Topic: The Tea Party has competition.

[Oniya]

The Principles of the People’s Party

I discovered the author's blog while looking up information about the events in Wisconsin, and I've been keeping an eye on it since then.

[Vekseid]

I get the feeling it's going to take a few years before one of these actually takes off.

There are no media sponsors behind leftist movements in this country. Any such movement needs to find some other means to get its message out to a hundred million or so people, for millions to take part in.

[Brandon]

hmmm, thats an interesting one. I could definately get behind quite a few of those ideas...others not so much. Nothing wrong about that since Im an independant and have never, nor ever expect, to find a political group who I agree with 100% of the time.

I agree with Veks though, they will need to find some way to get their message out there. Blogs are fine and all but dont really shout out a groups interests unless there is fame or money somewhere in the equation. Still, they can go door to door, hold rallies, and debate their views against others. If they do enough of that they'll get noticed and I think they should be noticed. We desperately need more then 2 parties in our country, and even if you count the tea party as a third I still think we need more to ensure no party has a hold on political offices at any time.

[Vekseid]

I'm still a bit surprised that Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page/Sergey Brin, or Bill Gates/Warren Buffet don't throw down a gauntlet. Or get together to throw one down simultaneously.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I'm still a bit surprised that Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page/Sergey Brin, or Bill Gates/Warren Buffet don't throw down a gauntlet. Or get together to throw one down simultaneously.

Erm...why?  What do they have to lose if the rich keep getting richer and richer?

[Vekseid]

What does Bill Gates have to gain by funding education and malaria research?
What does Warren Buffet have to gain by lobbying for corporate tax reform?
What do Larry Page and Sergey Brin have to gain by snubbing China? (Interesting how Glenn Beck, Murdoch, and Republicans attack Google so savagely just after they're the only major corporation to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party)
What does Mark Zuckerberg gain by being a conduit for revolutions, to the point where they actively work against country's attempts to subvert them?

They've never really exercised their media power, despite their frustrations with things as they are, especially in regards to China.

[Oniya]

hmmm, thats an interesting one. I could definately get behind quite a few of those ideas...others not so much. Nothing wrong about that since Im an independant and have never, nor ever expect, to find a political group who I agree with 100% of the time.

I think I'd be worried if I found a candidate I agreed with that closely.  I'm still encouraged to find something that isn't so much the 'lesser of two evils' that isn't also Cthulhu.

I agree with Veks though, they will need to find some way to get their message out there. Blogs are fine and all but dont really shout out a groups interests unless there is fame or money somewhere in the equation. Still, they can go door to door, hold rallies, and debate their views against others. If they do enough of that they'll get noticed and I think they should be noticed. We desperately need more then 2 parties in our country, and even if you count the tea party as a third I still think we need more to ensure no party has a hold on political offices at any time.

Reich has a certain amount of notability - I googled the title of the article this morning, and all but one of the first page results was the same text as the blog.  Six on the second page were either the same text, or a link back to the text.  There also appears to be some kind of schedule of planned rallies.  If I can swing it with the little Oni's school schedule (hazard days mean that she's actually in school on the fourth), I plan on seeing what's going on in the Ohio area.

[Callie Del Noire]

hmmm, thats an interesting one. I could definately get behind quite a few of those ideas...others not so much. Nothing wrong about that since Im an independant and have never, nor ever expect, to find a political group who I agree with 100% of the time.

I agree with Veks though, they will need to find some way to get their message out there. Blogs are fine and all but dont really shout out a groups interests unless there is fame or money somewhere in the equation. Still, they can go door to door, hold rallies, and debate their views against others. If they do enough of that they'll get noticed and I think they should be noticed. We desperately need more then 2 parties in our country, and even if you count the tea party as a third I still think we need more to ensure no party has a hold on political offices at any time.

Hmm.. I have been thinking that a multi-party system might work better for us these days, it would give the special interests a way to pursue their goals without them totally RULING a party like they do these days. More and more I'm thinking a coalition built government would be better than the mess we got these days.

[Oniya]

I'm thinking more and more that there needs to be some kind of realignment between the politicos and the people.  As I said elsewhere, 'Democrat' and 'Republican' have too much of a definition attached to them (and they may not even be the right ones).  Revamping them may not be possible any more.  At some point, if you add enough yellow to red*, you have to start calling it orange instead.  I haven't felt particularly 'represented' by either party for a while.  Mr. Oniya tells the pollsters he's 'Independent', but that's really more to get them to go away.  I know you've said that the moderate Republicans don't feel represented by the ultra-conservatives that get all the press.  We're all more than numbers on the Gallup readouts, and it's really time that the people claiming to represent us got that through their heads.




*Color choice has no political intent.  Damn you, trichromic vision.

[Apple of Eris]

I'm still a bit surprised that Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page/Sergey Brin, or Bill Gates/Warren Buffet don't throw down a gauntlet. Or get together to throw one down simultaneously.

But what would George Soros do? That would totally foul up Glenn Beck's charts!

Hmm.. I have been thinking that a multi-party system might work better for us these days, it would give the special interests a way to pursue their goals without them totally RULING a party like they do these days. More and more I'm thinking a coalition built government would be better than the mess we got these days.

I would love to have a multi-party parlimentarian system with an elected president. Maybe something akin to the french model. If only because I'm a social democrat (or maybe democratic socialist, I kind of drift between the two) and I don't have anyone who really represents my views, despite all the socialist name calling by some on the right.

[Phaia]

The problem with a multiparty system lies within the constitution and the electoral college. The electoral college almost forces a 2 party system because a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment.

It would take an amendment to the constitution to allow popular vote to elect a president. Without the ability to use just popular vote its almost useless to have  more then 2 parties since the big goal is the presidency. The entire process, from how bills and laws are done and how things work reinforce a 2 party system. Its why the "tea party movement" stayed frimly within the republican party, that way they could possibly force a candidate for president that matchs thier view set and still has a chance to win.

Phaia

[Oniya]

The problem with a multiparty system lies within the constitution and the electoral college. The electoral college almost forces a 2 party system because a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment.

It would take an amendment to the constitution to allow popular vote to elect a president. Without the ability to use just popular vote its almost useless to have  more then 2 parties since the big goal is the presidency. The entire process, from how bills and laws are done and how things work reinforce a 2 party system. Its why the "tea party movement" stayed frimly within the republican party, that way they could possibly force a candidate for president that matchs thier view set and still has a chance to win.

Phaia

Did that get updated after Wilson?  I'm asking because Wilson only collected 41% of the votes, with the other 59% split between Taft and T.R.

[OldSchoolGamer]

What does Bill Gates have to gain by funding education and malaria research?
What does Warren Buffet have to gain by lobbying for corporate tax reform?
What do Larry Page and Sergey Brin have to gain by snubbing China? (Interesting how Glenn Beck, Murdoch, and Republicans attack Google so savagely just after they're the only major corporation to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party)
What does Mark Zuckerberg gain by being a conduit for revolutions, to the point where they actively work against country's attempts to subvert them?

One word (well, an acronym, really): pr

[Vekseid]

How many news outlets report about Warren Buffet and Bill Gate's tax reform efforts? Or Google's efforts for Net Neutrality?