Talk Elections

what would be the major planks?

here is what a walter mitty party would look like:

--totally committed to pro life principles.  would support the outlawing of abortion and the abolition of the death penalty

--privatize social security

--totally committed to a national right to work law.  would  use the justice department to investigate the criminal activities of union leaders

--free trade

--abolition of the capital gains tax

--explore domestic sources of energy.  raise auto fuel efficiency standards

--keep pre-emptive strike as the cornerstone of the anti-terror policy

--strongly committed to the peace and security of israel

--total amnesty for illegal immigrants

--would favor a national lottery

--pass *real* welfare reform

--forgive all third world debts.  and would push the IMF to do the same.

Don't need to create my own political party, there is already the LP.

- Focus on the following 3 issues: Education, the environment, and a balanced budget.

- Outlawing of the death penalty.

- Increase immigration quotas, especially for skilled immigrants.

- I like WalterMitty's idea of forgiving all 3rd world debts.

- Do something about Sudan.  Now.

In other words, you want to revive William Ewart Gladstone's Victorian-era Liberal Party: Free trade, anti-union, domestic sources of energy (Midlands coal in Gladstone's day), tolerance for a pariah state (Ireland in the 19th century, Isreal today). The preemptive strike stuff would need to go, though.

I totally agree with your platform, except the first point. I am Not pro-abortion, but don't believe it should be criminalized.
My platform would say: Abortion is acceptable in case the mother's life is in danger and rape.

I would also add some points about balanced budget, flat tax, and even as it may sound contradictory: universal health care access.

I liked the Israel bit - Israel is Not a pariah state.

And something like: "... put more police on the street and take assault weapons off the street..."

--Abortion to be a states rights issue, on the state level, the party would push for a ban on partial birth abortion, and all post-1st trimester abortions not conducted for mother's health, rape or incest.

--Death Penalty a state issue, on state level, make the death penalty more difficult to apply...(ie only the most heinous of crimes would merit it)

--Partial Privatization of Social Security

--No right to work law, however, prosecution of corrupt unions (ie the Hoffa 70s style ones)

--free trade

--abolition of the capital gains tax

--elimination of the Clinton gas tax, explore domestic capabilities while also developing alternative means of power, raise auto efficiency standards.

--Balanced Budget in all times, except of those of severe economic crisis.

--total amnesty for illegal immigrants who are not a security risk to the United States

--encouragement for state lotteries (state issue, and not every state has one yet)

--Investment in education, in all levels of government where the party is elected. Federal: More funding (low interest loans, grants) for post high school education. State: Grant program to encourage more college students to consider careers in teaching, subsidize education if they pledge to teach in a low income school district for a period of 4 years. More funding of public schools based on performance given the school's starting point (we should initially expect less from a poorer school).

--Empowerment-not a policy point, but a philosophical one. Government shouldn't do everything for everybody, but give people the tools to do the job and advance themselves.

--Missile Defense System Scrapped, money used instead for port and airport security, particularly against NBC devices entering the United States.
 
--Less interventionist foriegn policy. More defensive rather than offensive posture.

More if I think of it.
 
 
 
 

If you don't include "a fundamental right to health care" in your platform, I'd vote for you in all of two milliseconds.

I agree with BullMoose's party, that'd be pretty much what my own would look like.  An emphasis on decentralizing the federal government to the states when it comes to social issues.

Mine would be very much like the libertarian party, except we would be more involved in international nations, and would be pro-life.

Careful. I haven't gotten to some social issues yet. I dunno if you'll like em or not.

Drugs: State Issue. (At the Federal Level, repeal any marijuana laws). State level, push for decriminalization and legalization. Treat it like alcohol (minimum age 21, preferably 18), tax it and use the revenue to lower state income tax (if one exists in the state) or to lower property taxes. Make the penalty for using crack equal to that of cocaine (either lower one, or raise the other).

Patriot: Push for Repeal. Government having too much power can be a negative.

yes, i agree with most things gladstone advocated.  iw ouldnt necessarily say the preemption would have to go.  gladstone, as i understand it, was anti-imperialism.  he thought (correctly) that many wars in that time were the result of colonialism.

we live in a different time today.  i dont know if gladstone would be opposed to preemption in the face of terrorism threats.

My party would be exactly like the Libertarian Party domestically, but our foreign policy would be modeled on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-Defend the status quo on social issues.

-Modernize existing welfare progams, and create new ones when financial circumstances permit.

-Reduce taxes as fiscal circumstances permit.

-Stronger military, hawkish on terrorism.

This is far and away the most sensible political party, and if such a party actually existed, and could keep the debate about issues rather than demagoguery, then that party would NEVER lose a National Election.

Here's what kind of political party America needs: one that leans strongly to the left on both social and economic issues, but ESPECIALLY[/i] economic issues.

Since 1996 the Democrats have moved to the right, especially on economics and on basic civil liberties. It no longer serves my interests as well as it once did.

You know thats impossible Markdel.

Since when did Americans vote on issues over image?

The last time was 1984...

20 years man...awfully long time.

It is, but I still believe it is possible with the right Republicans running the show at the RNC.

Hm. My party would have sensibility and pragmatism, without losing sight of fundamental values. :)

Foreign policy: moderately hawkish

Welfare: defend the status quo, basically.

Social Security: At least partial privatization

Gun Control: tighten it some

Gay marriages: get government out of it

Abortion: right to abortion uptil the time when the fetus can be saved.

Empowerment: what Bullmoose said. :)

Environment: Excercise more caution, we need to take care of the Earth we live on.

Death penalty: abolish in peace time

Education: Allow voucher schools

Budget deficit: a balanced budget should be the goal, at least in stable times. However, during crises a high deficit is a lot better than many of the alternatives.

I could have conceivably voted for every new political party created on this thread, but so far they've all been ruined by either social left-libertarianism or hints of "nationalized health care."

Trade, immigration, %age increases in defense spending, etc., are all debatable, but nationalized medicine and socially activist government are absolute deal breakers.

--Opose abortion on principle. Should be iligal after the 1st three months. Allow steam cell research, but no government funding for it. No government funding for abortion either.

--Give states' rights back to the states. The federal government should only perfor its constitutional duties. --

--Repeal the XVII amendment and give the election of senators back to the state legislatures.

--Opose any kind of draft. Replace the National Guard with state militias. Withdraw all troops from foreign countries immediately. Withdraw from the UN, NATO, WTO and NAFTA. Develop a Missile Defense Shield.

--Get rid of debt. for that, set up a payoff period, in which this ought to be fullfied:
The annual reductions have to be made without fail.
All interest must be paid as it accrues; and
The government must not spend more than it takes in during the payoff period.  No more debt after that with the exception of war or catastrophic scenaries.

--Privatize social security. totally, not just some part. but grant the benefits to all who have are more than 40.

--Abolish all federal crimes except treason, counterfeiting and high sea piracyand terrorism. Give most law enforcement back to states and communities. Support the jury's right to nulify the law. Jury trial for everyone. abolish the death penalty, but put those who would be executed ddoing forced works.

--End all federal moonies.

--End the war on drugs. Legalize all drugs.

--Abolish public schools. No vouchers, sine it would only put the government in charge of private schools. Suport homeshooling. Repeal compulsory attendance laws.

--End electronic vote. 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, plus 2 for who wons the state.

--Abolish the Department of energy, the department of homeland security, the department of education and the department of agiculture. Privatize the USPS and end their monopoly, and privatize AMTRAK. Sell all federal land, or give it back to the states.

--Environmental protection to  be made trough private proprety. Repeal environmental regulations and sell all publicn land, includiing the sea.

--Repeal all hate crimes law. in fact, repeal all criminal law, and get back to common law. Thus, ending all victimeless crimes.

--End all foreign aid. End all trade barriers unilateraly.

--Support the 2nd amendment rights. Repeal all gun control legislation as inconstitutional, be it federal or state.

--End Medicare/Medicaid and all federal government involvement in health care. Patients have a right to malpractice law suits.

--Privatize all public colleges, and get the government out of college education.

--Increase imigration permits to skilled workers. Institute an immigration fee, of like 10000$/15000$. And after that and a background check, people would be free to come in.

--The United States Constitution does not provide for lifetime appointment of federal judges, but only for a term of office during good behavior.  Support Congressional enforcement of the Constitutional rule of good behavior and to restrain judicial activism by properly removing offending judges through the process of impeachment provided for in Article I, § 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

--Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and reform the current Federal Reserve banks to become clearing houses only; and prohibit fractional reserve banking and get back to the gold-standart and "coin" money.

--Local authorities have no authority to limit the sale of pornography nor anything. And repeal curfew laws too.

--Abolish the FCC and free the airwaves.

--The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, health care, ad infinitum.

--Repeal payroll taxes. Limit the national income tax to a max of 10%. Only flat taxation. Apportionate the federal government requests for money to the states.

--Repeal the patriot act.

--Wage and price control are abominations. Illegalize them through a constitutional ammendement. Repeal the gas tax.

--End all kinds of welfare. rely only on private charity, but no government funding for it. But any donation anyone shall make for charity ought to be 100% deductible in the income tax. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth.

Wow, that was extreme libertarianism. Above are the only points in which I agree with your platform.
The last one, about the purpose of civil government I would say: It is the "main" purpose of civil government.... and property, and create conditions of economic opportunity for everybody".

Well, at least we agree on something. :D
But those are just the ideal positions. Compromises could be reached, for example, in the public schools issue, instead of banning them we could return them to local government and end federal and state intervention.

Just a question:
You support eveything on each topic when you only quoted part of it, or you just agree with the part you quoted?

Also, I could drop the stand on drugs easily.

I agree with the part I quoted.
I don't believe that Federal Government is necessarily worse than local and state governments. I always favor small governments, low and simple taxation, no deficits - But I don't believe that certain things need to strictly be done by state and local governments and only a very limited role for Federal Government.
When you say, and I totally agree that the main role of government is to "safeguard life, liberty and property", then I see no need for everybody to carry guns everywhere - That's the role of the government, to protect us. I totally believe in the principle that Clinton said in his speech on Monday night: "put more police on the streets and assault weapons off the street".
I'm very tough on crime, and thus I favor strong gun controls.
Following that argument is my position on drugs. I can favor one of these two options: or every body, all the world, legalizes drug production and consumption and in that way eliminate the incentives to create criminal organizations to trade it (but in order to work it needs to be legalized by everybody), or you really push very hard to enforce and fight against them - No intermediate positions like some drugs are fine and some not, etc.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. NYC and DC have huge gun control, and compare them to Oklahoma City.(OK has very little gun control).

But they had terrible crime rates even before they implemented gun control.  New York has had gang violence at least since the 1850's.  It's the chicken or the egg scenario.

I don't know what I'd call it, but my major issues would be

- slight raise in taxes on the rich, slight decrease on poor and middle class

-increase of minimum wage to $7.00

-complete seperation of Church and State, including removal of "Under God" from Pledge of Alligence, "in God we trust" from currency

-full marriage rights to gays

-further stem cell research

-marijuana legaliztion

-disband the FCC and invest in equipment so parents can control their own TVs better

-standard psychological exam for all those trying to buy guns

-cut back money on "war on drugs"

-invest more money into military defensive strategy than offensive (missile defense, threat detection systems)

-reel back any tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas

-lower voting age to 17

-lower drinking age to 18, more money towards  "responsible drinking" education than "don't drink" programs


Overall, I'd try to remove so called "victimless crimes" and push a socially liberal agenda.  

What good has gun control done, than? If the situation is the same, better not run over the 2nd ammendment.

My party would be like this...

-Outlaw abortions
-Outlaw Gay marriages and civil unions
-Outlaw Drinking.. or just higher the price of it.
-Teach "No sex before marriage" not "safe sex" in school
-Ban smoking in public places
- Make a flat tax rate at about 15%
-Let religion back in schools
-Raise the min wage to $6.30
- Have free trade with human rights
-Stop giving money to other countries.
- Get out of the UN, way to liberal and most of them hate us anyways
-Start our own group like the UN, but have it more consv.
- lower the voting age to 16
-have it where you can't go into the army until you are 21

Thats some of my party..

Oh my...

You took the words right out of my mouth. lol.

What is wrong with my party?

For me, the following:
I can understand gay marriege, but I think they deserve some form of legal aknowledgeble commitment.

It has been done. Look at the results.

Neither of the things should be taought. It's up to parents to give their children sexual education. But I agree sexEd should be banned from schools.


If by public places you mean state owned places, it's ok. If not, your messing with proprety rights.
One fine way to raise the unemployment rate.
I can understand your position, but I think free trade regardless of what is the better policy.

End the UN, yes. Creating a para-UN, no.
That's ridiculous. It's just a way to get more ignorants to vote. personally, I think it should be raised to 21 again.

The rest either I agree or I don't really mind.

The Akno21 Party:

Legalize Gay Marriage
Legalize Abortion
Promote Stem Cell Research
Keep a Balanced Budget at all times, if possible
Universal Health Care
Heavy taxes on big business
Lower taxes on lower class
Stiff Environmental Regulations
Listen to the UN
Lower Voting Age to 12, if they can pass a test, once above 18, you can vote even if you are dumb
No age for alcohol consumption
Stiff penalties for law-breakers, pro-death penalty
Only trade with countries that respect human rights
Teach evolution, sexual stuff, everything in schools, let the kids see it
No censorship whatsoever
Increase educational spending
Focus on Homeland Security
"Under God" removed
Let people say whatever, show whatever on TV

Isn't it very authoritarian of you to teach one and not the other, I would favour teaching both if either so you can allow people to make a decision, what you seem to want to do is force your views into the minds of the youth and prevent them from choosing.

Your positions are just so....random...

How are they random?

Economics:

- National right to work law
- Drafting of free trade agreements
- Privatization of Social Security (partially at first)
- No raising of the minimum wage
- Across the board tax cut (but retain the graduated income tax)
- Create government incentives for companies researching renewable energy methods
- Sensible unemployment/welfare reform
- Significantly reduce pork barrel spending and advocate a balanced budget

Social Issues:

- Against gay marriage but repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
- Elimination of immigration quotas, instead, charge a fee for those who wish to enter the U.S., crack down on illegal immigration
- Against abortion except for circumstances involving the life of the mother
- End race based affirmative action and experiment with class based affirmative action
- Create a 3 day waiting period for guns, institute background checks, otherwise pro second amendment
- End "three strikes" law
- Put away violent drug offenders/dealers, run a smarter, more cost-effective War on Drugs
- Against death penalty except for repeat murderers/terrorists actively plotting against the U.S.

Foreign Policy:

- Build up U.S. military in the fashion of Reagan, expand benefits for current and retired servicemen
- Moderate hawkish views, support of pre-emptive strike policy

That's all for now. I know some of my views are probably mutually exclusive (for instance balancing the budget and expanding the military), but my party would be willing to compromise.

It's scary

and how is that?

My Political Party - Canadian based

-High Taxes on the Rich and Big Business (75000 +)
-Moderate Taxes on the Middle Class and Middle Businesses (30000 - 75000)
-Low Taxes on the Low Class and Small Businesses (20000-30000)
-No Taxes on those in Poverty and starting companies for the first year (-20000)
-Social Welfare for impoverished people
-Universal Healthcare Insurance Publically provided
-Strongly regulated business
-Ratification of the Kyoto Protocal
-Moderate military spending
-Military largely focused on reconstruction and building, not aggresive warfare, i.e. Haiti, Afghanistan, Former Yugoslavia, Africa.
-Effective Foreign aid
-Trade deals with inclusive labour rights
-Electoral Reform - Proportional Representation House of Commons(308), and an elected First Past the Post Regional Senate(308). (616)
-Strong backing of the UN
-Decriminalization of Marijuana
-Increased punishment in justice system for criminals convicted of crimes against women and children and violent crimes.
-Fishery control to the provinces, crack down on foreign fishing
-Redistribution of Alberta oil funds back to Alberta, not all but some more than now.
-No Quebec first policy, end preference and special treatment of Quebec in terms of Federal privileges.
-Decrease Censorship

That's just to begin with ;)

Siege

That's unfair, tax the rich just for being rich. That seems like class warfare.

Nice to see that we still see eye to eye Keystone Phil. :)

I'm glad you oppose class warfare as much as me.

I mean think about it. Someone works to get to be rich. They sacrifice, they work...we should be taxing them because they have achieved wealth? All those "raise the taxes on the rich!" Dems...give me a break!

Oh and we all know the Dems line of just raising taxes on the wealthy turns into raising taxes on most of America.

It's penalizing success and hard work, that's what heavy taxation of the wealthy is.

Firstly, I'm not a Dem.

Second, a lot of people that are rich can do to have their taxes higher than those who are poor. It's called a progressive tax structure.

Thirdly, so what if it's class warfare, maybe that's what I think is right, you pay your share.

Siege

Exactly. No unfair tax on the wealthy! Oh and for the record, no I'm not rich so the arguement that I'm defending the rich because I am rich is false. I'm from middle class Northeast Philadelphia. Just wanted everyone to know that even if I wasn't going to be accused.

Fair, but i still don't agree with you :P

Perhaps taxes don't have to be much higher. Think of two people, one makes 20000, the other 200000, if they were both to pay the same, say 2000 person 1 pays 1/10 of his income while person 2 pays 1/100. However, if the both paid 10% I'd be more agreeable, but I'd be a little happier still if person 2 were to pay just a little more.

Siege

My party would hold the following ideas :

Abortion/Gay "Marriage" would be left up to the states to put on the ballot.

Very Hawkish on foreign policy in this current enviroment. If it ever settled down where the world was slightly safer I would pull troops out of every foreign base with the exception of GITMO. I would reduce the size of the military to a 250,000 man force to come into compliance with the Constitutions anti-standing army principles.

I would revert the tax code and eliminate the IRS. Income tax would still however apply to corporations as that is what it was intended for. I would increase tariffs but not so badly as to be debilitating.

Our party would wish for the government to take over the National Road system and have repair stations located county wide across that nation.

Basically my party would push for the ideas of getting the government back to doing the job the Constitution laid out. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not necessarily, many aren't hugely wealthy off of their own merits you know, some rich people barely work at all.

Also Phil, note that Siege40 is not a Democrat, don't make assumptions.

Josh, how is the UN too liberal? Most are authoritarian fascists of some kind.

And how would a conservative UN be determined? Would you throw out countries if they elected left-winged governments? What if the Democrats won in the US, would you leave?

States, may I suggest a name, The Constitution Party seems appropriate.

And thanks for backing me up JFK.

Siege

They push religion to much from what I hear. I would name my party the States Rights Party or State Sovereignty party.

I didn't think there still was a Constitution Party...

Siege

Check this out.

http://www.constitutionparty.org/

No most are liberals.  Most countries in the UN cosvn. party is our democrat party. I think.

And I'm upper middle class, so my positions on taxes don't make sense :S

Most people that live near me or in Greensboro are upper middle class to upper class.

Eh...most don't really have parties, since most aren't democracies. The UN concerns itself mostly with foreign policy, and with any definition of liberal v conservative I can think of there, the US is one of the most liberal countries in the world. Not as liberal as Sweden, Holland or Japan, but probably more so than France and definitely more so than China, Russia or any other non-democracies.

The US more liberal then France HAHAHAHA thats funny.

How so?  Chirac is (arguably) more conservative than Bush and is (inarguably) a conservative.

How is Chirac conservative? You might be right, but i always heard the US was one of the most consv. nations on earth.

Outside of Singapore and other military dictatorships and right-wing police states, the United States has for the past 10 years been THE[/i] most conservative.

Well, you consider America to be a right-wing police state, don't you?

Well, it's become one. There's no question about that.

Not really. Mexico is pretty conservative as well, as are many Latin American nations. Socially, America is definately not the most conservative, and fiscally, the same. People argue that because many right-winged states are under dictatorships they automatically prove the corruption of conservatism, but most of the problems in these "right-winged states" are because of Europe and lack of money. Meanwhile, nations that have money but are liberal (Russia; India; South Africa; etc) have numerous problems. Coincandetally, whenever the UN or WHO tries to get involved with nations to "help" them, they screw everything up (Somlia; Balkans; WHO in Kenya).