend a few years doing that and THEN run, rather than throwing money and time down the toilet every four years.

They're usually more interesting in raising awareness of a few issues than in actually winning a seat.

There are far more effective and cost-effective ways of raising support than campaigning for office.

such as...?


the national media completely ignores third party candidates. they'd get a lot more support if they could just get the message to the voters. but the voters never hear the message. meanwhile, every time a democrat or republican farts in public there's headlines about it.

the media is more responsible for our lack of choices than anyone else.

Republicans throw better parties and have more money.Rebublicans have more money? Hahaha...I think that's a stereotype. The richest member of the Senate is a Democrat...John Kerry.

the national media completely ignores third party candidates. they'd get a lot more support if they could just get the message to the voters. but the voters never hear the message. meanwhile, every time a democrat or republican farts in public there's headlines about it.

If the voters were not so damn lazy, they'd find the candidates. The internet almost negates the effect of the media.

I hear everyone complain there are no choices. But, there are plenty of third parties all over the political spectrum. The real problem here is the people won't get involved or support these parties with their time and money. If you wait for someone else to do it, it won't happen. Search out third parties and look at what they're saying...then get involved. Okay?

News flash to Ralph Nader and others: until and unless more of the country knows about and supports your ideas, it is a total and complete waste of time and money and effort to run a political campaign. With 1% of folks behind you, you're just being an ass by running.
I agree. The Ralph Naders and Harry Brownes of the world are on personal power trips. There is no chance in hell either one will ever get elected. Why? Simply because they're going for the highest office in the land while their parties neglect every other lower office.

Third parties need to start locally...city coucil member...state legislature, etc before they try for the White House. Once they start to build some momentum locally, they can start looking at the national offices.

Let's face it. The stakes in the presidential election are far too high for someone to vote third party. But, who wouldn't vote for a Libertarian or independent for their local school board or library committee? I would. The stakes are lower. What will it really hurt? So, once these third party guys work in the lower offices and if they can do a good job, they'll have the ability to get support for higher offices. That's how it's going to have to work.

If the voters were not so damn lazy, they'd find the candidates. The internet almost negates the effect of the media.

I hear everyone complain there are no choices. But, there are plenty of third parties all over the political spectrum. The real problem here is the people won't get involved or support these parties with their time and money. If you wait for someone else to do it, it won't happen. Search out third parties and look at what they're saying...then get involved. Okay?

Hey, man, you're preachin' to the choir here :)

I agree. The Ralph Naders and Harry Brownes of the world are on personal power trips. There is no chance in hell either one will ever get elected. Why? Simply because they're going for the highest office in the land while their parties neglect every other lower office.

Third parties need to start locally...city coucil member...state legislature, etc before they try for the White House. Once they start to build some momentum locally, they can start looking at the national offices.

Let's face it. The stakes in the presidential election are far too high for someone to vote third party. But, who wouldn't vote for a Libertarian or independent for their local school board or library committee? I would. The stakes are lower. What will it really hurt? So, once these third party guys work in the lower offices and if they can do a good job, they'll have the ability to get support for higher offices. That's how it's going to have to work.

Did you know that the Libertarian party has more people elected to local offices than any other third party?

I don't know that I agree,James-free national media coverage and people will spend a chunk of change...

They're usually more interesting in raising awareness of a few issues than in actually winning a seat.

such as...?

the national media completely ignores third party candidates. they'd get a lot more support if they could just get the message to the voters. but the voters never hear the message. meanwhile, every time a democrat or republican farts in public there's headlines about it.

the media is more responsible for our lack of choices than anyone else.

The two big parties do a lot more than run their campaigns to cultivate support besides just campaigning candidates. Conferences, lunches, tours, town-hall-style meetings, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying the third parties don't do this at all; I just think these are more important activities at the stage they're at than getting on the ballot. It seems to me that it's a waste of resources to organize volunteers to get signatures to get you on the ballot when once you're on the ballot, the most you can hope for is 1% support. Year after year. Election after election. They need to lay the groundwork for more grassroots support before it's worth the time, money, and effort to get on a ballot. Write a book. Go on The Daily Show to talk about your book. Speak at colleges. Speak at churches.

I'm not saying the third parties don't do this at all. It just seems that they're putting the cart before the horse every time they freak out that the vast majority votes GOP/Dem at electiontime. The long and short of it is all but the 1% of the country voting for you largely disagrees with you. You need to spend more time arguing your point before it's worth a shit to get on a ballot. And the 30-second soundbyte spinster nature of political campaigns is NOT a good venue for arguing one's complex point.

PS, I agree with you on the media, Feenix. But... :shrug:

Do you really think the media will take them more seriously if they're not running? For single issue groups what you're saying makes more sense- and it's easier to sell-but these are political parties with platforms-it'd be like having a baseball team that never played...

If the voters were not so damn lazy, they'd find the candidates. The internet almost negates the effect of the media.

I hear everyone complain there are no choices. But, there are plenty of third parties all over the political spectrum. The real problem here is the people won't get involved or support these parties with their time and money. If you wait for someone else to do it, it won't happen. Search out third parties and look at what they're saying...then get involved. Okay?

Another problem I feel is of equal significance (if not more) is the lack of exposure the other political parties get in the mainstream media. This year, I can literally count on one hand the number of times I've seen a politician who wasn't a dem or a republican on TV expressing their party's views. The media does the country a tremendous disservice when they decide that only the Dems and Republicans are to be seen and heard.