What is Digg?42 Comments
- bucfish, on 09/17/2008, -0/+11Let's do this and watch this funny video the Repubocrats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kQxnut5RVw
- ConDrag, on 09/17/2008, -0/+9Let's try it!
- WeavingSpiders, on 09/17/2008, -0/+7I have no problem donating to any of the third party candidates.. This is a great idea!!
- telefriend, on 09/17/2008, -0/+5Absolutely! In fact, I own the domain ThirdPartyPrimary.com if a webmaster wants to use it, I'll gladly donate it for this good cause. -ColorblindJustice
- eggmunkee, on 09/17/2008, -0/+4If you live in Texas, write-in candidates have to be registered and otherwise they are not counted from what I've been told. It depends on state laws if a write-in for him would be counted or not, so there's one problem. But the idea is good if it would be counted.
Vote counting.. now that's a whole other general problem, isn't it? - dshPls, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5Actually I know Cynthia's name, from when she assaulted a police officer: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/mckinney/in ...
- boulder555, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3How is Baldwin a Statist?
While I recognize that the language used by the Constitution Party turns off a lot of secularists, the principles are the closest to Ron Pauls of all 4 third party candidates.
Lets keep criticism accurate, at least. - sconnor, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3Our Republic is in dire distress currently.Divided, the future paints a more than "grim" picture.If there is any hope of establishing a THIRD PARTY & restoring the integrity of our Constitution we must ACT quickly.I do believe it can be done collectively.Our LIBERTY must come first before our differences of opinion.Now is the time to UNITE & rally behind one third party candidate if we are to preserve the promise of liberty to future generations.In doing so we also honor the unmeasurable sacrifices of ALL (selflessly offered on OUR behalf),present & past.This is indeed the least we can do as Americans at this critical time in what will become our nation's history.What will this legacy be? CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION! Let it not be said we did nothing.Let us lead a peaceful,organized, & decisive "revolution" of RESTORATION without civil unrest.It is now our time to step up to the plate & be the standard bearers of LIBERTY.Not just a "shining beacon",but a blinding light for all the world.We are ALL in this together.We face a common threat,that of the NWO.With a globally united conscious intention we will prevail! No one but the "elite" want war,imposed pandemics,famine,etc.We are not obliged to accept it! Knowledge is power & the TRUTH shall set us all free!! UNITE for Constitutional RESTORATION NOW!! Blessings to all on this,Constitution Day! :-)
- Fractalchez, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3I've had an idea closely related to this that I've been pushing for a while:
http://www.fixtheelection.com/
In short: pair up voters of opposite political views so that instead of voting for major party candidates out of a fear of "wasting their vote", they agree to both vote for the 3rd party candidate that they actually prefer. I'd really like to see this pick up steam before the election, so the system is taken by surprise by a sudden unexpected flood of 3rd party votes. - qizo, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2This HAS to happen! We need to determine who it's going to be very quickly so that we can get the machine spinning.
- alternativecatI, on 09/17/2008, -2/+4All of the candidates have a lot of baggage that tick people off except for Cynthia McKinney. Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and even Ralph Nader who I love, all have some baggage prevents large groups of people from voting for them.
The only problem with Cynthia is she doesn't have the name recognize. People should realize, if the media is liberally biased, why isn't the Main Stream Media covering an African American Woman running for President?
Cynthia would be a great option if we could get her name out. - DRSANGLE, on 09/17/2008, -1/+3Okay for what is worth from an old guy.
Third party?
Who are they?
The libertarian party has never been able to accomplish anything. For years they spent millions of dollars and said they are for everything. Everybody do whatever they want as long as there is no force or fraud. Open borders - don't even have passports.
They have never ever thought things through and only get the "spillover" from some other failed third party candidate as we will probably see with not having a Ron Paul choice other than a write I would guess.
Freedom required the most restrictions - but on the individual. We enacted a government to protect our rights. Managers if you will that don't know what their jobs are. They are to protect and provide me with as little of encumbrances as possible for me to do and to have whatever I want to do as long as it does not inflict force and fraud on another.
Look at the huge loss of productivity, creativity by what we now have supporting people that are
"in charge" instead of being employees working for us.
The so called "talking heads" or "sound heads" on the radio that want to describe themselves as,
"conservative", right wing and have not promoted, or even suggested someone that supports the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Think how all of the conflict would immediately go away if we had employees, managers that would not, could not tell the public, I am going to give you cheap gas, I am going to "give you"
WHAT? From who from what are they going to give what?
I'm not for no government. I'm for the government our constitution allows and for those poor
souls that wants this very small nation to be like all the others, even all the previous empires
that fell to the same human nature of destruction to hear from a legal government, no that is not our job, that is not legal, that is not what we are allowed to do.
The U.S. Constitution was created to keep human nature from doing what it has always done.
No difference than the rules to football. Simple and everyone knows what they are. Allow a Ref divert from the rules a few times and no one would come to even watch the next game.
Third Party candidate?
I will vote for one of them as I have for a number of years, but what's wrong with Ron Paul being the write in candidate?
I can't be a Republican, a conservative or even right wing, those people on the radio that honestly believe that is what they are haven't done one thing to promote any candidate that provides this country the path to continue. They don't know what what they stand for much less what this country's management is supposed to stand for and has sworn to uphold.
People are looking for answers? First come up with the correct questions.
Thank you all for my opportunity to hopefully contribute. I am very proud of all those younger
people that are so interested, knowledgeable and willing to doing something.
DRSANGLE - labinnc, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2Yes, I would support this. Great idea!
- alternativecatI, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2How is Bob Barr a great candidate. The only thing he stands for is bringing the troops home, which they all do. Democrats will not cross over to vote for him because of the Clinton Impeachment. He's not that good on illegal immigration. Bob Barr sponsored (wrote) the Defense of Marriage Act.
That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Bob Barr also wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place which only benefited the richest 3% in the country.
We need to hold them hostage. "You cut government spending, and we'll support tax cuts."
All the Bush tax cuts did was make the inflation tax (http://inflationtax.blogspot.com) worse because he cut taxes without cutting spending, and the rich lobbied for this (read Lou Dobbs "War On The Middle Class").
Read "Fee Lunch" How corporations get hand outs from the government at the expense of tax payers. - aepalu, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2The one immediate problem may be ballot access. If all the third parties unite, would this "new party" be able to retain the state ballot access of all the third parties that united, or would it have to go through the entire ballot access porcess all over again? If the second alternative is the correct one, forget it, it's to late. If the first is correct, then go for it!
- PaulWashington, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2This is great that this is coming out. People need to abandon the two-party lie before anything will really improve. I'll donate.
- lostangelonline, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2i'm 100% supporting this ideea!
- boulder555, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2Ron Pauls press conference opened up a new possibility in a sea of bad choices.
Now, if we can just get Varney (Barrs pit-bull campaign manager) to stop bad mouthing the Paulistas ... perhaps we can stll make a silk purse out of this sows ear. - inactive, on 09/18/2008, -3/+5"People should realize, if the media is liberally biased, why isn't the Main Stream Media covering an African American Woman running for President?"
Because she's a ***** loon and even the MSM can see that. - Tiak, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2...Any?... Even McKinney?... Keep in mind she wants: to pay monetary reparations to all "people of color", "restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled with no time limit on benefits.", "aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income.", an expanded budget, and 100% government-funded healthcare
- afahud, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2There exists great potential here!
Likely, we'll have to find the greatest common denominators between the several candidates, and get their buy-in.
What are the common threads between the most active and idealistically aligned parties? Can we get agreement on a platform of priorities? Can these candidates and party leadership make time for a convention to build a platform, and identify points and priorities they're willing to forfeit their own agendas for a united cause?
I'd like to see the joining of the LP and the CP myself. There are differences, sure, but i'm cool with the benefit of discussion. There's a great potential here! - Tiak, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1The thing about Barr is he has reformed and now has positions dramatically opposed to what he once stood for (sort of like McCain in reverse). While he was a ***** before, he's rather adamant in saying that he now opposes the drug war and federal regulation of marriage, and I see no reason for him to lie about these things (it is in his political disadvantage).
As for the Bush taxcuts thing, yeah, that's a bit more of a dealbreaker, though the reason for this is seems to be more that he wants to repeal all income tax and wants to do anything he can to move in that direction. - BigBlackGun, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1I think it might be just as effective if everyone wrote in, "I withdraw my consent to be governed". That is what I will be doing and if enough people do so, I doubt it will be reported, there will be an embarrassing gap in the polls, and just maybe we can create a warning that their game will be over soon.
- eggmunkee, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1I agree with you in that there are a lot of things that individual third party candidates support or have supported that I strongly disagree with. The whole point of this is, I think, that even with their flaws, any one of them is better than the mainstream candidates. I know the irony that comes with a lesser of 3-6 evils argument, but I'd rather have an uncontrolled 6 _possible_ evils to choose from than a controlled 2 _definite_ evils.
In this election and beyond if we opened up the process more, then the choices should only get better over time if the political process becomes more open. And doing some kind of money bomb competition would allow the selection of a candidate that is popular enough to be financially backed by individuals this election. Can't say I can really donate much money, but not everyone's broke. - smily2010, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1Sounds great, it make the message about the percent of voters who want more options.
- arisenagain, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Trever: Do It!
I'll support you with my websites:
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
and soon to be:
http://www.ronpaulplanet.com/
Cheers - pmarceau, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1I not only love this idea, but also think third party debates, and perhaps even primaries are what we need. Ross Perot, like him or not, got 1 in 5 votes. He was the last independent allowed in "their" Debates. Between the 3rd party candidates we may get more than 1 in 5 votes, I am hoping for a 1/4 or a 1/3. With success like that, and the amount of people who don't vote, united support of a candidate could could defeat the Reps'/Dems', perhaps even in a landslide.
- Curriednyc, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1OK, I really don't think that Cynthia McKinney woman (Green Party) from Georgia should let be anywhere Near Washington DC and her VP choice is even scarier. I like what DRSANGLE said.
- jzcjca00, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Working alone each third party is irrelevant. For liberty to prevail, we must come together into a single, inclusive, pro-liberty party.
Let's further explore and discuss this idea at http://www.libertyparty.org. - voicce, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Since the 3rd Party candidates have agreed to uphold the four points: balance the budget, investigate the Fed, restore constitutional civil liberties, and end the Federal empire by bringing the troops home, these are all limited-State positions. If any of these candidates were to win, or even score a very high vote, it would swing popular opinion and start the return to freedom.
We must get people to see the basic truths they agree on. With a change of minds in the public so open debates will be demanded, then we can argue the ways to implement the four principles. - stillanovice, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1that's hard to do in some states.......Utah, Idaho, Texas, etc... Good Idea for the swing states though.
- inactive, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Herk, breaking news:
http://digg.com/politics/Could_This_Be_Our_Next_Po ... - stillanovice, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1The thing with Ron Paul was that he wasn't looking at our differences. He found what unites us and that's what brought all his supporters together. That's what the third party candidates need to do. forget about our differences and look at our similarities.
- inactive, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibex
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1I've watched some videos of Cynthia McKinney, and could not see where you would call her a loon. Many Ron Paul supporters question the official story of 911. I for one would not be surprised at all if the Bush family was funding Osama bin Lauden (or how ever you spell his name).
In what way do you consider this woman a "loon" as you put it? - MrXfromPlanetX, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1I listened to a couple of people from the Constitution Party speak last night, and I was very disappointed. One man said the Republic was setup so when people lost morality, the government would do what was best for them, and not be swayed by the masses on issues like gay marriage and civil unions.
Another guy said this is a Christian nation, Christ is God, and this land follows his law. This applies to people of all faiths whether they are Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or Jewish.
What this guy didn't get was most Baptists think Mormons are pagans and are going to hell. They protest in Utah all the time.
Jews do not think Christ is God, or the Masai. If any Jews had actually been there, they probably would have been ticked off, or just annoyed.
What about people who are Wicken, or even Atheists?
Instead of the Constitution Party saying you have to be Christian to be in their party, they should say, her are our values and we think they are good for everyone no matter what religion they are. The only problem is they believe in freedom unless it's an issue that offends them, and then they want to cram their idea of morality down your throat.
To get beyond all of our religion related problems, we need to take the advice of Os Guiness.
In this C-Span video Os states, we need to change the argument to “You respect my rights, and I intern will respect yours.”
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?ma ...
I respect everyones freedom of speech. If a Baptist wants to stand on the sidewalk and tell me I'm going to hell, I believe that is his right. If Mormons want to stick the Angel Moroni on the side of the road, or Catholics a cross, or the Atheists a big red A, so be it.
I believe people can have values whether they are Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jewish, Wicken, Buddhist, or Atheist.
We have a religious and a culture war in this country that might destroy it. That's what Os Guiness was writing about in “A Case For Civility.” People on both sides should hear this man out. - MrXfromPlanetX, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul ran as a Republican because he knew there was no other way to get into the debates, or get any media coverage.
The media has total control of people's perceptions. They will not cover third party candidates. This is why people have spent millions trying to get third party candidates elected over the years, and it just hasn't worked. I will chip in, but it's probably not going to work now.
The majority of the people who vote, are not going to be exposed to the messages from the third party candidates.
Opinion Polls Need a Sunshine Law
What we should be concerned about is, are elections are being fixed by omission? That's the same as lying through omission.
I suggest we need sunshine laws on opinion polls, and tougher regulations on corporate media, but not independent media.
The corporate media used to have to comply with equal access laws, so each candidate had a chance to get their message out no matter how much money they had.
The corporate media lobbied to repeal those laws. Would the corporate media tell you they did this? I believe freedom applies to individuals, but not corporations.
Watch Orwell Rolls In His Grave
http://mrxfromplanetx.com/orwell-rolls-in-his-grav ...
When it comes to an opinion poll in an election, they poller should not be able to leave out any of the official candidates. This should be a law.
Opinion polls can be fixed by only polling a particular demographic. All opinion polls should state where and how they selected the group of people they polled.
The exact question they asked should have to be posted along with the response. - adk365, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0Let's do it!
- KyleVarner, on 09/17/2008, -1/+1This may be a worthwhile idea, but I don't like the idea of my money possibly going to McKinney, Nader or Baldwin, all of whom are statists.
- MG1234, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0I'm in--historically it seems very possible that the Democrat/Republican parties might synthesize and an opposing viable party can emerge, closer to the hearts of many citizens
- heavystarch, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0do and make the 4 way money bomb
- ur2good, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0Sigh....
The reason we have these problems is our inability to agree on some set of core values/minimum standards that are supportable by a large number of people. You would think that freedom would qualify as such a value, but the truth is that many people are afraid of running their own life, being responsible for their own decisions....they WANT someone to be their Big Brother. Then there are those who are on the dole, who's only core value is what they will get in freebies from a government who stole money from their fellow countrymen. It is very similar to why Churches do not combine and get along...and you can already see it in the responses posted.
So...there is more work to do than a money bomb...
BTW....the only guy who seems to make sense to a great many people, who could possibly pull of something like this....says he doesn't want to run as anything but a Republican. So even the leadership has serious shortcomings, denials, and delusions. Perhaps someone should sit down with Ron and explain to him how things work....if he is a die-hard republican, how can he possibly expect others to do what he will not?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is