Would you support a new political party?

[Tallen]

It seems that the current major two party's are becoming more and more bent upon finding issues to be contrary to each other, that neither party has an agenda. They have become reactionary in order to make the other look bad.

I am sick of the current political state.

If there were a new party that would reflect your values and beliefs better would you change your political affiliation?

[Holy Baloney]

It seems that the current major two party's are becoming more and more bent upon finding issues to be contrary to each other, that neither party has an agenda. They have become reactionary in order to make the other look bad.

I am sick of the current political state.

If there were a new party that would reflect your values and beliefs better would you change your political affiliation?

We need a new political party to get things back on track. Maybe the return of the Wig Party. :medium-smiley-140:

[raderag]

Most likely, no.

[JBaker45]

Would you support a new political party?
I answer.. heck yes! :smile:

[raderag]

I answer.. heck yes! :smile:

Ok. Why, and what kind of a party?

What is the political criterea to support it (i.e. on all 50 states ballots, etc)

[JBaker45]

It seems that the current major two party's are becoming more and more bent upon finding issues to be contrary to each other, that neither party has an agenda. They have become reactionary in order to make the other look bad.

I am sick of the current political state.

If there were a new party that would reflect your values and beliefs better would you change your political affiliation?
I answer.. heck yes! :smile:
Ok. Why, and what kind of a party?

What is the political criterea to support it (i.e. on all 50 states ballots, etc)
Well, I realize that this might offend some people, but I believe that the democratic party has become unconstitutional.

I propose first that the DNC (and party) be declared "illegal' in some kind of a binding sense.
Automatically then, it would be up to one of the remaining 3rd place parties to fill the immediate void.

Over time, I would like to see a more healthy opponent to the republican party take it's proper place in the opposing position.

And thanks for asking :)

[Joe S]

I'm really not affiliated with a party, but I almost always vote Rep.

I used to think a vote for a third party was throwing your vote away, but sometimes voting dem or rep means throwing your ideals away, which I value more. I hate choosing between two evils.

What I really mean to say is, TED CLORE IN '08! :bigtup::clap:

[travelah]

Well, I realize that this might offend some people, but I believe that the democratic party has become unconstitutional.

I propose first that the DNC (and party) be declared "illegal' in some kind of a binding sense.
Automatically then, it would be up to one of the remaining 3rd place parties to fill the immediate void.

Over time, I would like to see a more healthy opponent to the republican party take it's proper place in the opposing position.

And thanks for asking :)

Could expand on how the Democrat Party could possibly be unconstitutional?

[travelah]

It seems that the current major two party's are becoming more and more bent upon finding issues to be contrary to each other, that neither party has an agenda. They have become reactionary in order to make the other look bad.

I am sick of the current political state.

If there were a new party that would reflect your values and beliefs better would you change your political affiliation?

I voted not sure but probably however I am not a registered member of any party. I tend to vote for the candidate that offers the greatest hope of slowing the slide. My politics are socially libertarian and economically conservative with William F. Buckley representing that spectrum I am most comfortable with. What party could I join (please don't mention the faux Libertarians).

[JBaker45]

Could expand on how the Democrat Party could possibly be unconstitutional?
Well, I'm not prepared to litigate the case right now...

But here is a taste of what they are saying from their current 2004 SOF (the democratic national platform) :
"The Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership in the world to embrace a new – and dangerously ineffective – disregard for the world."
Frankly, I find such statements (that seek for us to bend to the will of the world) to be anti-American.

[travelah]

Well, I'm not prepared to litigate the case right now...

But here is a taste of what they are saying from their current 2004 SOF (the democratic national platform) :
"The Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership in the world to embrace a new – and dangerously ineffective – disregard for the world."Frankly, I find such statements (that seek for us to bend to the will of the world) to be anti-American.

Perhaps but such comments do not deal with Constitutional matters.

[JBaker45]

Well, I'm not prepared to litigate the case right now...

But here is a taste of what they are saying from their current 2004 SOF (the democratic national platform) :

"The Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership in the world to embrace a new – and dangerously ineffective – disregard for the world."Frankly, I find such statements (that seek for us to bend to the will of the world) to be anti-American.
Perhaps but such comments do not deal with Constitutional matters.
Don't they now?

Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Although the definition of treason here seems to be quite limited, over past 200 years of our nations history there have been several significant expansions in the interpretation of the text.

Some notable cases include :
Aaron Burr (who was later acquitted),
Haupt v. United States (for aiding and abetting),
Kawakita v. United States (who renounced his citizenship during WWII with Japan),
Rosenberg v. United States (for giving aid to a foreign nation in conflict with national interests. Though technically not a treason issue it was provided for under the Espionage Act)
For more see: Hurst's Law of Treason - Jon Roland (University of West Los Angeles Law Review) (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_jr.htm)

[raderag]

Well, I realize that this might offend some people, but I believe that the democratic party has become unconstitutional.

I propose first that the DNC (and party) be declared "illegal' in some kind of a binding sense.
Automatically then, it would be up to one of the remaining 3rd place parties to fill the immediate void.

Over time, I would like to see a more healthy opponent to the republican party take it's proper place in the opposing position.

And thanks for asking :)

Then we could send all of those that raise as stink to the gas chambers.

:biglol:

John, you might want to turn off the talk radio for a bit. I think we are in for a major realignment in the next 20 years. We had it happen after the civil war and after Nixon's southern strategy. There are too many mutually exclusive political groups in each party.

[raderag]

Well, I'm not prepared to litigate the case right now...

But here is a taste of what they are saying from their current 2004 SOF (the democratic national platform) :
"The Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership in the world to embrace a new – and dangerously ineffective – disregard for the world."Frankly, I find such statements (that seek for us to bend to the will of the world) to be anti-American.

Really, have you ever read what people were saying about Lincoln? Did you hear what Ronald Reagan said about LBJ at Goldwater's nomination?

[JBaker45]

Really, have you ever read what people were saying about Lincoln? Did you hear what Ronald Reagan said about LBJ at Goldwater's nomination?
Lol.. What did Ronald Reagan say :smile:

[JBaker45]

I think we are in for a major realignment in the next 20 years. We had it happen after the civil war and after Nixon's southern strategy. There are too many mutually exclusive political groups in each party.
You may be right about this.

[raderag]

Lol.. What did Ronald Reagan say :smile:

I don't have the speech in front of me, but something to the effect that we were being way too soft with the Vietnam situation.

All I am saying is that we have a history of being critical of the Presidents foreign policy. Some conservatives almost took sides against Clinton in the bombing in the Bosnian conflict.

[travelah]

Don't they now?
Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.Although the definition of treason here seems to be quite limited, over past 200 years of our nations history there have been several significant expansions in the interpretation of the text.

Some notable cases include :
Aaron Burr (who was later acquitted),
Haupt v. United States (for aiding and abetting),
Kawakita v. United States (who renounced his citizenship during WWII with Japan),
Rosenberg v. United States (for giving aid to a foreign nation in conflict with national interests. Though technically not a treason issue it was provided for under the Espionage Act)For more see: Hurst's Law of Treason - Jon Roland (University of West Los Angeles Law Review) (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_jr.htm)

Why would you think protected political speech (vocal opposition to the partisan policies of GWB) would ever qualify as "treason"?

[JBaker45]

Why would you think protected political speech (vocal opposition to the partisan policies of GWB) would ever qualify as "treason"?
I don't.

[travelah]

I don't.

I'm confused here. Why would you accuse the Democrats of treason based on the political comments you provided?

[JBaker45]

I'm confused here. Why would you accuse the Democrats of treason based on the political comments you provided?
I didn't.

If you will recallm you asked me how a political party might be declared illegal. A little research on the subject suggested a possible avenue through which a skillful attorney might make his case, and I presented it to you.

[travelah]

I didn't.

If you will recallm you asked me how a political party might be declared illegal. A little research on the subject suggested a possible avenue through which a skillful attorney might make his case, and I presented it to you.

John, treason was the excuse you provided for having the Democrat Party declared "illegal". In any event, it does not matter.

[kepano]

I'm disgusted with almost all of our politicians right now.

Another political party would probably end up dividing the country enough for an evil weasel such as Hillary to make it.
She is a poorly disguised extreme socialist. This country will be on an even more uncontrolled bobsled downhill if she and her cohorts get ahold of the presidency. My distaste for what she stands for is extreme. She is the worst of the worst in my opinion.