Tell me lies, Tell me sweet little lies....

Nice to see a post where someone is showing some concern about the political system even if your knowledge of political science is a bit lacking. Let me clear some things up for you that you can add to your blog.

The Whig party actually was a major party for a short period of time, they replaced the republicans who disappeared for awhile so there has never been a 3rd party president.

And even if we did vote in a 3rd party slate across the board you should realize that government runs in factions. That is groups of like minded people will stick together. Some of the founding fathers were concerned about this but Jefferson actually said that not allowing factions in government would itself be a denial of liberty.

What this means is that even a 3rd party, if elected, would behave the same as democrats or republicans just with a different ideology. Now electing a 3rd party is fairly impossible due to the fact that both sides of major issues the american people care about are already covered by either the democrats or republicans.

It would be impossible for a 3rd party to have a platform completely different yet still addressing the concerns the nation has about issues. Even theodore roosevelt when he ran for another term after losing the democrat nomination ran under a 3rd party, his bull moose party, and was soundly defeated. As a whole 3rd party candidates don't bring enough to the table that is all that much different than the current two parties. Also independents while claiming to vote on their own merits, more than likely follow the voting patterns of one of the two major parties.

I believe a better option to put in your blog would be multiple candidates. Back in the day there would be multiple people running for president from the same party, dems had up to 5 in one election, this way they have the basic concerns of the nation addressed but with slightly different approaches to it.

Or you may want to consider a parlimentary style of government which allows seated members based on the percentage of votes collected. That way you could have a government full of everything dems, republicans, libertarians, you name it. Most of Europe runs this way.

And finally you should think about this. Having an open and free society means also having to put up with people having access to their politicians. Whether that's us writing letters or coorperations lobbying and spending money it comes with our freedom. You cannot lock people out of having access to the government officials this is why the supreme court allowed the use of cooperate money in campaigns. Like it or not that is part of our system.

From George Washington on there has always been special interests vying for favors from the government and these same complaints people are saying about the government not caring has been around since this country was founded. The only option for those of you that want this not to happen is to elect a king or supreme ruler who doesn't have to listen to anyone else. I don't think anybody would like that very much.

Awesome post. S&F.

I totally agree that all politicians are the same once elevated to higher offices. Republican, Democrat, same party on a different platform to sell different lies to different people.

Here's a crazy thought. One way to get through to the majority of brainwashed Americans voting for either the left or right is to start our own party. One that's an offshoot of ATS, kinda like the site owner's April Fools Day joke.

I know that sounds simplistic, but we'd need to get together, face-to-face, at an ATS type conference or on a cruise ship or something, somewhere where keynote speeches, classes, and breakaway sessions are held on a myriad of topics from beginners courses on "how-to form and finance a party," "how to use media/social media to spread messages," to more advanced courses on proper debating techniques, recruiting and leveling the playing field.

I know it's wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like us, the awake people, have to do something sooner rather than later. We need each other, our friends and family, some money, strong leaders from the ATS community, and a damn good grasp on how to take control of the forth estate - that part is key for this thing to work.

Oh yeah, we'd all have to migrate away from the fringe topics many of us entertain ourselves with and get this started on another site, hopefully owned and operated by The Above Network. Once in power, screw it, open the can of worms on America as our ATS candidate will gain access to and disclose whatever conspiracy/lie we have been fed.

....one can hope. (PS- Site management, you can probably make a nice wad of dough doing the conference thing, but you probably know that already).

reply to post by boondock-saint


Cancer can be as easily induced as a heart attack, but don't get the dose wrong or spill it or your agency superiors will put you on the permaban for such newboniousness.

Radiation Poisoning Killed Ex-Russian Spy

Of course they doesn't prove either natural or induced were the case, but both are obviously a possibility.

CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun

Heart attacks are old hat, btw, but still useful to keep the mix frothy.

Originally posted by Jason88
Awesome post. S&F.

I totally agree that all politicians are the same once elevated to higher offices. Republican, Democrat, same party on a different platform to sell different lies to different people.

Here's a crazy thought. One way to get through to the majority of brainwashed Americans voting for either the left or right is to start are own party. One that's an offshoot of ATS, kinda like the site owner's April Fools Day joke.

I know that sounds simplistic, but we'd need to get together, face-to-face, at an ATS type conference or on a cruise ship or something, somewhere where keynote speeches, classes, and breakaway sessions are held on a myriad of topics from beginners courses on "how-to form and finance a party," "how to use media/social media to spread messages," to more advanced courses on proper debating techniques, recruiting and leveling the playing field.

I know it's wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like us, the awake people, have to do something sooner rather than later. We need each other, our friends and family, some money, strong leaders from the ATS community, and a damn good grasp on how to take control of the forth estate - that part is key for this thing to work.

Oh yeah, we'd all have to migrate away from the fringe topics many us entertain ourselves and get this started on another site, hopefully owned and operated by The Above Network. Once in power, screw it, open the can of worms on American as our ATS candidate will gain access to and disclose whatever conspiracy/lie we have been fed.

....one can hope. (PS- Site management, you can probably make a nice wad of dough doing the conference thing, but you probably know that already).

You know your best chance would be to get an ats lobby together. You know you'd stand no chance of winning an election but thanks to our system of government you have the same access to politicians that corporations have. If your lobby get's big enough they will listen to you.

Look at aarp, the biggest lobby in america, politicians run in fear of that group due to the power they weild. Well unions are the first but aarp is not far behind.

While supporting 3rd parties and independents are important, particularly at this point in time given the two-party stranglehold, using a party only changes the name of the problem. It's the groupthink and other group behavioral failings that are a core component of the failure to get accurate representation in exchange for the circus of trophies.

Also, mathematically speaking, the desire to win (or play it like a sporting event) is exploited best by our current voting system. In order to prevent the multiple option ballot from actually exacerbating this failure it needs to change mechanically. Would it be unconstitutional to make the ballot a "FOR or AGAINST (or abstain)" proposition? In breaking away from the two party conundrum the restriction to only vote "FOR" increases the odds that someone actually preferred against wins. This is more easily demonstrated as more persons are listed on the ballot. For example, if they are 10 persons on the ballot, and 80% of the public would take persons 1-5 over person 10, person 10 could win with only 12 percent supporting through votes having better polarized a chunk of the 20% remaining. If those 80% were allowed to vote against any to which they were opposed it would correct this statistical exploitation.

Sorry I can better explain it in more down to earth terms - perhaps some here could.

reply to post by kro32


Thanks for your informative post at the top of the page. Starred!

In response and after shaking off the effects of kool-aide, pixie dust, and magical unicorns, I too believe a third party is near impossible, but was kinda dreaming out loud there.

I do really like your idea about creating a lobby, an ATS-type lobby, with access to politicians and power brokers. Maybe this site could charge a fee and we the membership elect who is sent to Washington (they'd have to use their screen name though to demonstrate we're the most progressive, forward thinking group on the hill; like boondock-saint goes as boondock-saint).

What are the odds ATS management would seriously look into this, if they haven't already...

Anyway, thanks OP for the thought provoking post and once you get enough ATS points I believe you can directly link to your blog in your signature.

Originally posted by forall2see

Guess what.... theirs ground troops

any proof of this...



Yeah man... CIA operatives on the ground gathering info ( Or so that's what the MSM wants us to believe.)

Plus, what is the difference really if in fact we have aircraft that can hover at low altitude while firing high-caliber rounds at ground troops?

And do you REALLY believe that we are given all the facts in a situation like this? He couldn't even run it by congress.

Oh hell no I don't believe we are told everything... I knew about the CIA.. I thought you were claiming we had some SF guys in there or something(which wouldn't suprise me)... I was hoping you had an article or pictures or something I hadn't seen ... that's all...

edit on 2-4-2011 by wearewatchingyouman because: (no reason given)