Tag: 3rd party

Maxime Bernier and Canada’s Newest Political Party

By Brennan Dube | Canada

As summer came to a close, Canada’s Conservative Party was in the midst of some very large divisions. Party leader Andrew Scheer was having a tough time bringing together Maxime Bernier’s wing of the party. This division began in Spring of 2017 when Scheer ended up beating Bernier for the Conservative Party’s leadership by a slim margin of 50.95% to 49.05% on the 13thround of voting (Bernier had led the first twelve rounds, but 50% is needed for outright victory). Maxime Bernier has been touted in the past as a libertarian-leaning conservative who very openly voices his opinion against the party’s elites and takes stands that sometimes contradict what the rest of the party advocates for.

In the year following the leadership election, Scheer and Bernier still had not seen eye to eye. Scheer even bumped Bernier out of the shadow cabinet in the Canadian Parliament, something Bernier did not take very lightly to. The two have very opposing views when it comes to conservatism and a vision for Canada. Scheers more center-right approach sometimes has people branding him as a moderate. In contrast, Bernier’s libertarian roots are so prominent that when he lost the leadership race, the Canadian Libertarian party adopted his leadership platform and invited him to take over the party, to which he declined. Maxime Bernier has a grassroots following and is very principled in the way he goes about his politics.

Now, let us fast forward to August 23rd, 2018. Maxime Bernier formally resigns from the Conservative Party and announces that he will be forming his own party. On September the 14th, the party name was revealed to be the People’s Party of Canada. Bernier’s following and grassroots supporters base have given the party a booming start, and in six short weeks, the party has seen immense growth. As of October 10th, the party reported 22,500 members had already joined. This number is incredibly significant as it is approximately the size of 10% of the Conservative Party’s membership total and, at the time of the report, the party hadn’t even been established for an entire month. Tim Moen, the leader of Canada’s Libertarian party has offered Bernier a party merger. This would give the People’s Party a much quicker start considering the Libertarians have established infrastructure since the party has been around since 1973. A merger would also benefit Bernier because the process of being able to file tax receipts for a new party takes several months, but a merge with the Libertarians would make this problem disappear in an instant. While Moen is still open to the idea and many Libertarians have switched parties in favor of the People’s Party, Maxime Bernier has said no merger will take place. Bernier has stated that this is the party he wishes to move forward with, and he invites new joiners but no merger will be happening with the Libertarians or with anyone else.

Many Conservatives have said that this will only help Trudeau’s chances of winning re-election in 2019, while others have written off the party as merely fringe. Bernier denies this party will help Trudeau, as he has previously stated that the party will attract a broad coalition of Canadians who are “disenchanted with traditional politics.” He believes the party will also be able to attract Liberals of the 1990’s who supported strict balanced budgets and some NDP’s who oppose supply management. While the party isn’t as pure as many Canadian libertarians would like it to be, it definitely does have the opportunity of winning seats next election and that is evident with the booming party membership early on. Bernier has said this party will not “appease special interest groups” and it will be solely based on ideas and not focus groups. One downside is that no elected official at any level of provincial or federal government has openly supported Bernier’s efforts, but with strong grassroots backing, this party should still see strong growth and overall support heading into 2019.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

The Republican and Democrat Agendas are Hypocritical

By Ian Brzeski | United States

Disclaimer: When I refer to Republicans and Democrats, I’m not talking about every single person who aligns with the Republican or Democratic party. Rather, I am talking about their platforms as a whole as well as their “leaders” and hypocritical followers.

Both the Republican and Democratic platform are hypocritical in every sense of the term. Whether it is their agenda or on specific topics at hand, they allow themselves to fall onto multiple contradictions and fallacies in their arguments. For example, Republicans and Democrats both display hypocrisy when it comes to the issues of guns and immigration. Republicans are quick to push their agenda against illegal immigration when an illegal kills somebody because, according to them, illegal immigration allows those who like to murder and rape people to enter the US. They argue that if we had stronger deportation measures and a border wall, then many individual citizens such as Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive. Democrats are quick to push their agenda for gun control when a shooting happens because, according to them, guns and gun owners are dangerous and often kill many people. They say how if we had more gun control, then many of the victims in the mass shootings would still be alive such as the students who passed in Parkland.

Republicans defend guns by saying that Democrats are just trying to push their agenda when a horrible tragedy such as a mass shooting happens. Republicans say it is vile and disgusting how Democrats would try to push their agenda on gun control instead of showing respect to the victims. They claim that it is a societal problem and not a gun problem. People kill people; guns do not kill people, and besides, people are just going to get guns regardless.

Democrats defend illegal immigration by saying that Republicans are just trying to push their agenda when a horrible tragedy such as the murder of a girl from Iowa happens. Democrats say it is vile and disgusting how Republicans would try to push their agenda on stronger borders instead of showing respect to the victims. They claim that it is a societal problem and not an illegal immigration problem. People kill people; illegals are not the only people who kill people in this country.

Republicans and Democrats make the same argument when substituting the word(s) “guns” with “illegal immigration.” Who knew that the majority of Republicans and Democrats are not that much different? They use the same argument on various issues. They even both bash each other on how they portray their stances. To an extent, the parties also fall subject to the slippery slope fallacy when describing how guns/illegal immigration are the causes of the death of various people.

The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy that implies that a small action will lead to a much more significant action with enormous consequences. Saying that having less secure borders will lead to more murders is a solid example of this fallacy and the same goes for saying that the sale of firearms will lead to more murders.

Who is the Bigger Hypocrite?

Most Republicans are bigger hypocrites than the Democrats. They claim to support small government except for when it comes to:

  • The wall across the Mexican border
  • The Space Force
  • A stronger governmental police force
  • A massive military
  • Tariffs
  • Military parades
  • The War on Drugs
  • The War on Terror
  • Trump regulating social media
  • TSA
  • NSA
  • DEA
  • ICE
  • And many more

The only difference with the Republicans and the Democrats here is that they disagree with what should be funded by the government. For every government program defunded by Republicans, another government program is funded that fits the Republicans’ agenda. At least the Democrats openly admit that they are for a bigger and stronger government.

Democrats could just as quickly say the phrase “Taxation is theft,” and it would still have the same meaning when Republicans say it. Establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are the same; they are all pro-war and pro-big government hawks. Obama openly says he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and then proceeds to bomb more countries than any of his predecessors. The Republicans claim to be for smaller government and pro-life, yet when Senator Rand Paul introduces a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, the bill does not pass despite Republicans having the majority in the House and the Senate. Does this sound like a small government platform?

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the Republicans preach a pro-liberty position, but their actions and ideas say otherwise. However, not every single Republican is one of these establishment politicians. There are still few Republicans out there who stay true to their pro-liberty and small government agenda, such as Senator Rand Paul, Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Justin Amash, and Austin Petersen to name a few.

Stuck in the Same Cycle

Regardless of who is in charge, the government still become stronger, taxes and spending increase, and our national debt continues to grow. We have a “pro-liberty” president who keeps fighting the war on terror, keeps funding the war on drugs, has the notion that tariffs are good for the economy, and now wants to start printing money to get us out of our national debt. Nothing of recent has changed regarding the United States. Voting Republican or voting Democrat will be practically voting for the same person the majority of the time. Not voting for a third party because you are afraid that it is giving away a vote to the “rival” candidate may be one of the worst excuses to use because either way you are most likely voting for big government establishment hawks.

As a result of this two-party system and hypocritical nature of the parties, the government continually grows into a stronger, more coercive force that inhibits on our personal freedoms to make decisions for us. Thinking that voting third party is a waste is a dangerous ideology. We will never see a real change by always voting in these establishment candidates. We will have the same problems that we continuously complain about, nothing will get changed, we will continue to stay in the same cycle that we have been going through, and people are too blind to realize this.

Republicans and Democrats have the false sense that they are pitted against each other. There are other options out there, and people need to realize that. People need to stop voting based on parties and need to start voting based on principle.  Watch a debate between Republicans and Democrats, and it is easy to see that the discussion just turns into a name calling blame game. It is one of the most pathetic things a person could ever see. Their arguments have no real substance or conviction, and they always seem to attack the person as an individual and not their ideas.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers” – Socrates

Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. We are always going to be stuck in a never ending cycle if people do not stop blindly following party positions. It does not matter whether you identify as a Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian, or Socialist. Do your research and vote for who you think is going to bring about the most significant possible change to our crooked establishment system. Don’t vote for somebody based on their party or if they are a lesser evil, vote for somebody you believe in.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Voting Outside the Box

By FritzCast | United States

If you followed the primary elections of the past week (the day of August 07, namely), we saw a truly lackluster performance for a primary series that is leading up to what the news has hyped as a “pivotal” mid-term election for 2018. Some immediate key takeaways are how many “Trump Approved” candidates easily walked away with a win, almost every candidate that “Social Democrat” hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed lost, but the real nail-biter was Ohio District 12 Special Election, where even at the moment of this writing, news agencies are reporting that it is too close to call.

Despite those reports, many flocked to Twitter with the hashtag #OH12 ready to lay the blame for the Democratic loss on Green Party voters (A total of 1,127 people according to NYTimes). Leading that charge was Actor Alyssa Milano, who tweeted out the following:

Now, we live in a crazy world where Alex Jones can get kicked to the curbside by various Social Media platforms, and granted private entities like them are allowed to develop their own rules and policies and enforce them as they see fit, but for some reason, nobody will call out Alyssa Milano for this complete fabrication. In this single tweet, she: Alleges Russian collusion; completely devalued the votes of 1,127 people; blames it all on inaction against voter protection.

For some godforsaken reason, independent voters come under scrutiny when a side loses an election. You will hear people screaming from the mountain tops that the third party voters royally screwed everything up, as if the votes were owned by the other candidate and them casting a protest vote proves how selfish they are.

Why is it that people are so quick to devalue a person’s vote? I thought, after all, that voting was one of the quintessential pillars of our society, yet people are so willing to condemn those outside the box.

The same theory was applicable to the 2016 Presidential Election, where I had to face more than a handful of “friends” willing to tell me I was selfish for casting my vote for Gary Johnson, thus somehow costing Hillary Clinton her guaranteed win. I was told my vote was no better than simply casting a vote for Trump, and the hilarious angle in all of that was the fact that my state of Delaware and its low number of 3 Electoral Votes went to Hillary Clinton.

Some may say that our voting system is a little flawed, but more and more I find that the collective philosophy is flawed. Whether you look at Ohio District 12 or the Presidential Election of 2016, the argument always comes to numbers and comes back to that lovely term we float around, Democracy.

Despite the fact that we are not a democracy, everyone so desperately wants to cry out about how our very democracy is under threat while ignoring the fatal fallacy of democracy: just because 51% say Yea doesn’t mean that what they are saying Yea to is moral, just, right, or fair.

You want to blame third party voters for the fact that we demand better of our system? You want to scream in our face that it is so selfish and petty of us?

Shame on you. Shame on you all. You don’t value us, our mind, our opinion or our vote and stop at nothing to try to legitimize our voice, all the while there are thousands more simply not voting at all, either because they do not care or are unwilling to participate because they feel dejected.

Let’s just play your numbers game for a minute, with the Ohio District 12 results (numbers according to Politico:

50.2% Troy Balderson GOP 101,574
49.3% Danny O’Connor DEM 99,820
0.6% Joe Manchik GP 1,127

Let’s assume all the Green Party voters magically belonged to the Democratic Party (it obviously makes sense! That’s why they voted for the Green party guy!). Do the basic math, add those votes to Danny O’Connor…you’ve still lost the election, because it only takes him to 100,947 votes. Even then, we fall back to my argument (which actually works in your favor here): the difference is 627 votes.

Do the same thing with the 2016 Presidential results, if you want:

Candidate / Party Popular / Votes

  Donald J. Trump, Republican – 62,980,160

Hillary R. Clinton, Democratic – 65,845,063

Gary Johnson, Libertarian – 4,488,931

Jill Stein, Green – 1, 457,050

Evan McMullin, Independent – 728,830

How do you even begin to guess where McMullin’s, Johnson’s and Stein’s votes would fall, and split them evenly among Trump and Clinton and you’ve still got what I see as rather measly numbers.

This very thing is what turned me into a Libertarian individual. I don’t want the Government, myself nor the mob dictating aspects of the lives of everyone else on this fallacy. Thomas Jefferson warned us against it:

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%

America, its time to do away with this toxic line of thinking…we as people can trample a person’s rights as easily as the king did, as easily as a dictator does, we just somehow find comfort in our moral justification that because we had one more person agree with our side, we’re the winners and they are the losers. Now is the time to reiterate our true principles of liberty, independence, and individualism before they are sacrificed.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.