A rise of a new party. Good, bad or very ugly?

United States
May 19, 2010 8:55pm CST
People in general are starting to wake up to the fact that our rights have been sold out to the corporate world and that most politicians don't care anything for the constitution and feel as one politician put it the "The Constitution is just a *explicative* piece of paper". Some people feel a third party is way past due and will correct the situations we are faced with today. I would mostly have to agree with this idea but there is one thing that worries me above all other things what if the king makers wanted this all along and the new third party is just a ploy to overturn the few that are still resisting the corporate sell out. Call me paranoid but can we really trust any new party on the scene and guarantee that they wont be more corrupt than the two we already have? I did vote for Ross Perot back in Clinton's first term because I felt term limitation would be great thing to oust some of the political powerhouses that have been built. What are your opinions on the matter think it would be a good idea or a bad one? Remember kids a two party system is only one step up from communism!
1 person likes this
4 responses
• United States
20 May 10
I think people have to get out of the "party" mentality. That is the whole problem with the whole thing. There are good and bad each "party". Good politicans...bad politicans. If we have rise in a third party...they will be the same. You will have good politicans in it and bad politicans. We need to start voting on the individual and not the party. We should care about getting the "good guys" in office and not supporting a party so it gets more power and control. I don't see a third party helping things out if we have poeple then grouped into three camps. Defending them no matter what and voting for "our side" no matter what. Then we will just end up with three bad parties to choose from. Until Americans stop identifing themselves as part of a "party" I don't see this problem ending. they will always use our party alliances to play us against each other and get more power, control and money for themselves. We need to be a nation of independents. Not republicans, democrats, or any other party. that way if a candidate or party wants our vote...they have run good decent people.
1 person likes this
• United States
21 May 10
How true! You hit the nail right on the head, as long as we think in terms of parties instead of individual candidates we will always have career politicians instead of true statesmen who are truly elected to represent the best interest of the people instead of whoever raised the most money (sold us out in my opinion).
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
21 May 10
I suppose a new party could be any of the above, good, bad or very ugly. Both of the major parties we have now have taken their turn at all three, sometimes at the same time...lol! I've said for as long as I can remember that what we must do is get big money, especially corporate money, and lobbyists out of politics. We need TRUE campaign finance reform. There MUST be a Constitutional amendment or whatever it takes to overturn the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding free speech rights for corporations. Lobbyists have to be outlawed and it must become ILLEGAL for any former government official to become one. Period. I've personally always voted for the individual rather than the party. I think any of us who believe that's the best way to go should spread the word to anyone who will listen. We can't tell anyone how to vote but we can at least try to give advice and to educate and inform. Regarding term limits, the way things are now I fear what would happen if we limited the terms of all House and Senate members we'd just end up with many times more lobbyists than we have now. We'd go from having a bunch of career politicians whose terms could be limited by the voters if they didn't do their jobs well to having a bunch of highly paid corporate lobbyists with connections on Capitol Hill who aren't accountable to anyone other than their higher paid corporate bosses. Now THAT would be very bad and VERY ugly! Annie
• United States
21 May 10
In my opinion what the supreme court did was criminal, dirty and undermining our rights. The rights of free speech are for the individuals to address their government not the rights of corporations. The constitution was established for rights of people not corporate conglomerates. It was a very sad day for individual rights and most people don't even have a clue.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
21 May 10
I couldn't agree more! When they make the claim that "money is speech" that's the same as saying those of us who don't have tons of money to contribute to political campaigns really have no voices. It sure doesn't bode well for the Roberts Court, does it? Annie
@lampar (7584)
• United States
8 Jun 10
I don't think anyone can really guarantee to you a new political party will not corrupt and will bring the country into glory state forever or correct all the wrongs that had been done in the past. By giving a new party which has a political platform to your liking some political supports probably give you more choices during election and will prevent absolute power from concentrating in just one party. It is quite obvious that an absolute political power will breed perpetuate corruption; with three or more political party competing for governmental power will lessen that scenario from taking place than having only two political party compete in any national election, it is just a simple statistical probability here. More political party run in an election will lower the chance of one party rule significantly.
@arabian (39)
• Indonesia
20 May 10
i agree with U,,