About five years ago, we attempted to start the National Atheist Party. The problem was we were still divided by federal versus state rights, but united on Women's Choice and gun control legislation. It made it hard to get going. I was the assistant state director for Missouri.

Interesting to hear this as I have always only heard Ringo's versions of this. Didn't know George had ever recorded it. In some ways this sounds like a demo.

But what kind of third party? Hopefully, nothing like the libertarians.

@JackPedigo

Certainly not. It would have to be a progressive or socialist party.

@Zoltans_Queen To me it would have to be a party that uses reason as a base. To many issues are looked at from an emotional standpoint. At one time I considered myself a progressive (not afraid of calling a spade a spade) but lately I have had some real doubts. #1 issue must be the life support system that supports all life and we Americans need to stop putting ourselves first.

@JackPedigo

What sort of doubts are you having?

@Zoltans_Queen What I mentioned the life support system. No. 1 priority is to not exceed the planets carrying capacity. The developed countries have done that to an extreme and we are the worst. The whole concept of 'sustainable growth" is an oxymoron and that includes human population growth. There is no gods that will save us from our folly and we are not the center of the universe or even the world. My question is simply, why?

@JackPedigo

I feel the same way. Human development is putting too much strain on mother nature and if we continue as we are, there will be ecological collapse. This is why I support progressive policies. They want to create a green new deal. They want to shift us away from the excesses of capitalism and materialism. They want to transform the economy into a much more sustainable model. The conservatives and liberals are totally supportive of the capitalistic ideology of constant growth and exploitation. We must change our ways or we will doom the entire planet.

@Zoltans_Queen And I agree to all of this BUT they also support large immigration quotas which is self-defeating. We cannot be asked to lower our own birth rate (which we have done) and then bring in more people from outside the country. In the 1994 UN convention in Cairo, Egypt on overpopulation I heard the phrase "no matter what one's cause it will be a lost cause if we don't come to grips with overpopulation." We have not and look where we are at!

@JackPedigo

I believe the earth can support all of these people if we change our ways and live more modestly and efficiently. Immigrants generally are poor and poor people pollute much less. It is the wealthy who drive SUVs and live in gigantic homes who are the problem. America has always been a beacon for immigrants. Also, I don't see how it matters if those people live on this side of the border or someplace else, climate change does not acknowledge man made lines on maps. In fact, those people are more likely to reproduce less if they live here rather than elsewhere because they have more access to things like birth control and sex ed if they are here compared to where they come from.There are massive advantages to a having a healthy dose of immigration and I wouldn't want to see the borders closed. There is an abundance of space and resources in this country.

@Zoltans_Queen Sory, 26+ years of studying this and the population issue have shown this is not true. How many of the 3 + billion world's poor can we accommodate? Is there an upper limit of humans that the earth can support? PBS once did a report on a Mexican group some of whom came to the US and some stayed in Mexico. After several years the group in the Us started suffering from things like Diabetes, Heart issues and a myriad of other health issues while those in Mexico remained healthy. In a nutshell in Mexico most walked, worked hard and meat was a rare luxury. Here the people bought crs/trucks, shopped in the stores and had lots of meats. They got used to the 'good life' and became very sedentary. The groups were similar so the researchers could see their genetic make-ups were equal but the big change was location/lifestyle. There are lots of tests on the internet for one to see their environmental footprint. For everybody to live at the US standards we would need 5 Earths. Even with my light living (vegan, independent water/septic system, very low energy use vehicle, walking and biking most places and on and on) I still need 1 1/2 Earths to sustain me. We need to stop looking at this situation as an easy issue. It is complicated way beyond most people's comprehension. Being married to an immigrant who worked at an international school in Seattle added even more complexity to my knowledge on this subject.

@JackPedigo

What you describe is exactly why we Americans need to change our way of life. This isn't an immigration issue, this is a wastefulness issue. Of course immigrants eventually assimilate and learn to live as we do. To solve the problem, we need to change. Then, immigrants who come here won't be pressured to live so inefficiently.

@Zoltans_Queen Sorry, again I disagree. While on the board of ZPG (look it up) one woman was on the board and won an award. She had wanted to have lots of kids and she and her husband had a thriving business and could easily afford a large family. She had 2 sons and learned about population demographics and decided to stop at two (it's known as replacement level). She went on to give an average of 1 workshop (we had programs for classes from kindergarten to college) every day for a year. She often asked middle-class women if they would also be willing to limit their fertility and most said yes but they also said they saw the minorities especially the poorer ones had a high fertility rate (there is some truth to that) and that these groups would soon be the majority. Yes, it's a racist comment but it is also true. Why should we change our habits and activity level and let other, non-Americans increase theirs? Human population growth is not sustainable for any country and in fact almost all countries have widely overshot their carrying capacity.
Unfortunately, we are changing, we and many other developed countries, are becoming more fascist.

Maybe a third party is the way to do that.

@Zoltans_Queen
Until you change the system, nothing will change!!!

Those with the most cash and toys win!!!

@of-the-mountain

Okay, so how do you recommend changing the system.

@of-the-mountain Not changing the system means we will all perish. Evolution's definition of the fittest is those most adaptable to change. No change, no adaptation and extinction.

let’s do not throw in a third.

@yvilletom I agree.

The non-partisan middle ground are the only people who can “cut lt”, etc.

@racocn8 Please be more specific. I think Homo sapiens will survive.

@yvilletom yes, I think some will too.

Hahaha... they said Democrats are center left.

@JonnaBononna Sounds like your pov is US centric :

[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

@FearlessFly the US has no "left" party in the world view of left and right. We are all right.

@JonnaBononna To the right of you.

@yvilletom mainline Democrats are about the equivalent of Eisenhower- a Republican.

Thanks.
Good strategies are important. They would include choosing goals that:

1. affect the two major parties about equally so the goals don’t divide the reformers.
2. bring to the polls people who now do not vote, and
3. appeal to the more idealistic members of both parties.

The direct initiative, referendum and recall (DIRR ) give real democracy to voters in 17 states. I’m happy to have lived most of my life in three of those states.

@yvilletom sounds interesting, I wish you well, anything the unites people at the moment sounds good. Of course how the policies effect big business may, in the end, be more important than what the people think.
Sponsorship and pressure groups can make a big difference to success apparently.