I read in a recent article (sorry no link) that the majority of americans are unhappy with the two main parties. Ralph Nader was unable to make a dent in the 2004 elections and the Liberterian party was less significant. I don't think Nader is running again and the Green Party might need another high profile candidate. Do you think that the Green Party and the Liberterian parties should join forces or are they too far at opposite ends of the political spectrum? Do you think if they did join would they give the two main parties a run for their (massive amounts of) money. Would the media not give them enough coverage? Any thoughts?

My thoughts.
There will be a gay married president before there is president who is not republican or democrat.
Currently, there is no viable third party, and the only thing they can hope for is to be a spoiler like Nader in 2000.
A lot of good he did!
There is one scenario in which it might be possible.
Total national devastation through war and economic pain and both major parties being almost exactly similar, then, and only then, could a third party of either the far left or the far right have a shot.
Believe me, this is not something to wish for.

G-d, I find that I actually tend to agree with you TQ. I'd like to think that it was you getting smarter, but it could also be me in the first stages of Part-Timers Disease.

Let us relish in the moment, Mr. John.

If they werent so asleep on Foreign Policy, I would register Libertarian.

Yeah, the US could use another party that terrorizes nations, starts CIA trained coups, assassinates and kidnap democratically elected leaders from other countries, drop bombs on more countries than all the others combined, support bloodthirsty tyrants. If you are unaware of American foreign policy, that's unfotunate. If you know what happens and you still make excuses, you are worse than any terrorist.

...and some people wonder why 911 happenned.

Thank you for that fair and balanced statement, Tuatara.

Whoa there pilgrim. You got any specifics on these allegations? Or is this typical mindless left wing rhetoric?

I hope you're ready for the long haul. Most people disappear after only 5% of the facts have been presented. Where do you want to start first? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, East Timor? I will let you decide. If you need a refresher in where to start check here or here.

WWhy don't you start a new thread on each alledged incident with your own words instead of posting some marxist links.

Nader is pretty much a communist, and while conservative economically and for small government, Badnarik is a defeatist, a dour pessemist, and a coward.

One of these parties of going to get their big break soon, because this neo-fascist American Democratic party is fast on its way to destruction, they will cease to be a serious force in American politics once they are humiliated with the Hildabeast in '08. One of these 3rd parties, or a new one, will fill this power vaccum. The question is, which one?

Callow youth.
It is your rep party that is in for a big downfall in 2008.
The American people are already sick to death of your war criminal lame duck politically SPENT bush.

Keep telling yourself that.

IMHO - the best chane for a 3rd party wuold be if one of the 2 parties broke up ... Most likely to be the Republicans.

There would be the Conservative Christin party, some sort of paleoconservative party. perhaps a few other options.

That would only happen if there were a BIIIIG scandal, though...

I think you may have cracked the shell with that one X.

The republican party has a very broad base. From one side to the other is quite expansive but the population is not consistent. This as opposed to the Dems who seem to be following a narrow groove as if trapped on some old LP marching in single file to the tune of a pied piper. The Republicans could split from the center and the ones further from the center to the left would have a much larger constituancy than those from the center to the far right. Many currently registered Dems would then not feel the distaste for the New Party and probably prefer it to the monosonoric rhetoric of the Dems.

I am quite aware of US foreign policy and what a disgusting strawman of it you just created. The levels of intellectual dishonesty to which you are willing to reach are distressing.

A viable third party is, and will remain, impossible in this country as long as the following conditions prevail.

1 - Big business and big money percieve only the Dems and Reps to be worthy of their support. Meaning they think their candidates will have enough power, once elected or re-elected, to pass favors back to them. No third party candidates can gain power through numbers fast enough to meet this requirement.

2 - The media will have to give the same coverage to the third party candidates as they do to the Dems and Reps. While some of the same reasons mentioned in item one apply, there is also an ideological slant to the media that will continue to insure their support for the mainstream two. Almost all of the mainstream media outlets lean to either conservative Republican or liberal Democrat candidates and I don't see this changing any time soon. The rest of the fringe media can taut their third party candidates all they want but their lack of national coverage and credibility will continue to render them innefective.

3 - If there is any truth to the conspiracy theories, the "POWERS THAT BE" in the form of the "Council on Foriegn Relations" (CFR) which is percieved to be a descendant of such past orginizations as the Masons, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminatti, and such similar groups will continue to influence who even becomes a candidate for the big two. It is interesting to note that every one of our historically recent presidents has been a member of the CFR and many of our early presidents were Masons, including George Washington.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that once big money and big power gain this kind of control they won't be letting go of it any time soon. In fact, that same rocket scientist should have no trouble figuring out that the only place and time a non mainstream candidate would have a chance is in a post appocalyptic United States where big money and big power no longer have enough of their money or power left to influence anything.

Scandal and strife won't shift this power in the future because we have had plenty of both in the past and they haven't changed a thing. Just look at the vastly unpopular Vietnam war, the Clinton sex scandals and lying about it, Watergate, rising crime rates and new criminal activities like carjacking, the woes being brought on by illegal immigration, terrorist threats and attacks, overcrowded prisons releasing hardened criminals back into society because they have no room, and many more similar items. All this and much more has had no effect on the big two parties to excersize a defacto monopoly.

Lets face it, the populace can, for the most part, can be led like sheep to the slaughter by the media and the money & power interests. Only if something happens to convince the "POWERS THAT BE" that an independant candidate would be in their best interests will a third party runner stand a chance as long as the money and power group keep their money and power.

Your going to always have money and power no matter what.

If a third or fourth party came into being, I believe that those parties would be under the same amount of financial pressures, and powers, as our present ones. And those extra parties would start behaving like what you have seen in the past with both of the present parties now.

That is why I believe that eventually you're going to see both major parties evolve in order to survive.

An example of this has been watching how different members of both parties in the legislative branch has not sided with their parties absolutely.

John McCain and Joe Lieberman are prime examples of this.

In my opinion, in order for any political party to survive in the future, they are going to have to quit siding with every want and need of the party they belong to, and start leaning their ears toward the people that put them in that job.

The US historically has politicians vastly more independent from their parties than in other nations. Simply look at the the UK, where total loyalty is not at all to the voters, but rather to the party.

The two-party system works well enough. I prefer two-party to multi-party, since in a two-party system you have more of an honest debate.