Possible issues for a 3rd party to pick up?

[Wishbone 0]

What issues do you think are being ignored by the 2 major parties? I know we have the Libertarians and the Greens. However, what sort of issues could a mainstream 3rd party pick up on that could give the republicans and democrats a run for their money in a national election? Or, what issues would you like one of the major parties to address?

[Auburn85 432]

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Also, Social Security, Identity theft, Take away the raise Congress gave itself a few years ago, FLAT TAX, LESS PORK. Too much pork in the president's propoed budget,

[Auburn85 432]

How about bannishing the BCS

[AURaptor 1,125]

Stronger ( as in 'some' ) border control

Getting the Courts back under control and to stop making new laws from the bench.

Reform the tax laws to repeal the Income Tax.

[Piglet 0]

Illegal immigration. Neither party existing will touch that one.

Corporate crime. Every politician in existence takes money from big corporations and therefore lets 'em become the new kings.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Illegal immigration. Neither party existing will touch that one. 

Corporate crime. Every politician in existence takes money from big corporations and therefore lets 'em become the new kings.

151516[/snapback]

Guess you've missed the slew of cases involving big corporations that have yielded convictions....convictions coming under the Bush administration. Seems someone is doing their job right.

[Tigermike 3,035]

Stronger ( as in 'some' ) border control

Getting  the Courts back under control and to stop making new laws from the bench.

Reform the tax laws to repeal the Income Tax.

151496[/snapback]

Senator Ted (Bubble Head) Kennedy has now emerged as the liberals' main spokesman, defending the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees.

In fact -- during one of his speeches -- Kennedy slipped and actually spelled out the left's real agenda.

Kennedy said that Republicans have taken the Presidency and Congress, and then he told the crowd of supporters that he would not stand by and allow the Republicans to take the Judiciary as well.

You do not have to read between the lines to realize that Senator Kennedy actually admitted THAT THE LIBERALS OWN THE JUDICIARY -- LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL. Through judiciary activism is the only way the liberals can advance their cause.

President Bush has nominated judges who respect the rule of law, not leftists who legislate from the bench. That's why the liberals will stop at nothing to preserve the only tool they have in their arsenal to obstruct the President's nominees.

Liberals know their legislative agenda is failing.

That is why the left has relied on activist judges to legislate from the bench for years.

The liberals know that the face of the judiciary will change if Republicans in the Senate act like a majority and stop the obstruction of President Bush's nominations. If that happens, the left will LOSE MUCH OF ITS ABILITY TO ADVANCE ITS RADICAL AGENDA.

[Auburn85 432]

Stronger ( as in 'some' ) border control

Getting  the Courts back under control and to stop making new laws from the bench.

Reform the tax laws to repeal the Income Tax.

151496[/snapback]

Senator Ted (Bubble Head) Kennedy has now emerged as the liberals' main spokesman, defending the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees.

In fact -- during one of his speeches -- Kennedy slipped and actually spelled out the left's real agenda.

Kennedy said that Republicans have taken the Presidency and Congress, and then he told the crowd of supporters that he would not stand by and allow the Republicans to take the Judiciary as well.

You do not have to read between the lines to realize that Senator Kennedy actually admitted THAT THE LIBERALS OWN THE JUDICIARY -- LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL. Through judiciary activism is the only way the liberals can advance their cause.

President Bush has nominated judges who respect the rule of law, not leftists who legislate from the bench. That's why the liberals will stop at nothing to preserve the only tool they have in their arsenal to obstruct the President's nominees.

Liberals know their legislative agenda is failing.

That is why the left has relied on activist judges to legislate from the bench for years.

The liberals know that the face of the judiciary will change if Republicans in the Senate act like a majority and stop the obstruction of President Bush's nominations. If that happens, the left will LOSE MUCH OF ITS ABILITY TO ADVANCE ITS RADICAL AGENDA.

151525[/snapback]

I mean, the Supreme Court just abolished the death penalty on juviniles

The 9th circuit court of appeals in California just declared that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Also, in California , boy scouts were declared a religious group.

Those dang Republicans

[Wishbone 0]

Illegal Immigration is an obvious one.

Tax reform is another one. The complication of the tax code is a major factor in corruption in Washington.

I would like to see an end to corporate donations to politicians.

Also, take away the right of welfare recipients to vote.

[Tigermike 3,035]

Also, take away the right of welfare recipients to vote.

151556[/snapback]

I don't think that was very well thought out was it? What would be the minimum income required to vote? Talk about class warfare. I don't think our founding fathers would think highly of that statement/thought, even though they didn't have welfare back then. And don't anyone confuse me for a pinko, liberal democrat for saying that!

[Tiger Al 0]

Also, take away the right of welfare recipients to vote.

151556[/snapback]

I don't think that was very well thought out was it? What would be the minimum income required to vote? Talk about class warfare. I don't think our founding fathers would think highly of that statement/thought, even though they didn't have welfare back then. And don't anyone confuse me for a pinko, liberal democrat for saying that!

151561[/snapback]

Actually, Tigermike, welfare WAS around back then. Check out the English Poor Law of 1601. This, along with many other legal practices, was brought over to America. I agree with you that this would be a bad idea. Didn't we already try to tax those whose votes we didn't want cast at one time or another???

[AURaptor 1,125]

Also, take away the right of welfare recipients to vote.

151556[/snapback]

I don't think that was very well thought out was it? What would be the minimum income required to vote? Talk about class warfare. I don't think our founding fathers would think highly of that statement/thought, even though they didn't have welfare back then. And don't anyone confuse me for a pinko, liberal democrat for saying that!

151561[/snapback]

How about.. If you're on the public dole, stay away from the poll.

It's not an issue of there being a minimum income required to vote... ( although some have suggested we go back to only those who own property get to vote ). but whether or not one is adding to society, rather than only taking from it.

[Piglet 0]

Gosh, maybe people with very high incomes ought to be able to vote more than once! Maybe one vote for every $100,000 you own. That would reward the most productive members of society.

Oh, wait--I got it! GOLD CARD CITIZENSHIP. You voluntarily pay $20,000 extra in optional federal taxes, and you get extra votes, extra Constitutional rights, and a one-time get out of jail free card, while generously helping to reduce the deficit. What could be fairer than that?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Also, take away the right of welfare recipients to vote.

151556[/snapback]

I don't think that was very well thought out was it? What would be the minimum income required to vote? Talk about class warfare. I don't think our founding fathers would think highly of that statement/thought, even though they didn't have welfare back then.

151561[/snapback]

Actually, the founding fathers put that very idea into practice from the first - only allowing white, male landowners to vote. That obviously changed, eventually, but all of your original members of the American government were only there because they were white male landowners. The Dems would be the one to whine about that now - they would lose their entire voting base except for Hollywood!

And NO ONE would EVER confuse you with a pinko!

My problem with third parties is exactly what this thread is pointing out - you can't create a party based on ONE theme or ONE issue - they have to be able to address ALL issues, across the board. I don't want a President who only wants to address illegal immigration but doesn't know squat about national security or economic policy. You could never find a large enough group of people who will leave the Dems or Repubs to get behind a single issue. I disagree with the Repubs on many things, but not enough to get behind a third party that has a single minded agenda. My goal is to work within the Repub party to get them to turn in a different direction.

[Wishbone 0]

The republican party has shown time again that they take their base for granted and simply ignore very important issues such as illegal immigration, which would be easy to reform since the majority of dems also support reforming immigration.

[Auburn85 432]

I don't expect to see anything done with the borders or SS in this administration. SOME elections are coming up in 06, so some of the Congress people don't want to take a chance They're scared to touch it with a ten foot poll

[Tigermike 3,035]

What have the democrats proposed to combat illegal immigration?

[Auburn85 432]

In California, there willing to give them freee healthcare, welfare, driver's licence............ but oh wait you said what have they done to combat illegal immigration

You know combat is such a harsh adjective on such an ultra-sensitive issue

plus it's not PC

[Tigermike 3,035]

Plus it's not something the democrats have the stomach for. But I thought I would ask the question anyway.

[Auburn85 432]

Those Dems in California need all the votes they can get(Voter fraud_

[Tiger Al 0]

What have the democrats proposed to combat illegal immigration?

151640[/snapback]

We got that little piss-ant Elian Gonzalez, didn't we? Yeah...we got ours! What have you done? Huh? Besides, if these immigrants were potential Republicans I doubt there'd be all of this whining about them.

[Tigermike 3,035]

What have the democrats proposed to combat illegal immigration?

151640[/snapback]

We got that little piss-ant Elian Gonzalez, didn't we? Yeah...we got ours! What have you done? Huh? Besides, if these immigrants were potential Republicans I doubt there'd be all of this whining about them.

151662[/snapback]

People have been complaining for years about illegal immigration and you know it. You also know that neither party has attempted to do much. What were the statistics for the last election? Hispanics voted in much greater numbers for W than the experts thought they would. If you are so naive or so deeply stuck up Kennedy or Kerry's A$$ that you think this is a "party" problem then you are as deluded as the folks at Moveon.org. It's not a party problem it's a national problem!

The democrats solution has been to do nothing since they are mostly poor and if we allow them to receive welfare and free hospitalization and then let them vote they will probably vote demoncrat. Dang the demoncrats are trying to put them in the same slavery system that they have kept the blacks for years, aren't they?

[Piglet 0]

The Republicans' solution has been to let them all in so that they can clean their houses and do factory labor dirt cheap for their wealthy CEO contributors, and maybe help bust up the unions while they're at it. Plus, the last Republican who got serious about the illegals was Pete Wilson, and California ended up one-party Democrat as a result.

And yeah, the Democrats want to let 'em all in too, so they can vote Democrat. Republicans hope to get them to be a Republican voting bloc, like in florida. Both parties are pandering for votes, and the rest of us are getting screwed. Neither party wants to touch the issue with a barge pole.

[Auburn85 432]

I mean, what part of illegal does the public and politicians don't understand? So what if they're "contributing to the economy, so what if they work cheaper,...... They're here illegally

Some of the media don't think calling them illegal aliens or illegal immigrants is PC,now some are referring to them as UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS

And why do we call the terrorists "insurgents"

[Auburn85 432]

Identity theft would be a good issue for a 3rd party