Here is a quick history of how the Republican party, the party of Lincoln, came to be. It can just as easily be remade into a new conservative party. A presidential candidate from a new third party can win. Lincoln did. The Republican Party was founded on July 6th, 1854. The party was born of hostility to slavery. Back in 1820, the US Congress had agreed the Missouri Compromise, under which Missouri entered the Union as a slave state, but slavery was forbidden anywhere else in the Louisiana Purchase north of 36º 30’. However, in 1854 the principle was threatened by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, under which the white inhabitants of the two territories were to decide by referendum whether slavery would be allowed there or not. There were numerous Americans in the northern states who disapproved of slavery, including many northern Whigs and Democrats as well as the Free Soilers, who had sprung from concern over the possible introduction of slavery in territory acquired from Mexico in the 1840s. With the slogan ‘Free soil, free speech, free labor and free men’, the Free Soil Party had run Martin Van Buren unsuccessfully for president in 1848. Free Soilers now joined Whigs and northern Democrats to form a new, completely northern political party. The original impetus came from impromptu ‘anti-Nebraska’ meetings in the north-western states of Wisconsin and Michigan to discuss what to do if the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed. The meetings were not only opposed to slavery, but demanded the opening up of the West by small homesteaders and the building of railroads. In February a gathering in Ripon, Wisconsin, resolved to form a new party and a local lawyer named Alvan E. Bovay suggested the name Republican for its echoes of Thomas Jefferson. In Michigan there were meetings in Kalamazoo, Jackson and Detroit, and after the Act had passed in May, the new party was formally founded in Jackson in July. A leading figure was Austin Blair, a Free Soiler lawyer who was prosecuting attorney of Jackson County. He helped to draft the new party’s platform, was elected to the state senate in Republican colours that year and would become governor of Michigan in 1860. In Illinois meanwhile, another lawyer, a Whig named Abraham Lincoln, had come out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In a speech at Peoria in October 1854 he said: ‘No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.’ He proclaimed that slavery was ‘a monstrous injustice’ and a breach of the Declaration of Independence and for a time he favoured transporting ex-slaves back to Africa. The new party quickly spread to the other northern states, where it displaced the Whigs as the principal opposition to the Democrats. Slavery was not the only issue. Northerners often looked down on blacks, but dislike of slavery was part of belief in a United States in which every man was free to make himself a good life by his own efforts. Already in the 1854 elections the Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives. Two years later the party ran its first presidential candidate, the celebrated western explorer John C. Fremont, who carried eleven states. The 1860 party convention in Chicago chose Lincoln as its candidate with Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, a former Democrat, as his running mate. The northern and southern wings of the Democratic Party ran rival candidates, which let the Republicans in with the electoral votes of all the northern states. From then until 1932, of seventeen presidential elections the Republicans lost only four, two each to Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson. No new political party has won an American presidential election since 1860. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/republican-party-founded#sthash.7uazWsVK.dpuf
While Lincoln's election led immediately to the secession of the south and civil war, that is not our situation now. The south's entire economy and way of life were based on slavery and Lincoln's speeches were clearly anti-slavery. The candidate we want will be anti-abortion and pro-constitution. That does not rise to the same level of existential economic threat that the south felt at the election of Lincoln. More and more Americans are reporting themselves pro-life. If we find a candidate who can beat Trump at his own game, expressing mindless, baseless bravado, with a candidate that has real bravado, like a retired general, but also has intelligence and a moral backbone, Trump can be beat.
Amen Dawn...I could not have said it any better! You nailed it! My sentiments exactly! I will not settle for a godless man and expect any good to come from it. I see fascist vs. communist/progressive....neither are acceptable.
Yep...I'm not ready to settle for trump or Hillary...praying that a serious conservative runs third party. Americans are not happy with their choices...time to give them a third one.
Whatever!! We have a Civic & Christian Duty to VOTE. DO NOT stay home on Election Day because you can't stomach the Presidential Nominees!! Local & State Elections are critical ... maybe more important than ever!! We are in this Sad State of 2016 because Citizens did NOT Vote and allowed Fringe Radical Groups to "Take-Over". Likewise, we sat mute in our pews or voted with our feet when it came to the radical fringe "Take-Over" of OUR Catholic Church post Vatican II! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
No...no one should stay home! There are other good, conservative candidates running for congress that we need to get out and support! No one should stay home. And yes....local elections are very important! It is our duty!
Third Party will just guarantee a Democrat in the White House. We did that in with Perot in 92 and got 8 years of SlickWillie the Oval Office Lothario We must do our Civic/Christian Duty and Vote though, sadly, I don't think it matters .......... The Storm is unfolding whether one wishes to acknowledge it or no. Prayer, Action & Preparation at the Local Level is "Where It's At" ... NOW .... always has been really!! We are in trouble in the Country/Church 'cause we "handed-off" our responsibilities to faceless/nameless "Thems in Gubermint" .... or Diocese for that matter! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
Unfortunately I have to agree that 3rd Party wouldn't do anything to help, just hurt. The 40% + crowd that desires Trump will take up that percentage of the Non-Democrat votes, and those of us voting for someone better would take the rest, but the Dem-side won't be split like that, they'll get the entire half of the U.S. population who is determined a Dem-Liberal should win. I see no way out, so I figure I'll just vote Republican, period, and hope that there will be enough conscientious Republicans in place to help curb careless damage by Trump. Get Hillary in, there's no upside. If we should get that far.
I am with Dawn2 and Verne dagenais. The lesser of two evils is still evil. A Catholic cannot vote for Donald Trump's approval of murdering a baby conceived by rape. And there's his reality T.V. meanness. If the choice is Hillary or Donald, do not mark the Presidential box. Go on to choosing pro-life congressional, state candidates, the local issues plus the removal of liberal district judges.
Effectively, then, you are voting to put Hillary Clinton in the White House to continue and expand on Obama's policy of undermining Christianity worldwide. If you put Hillary Clinton in the White House, more Christian (especially Catholic) countries that have not yet embraced gay marriage and abortion can look forward to "married" homosexual ambassadors (notice that he had too much respect for Muslim sensitivities to do this), and abortion and abortificient birth control will be tied ever more closely to US and UN aid. Then there's the weapons trade to be served - return on investment for the super rich investors and jobs for Democrat voters need wars or threats of war which is served by destabilising foreign countries under the guise of exporting democracy. Whoever is behind this push for a third candidate wants to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. They didn't want Cruz and only supported him at the last minute because they knew that he couldn't beat Clinton. If they were so sure that Trump couldn't beat her, they wouldn't bother looking for another candidate to stop him. The same people who are scaremongering about his being in charge of the US Military arsenal have been warmongering for years. Between them, they have armed Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS and God alone knows how many other terrorist organisations. Any fascist tendencies on Trump's part can be curtailed by both parties in Congress resisting him. Obama has proved that all the Democratic Party needs is the Presidency plus a majority on the Supreme Court. Do you really want it on your conscience that you put Hillary Clinton in the White House either by voting for a third party or abstaining? While you Americans wait for your perfect candidate to come along, there are people in other countries who don't have that luxury. The result of this election matters to them - their very lives could depend on it.
I understand your sentiments, Summerfields and Dolours, but that is no option. An independent candidate, with support of serious conservatives, who's given the money in the bank of a few former serious Republican campaigns, in this day and age can win. This is the age of the internet. These things can happen immediately now. (Think of the so-called "Arab Spring"--we saw entire revolutions play out in a matter of a few days each because of twitter alone.) This isn't 1860, and as I said, Lincoln did it in 1860. Even Ross Perot almost did it, with a sitting president running for office, and nobody was on the internet then. Sure, if elected, Trump would have to contend with Congress to get legislation passed, but he would be the sole Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He could command our troops, already deployed all over the world, at any moment, to do anything without the consent of Congress, Dolours and Summerfield. He would be able to make life-time appointments of Supreme Court judges. If more democrats get elected to Congress, he could get liberal judges onto the court. A man who has been a liberal Democrat for all of his very long life, the same man who has told us over and over again he subscribes to no ethical or moral code and doesn't need or want to, can't be trusted to appoint the people he has fooled some conservatives he would appoint, just to win the nomination. Period. He is completely unfit for the office.
Dawn, the Arab Spring didn't happen in a few days and it certainly wasn't because of Twitter alone. Funded by petrodollars and revved up by preachers, the Muslim fundamentalist had been working towards it for years, very likely aided and abetted by the CIA. You're living in dreamland if you think that a third candidate can beat Clinton. All the Romney and Bush money couldn't stop Trump in the party they control and it won't be used to stop Hillary Clinton. She's their candidate now that they didn't get one of their own over the line in the primaries. Even I can see that from across the Atlantic.
I know all about the Arab Spring, Dolours. I said each event happened in a matter of days, yes, again, due to social media alone. Read up on it. It would not matter who funded it if thousands did not pour into the streets at a moments notice, just like it did not matter how much Jeb Bush had in his coffers if he couldn't motivate voters. What I am saying is that an independent candidate drafted now could get the funding and the advertising out that a Lincoln could not do in anywhere near as fast in 1860. Lincoln and Perot absolutely prove it could be done, it has been done. The only difference now is the speed of communication. http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...onsible-for-the-arab-spring-after-all/244314/
but he would be the sole Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He could command our troops, already deployed all over the world, at any moment, to do anything without the consent of Congress, Dolours and Summerfield. He would be able to make life-time appointments of Supreme Court judges. If more democrats get elected to Congress, he could get liberal judges onto the court. A man who has been a liberal Democrat for all of his very long life, the same man who has told us over and over again he subscribes to no ethical or moral code and doesn't need or want to, Sounds much more like Hillary.
Ha, just like the "fascist" actions of BHO were contained by both parties in Congress. Donald Trump is a liberal in disguise. Well, not completely, he professes he is for killing a child conceived by rape. I can't in good conscience vote for him no matter how evil Hillary Clinton is. And.... Delours, no offense personally, how can you accept Donald every other day changes his position on lesser but important issues? And this, Donald said it, he doesn't need repentance and confession to God of his sins, maybe spoken out of ignorance but he is not seven years old. How can he lead our country in God's ways?
The Arab "Spring" continues in its aftermath....boiling over to the rest of the world out of Syria. Egypt is just fortunate that another strong man stepped up to protect more Coptics (and others) from at least being burned alive in their locked churches. People don't think this wasn't planned in the bigger scheme of Hillary and Obama....new world without compassion? Opening up those major regions in the Middle East with no plan after the strong men were eliminated, knowing the voids would be filled by the biggest thugs (junk yard dogs) in the neighborhood, was for the sure purpose of creating the major chaos there and permit Putin's entry for the fulfillment of the long time aspirations of Russian Communism. No human leader at this point can save us. History does show though a man who used his position of power to satisfy his lust and then hide a murder, and who had to have a spiritual advisor actually make him see and admit his evil errors, was still considered the "apple of God's eye"...and who nevertheless was selected. Of course on the human level due to "what goes around comes around" had a lot of misery, most coming from within his own family who warred with him and tried to take him down. Ah, the difference between the plans of heaven and the plans coming from earth.
With this election, I find myself in a completely different frame of mind than at any other time with respect to elections. I always held to a more pragmatic way of thinking. Willing to accept a less than perfect candidate to further the long term goal. I'm still willing to do that...accept a less than optimum candidate when given a choice between that person and a proven, tested evil option such as Clinton. But with this election, I do not see even a acceptable option. Clinton is a proven evil personally and politically. Trump is a proven evil personally ( morally) and professionally....his only unknown is his politics....and even that has a corrupt history! He has been on every side of every issue his whole life. Like Clinton, he will do or say what he needs to to further his end game. He is inconsistent from day to day...even hour to hour. How is it then that we have the option to choose the lesser of two evils? Who actually is the lesser? Trump is so erratic that he could actually end up being the greater evil if that's possible! I don't know what the right answer is...I do know that it is neither Clinton or trump. And I am not alone. Millions of folks do not want either of those two. They both have record high unfavorable ratings from their respective parties. If I could have a wish, it would be for a third party candidate to resurrect that could beat both of these two gangsters. I have no idea who that is....but if the right candidate is out there, please stand up....because if these two are the best this country can do....we are doomed anyhow. I have settled for the less than perfect candidate, but I have never in my life voted for anyone who I sincerely felt was evil....and in good conscience, I won't start now. And if this is all we can get elected, then IMHO , we are already in the storm....and just maybe, because we allowed this, God will give us just what we deserve...evil.
Hi all. My only point about the Arab Spring was the speed with which it gathered support in each country, especially the failed protests in Iran. I made no point about whose idea it was, I think it had to be planned during the Bush administration myself, I made no points about whether or not it was a good idea, or whether or not it turned out well. Obviously for the Christians of the Middle East it did not. My only point is that the speed of communication right now allows a political movement like Lincoln's, which took about 5 years to gain the attention needed to win a national election in the nineteenth century, to accomplish the same in a couple of months. What you should have brought up, if you wanted to say I'm out of my mind, is that it is impossible to get a new candidate on the ballot in enough states as of right now. But, seeing as how I am out of my mind, I will suggest with current speeds of mass communication an effective write in campaign could be mounted now with a well known and well respected draftee who is prolife, highly intelligent and accomplished, known to have a moral backbone and with a real, not fabricated, grown up, not moronically childish reputation as a real man's man. That is the guy who could shout Trump off the podium but also effectively debate Hillary. But since I am out of my mind, I must be imagining that such a campaign is in the planning stages right now among serious conservatives and I must be imagining that such a person exists who would not want to run for president on his own but might if drafted in an emergency. Ok, I'm out of my mind if you say so, but maybe not.
Believe me, Dawn, when I tell you that I have read up on it. I remember when the trouble started in Egypt, CNN reported that the Facebook post by an employee of an American company (I think it could have been Facebook) in Egypt had triggered the protests. They don't mention that any more. Not all CIA operatives are confined to embassy annexes. The countries we're talking about aren't exactly downtown Boston. Services, especially electricity, are intermittent at best outside the tourist resorts on the coast. Not many ordinary people have access to the internet outside internet cafes, never mind having Facebook pages or Twitter accounts. Unrest in those countries was decades in the making and the so-called Spring was a very long time, possibly years, in the planning. They could have been tweeting and facebooking until they were blue in the face but couldn't have organised a garden party without years of organising on the ground and in the mosques by the preachers and the Muslim Brotherhood backed up by petrodollars. The most striking difference between mosque attendance in Muslim countries and church attendance in Christian countries is that the vast majority in the mosques are men whereas the majority in churches are women. The place to organise civil unrest in Arab countries in not on the internet - it's in the mosques. A Facebook post or a Tweet might tell a few key operatives to spread the word but if the operatives aren't already in place and ready to move, the post or tweet means nothing. All Romney's money couldn't get Romney elected in a straight run-off against a one term Senator with little else but Community Organiser on his resume. Trump has committed supporters, mostly Republicans, who won't vote for anyone else. Trump has some chance of getting votes from Sanders supporters, especially now that the Bush/Romney people are pushing Clinton over Trump. Any third party candidate put forward by the conservatives will be seen as a Romney/Bush protegee and won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning either Trump voters or disaffected Democrats. The same people who have been selling you a lie about being pro-life, protective of religious liberty, and generally socially conservative are now selling you a lie that someone who didn't even bother running in the primaries can beat both Clinton and Trump. If you let them sucker you with this pipe dream, they will control your party for generations to come. And when they regain full control it will be back to the same old, same old "we tried, but........the Dems have the Supreme Court........the Dems control the Senate.......the Dems control the Congress", all the while making sure that their own pockets are lined no matter what the Dems control. Gingrich was right when he said that a select few control the party. This could be your last chance to break their hold, and they know it. Trump might well turn out to be as pro-abortion as Clinton. Then again, he might not. You would be taking a chance on voting for him. On the other hand, there's absolutely no doubt where Clinton stands on key issues like abortion and freedom of religion. You might as well face the cold hard fact that your only real choice is to take a chance on Trump or hand the Presidency and the Supreme Court to Clinton, ensuring that you can kiss goodbye to any pull-back on the liberal agenda in your lifetime, if not your children's lifetime. If you do that, you'd better double up on the prayers for that Warning. Sorry, Dawn and others, to sound so harsh. Having done it once, I know what it's like to pound the pavements in the pro-life cause and my heart goes out to you being faced with this choice.
