[LWC]

At one time, I was a Pro-Life Democrat. Now that the Republicans have went far right and the Democrats have went far left, I now register as an Independent and wait until November to vote. It is sad but the parties have opened the door for a major 3rd party to emerge, IMO. I cannot wait for that day.

What happens first? One of the two major parties becomes more centrist or central or a new party emerges that is more middle-grounded? Or neither?

[LWC]

I feel for people like me that are Pro-Life and anti-death penalty for the same reason.

People that believe in taking care of those who are less fortunate but also want legitimate reform to the current system and for churches and charities to step up and take care of others to help alleviate the load on the governments shoulders.

People that know the greed, evil and deceit that sadly exists in some of our businesses that for that reason must have some government regulations BUT knows that we need to clean up or eliminate some of the regulations so that businesses can function well and encourage the growth of small business.

People that have no problem paying taxes to have police, fire fighters, policy-makers, courts, jails, etc... but would enjoy a little relief on those that have difficulty paying those taxes. People that would not unquestionably be against a total tax overhaul but would have to hear a LOT of details before they got behind a new system.

People that want to help fund the military but knows that funding could be more efficiently used and would like for our defense to only be defending our country and our most major allies.

Strongly believe in God but knows how dangerous it is when politics and religion are mixed. However, knows that God has to lead our country BUT is scared when people almost claim a divine right to the throne. People that want their politicians LIVES to be their faith witness and Christian example, not just their claim to be a Christian and show up 2-3 times per year to church.

I could go on but you get the idea and understand how that does not fit into one current party.

[Hoot Gibson]

No. The country is not moving closer to a three party system. If anything, it is moving further away from such a system and I am glad. I have found that most "independents" and "moderates" do not follow the news closely and have a poor understanding of our government. Most party activists tend to be liberal, in the case of the Democratic Party, or conservative, in the case of the Republican Party - and the differences between the two parties have never been bigger.

I would welcome a third major political party if I thought that it would elevate the quality of our government but I don't think that would be the case. The party of moderates, the people who think that the right answer is always in the middle of two extremes, would be heavily populated by doofuses who understand neither socialism nor capitalism. The best solutions are rarely the result of compromises made for the sake of compromise, especially when the people with the swing votes are generally poorly informed but have a high level of self esteem.

[vundy33]

I hope so. Both the Republicans and Democrats are getting way too extreme. Especially those who think they have to agree with every single thing their party does. The thing about these two parties, is that they all want to talk about compromise, but they rarely ever actually do it.

I'm a Republican, but I believe in quite a few Democratic beliefs, like gay marriage.

[LWC]

The news programs fill the American people with garbage, on both sides. The answer is not always in the middle, but there are times that it is.

We have seen how this country has began to sink once the parties drew farther apart. Politicians got more corrupt because they could be bought off easier and now it has got America to the point where if a Democrat says something worthwhile it is wrong because they are a Democrat and the same for a Republican.

We as a country have began looking at the letter in front of their name plate before we listen to their hearts or look at their platform. Major problem.

[LWC]

The only logical answer when two things go to the far extreme of each other is for someone to go to the middle and set up shop.

[Hoot Gibson]

The only logical answer when two things go to the far extreme of each other is for someone to go to the middle and set up shop.

What great decisions have been made in modern history through compromise? How do you strike a middle course between socialism and capitalism without destroying a free market economy?

The problem with people who think that the best path is always in the middle is that true extremists will always hold firm to their positions. This is why 50 percent of American adults pay no federal taxes, even as extremists like Obama clamor for the top 50 percent to pay even more in taxes. When JFK slashed taxes in the early 60s and Reagan slashed tax rates again in the 80s, they did not do so by compromising their principles and the American economy boomed in each case.

Aside from those two periods, compromises between the two major parties over the past 50 years has resulted in explosive growth in the size of the federal government, a reduction in personal liberty and responsibility, and a staggering national debt.

Barry Goldwater put it best, when he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

[TheRealThing]

What great decisions have been made in modern history through compromise? How do you strike a middle course between socialism and capitalism without destroying a free market economy?

The problem with people who think that the best path is always in the middle is that true extremists will always hold firm to their positions. This is why 50 percent of American adults pay no federal taxes, even as extremists like Obama clamor for the top 50 percent to pay even more in taxes. When JFK slashed taxes in the early 60s and Reagan slashed tax rates again in the 80s, they did not do so by compromising their principles and the American economy boomed in each case.

Aside from those two periods, compromises between the two major parties over the past 50 years has resulted in explosive growth in the size of the federal government, a reduction in personal liberty and responsibility, and a staggering national debt.

Barry Goldwater put it best, when he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Agree. The effects of the political food fight have been set in motion. However, both parties are not equally guilty of wrong doing and name calling. Somebody would have to explain to me what is wrong with being right wing. That is the accurate description of traditional America. Republicans have made their mistakes, who among us has not? The lying, distortions, misrepresentations, attempts to redefine the constitution and the laws of this land toward the uber left are what's wrong. Liberalism run amok and the teachings of social justice are equally wrong. If a section of Americans want to live in sexual depravity, let them go for it. Writting new law making that legal is ridiculous. Who says homosexuality is wrong? God. How can man then write laws contradicting God? It's insane. Why do we persist in legislating morality? Because those living outside of God's law have taken their case to the courts to force society to accept their behavior.

That is the source of contempt raging in the halls of congress. Good wars against evil and so has it always been. If government had not undertaken to reinterpret scripture and overturn some of the Lord's precepts we wouldn't be in this war of words. In any event, the civility that once characterized the halls and chambers of the congress was born of mutual respect and the fear of the Lord. We should have stuck with what we knew, legislating this land based on the 236 years of established law, and not have challenged God's sovereignty on moral issues.

Right should stand firm against wrong. I'll agree, in that sense the republicans have indeed obstructed the attempts of the left to compromise our standards into oblivion. Republicans are defending traditional America. No way is that wrong. The democrats want to transform America into something else. No examples of a greater society exist in the historical record of man. Why are we trying so hard to change our great nation? All compromise will do is bring us down. The standard has been set, the record is clear, history vidicates the traditional values of our past. The more we change the more freedoms we will lose, until we fritter them all away.

[LWC]

What great decisions have been made in modern history through compromise? How do you strike a middle course between socialism and capitalism without destroying a free market economy?

The problem with people who think that the best path is always in the middle is that true extremists will always hold firm to their positions. This is why 50 percent of American adults pay no federal taxes, even as extremists like Obama clamor for the top 50 percent to pay even more in taxes. When JFK slashed taxes in the early 60s and Reagan slashed tax rates again in the 80s, they did not do so by compromising their principles and the American economy boomed in each case.

Aside from those two periods, compromises between the two major parties over the past 50 years has resulted in explosive growth in the size of the federal government, a reduction in personal liberty and responsibility, and a staggering national debt.

Barry Goldwater put it best, when he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

I think you are confusing my idea of centrist and central thought with being "wishy-washy". I am not saying anything about swaying with the polls or changing thoughts more than underwear. I am talking about the people in America that have some views that the Dems do and some views that the Reps do. Anymore it has become the idea of all or nothing. Either you believe in the entire platform or you believe none of it.

It is thinking like yours that make many people feel like they have to be pro-choice if they are anti-big-business. We both know that isn't the case. And the opposite it true.

Why can their not be a party or at least faction able to exist inside of one of the parties that is pro-life, anti death penalty and a few other things?

Since when did being a Democrat mean automatically "I love the government, I love regulations, I hate guns, I'm pro-choice" and 10,000 other sets of rules or when did being a republican mean that "I am not open to new ideas, I want to kill murderers and rapists, I own more guns than I own shoes, and I look-down-on poor people"

Do you see what I'm saying? There is a reason a lot of Americans are fed up with politics. I will still hold out hope for either a 3rd party or for one of the parties to allow a movement to occur.

[LWC]

Both parties are sadly mistaken if they think they hold the same exact views as the founding fathers. I'm not saying that a 3rd party or new faction would either though. If the founding fathers had their way today, we would not have lobbyists or special interest groups OR under-the-table paying companies.

[vundy33]

I'm not a moderate, but I do believe that on certain issues, the middle is the right place to be.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think you are confusing my idea of centrist and central thought with being "wishy-washy". I am not saying anything about swaying with the polls or changing thoughts more than underwear. I am talking about the people in America that have some views that the Dems do and some views that the Reps do. Anymore it has become the idea of all or nothing. Either you believe in the entire platform or you believe none of it.

It is thinking like yours that make many people feel like they have to be pro-choice if they are anti-big-business. We both know that isn't the case. And the opposite it true.

Why can their not be a party or at least faction able to exist inside of one of the parties that is pro-life, anti death penalty and a few other things?

Since when did being a Democrat mean automatically "I love the government, I love regulations, I hate guns, I'm pro-choice" and 10,000 other sets of rules or when did being a republican mean that "I am not open to new ideas, I want to kill murderers and rapists, I own more guns than I own shoes, and I look-down-on poor people"

Do you see what I'm saying? There is a reason a lot of Americans are fed up with politics. I will still hold out hope for either a 3rd party or for one of the parties to allow a movement to occur.

I have been hearing how people are more fed up with politics than ever before all of my adult life. I have also heard periodically for years that people are fed up with the two major parties and a real third party movement is just around the corner. It has never materialized and I think that it is less likely to happen today than anytime in recent history. The reason is that the two parties are more polarized today than ever before because of the gerrymandering of Congressional district lines.

There are many people in both parties that are frustrated over their parties position on some major issue. The problem, if you see it as such, is that to form a third major party there needs to be strong leadership and millions of people who share common causes. Most strong leaders are either conservatives or liberals and they are happy remaining in one of the two major parties. Why is this true? It is true because to be elected to "safe seats" in Congress, candidates must appeal to one end of the political spectrum or the other. Closely divided districts, in which moderate politicians are rewarded with electoral wins have become increasingly rare.

I do see the two parties splintering into multiple parties at some point in the future because I believe that we are headed for the worst economic collapse in our history. When that happens, voters will be desperately seeking somebody who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican to provide answers because both major parties will be blamed for the total collapse of our economy. Short of an unprecedented disaster, I believe that the two-party system is here to stay.

[vundy33]

I have been hearing how people are more fed up with politics than ever before all of my adult life. I have also heard periodically for years that people are fed up with the two major parties and a real third party movement is just around the corner. It has never materialized and I think that it is less likely to happen today than anytime in recent history. The reason is that the two parties are more polarized today than ever before because of the gerrymandering of Congressional district lines.

There are many people in both parties that are frustrated over their parties position on some major issue. The problem, if you see it as such, is that to form a third major party there needs to be strong leadership and millions of people who share common causes. Most strong leaders are either conservatives or liberals and they are happy remaining in one of the two major parties. Why is this true? It is true because to be elected to "safe seats" in Congress, candidates must appeal to one end of the political spectrum or the other. Closely divided districts, in which moderate politicians are rewarded with electoral wins have become increasingly rare.

I do see the two parties splintering into multiple parties at some point in the future because I believe that we are headed for the worst economic collapse in our history. When that happens, voters will be desperately seeking somebody who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican to provide answers because both major parties will be blamed for the total collapse of our economy. Short of an unprecedented disaster, I believe that the two-party system is here to stay.

Agreed.

[Hoot Gibson]

Both parties are sadly mistaken if they think they hold the same exact views as the founding fathers. I'm not saying that a 3rd party or new faction would either though. If the founding fathers had their way today, we would not have lobbyists or special interest groups OR under-the-table paying companies.

Lobbyists have always been around, whether they were called lobbyists or not, and so has corruption. What has changed over time is that our laws and regulations have become so voluminous, much corruption is legal and enjoys the cover of law.

Campaign finance laws are a great example. All such laws do is increase the odds of challengers unseating incumbents. Another example is our tax laws. Every loophole that exists was put into place to reward somebody for a donation or other political favor. What I consider legal corruption costs this country much more than "honest graft" ever did, and both parties have repaid their share of favors over the years.

However, a third-party would not eliminate corruption from a government and the leaders of a third-party would almost certainly come from one of the other two parties. The best way to reduce corruption in Washington might be to repeal the law that prohibited duels. A major third party will rise only out of the ashes of the country that we have known during our lives.

[LWC]

I have been hearing how people are more fed up with politics than ever before all of my adult life. I have also heard periodically for years that people are fed up with the two major parties and a real third party movement is just around the corner. It has never materialized and I think that it is less likely to happen today than anytime in recent history. The reason is that the two parties are more polarized today than ever before because of the gerrymandering of Congressional district lines.

There are many people in both parties that are frustrated over their parties position on some major issue. The problem, if you see it as such, is that to form a third major party there needs to be strong leadership and millions of people who share common causes. Most strong leaders are either conservatives or liberals and they are happy remaining in one of the two major parties. Why is this true? It is true because to be elected to "safe seats" in Congress, candidates must appeal to one end of the political spectrum or the other. Closely divided districts, in which moderate politicians are rewarded with electoral wins have become increasingly rare.

I do see the two parties splintering into multiple parties at some point in the future because I believe that we are headed for the worst economic collapse in our history. When that happens, voters will be desperately seeking somebody who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican to provide answers because both major parties will be blamed for the total collapse of our economy. Short of an unprecedented disaster, I believe that the two-party system is here to stay.

[Do-double-gg]

At one time, I was a Pro-Life Democrat. Now that the Republicans have went far right and the Democrats have went far left, I now register as an Independent and wait until November to vote. It is sad but the parties have opened the door for a major 3rd party to emerge, IMO. I cannot wait for that day.

What happens first? One of the two major parties becomes more centrist or central or a new party emerges that is more middle-grounded? Or neither?

I think what LWC is saying is how I also feel and a lot of people more then you think are starting to feel. Things have gotten to the point that both sides and not all but a lot act like they would rather see this country go down in flames then to agree with what the other side is doing. I don't think the founding fathers ever wanted it to get this bad and to say that just because we are in the middle and don't pick sides that we have no clue as to what is going on is just silly.

[tvtimeout]

Please explain to me Ronald Reagan... here is my perspective: pro business republican but also had high taxes...he had to make compromises...

Bill Clinton... Democrat pro middle class, but he also had to make compromises...i.e. wel-fare reform.


I picked one from the right and one from the left and each are held highly in one's own party.

Please explain the "holding on to dear values" using these two individuals.

[tvtimeout]

I think what LWC is saying is how I also feel and a lot of people more then you think are starting to feel. Things have gotten to the point that both sides and not all but a lot act like they would rather see this country go down in flames then to agree with what the other side is doing. I don't think the founding fathers ever wanted it to get this bad and to say that just because we are in the middle and don't pick sides that we have no clue as to what is going on is just silly.

Washington warned against political parties...

Would it not be interesting if we went back and the two highest vote getters would be President and Vice-President...does anyone know why we stopped that?

[TheRealThing]

Both parties are sadly mistaken if they think they hold the same exact views as the founding fathers. I'm not saying that a 3rd party or new faction would either though. If the founding fathers had their way today, we would not have lobbyists or special interest groups OR under-the-table paying companies.

Well, we know the social justice agenda espoused by the dems are out in left field, and bare no similarity to the views of the founding fathers. And we know the republicans have in times past been guilty of spending too much in contradiction to the principles for which the 'people' held them responsible in the elections. What are some of the other glaring contradictions the republicans are guilty of with regard to a departure from the principles of the founding fathers?

[tvtimeout]

Well, we know the social justice agenda espoused by the dems are out in left field, and bare no similarity to the views of the founding fathers. And we know the republicans have in times past been guilty of spending too much in contradiction to the principles for which the 'people' held them responsible in the elections. What are some of the other glaring contradictions the republicans are guilty of with regard to a departure from the principles of the founding fathers?

If Republicans claim they are the party of Lincoln... I could make the point from a Jeffersonian perspective about state's rights.

The military overseas...after the American Revolutionary War, France asked America for help in securing their own liberty, citing they had helped us secure our liberty. As we all know, we did not. Washington, stated that it was none of our affair and was worried about the debt burden that war would cause.

In the religious views... the "religious right" would have everyone believe that our founding fathers would have everyone look at the ten commandments every day, pray, close work on Sundays... this is simply not true, I would cite how Ben Franklin and his views dealing especially with the quakers of Penn.

There are 3 real quick hits as it were...

[tvtimeout]

Well, we know the social justice agenda espoused by the dems are out in left field, and bare no similarity to the views of the founding fathers. And we know the republicans have in times past been guilty of spending too much in contradiction to the principles for which the 'people' held them responsible in the elections. What are some of the other glaring contradictions the republicans are guilty of with regard to a departure from the principles of the founding fathers?

I would disagree with this concept in part...I would point out "all men are created equal..." I know it is a radical thought, probably one worth fighting for...

Now I agree with you as far as the wealth redistribution phase and the income tax...never was meant to happen during the period of the founding fathers.

[judgementday]

I guess a question that comes to mind is.........do we even need political parties? To expand on that, how would you dissolve a political party?

I know these questions are not feasible but it would be nice one day to look at a ballot and decide on the BEST candidate and not just someone because of their political party.

[nky]

Washington warned against political parties...

Would it not be interesting if we went back and the two highest vote getter's would be President and Vice-President...does anyone know why we stopped that?

It was either politics, lobbyist, or The Twelfth Amendment that stopped this practice you choose

[judgementday]

I guess a question that comes to mind is.........do we even need political parties? To expand on that, how would you dissolve a political party?

I know these questions are not feasible but it would be nice one day to look at a ballot and decide on the BEST candidate and not just someone because of their political party.

I think I pretty much just reworded TV's post but it still would be interesting...

[tvtimeout]

It was either politics, lobbyist, or The Twelfth Amendment that stopped this practice you choose

Here is the 12 admendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.14 --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Here is what I think has happened because each run on one ticket...each vote counts for both the president and vice president, where if the VP had to run on a seperate ticket then it would change the practice... that we do today. Interesting. Thanks NKY:Clap:

[zaga_fan]

No

[TheRealThing]

If Republicans claim they are the party of Lincoln... I could make the point from a Jeffersonian perspective about state's rights.

The military overseas...after the American Revolutionary War, France asked America for help in securing their own liberty, citing they had helped us secure our liberty. As we all know, we did not. Washington, stated that it was none of our affair and was worried about the debt burden that war would cause.

In the religious views... the "religious right" would have everyone believe that our founding fathers would have everyone look at the ten commandments every day, pray, close work on Sundays... this is simply not true, I would cite how Ben Franklin and his views dealing especially with the quakers of Penn.

There are 3 real quick hits as it were...

LOL, I'm afraid you'll have to do much better. The two parties have left the reservation, but the republicans are still lurking close by and therefore are way closer to governing according to the founding generation's vision.

Thankfully I have no idea what in the world you're talking about on point 1.

On point 2, you know it's not like it's rocket science. We were a fledgling nation with an empty treasury. We were broke, not to mention our navy was anemic at best and land based militia had been stretched to it's limit in the
Revolutionary War. It was time to heal our wounds, build our forces and our land. That's what Washington was talking about.

Point 3, this assertion is absurd on it's face. Legislators of this land, once held God's wisdom as recorded in scripture in much higher esteem than do those of this day. Therefore, the references to our Creator in the various documents, and on the facades of state and federal buildings of government. The so-called "religious right" has never tried to force involuntary observance of the Lord's Day from business owners. This was a practice folks adhered to as a result of respect. Most folks felt God had delivered America out of the grip of great evil after WWII. Therefore in deference to Him they kept their shop doors closed on Sunday. Legislators enacted what was known as 'blue laws" and business owners happily complied.

[TheRealThing]

I would disagree with this concept in part...I would point out "all men are created equal..." I know it is a radical thought, probably one worth fighting for...

Now I agree with you as far as the wealth redistribution phase and the income tax...never was meant to happen during the period of the founding fathers.

Let me get this straight, you're saying Franklin and Washington et-al in any way advocated for social welfare provided by the state?

[TheRealThing]

I guess a question that comes to mind is.........do we even need political parties? To expand on that, how would you dissolve a political party?

I know these questions are not feasible but it would be nice one day to look at a ballot and decide on the BEST candidate and not just someone because of their political party.

How would one be able to make a viable 'judgement' on the candidacy of any person who had not come up through the ranks of government? That's how they get their training and develope a record. Electing a novice to high office has major drawbacks as has been made abundantly clear with the present administration.

[judgementday]

How would one be able to make a viable 'judgement' on the candidacy of any person who had not come up through the ranks of government? That's how they get their training and develope a record. Electing a novice to high office has major drawbacks as has been made abundantly clear with the present administration.

Good question...

However, IMO the current system is not working.