[QUOTE=xilman;174557]Any likelihood of those disillusioned with both parties forming a new group? They could call themselves "National Socialists".

Paul[/QUOTE]I'm surprised that no party has formed with an intention to acquire as much of the large independent demographic as possible.

Such a party would be antithetical to what independent means but if they could pull it off, it would in one fell swoop be as large as the Republican Party from the onset.

[QUOTE=only_human;174565]I'm surprised that no party has formed with an intention to acquire as much of the large independent demographic as possible.

Such a party would be antithetical to what independent means but if they could pull it off, it would in one fell swoop be as large as the Republican Party from the onset.[/QUOTE]

There are a few reasons. Few people think that a third party is viable. The middle is a very large demographic with diverse beliefs, thus how does one appeal to them as a whole? What "hot-button" issues could the middle take control over, i.e. get the constituency fired up over and get consensus?

[QUOTE=rogue;174572]There are a few reasons. Few people think that a third party is viable. The middle is a very large demographic with diverse beliefs, thus how does one appeal to them as a whole? What "hot-button" issues could the middle take control over, i.e. get the constituency fired up over and get consensus?[/QUOTE]Well perhaps it could be crafted almost cynically to appeal to centrist philosophies; the right is clinging to southern fundamentalist values and the left's heart bleeds too much. Lobbyists are a problem in the beltway, so that could be a issue.

Something dramatically different could galvanize the majority if carefully crafted and delivered.

Issues could be relocating the capital (I know = implausable) much the same way Brazil did. A more central focus of power would be a literal representation of a philosophical stand and also be strategically safer. (We are supposed to be hardening targets and reducing terrorist exposure)

Abolishing daylight savings time would have health benefits and be very popular if delivered scientifically.

Repartitioning time zones to spread the mainland over 3 time zones instead of 4 would make a dramatic difference in available overlap of business hours of businesses on the coasts.

Hard to say what would work. But something should.

[quote=AES;174550]No. From what I can gather, both parties are migrating away from nationalism and Christianity.[/quote]

Or you have stopped to recognize Christian-Nationalist policies as such.

Have you seen the signs "One Nation - One Plan"? If voters think that's an [I]argument pro[/I] socialized medicine, they are obviously OK with:

[CENTER][I]One Nation to rule them all, One Nation to find them,
One Nation to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
[/I][LEFT]
Note that 'them' works for citizens and countries.

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

American politics has become 'The Art of War'.

Divide & conquer is the normal result in a 2 party system it seems;
scorching everyone in some manner in the end.

A true 3 or greater party system would do wonders for actually getting positive goals accomplished but it is not likely to happen because those with the power want to retain that power - not share it contrary to the words that shoot out of their mouths.

They brand the tea party participants negatively or label returning military personnel as 'potential radicals'. Those individuals want to form coalitions around better goals - not narrow platforms that are self-perpetuating to the retention of power and position. They are disenchanted with the status quo of mucky american politics and criminals in congress and the white house.
The US media is no better - they wouldn't know a fact if one hit them in the face sometimes.

As to religion being on the downtrend and atheism being on the upswing: atheism is just another religion - the religion of one's self and not truly having to be accountable to a 'highest power' or anything other than ones own "moral judgement" [how in the heck can one have sound moral judgement if one doesn't have much of a soul or spiritual outlook??]. Atheists then foist their self-aggrandized agenda upon everyone else just as religious believers do but in much worse ways:: a) hug terrorists, don't interrogate them b) if you don't care for homosexuality you are evil and wrong c) apologize for everything done in the past that we don't agree with [like the US was BAD for bombing Hitler??? WTH????] d) legalization of dangerous drugs [sure let's have more death, disease and destruction ... that makes sense] e) global warming - save the penguins n whales for they are FAR more important than starving children globally or those dying of malaria
.....
The world is going to proverbial hell - hopefully when my daughter is 18 there will still be a sane & intelligent continent left to go settle down in [australia perhaps?]

xkey - FTR I am right of center though I consider myself independent based on priorities of issues. I am also catholic - proud but also rational [staunchly pro-life and other 'sound' biblical principles; differ though in being pro-condom and other rational devices that God would not be against (like GIMPS, linux and the Green Bay Packers)].
I can respect a Buddhist, a Shintoist and the observers of several other religious faiths [not all, there are some whack cults out there blah], but I just can't believe in and respect someone who believes in nothing other than themself spiritually.

[quote=xkey;174583]A true 3 or greater party system would do wonders for actually getting positive goals accomplished but it is not likely to happen because those with the power want to retain that power - not share it contrary to the words that shoot out of their mouths.[/quote]

[I]So far...so good...[/I]

[quote=xkey;174583]They brand the tea party participants negatively or label returning military personnel as 'potential radicals'. Those individuals want to form coalitions around better goals - not narrow platforms that are self-perpetuating to the retention of power and position. They are disenchanted with the status quo of mucky american politics and criminals in congress and the white house.

The US media is no better - they wouldn't know a fact if one hit them in the face sometimes.[/quote]

[I]Could this guy maybe be my friend?[/I]

[quote=xkey;174583]As to religion being on the downtrend and atheism being on the upswing: atheism is just another religion - the religion of one's self and not truly having to be accountable to a 'highest power' or anything other than ones own "moral judgement"[...] [/quote]

[I]I guess not...[/I]

Atheism is based on the absence of evidence for the supernatural. If you're too stupid to figure out the purpose of morals and draw the appropriate conclusions, please do not assume that people who are smarter than you cannot either.

Successful societies have guidelines such as "You really shouldn't steal", because a consequence of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem"]Coase theorem[/URL] is that clearly defined property rights lead to an efficient allocation of resources, not because some supernatural entity has chosen them as its favorite troop of naked apes.

All other necessary guidelines are justifiable by sound reasoning, which is why the world will not end, if you stare at your neighbor's wife's tits, make fire on Saturday, stick your penis into someone's anus, get high, or begin every other sentence with "Jesus titty-fvcking Christ".

[quote=xkey;174583][...]how in the heck can one have sound moral judgement if one doesn't have much of a soul or spiritual outlook??[/quote]

[I]In fact he is the enemy...[/I]

How the hell, devil can you claim to have [B]any[/B] sound judgment at all, if you believe in the supernatural?

As much as I hate socialists, because their convictions are based on irrelevance of adverse selection and asymmetric information, I really, really fvcking hate people with convictions based on the irrelevance of reason, because there is absolutely no way to reason with them.

What makes this so annoying, is that since they are immune to reason, the only way their ideas will change, is when their brain finally dies.

For once I mostly agree with __HRB__, except the word choice and the unnecessary agressivity...

Jacob

[quote=S485122;174599]For once I mostly agree with __HRB__, except the word choice and the unnecessary agressivity...

Jacob[/quote]

Screw you. :-)

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174589]
I really, really fvcking hate people with convictions based on the irrelevance of reason, because there is absolutely no way to reason with them.

What makes this so annoying, is that since they are immune to reason, the only way their ideas will change, is when their brain finally dies.[/QUOTE]

There are many different cultures around the world that practice very diverse religions. Does your bigotry include all of them?

[quote=AES;174646]There are many different cultures around the world that practice very diverse religions. Does your bigotry include all of them?[/quote]

I have no prejudices: anyone who believes in the supernatural is a dangerous fool, regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, education, ...

Since you preach tolerance, you should really try some religions - maybe religion is good for you! I suggest you begin by trying the ones that have some form of collective suicide on doomsday.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174651]I suggest you begin by trying the ones that have some form of collective suicide on doomsday.[/QUOTE]
Your avatar seems apt. You are spraying foul odours around.

You can catch more flies with honey.....