|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 3, 2006 13:29:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by psychecc on Dec 3, 2006 16:20:38 GMT -6
Thanks for the link. I like views of this party.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 6, 2006 2:09:10 GMT -6
I like them too. They are anti-globalist/anti-free trade, anti-illegal immigration, and oppose "tax cuts that mainly benefit our wealthiest citizens". They also oppose privatization of Social Security.
I'd say they have a very "populist" agenda, and I didn't read anything I disagreed with at their site.
They also have party status in a lot of states as well.
|
|
|
Post by psychecc on Dec 7, 2006 2:08:20 GMT -6
Have you given any thought to running Unlawful? You certainly seem articulate, and the middle class could use a few more politicians who care about their jobs, income, and ability to maintain their way of life.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 7, 2006 14:31:44 GMT -6
Psychecc,
Thanks for compliment.
I have given running for office some thought. (I even voted for myself as a write-in for Congressman in my district.)
I think I share the majority view of most Americans on most issues. But it seems unlikely I could get the broad-based backing necessary to win, or even make a good showing.
However, I do think getting my name on a ballot would greatly assist in getting a Populist message out, even without winning. In California a candidate is allowed a brief statement on the ballot, along with their name. A candidate's ballot presence would get voters to start thinking about a 3rd party candidate, along with the ideas advocated by that candidate. If nothing else, it would help pull one (or both) of the major parties in a "populist" direction. And that would be a great accomplishment by itself.
It costs about $1600 and takes 45-50 signatures to get on the primary ballot for Congress.
If the economy slides into recession, which seems likely, it will open the field somewhat for 3rd party candidates. Even though a recession would be nearly 100% the fault of Republicans, some of the blame will wrongly fall on the Democrats. And this misplaced blame will improve chances for a 3rd party candidate.
And if the Democrats don't "change-the-course" on free trade, illegal immigration, tax cuts for the rich, & Iraq-- then they will deservedly receive some of the blame for an economic downturn.
|
|
rdf
Contributor
Posts: 27
|
Post by rdf on Dec 7, 2006 15:09:23 GMT -6
I don't want to pop your balloon, but the political process in this country is stacked against third parties. Hoping for change by a party winning electoral office is not realistic. The best that one can hope for is that the party will get noticed and bring its agenda before the public. Consider it an educational effort.
In the recent NY election the "debate" between the senatorial candidates was limited to the two majors even thought there was a third candidate. The sponsoring network made up its own rules as to who was "viable" and the fact that the person was on the ballot was ignored. (They claimed he hadn't raised enough money.)
If you are a history buff you can read about the Populists, the Socialists, and the attempts by such notables as Strom Thurmond, Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ralph Nader.
There was a case in the 1930's where several socialists got elected to the house from NY. The house refused to seat them.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 7, 2006 17:07:02 GMT -6
I don't want to pop your balloon, but the political process in this country is stacked against third parties. Hoping for change by a party winning electoral office is not realistic. The best that one can hope for is that the party will get noticed and bring its agenda before the public. Consider it an educational effort. No, you're not popping my balloon. I realize how stacked the deck is against 3rd parties. My most realistic hope would be to move the position of one of the major parties in a more populist direction, in an effort to avoid losing votes. The main goal is to change the elitist, anti-populist leanings of both parties, as well as our government. Thus the main goal of running for office would be to achieve those desired changes, not to become an elected representative. The goal is to make a 3rd party candidate enough of a threat to force a change in the positions of the major parties. The Democrats are my major hope for change. Only time will tell if they respond to the increasingly "populist" views of the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by keynesian on Dec 8, 2006 2:26:27 GMT -6
"The goal is to make a 3rd party candidate enough of a threat to force a change in the positions of the major parties."
The link to the American Independent Party was interesting. Unlawful, you talk about a change in positions from the major parties. What positions are you advocating?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 12, 2006 19:38:30 GMT -6
What positions are you advocating? Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I hadn't noticed this post. I'm advocating reduced outsourcing, reduced illegal immigration, elimination of the tax cuts on the top 1%, tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, reduce Corporate welfare, protect the right of workers unionize, adopt paygo Federal budget rules, reduce the Federal budget deficit, and withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. These are real general positions. I've elaborated on this a lot more in the section on "Populist Party Platform." (These are general positions, not specific for the "Populist Party" by name, but rather the parties that have generally "populist" platforms, such as the Reform Party, the American Independent Party, and the California Populist Party.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 13, 2006 8:30:24 GMT -6
I'm with you 100% on all those, Unlawful.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 19, 2006 19:57:47 GMT -6
Thanks, Graybeard.
I think these positions are very close to those of the New American Independent Party. And the American Independent Party has registered party status in California and is on the ballot in Orange County, California.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 1, 2007 22:31:18 GMT -6
Works for me
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 2, 2007 15:22:07 GMT -6
In a level playing field (i.e., no voting machine fraud & equal advertising/campaign financing), a candidate advocating just reduced outsourcing/globalization, reduced illegal immigration, tax cut elimination on the top 2%, and early withdrawal from Iraq, would win most elections by a landslide.
Unfortunately, the un-equal financing and voting machine manipulation usually defeats such candidates.
|
|