http://rockthedebates.org/ This is an awesome idea. Allready many candidates have joined up for this and if we the people can make a difference, the debates will be much more then just 2 parties debating each other about the same old bs that they plan on doing for us the american people but as we know never actually do. This will open up the debates so that 3rd party systems can present their issues . We are a democracy arent we? Stop the control that both the democratic and republican parties have over who can debate them and over what issues. Its about time that we have someone who truely has a chance to represent the american peoples voice.
Less pandering to political correctness. No perks within the media. The Libertarian and Constitution parties mostly represent Constitutional limits on government, the whole purpose of the nation. I can't speak for the other parties. You ask about plans.. Plans usually represent some sort of previously held philosophy. It's hard to make a plan if you don't have some kind of philosophy of how government should operate. Third parties tend to revolve around a philosophy of government. The only philosophies I see in the Democratic party is government assistance. The Republicans tend to revolve around social conservatism, do nothing about it, then wait for Democrats to do something. My question to you is, what is your political philosophy, or what is the foundation you see America set on, and does your party represent that?
What about political correctness don't they like? Especially understanding that the whole reason for political correctness is to not offend the people that elect them. So unless they plan on getting in office then saying the hell with all of us that supported them I fail to see the problem with an elected official being politically correct. I realize I may be missing the point but I just wanted to make the point that though often demonized, political correctness DOES serve a purpose. i don't think either of the 2 major parties wants to expand the power of government beyond the constitution if I'm not mistaken. I should probably have stated this form the beginning but the point in asking the questions I did is because I'm trying to understand what the 3rd parties plan to do that's any different from what the 2 parties are doing. I guess, but how do they expect the American people to support them if they don't actually have a plan? A solid agenda to tell the American people what they plan to do if elected. They expect people to vote for them with no guarantees or specifics about what they'll do when they get in office? I'm curious because one of the core complaints about Barack and McCain in the beginning was the lack of specifics on their plans. Overall Democratic view IMO Government is responsible for our overall well being as a nation. I DO NOT MEAN THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPOON FEEDING US. I mean we elect leaders to watch over our economy and ensure we all are given as much opportunity as possible to succeed. The government should stay out of our lives when it comes to personal issues and decisions. My views ECONOMY I believe the gov should allow the market to be free, BUT... big but here.... The government is responsible for our economic welfare. I think it's unfair to charge the government with that responsibility then tie it's hands by not giving it the power to regulate the economy. When you weaken the government and don't allow it to regulate and monitor the economy... well we've all seen the results of that. We've also seen the system WORK! How many times have we seen Google, Yahoo, Apple, or Microsoft make a play to monopolize a certain market or sector? If not for government intervention mega corporations have absolutely NO incentive to do what's best for everyone. And therein lies the problem with the Republican conservative idea of government on the economy..... Trickle down economics sounds good on paper. But it's Achilles heal is and always will be human nature. Greed, self preservation, whatever you want to call it. NATIONAL DEFENSE If I were forced to put my beliefs on national defense into one sentence I'd say "I believe our military should be used for defense". Period. Expeditionary wars never work out well in the end for the aggressor. We can do what Ronald Reagan did in the 80s and deter our enemies by carrying a big stick. Having the strongest, most well trained and well equipped military force in the world is all we need IMO. Because even if someone were foolish enough to attack us we could retaliate swiftly, and decisively and GET OUT. Not stay and overthrow the government of a sovereign nation and replace it with one built in our likeness. The way you spread democracy is by being a beacon of light and strength. Setting an example that everyone will want to follow. Those who don't aren't going to be persuaded if you force them. People will fight to the death to defend their way of living. ALL the military might in the world won't change that. HEALTHCARE Healthcare should be a right. Not a privilege for those who can afford it. SOCIAL ISSUES Like I said the government needs to stay out of our lives and stop trying to force Christian ideology upon it's people with laws that favor it. If people want to be gay, straight, atheist, whatever, it is their lives. If stem cell research will help advance our knowledge by leaps and bounds then let it. If a woman makes a personal choice to not have a baby then let her. I'm sure I missed something but I'm tired
I've posted this before, and at the risk of being a pompous bore, I'll post it again. It's my decided view that 3rd parties will never hold water in American political life, because our historically-embedded social structure doesn't support it. In coalition theory, it's called "centripetal competition." We compete to the center, with each party vying for centrist votes. Large swathes of people are structurally encouraged to wrap up within one of the two main parties, and this won't change - because of the nature of our late, frenetic industrialization, which ushered in mass politics in a particular way (that differs from, say, Italy, where mass politics was ushered in in a vastly different way). Anyway, I warned ye...food for thought. What I think most miss is that these are underlying social structures - almost, determinants - that make it very hard to shift to any kind of alternative model (such as a pluralistic, multi-party model) in any meaningful way.
I understand your reasoning but it seems odd all government economic intervention is Constitutional with the General Welfare Clause. If the founders wanted a more regulated economy, don't you think they'd write more about that, with Amendments and such.. rather than try to persuade anti-federalists the limited federal government promised in the Federalist Papers. Monopolies are the result of regulations that benefit large corporations, not the other way around. This is what corporatism is, and why there's much money to be made in politics. You have good intentions but have to disagree economically. No disagreements here. Constitutionally speaking, how is federal health care a right? Aren't all powers not delegated in the Constitution reserved to the states? Unless you're calling the Welfare Clause again, in which there are no limits to its power.
They don't want to? They already have and are willing to push further. Have you just got into politics because of Obama?
I know personally the horrors bad health can bring, I believe it is every man and woman's right to have health as a human, it is our birth right - but when we politicize it, we complicate it and ultimately abandon principles for a temporary fix. The abandoning of principles may not seem like much, but let me explain why it is a big deal. If you bring candy to school, and others see you have some and ask for it - what happens if you give just one kid a piece of gum? Oh well you can't just give one kid the candy, you have to give EVERYONE a piece. This isn't my entire point yet, it's illustrating the floodgates of humankind. What happened when we gave the bankers that bailout? Well California wanted a bailout then, right? The "Big 3" automakers wanted one, and now people with bad credit want one. Add that on to the already-in-motion stimulus package. The flood gates are open and everybody's getting a piece. If we really believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then we had better prepare ourselves for the kind of life that was lead before this country was founded - and actually the reason it was founded. Laws made by leaders depending on the kind of mood they're in. Our country was not created on the idea of giving everybody a piece of candy, it cannot function like that - no government has. Anti-federalists feared this would happen, and they were ultimately right.
The real humor comes from the fact that you need to question whether or not the Republicans or Democrats want to expand the national governments power beyond its constitutional limits. Your man Obama has voted to push the powers beyond its limits.