Barak Obama
2
Dante1214 wrote...
I don't think that bringing McCain into the argument is much good, if I recall correctly, before the election, F_PoD said he was going 3rd party. Could be misremembering, though.
You would be correct Dante. I voted Libertarian. I stuck to my principals, ideals. I voted for what I logically believe was the best opportunity to realize a better America. Despite this mentality of "voting third party is wasting a vote" it's the principal of the matter. I wasn't going to vote between douchebag 1 and douchbag 2
WhiteLion wrote...
As for the usual whining about the "liberal media"(if indeed the media is indeed as liberal as its accusers claim), let me ask you this: does the media have a responsibility to the public to try and treat both sides equally? Should we advance state enforcement of equal media coverage, as is already done on network television? Ultimately, media companies need to make money(in fact, Friedman might argue that their highest responsibility is to make money without engaging in illegal market practices). If liberality was significantly hurting the constituency of the mainstream media, they would do things differently. But as it is, people read the Washington Post, and not the Washington Times. If America is fed up with liberal media, then people should start buying conservative newspapers. I think in the case of this election people were legitimately more interested in stories about Obama. He was new, he was a novelty in some ways. McCain was the old veteran.Officials in office have been attempting to shut down or ruin any conservative view point. Everything from trying to start their own talk radio (Air America) which basically fell flat on it face because Liberal talking points are nothing be screaming about how conservatives are evil, uncaring, intolerant,etc. Politicians can sell their points to the masses but, when you sit down and study them they fall apart. How else would you explain the success of Rush and Hannity in talk radio? How else would you explain the constant attempts of Liberal democrats attempting to pass the fairness doctrine every year? Liberals don't like competition in their media. They want us to take what they say as law. Media should be impartial and unbiased. Otherwise they are telling the mindless masses what to think. You know damn well I'm against the expansion of the government in any capacity. Since if the government got involved in media you know that it would only be a fairness doctrine that would be inforced. CNN could keep being Liberal. Fox would have to have a Liberal person sitting besides their anchors.
WhiteLion wrote...
As for equal representation, I have no idea what you are thinking. The system of government we have is set up to be a representative democracy. We have more safeguards against excessive majority rule than most states(the senate, federalism), but how does forcing "equal" representation further the ideals of the US? It's not democracy if the vote doesn't count, and it's not liberty if the voters aren't free to choose whatever candidates they wish. You can think that they are foolish certainly, but to say that it is "unfair" is nonsense.Liberty and Freedom require intelligent people who are willing to fight for those ideals. The average American is barely capable of wiping themselves. Everything from giving up liberty for safety. Giving up their rights so big brother can protect them. The fact that you'll be fired from your job or sued into fiscal ruin if you exercise your freedom of speech. If you read the papers The founding fathers wrote in their respective times you would understand why they would be rolling over in their graves if they new what we did with the opportunity for freedom & liberty they gave us.
WhiteLion wrote...
The rest of the post seems to be either insulting Obama supporters, or selective ranting about the horror of Obama's policies. I tried to discuss the totality of Obama's associations and their implications as well as the importance of trying to approach these subjects from a rational standpoint. If you'd like to debate the ethical and economic merits of Obama's economic policy by examining in detail the possibilities and their relation to economic and moral theory, I'd be glad to participate. However, if you plan to shout down the opposition with insults and specious talking points, I don't really think there is anything else to be said.Doesn't really matter since it's already come to pass. Obama was able to convince the lemmings and various other idiots to come out in droves to vote for him. I'm not saying that only idiots and lemmings voted for him. I respect your points of view even though we are polar opposites. I'm just saying that the uneducated came out to vote in legions and with their numbers the intelligent voters are outnumbered in large margins. To me it shows the death of a true democracy since all it takes is Charisma and some backing and you can become president. By "true democracy" I mean that every voter is knowledgeable about the candidates. Most Americans can't even answer the question "Name one senator of your respective state" they'll draw a blank. Those people have absolutely no purpose in voting.
Maybe in the end I'm blowing this all out of proportion. Then again maybe I'm seeing something that nobody else can see. I can only come to the conclusion that the information in front of me gives me. Everything I have heard,seen and read plus my own logic have lead me to this conclusion "Obama was a bad choice for America". If I turn out to be wrong and he makes America better in my eyes then I'll change sides and support him.
0
If Obama was a bad choice for America, then I want to know what the right choice was. It certainly wasn't McCain, and there were no other choices. You can vote for a third-party, I respect a person sticking to their principles, but you can't say that a third-party had a chance of winning. So, it was a choice between either McCain or Obama. If both were wrong, then what do we do? Shrug our shoulders and say, "We're fucked"? No. One of those was better than the other, at least for this time. That person was Obama. Whatever problems he may have, he seems more capable of helping out America right now than McCain.
Obama may raise taxes for some people, but so what? The economy is in a mess, and something needs to be done. It may not be the best decision, but it's not going to collapse civilization as we know it. McCain, on the other hand, was going to keep us in a worthless war that would continually drain our money. How would that help us?
Regardless of why people voted for Obama, whether it was because they were "idiots" or because they saw him as a better choice than McCain, people still voted for him. Yes, a lot of people don't follow politics closely, but a citizen is a citizen, and we can't take away the right to vote just because a person chooses to watch football instead of the news. We can't make people pass a test over political figures before they can vote. And the big thing is, this is nothing new. If uninformed people voting is "the death of a true democracy," then democracy's been dead for well over a hundred years. Hell, it's probably been dead since before it was even born, since back when the country was first started, people would just vote for their political party across the board:
"Hello, we're voting for senator and governor today, do you want to hear-"
"I'm voting Federalist."
And that was that.
And people voting due to charisma is definitely not new. I'm pretty sure that's why JFK got elected. Charisma, and his good looks.
If we're going to be upset about anything, we should be upset over the fact that no perfect person exists. We should lament over the fact that no matter what happens, no perfect person will step up and help the world. People will always have problems, will always make mistakes, will always do bad things, and we have to elect one of these horrible people into the position of President, because that's all we can do. We can bitch and moan about how it sucks, but it won't change a damn thing. It may even be good to bitch and moan, so we can let out our aggressions, but we have to remember that our crying isn't going to get the current guy out of office, isn't going to make him a better person, and more often than not, isn't going to change someone else's mind about the guy.
Obama may raise taxes for some people, but so what? The economy is in a mess, and something needs to be done. It may not be the best decision, but it's not going to collapse civilization as we know it. McCain, on the other hand, was going to keep us in a worthless war that would continually drain our money. How would that help us?
Regardless of why people voted for Obama, whether it was because they were "idiots" or because they saw him as a better choice than McCain, people still voted for him. Yes, a lot of people don't follow politics closely, but a citizen is a citizen, and we can't take away the right to vote just because a person chooses to watch football instead of the news. We can't make people pass a test over political figures before they can vote. And the big thing is, this is nothing new. If uninformed people voting is "the death of a true democracy," then democracy's been dead for well over a hundred years. Hell, it's probably been dead since before it was even born, since back when the country was first started, people would just vote for their political party across the board:
"Hello, we're voting for senator and governor today, do you want to hear-"
"I'm voting Federalist."
And that was that.
And people voting due to charisma is definitely not new. I'm pretty sure that's why JFK got elected. Charisma, and his good looks.
If we're going to be upset about anything, we should be upset over the fact that no perfect person exists. We should lament over the fact that no matter what happens, no perfect person will step up and help the world. People will always have problems, will always make mistakes, will always do bad things, and we have to elect one of these horrible people into the position of President, because that's all we can do. We can bitch and moan about how it sucks, but it won't change a damn thing. It may even be good to bitch and moan, so we can let out our aggressions, but we have to remember that our crying isn't going to get the current guy out of office, isn't going to make him a better person, and more often than not, isn't going to change someone else's mind about the guy.
0
Shaggy
I'm glad I have people like you and Whitelion to butt heads with. Keeps my feet on the ground.
I gotta nitpick though. Raising taxes in a fiscal crisis is the best way to continue a fiscal crisis. People are losing their jobs and their homes. Their credit card rates are getting raised,etc,etc. The absolute LAST thing they need is higher taxes. You can tax the rich or the companies and the only thing it will do is place the extra burden on the tax payers. Companies are impossible to tax directly as they will just fire employees or pass the cost onto the consumer.
Which works into my grip about Obama. The man plans on raising taxes which we can't afford. Then there is the new "new deal" that is being talked about. Some economists state that the original "new deal" actually perpetuated the great depression and stalled the economic recovery. With this "new deal" following the pattern of the first. We could be in this crisis until most of the forum members are into their late 20's, early 30's
Speaking of his spending plans. Health care, as you already know when it comes to these things you (shaggy) and I are on opposite sides. You represent the collective (greater good) while I represent the individual.
When it comes to socialized medicine what are we going to do about people who are HIV positive or AIDS positive? Treatment is extremely expensive. So what are we supposed to do? Give everyone the treatment and take more from the tax payers? Give to some? A few? What about other diseases like cancer? Do we throw everything and anything at ever case? Do we leave it up to the doctor to decide who should get what and how much? There is also the question of coma victims. For the people who don't want to pull the plug. Are we supposed to continue to pay for their decision? What about the average fat bastard who didn't want to eat properly(wolfing down Bic Macs & Whoppers) ? Am I suppose to pay for his decision to clog his arteries with fat?
That doesn't even include the average medications that people are on everything from blood thinners like Warfarin to E.D. treatment like Cialis? You know that if things like Viagra or Cialis are left out of the "coverage" then people will sue and jam up the legal system until they can get their erections courtesy of the taxpayers. So who gets the name brand pills? Who gets the generics? Speaking of pills..what about bitch control pills? Abortions? Are people who find birth control & abortions against their religion (practicing Catholics,etc) supposed to pay for things they find morally unacceptable? What about "elective" surgeries like gender swaps? (same thing with E.D. treatment people will sue until it's covered). Breast implants? Penis extensions?
How will resources be distributed? Not every hospital can be equipped with top of the line machines. Some hospitals specialize in a specific field like Saint Joseph's Hospital in Atlanta specializes in cardiac treatments. Is every hospital supposed to be top of the line? Are only a few places supposed to remain really well equipped while the rest remain like basic clinics? How will doctors & nurses be distributed?
Everybody being healthy and happy is a noble goal but, personal responsibility is missing from how this would be implemented. Canadians and Europeans can tout how their system is so great but, they leave out a couple key details. People with cancer and other illnesses are forced to wait 6 weeks before they can start treatment. Their "free" health care puts a huge drain on their economies.
Energy policy: when I hear Obama talk about "clean coal" I can't help but, laugh HARD. While he's at it why doesn't he come up with a way to fuck for virginity? I would like to introduce Obama to a little thing called reality. If Obama is willing to believe in this myth I wonder what other myths he believes in? He is also a hypocrite when it comes to supporting coal. He supports "clean coal" during a campaign rally but, in an interview he had during the same campaign he said
So does he support the use of coal or does he want to remove the coal industry entirely (seeing as there isn't a "clean coal" plant in the country). It's also a hypocrisy to support yet, be a part of the global warming crowd. His other "energy policies" are complete trash as well (cap & trade,etc).
Don't even get my started on the "Civilian security" plan.
Hell, even Bill Clinton points out Obama's say one thing do another tactics.
Is this enough to hate the guy, or do I need to add to my argument?
On the "Lesser of two evil" argument. The same two parties have done the same talking points, gone after the same crowds, propose the same tired arguments and promises that they always have. Where is the "change" Obama was suppose to bring? Looks just like any other democratic campaign (except in stead of an old white guy, it was a Milano). Lets try an an exercise
Flip a coin. Head can be democrats and tails can be republicans. Whichever side the coin lands on. That is the party that is going to fuck you in the ass. Flip the coin again. Flip it again. Flip it a couple more times. Notice a pattern? The party (side) may change but, in the end. You're still getting fucked in the ass. Wanna know the secret to stop getting screwed? Don't "flip the coin". If you want REAL change instead of someone telling you what you want to hear for your vote (every politician does this) then you have to break the cycle. Nothing is going to change when you vote democrat for 4-8 years then you go republican 4-8 years then go back to democrat for another 4-8 years. You still have republicans acting like republicans and democrats still acting like democrats. Nothing changes but the faces, the names, and the trends (high school never ends...Oh Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh)
I know a wall of text. I'm sorry.
[spoil=]
[/spoil]
I'm glad I have people like you and Whitelion to butt heads with. Keeps my feet on the ground.
I gotta nitpick though. Raising taxes in a fiscal crisis is the best way to continue a fiscal crisis. People are losing their jobs and their homes. Their credit card rates are getting raised,etc,etc. The absolute LAST thing they need is higher taxes. You can tax the rich or the companies and the only thing it will do is place the extra burden on the tax payers. Companies are impossible to tax directly as they will just fire employees or pass the cost onto the consumer.
Which works into my grip about Obama. The man plans on raising taxes which we can't afford. Then there is the new "new deal" that is being talked about. Some economists state that the original "new deal" actually perpetuated the great depression and stalled the economic recovery. With this "new deal" following the pattern of the first. We could be in this crisis until most of the forum members are into their late 20's, early 30's
Speaking of his spending plans. Health care, as you already know when it comes to these things you (shaggy) and I are on opposite sides. You represent the collective (greater good) while I represent the individual.
When it comes to socialized medicine what are we going to do about people who are HIV positive or AIDS positive? Treatment is extremely expensive. So what are we supposed to do? Give everyone the treatment and take more from the tax payers? Give to some? A few? What about other diseases like cancer? Do we throw everything and anything at ever case? Do we leave it up to the doctor to decide who should get what and how much? There is also the question of coma victims. For the people who don't want to pull the plug. Are we supposed to continue to pay for their decision? What about the average fat bastard who didn't want to eat properly(wolfing down Bic Macs & Whoppers) ? Am I suppose to pay for his decision to clog his arteries with fat?
That doesn't even include the average medications that people are on everything from blood thinners like Warfarin to E.D. treatment like Cialis? You know that if things like Viagra or Cialis are left out of the "coverage" then people will sue and jam up the legal system until they can get their erections courtesy of the taxpayers. So who gets the name brand pills? Who gets the generics? Speaking of pills..what about bitch control pills? Abortions? Are people who find birth control & abortions against their religion (practicing Catholics,etc) supposed to pay for things they find morally unacceptable? What about "elective" surgeries like gender swaps? (same thing with E.D. treatment people will sue until it's covered). Breast implants? Penis extensions?
How will resources be distributed? Not every hospital can be equipped with top of the line machines. Some hospitals specialize in a specific field like Saint Joseph's Hospital in Atlanta specializes in cardiac treatments. Is every hospital supposed to be top of the line? Are only a few places supposed to remain really well equipped while the rest remain like basic clinics? How will doctors & nurses be distributed?
Everybody being healthy and happy is a noble goal but, personal responsibility is missing from how this would be implemented. Canadians and Europeans can tout how their system is so great but, they leave out a couple key details. People with cancer and other illnesses are forced to wait 6 weeks before they can start treatment. Their "free" health care puts a huge drain on their economies.
Energy policy: when I hear Obama talk about "clean coal" I can't help but, laugh HARD. While he's at it why doesn't he come up with a way to fuck for virginity? I would like to introduce Obama to a little thing called reality. If Obama is willing to believe in this myth I wonder what other myths he believes in? He is also a hypocrite when it comes to supporting coal. He supports "clean coal" during a campaign rally but, in an interview he had during the same campaign he said
So does he support the use of coal or does he want to remove the coal industry entirely (seeing as there isn't a "clean coal" plant in the country). It's also a hypocrisy to support yet, be a part of the global warming crowd. His other "energy policies" are complete trash as well (cap & trade,etc).
Don't even get my started on the "Civilian security" plan.
Hell, even Bill Clinton points out Obama's say one thing do another tactics.
Is this enough to hate the guy, or do I need to add to my argument?
On the "Lesser of two evil" argument. The same two parties have done the same talking points, gone after the same crowds, propose the same tired arguments and promises that they always have. Where is the "change" Obama was suppose to bring? Looks just like any other democratic campaign (except in stead of an old white guy, it was a Milano). Lets try an an exercise
Flip a coin. Head can be democrats and tails can be republicans. Whichever side the coin lands on. That is the party that is going to fuck you in the ass. Flip the coin again. Flip it again. Flip it a couple more times. Notice a pattern? The party (side) may change but, in the end. You're still getting fucked in the ass. Wanna know the secret to stop getting screwed? Don't "flip the coin". If you want REAL change instead of someone telling you what you want to hear for your vote (every politician does this) then you have to break the cycle. Nothing is going to change when you vote democrat for 4-8 years then you go republican 4-8 years then go back to democrat for another 4-8 years. You still have republicans acting like republicans and democrats still acting like democrats. Nothing changes but the faces, the names, and the trends (high school never ends...Oh Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh, Oh Oh Oh-Oh)
I know a wall of text. I'm sorry.
[spoil=]
[/spoil]
0
I'm declaring myself a non-combatant for this debate but I would like to point out that there is such a thing as clean coal. I can't remember the specific process but it does involve a shit-ton of water that somehow pretty much eliminates all of the pollution from burning coal. Your attack on clean coal "hypocrisy" is out of ignorance but the idea is stupid anyway. Wind and solar are much superior options.
0
FpoD, I'm glad you're here, too. Your posts are often insightful, filled with passion, and say things that leave me thinking. Often, they render me speechless, forcing me to reconsider or rethink my own views. This last post is no different. It made me realize that I am idealistic about some things but abhor idealism in other things. When it comes to people in general, I like to be forgiving and try to look at the best. I want the highest amount of people pleased as possible. With politics, I am harsh and cold. I say that eventually in the future, the system will be changed, and that a third-party candidate may become President, but I refuse to believe that it will happen in my lifetime or even the next generation's lifetime.
This disparity isn't good. If I can be optimistic about people, I should be able to be optimistic about politics, and if I can be pessimistic about politics, I should be able to be pessimistic about people.
You raised some very good points, and I'm not sure how to reply to them. Obama's plans aren't perfect, and I think a lot of people decided to be Obama fans simply because he wasn't Bush. (He's got a funny name, he's young, and he's [half] black. That's about as far from Bush as you can get without going completely crazy.) That sort of behavior isn't commendable. If people are going to like Obama, it should be because they like his ideas.
I think if Obama's term goes well, nothing will change, at least for a while. People will believe that having a Republican in office, then a Democrat, then a Republican, and so on, is a fine system. But if Obama's term doesn't go well, more people may realize the many flaws of the two-party system and help to bring about a true change in politics. I'm actually not sure which I'd want, because on one hand, Obama doing well will mean that the country is doing well, but no real progress would be made, and on the other hand, Obama doing poorly would mean that the country is doing poorly, for the sake of progress.
Thinking is hard. Maybe it'd be better if America was abolished and the land split between Mexico and Canada. That way, illegal immigrants wouldn't have to be illegal, and draft dodgers wouldn't have to go as far to get away from war.
Wait, that joke doesn't make any sense.
This disparity isn't good. If I can be optimistic about people, I should be able to be optimistic about politics, and if I can be pessimistic about politics, I should be able to be pessimistic about people.
You raised some very good points, and I'm not sure how to reply to them. Obama's plans aren't perfect, and I think a lot of people decided to be Obama fans simply because he wasn't Bush. (He's got a funny name, he's young, and he's [half] black. That's about as far from Bush as you can get without going completely crazy.) That sort of behavior isn't commendable. If people are going to like Obama, it should be because they like his ideas.
I think if Obama's term goes well, nothing will change, at least for a while. People will believe that having a Republican in office, then a Democrat, then a Republican, and so on, is a fine system. But if Obama's term doesn't go well, more people may realize the many flaws of the two-party system and help to bring about a true change in politics. I'm actually not sure which I'd want, because on one hand, Obama doing well will mean that the country is doing well, but no real progress would be made, and on the other hand, Obama doing poorly would mean that the country is doing poorly, for the sake of progress.
Thinking is hard. Maybe it'd be better if America was abolished and the land split between Mexico and Canada. That way, illegal immigrants wouldn't have to be illegal, and draft dodgers wouldn't have to go as far to get away from war.
Wait, that joke doesn't make any sense.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
I don't think that bringing McCain into the argument is much good, if I recall correctly, before the election, F_PoD said he was going 3rd party. Could be misremembering, though.
You would be correct Dante. I voted Libertarian. I stuck to my principals, ideals. I voted for what I logically believe was the best opportunity to realize a better America. Despite this mentality of "voting third party is wasting a vote" it's the principal of the matter. I wasn't going to vote between douchebag 1 and douchbag 2
My thoughts exactly, except I voted Nader in order to try and change the political system from a 2 party oligarchy to a far more realistic multi-party representation system. And I will continue to vote Nader in order to advance 3rd party awareness, even though the last 2 elections Nader ran as an independent. Really, All I want is for an independent or 3rd party to gain enough votes in the general election to get campaign finance. That's only 10% of the vote or 6% of all eligible voters. Right now though it looks like well have to wait for Bloomberg to do it, as he is the only viable 3rd party/independent candidate out there.
Ok, enough off topic from me. That part just caught my eye so I had to respond.
EDIT: More off topic!
blind_assassin wrote...
I'm declaring myself a non-combatant for this debate but I would like to point out that there is such a thing as clean coal. I can't remember the specific process but it does involve a shit-ton of water that somehow pretty much eliminates all of the pollution from burning coal. Your attack on clean coal "hypocrisy" is out of ignorance but the idea is stupid anyway. Wind and solar are much superior options.The other clean coal tech is being pioneered in Germany as we speak in which coal is pulverized into a fine powder and then burned with liquid O2 to form a highly efficient combustion with about as much to fewer greenhouse emissions as a natural gas power plant while being far more efficient in producing energy.
But the "real" clean coal technology that everyone talks about would be just removing the sulfur from the coal to reduce acid rain. Still incredibly dirty though.
Another off topic but interesting subject. I may post links latter on, but right now I would rather get back on topic.
0
Our current system in many ways is structured so as to keep down third parties. Political funding, ease of getting on the ballot, etc. Obviously, the GOP and Dems have no motive to change this. Ideological third parties are a bit of a lost cause. If a truly new party comes into existence, it will probably be either because someone is able to seize control of one of the major two parties from the inside and change things drastically(such as if Ron Paul had succeeded on a very large and wide scale) or because a charismatic and influential individual is able to become president, govern successfully, and stick around long enough to coalesce a party around him or herself(someone like Ross Perot or Michael Bloomberg becomes president running independently).
0
spalose wrote...
4. with that said, he did win the election, i may not have voted for him, but i love my country, if i really hated Obama so much i could've just moved to Canada right? so i look forward to what he'll do for the USA and hope for the best
I don't know why people always bring up this point. You do know Canada is more "socialist" and liberal the the US right?
Obama would be leaning more to the right here. If you hate him, then you're gonna despise Stephen "I'm gonna prorogue parliament because I'm a weasel" Harper and he's a Conservative.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
I'm declaring myself a non-combatant for this debate but I would like to point out that there is such a thing as clean coal. I can't remember the specific process but it does involve a shit-ton of water that somehow pretty much eliminates all of the pollution from burning coal. Your attack on clean coal "hypocrisy" is out of ignorance but the idea is stupid anyway. Wind and solar are much superior options.I left something out. Though the way I said it I would be consider ignorant. Though I meant to say "In the United states, there is no such thing as "Clean Coal plants". You are correct that there is a method it's just that no C.C. plants exist in America at this time. Then with his stance on taxing Coal companies into "bankruptcy" for opening a new plant leaves a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
He could mandate that a "typical" coal plant would be taxed into oblivion while allowing plants the utilize the technology would be let off easy. I'll get right behind him on that (You'll actually see me standing beside him clapping)
ShaggyJebus wrote...
FpoD, I'm glad you're here, too. Your posts are often insightful, filled with passion, and say things that leave me thinking. Often, they render me speechless, forcing me to reconsider or rethink my own views. This last post is no different. It made me realize that I am idealistic about some things but abhor idealism in other things. When it comes to people in general, I like to be forgiving and try to look at the best. I want the highest amount of people pleased as possible. With politics, I am harsh and cold. I say that eventually in the future, the system will be changed, and that a third-party candidate may become President, but I refuse to believe that it will happen in my lifetime or even the next generation's lifetime.This disparity isn't good. If I can be optimistic about people, I should be able to be optimistic about politics, and if I can be pessimistic about politics, I should be able to be pessimistic about people.
We're both guilty of being idealist so we're more like minded than either of us thought (everything you said I can see myself reiterating at another point).
WhiteLion wrote...
Our current system in many ways is structured so as to keep down third parties. Political funding, ease of getting on the ballot, etc. Obviously, the GOP and Dems have no motive to change this. Ideological third parties are a bit of a lost cause. If a truly new party comes into existence, it will probably be either because someone is able to seize control of one of the major two parties from the inside and change things drastically(such as if Ron Paul had succeeded on a very large and wide scale) or because a charismatic and influential individual is able to become president, govern successfully, and stick around long enough to coalesce a party around him or herself(someone like Ross Perot or Michael Bloomberg becomes president running independently).You gotta change the system then. Going with the status quo never changes anything. Though, your example is definitely the more realistic but, leave the problem of how parties dislike individual thinkers (the democrats have tried to have Joe Liberman from the senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. He also lost his membership to the environment and public works committee). Why? Because he didn't back Obama. Though I guess good political navigation can get you through that.