|
|
|
|
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 "politics"
Posted: 4/3/2009 12:20:37 AM | [I]What I think[/I]
Politics
I believe that America needs a new third party. Not the Independent Party, they are quite frankly a joke. I would like to see a third party whose core motivation, whose sole priority is to operate on the philosophy “ Of the people, By the people, For the people “ , for ALL the people and I mean that literally.
American politics has become, and I hate to over use the term, but it is a joke…the people we elect just don’t have a clue. It is like they are playing a game at the general populations expense. But on their behalf, ignorance and complacency beget ignorance and complacency. Face it, we as a nation do not put the brightest bulbs in the box in the positions of power. They have learned that it is ok to lie about themselves and their opponents and we are dumb enough to buy into it. I pray that it will be changed, that we as a nation realize that we have been negligent in our duties as citizens and put responsible, wise and capable people in office. And if that can’t be done then I hope and pray the Mayans are right, because that is what it will take to change the human race from being a cancer on this world to being a caretaker of OUR home, without which we would not and could not exist. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 2:08:35 AM | The Libertarian Party is a United States political party founded on December 11, 1971[1]. More than 200,000 voters are registered with the party, making it one of the largest of America's alternative political parties[2]. Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner[3].
The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects that group's particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.[4]
From wikipedia
If you google them you can read their platform | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 2:32:26 AM | | thanks....but really don't need to google it, I am fully aware of American political parties, just looking for your thoughts and opinions. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 5:27:59 AM | The problem we have in America with politics stems from us allowing Career politicians!
They aren't in it to improve our country...
They are only looking to line their pockets. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 6:29:51 AM | Excellent post, OP.
It's the creating this third party and the funding of it that's the problem. With the ability to funnel in unlimited campaign contribution money from all kinds of sources, I think it's going to be really hard for third parties to compete with the two parties we've currently got; which are both essentially the same thing with different names. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 6:47:13 AM |
The problem we have in America with politics stems from us allowing Career politicians!
This is the crux of the real problem in the American political system. We do not need career politicians in the same office for extended periods of time. Did we really need Ted Kennedy in the Senate for all of those years.
I have a unique solution to minimize the impact of career politicians. Additionally it will minimize the scenario of once a politician gets elected the first thing they start working on from day one is their re-election.
My proposal is to change term limits to only allow nonconsecutive terms. Keep the terms the same number of years, but you can only serve in nonconsecutive terms. This will minimize the opportunity for graft and corruption by frequently changing the players. Most importantly it will force the Politicians to do something successful and beneficial for their constituents during their terms that is memorable enough and effective enough to get them elected again in the future.
In the current system Politicians work for re-election from the moment they are elected. They become afraid to take actions or hold opinions that may alienate even the smallest voting block. The become paralyzed against against simply because of the short term impact it could have upon the possibility of re-election. Additionally, the money that tax payers pay to have a Senator or Congressman in place is not wasted while they are out working on their re-election campaign.
Bring in a constant flow of new ideas with new politicians and allowing those recycled politicians to reconnect with their constituents every other term will create a more dynamic government with less corruption and one that may truly serve the American citizens more than it serves itself. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 7:13:32 AM | I've generally found that the biggest problem any of us have with career politicians is that we simply do not share their ideology. You didn't see many "conservatives" complaining about Ted Stevens. And whether or not you think "we" needed Ted Kennedy in the Senate all those years is irrelevant; a majority of Massachusetts voters thought they "needed" Ted Kennedy. Anyone that argues for term limits has a simple, extent solution: Run another canidate and get the support of the majority of the ditrict or state's voters. Pretty simple. Elections are indeed term limits.
Before anyone wishes for a multiparty system you might look at countries like Italy. Having your government collapase every year or so isn't terribly progressive.
There is a real way to address America's Great Divide without constraining the wheels of government like multi party systems can: There was a time in this country where we held our politicians accountable... for everything. As long as we are willing to do things like let our Chief Executive and his Administration issue nearly a thousand false statements in the leadup to an unprecedented invasion of a country that never attacked us and never used WMDs without the tacit approval one of our own American Presidents we will never be as productive as we could be. As long as we let members of any party dwell on trivial things to divert attention from monumental ones we will not be as productive as we could be.
The crisis in American Politics is one of an increasing incapability of our citizens to think critically. This is grounded in our education crisis, a crisis itself grounded in the far larger crisis of American Parenting. Without critical thinking we have little more than biased and more often than not unsubstantiated vitriol from one side of the aisle or the other for our young people to consider. Until we reinstill an ability and an alacrity for younger Americans to think crritically we will still sometimes choose people who's real motivation is to shroud an agenda of avarice in a facade of incompetemnce and myopia.
There is no effective moderation without critical thinking. without critical thinking a third party has no chance in hades unless it to can put on that facade of patriotic benevolence. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:13:49 AM | First Id like to comment on the fact that we have always had "carrer" politicians. Abe Linclon for one. Teddy Roosevolt for another. FDR and JFK. Truman also. The problem lies in that since the 1960s roughly all politicians regardless of ideology or party are just completely out of touch with average or working class Americans. Its all about the money remember and pretty much all politicians work for the wealthy. Regardless of what you hear on Rush Limbaugh the wealthy dont care about America or Americans only in that you continue to be good wage slaves and pay all the taxes.
And that brings me to the bailout. Its pure criminality at the highest levels of goverment and finance. Ive been watching the last few weeks and if it wasnt so tragic it would be laughable. While the corporate media keeps harping on the few dozen crooks that got bonus, the real big crooks walked away with billions. And then the same politicians who wrote the bailout (and the loopholes) in the first place do the Alfred E Newman (what me worry?) routine and act shooked........no outraged . Its just an old fashioned shell game. Im sure Im not the only person that wonders how you save jobs by giving taxpayer money to the same bums who shipped all the jobs overseas in the first place? Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican makes no difference.
So that brings us to all these "toxic" assets. Yep the rich want you to think its the lenders fault that they cant pay the mortage. Well I ve gotten a few bank loans in my life and Im thinking the only way you get money out of a bank without them wanting you to have it is if you got a gun in your hand. You cant tell me the banks thought ppl making 40-50 grand a yr could pay off a 300,000$ loan. A banker that stupid deserves to go under.
Im not sure what the solution is but giving crooks more money is not the solution. Im begining to think the crazy "one world order" conspircy nuts might be right. All that is missing would be the huge "terrorist" attack to put us in a police state. Just some thoughts. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:29:20 AM | | I am going to throw water on the third political party idea as fool hardy for this fundamental reason the system we got corrupts those that try to change it. A better move would be to use the power granted to us in the constitution it said that all other power not assumed by the federal government are left to the states or to the people respectfully as I understand it the way it has been interpreted is that the states have the power to amend the constitution by a 2/3 or 3/4 vote in each house. but I believe the framers saw the problems we are having now and meant that if the states couldn't get it done it was left to the public to get a simple 51% majority in 34 states it becomes law. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:52:08 AM | And I'm going to throw water on the third political party idea for the fundamental reason that the system we have is a "winner takes all" system where one who gets more than 50% wins all the power.
A third party is viable only in a system where people vote for a party (as opposed to an individual) and seats are awarded proportionally based on the number of votes the party received. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/4/2009 9:34:37 PM | Since politicians spend most of their time either campaigning for the next election or being lobbied by those who wish to curry favor, the simple solution is:
a DRAFT. Everyone's name int0 a hat (figuratively), draw names on the current election cycles (2, 4, or 6 years). Congress meets...2 weeks every quarter? State legislators...one week a month? No exemptions except for convicted felons. Lobbyists couldn't garner much influence in such a short period; no need for full-time staffs or congressional junkets; no influencing of campaigns because there wouldn't BE any. No such thing as a professional politician any more - and you'd have a much greater representation of the American public. Checks and balances between the branches would mean something again...and would be about as close to a Constitutional, Representative Republic as we're ever gonna get. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/5/2009 5:45:37 AM | I think we need to vote in members of the Constitution Party on a federal level, to loosen the threads of the spider web we have allowed the federal government to weave around us. A N D then do the same for each of our state government,,, A N D then do the same for each city government! We are being regulated to death!
Op,, you are right it is a no brainer,, we have one Earth, we should take care of it, and as trite as it sounds,, the children really are our future - we should take care of them. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 4/5/2009 7:56:21 AM | If you look at countries with multiple parties, there often isn't enough support for any candidate to have a majority to win, let alone the kind of 2/3 majority that is often needed to pass controversial legislation; the solution is to form a coalition government, which is usually fragile and collapses often, requiring frequent new elections.
Usually on the general election ballot you'll find several parties fielding candidates: Libertarian, Communist, Nazi... sometimes some wacko with money, like Ross Perot, forms his own "party." Thank Ross for helping elect Bill Clinton. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:45:36 PM | Well thank you Ross ~ otherwise we'd had more of the GOP then the nation could handle in a 20 years stretch.
There another great thread on this same vain ~ it offers a hype link to a test on your political bent. ~ it's titled " Political Leaning/Allegiance?" check it out ! You might just be surprised with yourself. I was. ~ I knew I was never GOP material but I'm really not a liberal either. But for now, I do see the DNC offering me comfort in my decision.
The GOP is going to have to change it ways, but a third ticket is a spoiler vote ~ much like Ross pulled off ~ Ralph Nader has jumped out and been a spoiler vote several times as well .
This political posturing is most amusing. There something for everyone it seems ~ I never knew much about Huckabee but now he's got his TV show and I've got to know him. ~ I guess he has a following ~ damn if I see why. More of church deacon kind of guy to me.
I like to hear people speak words that reflect my point of view and Obama does this. ~ so far anyway ! It's not me buying into Obama but Obama has bought into me. I hope it stay that way for awhile. But there will come a point in time that this will change , I know and accept this.
I quote" Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order."
I don't know if I completely agree with all that ~ for I consider myself a liberal yet it's not for government to make us equal, Example ; the ERA was a tool too use until some "fix" offered correction to a present disparity. ~ Government does and should use such "Tools" to guide and govern. But they should never be used like a junkie on drugs ~ creating something that not sustainable and a crippling dependency.
43 gave the most wealthy a huge tax break (reason ? they needed one? ) It was sold to us as to stimulate business to invest. Well, I guess we've seen the results from all this simulation by now.
Now that they have been so well stimulated it's being very difficult to convince them it's time for it to come to an end. That they didn't produce the desired affect with all this stimulus seems to be complete beside the point. They are feeling picked on for being wealthy.
Both the wealthy and poor can be affected by such "Tools" of law.
So that's the way these "Tools" of government work. There is a time and place for them but far to often they outlive their usefulness in time and must be discontinued.
I know you all knew this ~ I just wanted to remind you is all.
Dance | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/23/2009 9:02:51 AM | It's tme for common sense over party dogma and ideology...
Cited from Washington's Farewell Address (Wikipedia)
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/23/2009 1:43:03 PM | "...... the system we have is a winner takes all system where one who gets more than 50% wins all the power."
Sorry, NobushLover, you are mistaken in that.
Except for presidential elections, almost all elective public offices in the US, both state and federal, require only a plurality to win. That is, the candidate who gets the most votes, not necessarily a majority of the votes cast, wins.
If there are three candidates for one US senate seat(or governorship, or county sheriff), and one candidate gets 45%, another gets 40% and the third gets 15%, the one with 45% wins.
The US Constitution requires that a candidate for the Presidency get an absolute majority of electoral votes to be elected, which does not necessarily mean a majority of the popular vote. Clinton, for example won a majority of electoral votes, but only got a 43% plurality of the popular vote.
While the electoral college system is often said to work against third parties, they don't have too much success getting into lower offices that require only a plurality, either. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/30/2009 9:14:20 AM | Well it mighty well seem a winner take all situation. But it shouldn't be.
In the case of "today" ~ we had a lot working that creates such an environment.
With Geo, starting two wars and cutting taxes and then leaving office, He's handing Obama the keys as all the bills are pass due and all fuel tanks empty. ~
"Hey ! Thanks! Glad you are here, I'm gonna catch up on my brush clearing in Crawford and play with the kids mamma. Enjoy your Presidency and don't forget to feed the dogs! "
Somebody's gotta pony up! ~ and the middle ain't got it and so flat footed they can't create it. As the wealthy as saying , well don't look at me! ~ The rights saying we've spend too much money and don't need to borrow anymore ! The Left is saying ~ well? ~ but we've got to pay the billing and fill up these gas tanks and get things running again., how we gonna do that? The right is saying ~ well? ~ lets just ignore it and as long as we don't do anything ~ we won't be making an mistakes! The Left is saying ~ I don't think we can ignore it. ~ The right is saying, well hell ! you're in charge just don't do anything that we don't like or we'll pitch a b1tch !
Dance | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/30/2009 9:53:04 AM | Well if you had to add a third party that caters to the best of both the left and right you could name it suckuptothepartybasedonwhatthepollstellsustodo party.
This coke or pepsi thing you guys got going on is getting you no where in this modern age.
Your current two party system won't allow you to adapt fast enough and is easily pushed around by corporate interests that the ideals that all US citizens can prosper is slowly becoming an illusion like an oasis in the desert. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:05:08 AM | ---Of the people, By the people, For the people “ , for ALL the people and I mean that literally---
Good luck with that. Its a pretty idea but not in touch with the realities, or should I say grotesqueries of human nature. The mob hasnt evolved much since the days of Rome. No one political party can represent all the people. The population is too diverse and self centered, and a significant fraction of the population is either crazy, ignorant, dumb, or a combination of all 3. The average IQ is barely 100, which makes the average person not much better than a bright chimp with language. How else can one explain George Bush as president, Rap music, Professional Wrestling and Islamic Fundamentalism. The gang rape in Richmond a few days ago pretty much sums up
the human paradigm. A species that produces such monsters,or allows them to live,
like isnt worth much.
Politics itself, as with Religion, is an indictment of the fact that humans are born without a moral center, and cant cooperate on anything but a tribal level.
If your looking for a society based on reason and justice, your on the wrong planet. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:58:19 AM | I don't think a 3rd party is going to help because I think just about the whole system is set up and run by a man behind the curtain - who that is or where he is or what he is doing or why - I don't know. But I think he (or several people or groups or whatever) exist.
But then again - I take the movie Zeitgeist pretty wholehearted. So maybe that's why I believe what I believe about american or even universal politics.
I voted Green Party in the last election. I knew they didn't have a chance in hell of winning but it turned out fine for me - I voted the way I wanted to vote and the results came out to be what I expected and wanted. I haven't been able to do that in several elections.
The green party is pretty leftist and liberal - and unlikely to attract the right wing or conservatives. Those attracted to it tend towards independent and democratic. From where it stands so far, it is probably not going to be the party to get what you want because it isn't what they term as 'bipartisan' I don't think.
On the last presidential ballot there were 5 choices - even tho most folks think there was only 2 - Repub and Demos. The choices were Repubs, Dems, Libs, Green, and write in.
What happened to the Reform Party? They looked as if they might have had potential.
Hell they can bring back the Whig party. I don't know much about it - but the more 'Parties' the merrier it should be. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:51:43 PM | In the days of the Founding Fathers, many that served in the early Government did so out of a sense of obligation. Some didn't want to serve but their neighbors begged them to and they did so somewhat begrudgingly. George Washington didn't really even want to be President. Now, it's good money... not from their salary... and power is pretty cool too. Some even do it to get chicks... or boys depending on their preference.
<div class="quote">The green party is pretty leftist and liberal
You would know more than me since you have researched and voted on the ticket but I do know that Ralph Nader is one of the more Conservative thinkers there is although he is mistakenly perceived to be Liberal.
I had always been a Republican but in recent years the Libertarian Party is what the Republicans once were for the most part. As the GOP has become a party that does favor larger government and big spending in some areas they drift farther away from their former Conservative ideas allowing the Libertarians to assume their place as THE traditional Conservative Party. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:09:44 AM | I'm not sure as to how many "right winger" I'd want to ever attract.
Let them find their place, ~ I think it odd, ~after the primary that a party candidate such as say ~ Mc Cain ~ would pander to them. ~ voters only had one of two choices . Obama or McCain ~ If Mc Cain had taken the lead ~ and appealed to the moderate ~ what choices did the far right have? Vote for Obama? Throw a vote away with a third choice?
No ! They voted for Mc Cain even being angry with him.
The GOP is not an "Inclusive" party | |
|
| |
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:30:46 PM |
No ! They voted for Mc Cain even being angry with him.
You could just see McCain's internal conflict between the man he is and the man his party's base demanded he be to get the nomination. It was such a shame. | |
|
| Where's your head at. part 1 politics
Posted: 11/2/2009 5:14:27 PM | Why not?
Canada, with a population of only 34 million people have like 5 political parties!
None of them true conservatives as well!
I think the US could have 3~4 parties. At least it would lead to more interest in politics, since many feel that the main two are not for them, hence to growth of self-proclaimed "independents". | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
