I didn't compare Obama to Paul, i compared the messages vs. solutions. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that.

No one that i know is denying most of the things you said (except maybe to the degree you take them and some of your whackadoodle zionist/facist/statist crap). When will you guys get it through your thick skulls that most people think Paul sounds like he will make these things worse instead of better? Just because he can identify problems, doesn't mean his solutions are good. And maybe even worse than where we're at.

 

-----signature-----

If Ron Paul helps birth a viable third party, he will have made a bigger contribution to America than the disaster he would be as President.

Then his basic ideals can evolve with that party until they have a presentable candidate.

 

-----signature-----

You will be able to tell whether Paul is serious or not by whether he runs as an independent after he loses the Republican nomination. If he does he could get at least 15% of the vote given the disenchantment with both Obama and whoever his opponent is likely to be. He wouldn't have a chance of winning, but he would have a very good chance of spoiling the race.

The concept of "third party" candidates needs to be legitimized - it has to start somewhere. Paul is at the very least a step towards this process - if as Yuki suggests, he runs as an independent even if he loses the Repub nomination.

 

-----signature-----

Nobody ever makes it clear why a third party is an improvement....it always seems entirely hope based.


Money and self interest seem to play a big role in what happens in Washington....a third party doesnt change that.


Procedural gimmicks allow a minority to slow and stop progress on issues big and small....its not clear why a 3rd party would change this either.


If Ron Paul and his merry band of followers were to kick start a third party that takes a massive leap forward and gains 15% of the seats in Congress....what changes? Another group can grind things to a halt.....and they still face the same procedural limitations on getting anything accomplished.


I think people mistakenly think that they dont like anybody in congress and if only a third party full of people they liked...'regular people', not washington fat cats, then everything would change. But the third party will end up attracting all the same people that everybody hates to vote for right now.


/shrug

Obviously it depends on what the "third party" stands for. Right now you have two ideological choices and candidates which vary little from that ideology. You can be certain that more people are poorly represented by either of these ideological templates than are well represented by either of them.

A third party represents some mixture or some middle ground between the two choices theoretically. In an era where it is functionally difficult to discern between the policies of either party in actual practice, people want to hear from others who may fly in the face of the status quo.

 

-----signature-----

The problems with a two party system mostly deal with the legislature. With only two parties the people are less likely to be able to really establish what they want when choosing between two things.


For example imagine choosing what pie you want to eat. Do you think your taste in pie would be better established when choosing between two pies or 10?


Once this is done the legislature itself has to establish things like committee leadership based on something more than which party happens to be the majority. A lot more emphasis is placed on listening to multiple groups and the room for nuances in opinion is promoted.

 

-----signature-----

Start somewhere? There has always been room for a 3rd party. Hell Ross Perot was leading both Bush Sr and Clinton in the polls at one point back in 92.
The hunger for a third party is there, and has been for a very long time.
In the end the people that claim to be mavericks are all watered down party loyalists.
Ron Paul will not run as an independent, he will toe the party line and support Romney when its time.

 

-----signature-----

The idea is the more parties you have the more options for differing viewpoints you have.


I think your doom and glooming is somewhat overblown. When you look at what happens in Europe there are definitely minority parties who offer a meaningful difference from the more mainstream, larger parties (typically two) that tend to dominate most countries.


A multiple party system introduces problems not faced in a two-party system - like coalition government but it also introduces new dynamics - like coalition government.

the obvious point is that neither party has any interest in making this country better. they're just humping the status quo and making rich people richer. both parties.

there's obvious room for a party that is fiscally prudent (unlike dems) and not dominated by backwards dipshit social idiocy (unlike republicans).


what it will probably take is some dude with more money than he knows what to do with forcing candidates through the process and into higher positions of government to legitimize the party. we can only hope is that guy isn't an asshole.

 

-----signature-----