What is the perfect political party according to you? This doesn't strictly have to be desinged for the American political system. Just give us details.

A party that:

*Was pro-environment
*Had relatively low taxes, but good services by cutting pork
*Upheld as much peace as possible (however, "world policeman" could be good in some cases.  Iraq isn't one of them.)
*Was tolerant, but not endorsing of subcultures and religions
*Kept crime off the streets, without being barbaric
*Was relatively uncontrolling of people, or truly represented the people
*Was Gangsta!  ;D

What is the perfect political party according to you? This doesn't strictly have to be desinged for the American political system. Just give us details.


My perfect political party would be based on giving people equal opportunities... but with people reaping the benefits and/or suffering the consequences for their choices.  All people, regardless of their family's income, regardless of their intelligence, would be given the opportunity to be trained for a trade or profession that would allow them to live comfortably.   For those who choose not to take advantage of those opportunities, welfare would consist of only food, housing, day care (for those who are able to work), medical care, and other necessities.  There would be no such thing as a "welfare check".   Those who were laid off or otherwise "looking for work" would be temporarily hired by the government to clean streets, do clerical work (if qualified), if they were not able to live on their own savings, etc.

Those with disabilities that prevent them from working would be given financial assistance... and businesses would be given a nice tax deduction for hiring disabled people and making accomadations for them.   

The government support money being saved would go toward providing housing and education to those in need.

Things that don't interfere with the public's lives (such as gay marriage, abortion, medicinal marijuana) would be allowed.   Things that do adversely interfere with the public's lives (such as gangs, drunk driving, theft) would be dealt with harshly.

As far as international relations, I'd say we stay out of their affairs... but the other countries should be prepared to stop receiving aid from us.  Legitimate trade is fine... but that's all.  Our military should be top notch, but more concentrated on our own defense than overseas activity.

I guess most of my beliefs would follow this same pattern... its time that people, cities, states and countries start taking responsibility for themselves and not relying on others to carry them, and blaming others for their misfortunes... which is why I support equal opportunity so much... this way there's no excuse.

Equality for ALL (including gay marriage)
Religious freedom
Socialize healthcare
Socialize education (including higher education)
Pro-enviorment
Legalization of marijuana
Campaign finance limitations
Pay as you go-spending. Not borrow the hell out of the country.
Get rid of waste in Government-i.e. taxpayers $$$ to build a bridge to nowhere and defense contracts to the likes of Halliburton.
Instant Run-off Elections


Yes, these are all domestic issues. As for foriegn affairs-I think we should clean our own back yard before trying to create "our way of life" in other parts of the world.



Cat

Of the people, by the people, for the people, sums it up.  Of course the Supreme Court would have to reverse that ruling that states
that legally a company has the legal standing of a person.  I just can't grasp that one. ???

A party that:

*Was pro-environment
*Had relatively low taxes, but good services by cutting pork
*Upheld as much peace as possible (however, "world policeman" could be good in some cases.  Iraq isn't one of them.)
*Was tolerant, but not endorsing of subcultures and religions
*Kept crime off the streets, without being barbaric
*Was relatively uncontrolling of people, or truly represented the people
*Was Gangsta!  ;D



My perfect political party would be based on giving people equal opportunities... but with people reaping the benefits and/or suffering the consequences for their choices.  All people, regardless of their family's income, regardless of their intelligence, would be given the opportunity to be trained for a trade or profession that would allow them to live comfortably.   For those who choose not to take advantage of those opportunities, welfare would consist of only food, housing, day care (for those who are able to work), medical care, and other necessities.  There would be no such thing as a "welfare check".   Those who were laid off or otherwise "looking for work" would be temporarily hired by the government to clean streets, do clerical work (if qualified), if they were not able to live on their own savings, etc.

Those with disabilities that prevent them from working would be given financial assistance... and businesses would be given a nice tax deduction for hiring disabled people and making accomadations for them.   

The government support money being saved would go toward providing housing and education to those in need.

Things that don't interfere with the public's lives (such as gay marriage, abortion, medicinal marijuana) would be allowed.   Things that do adversely interfere with the public's lives (such as gangs, drunk driving, theft) would be dealt with harshly.

As far as international relations, I'd say we stay out of their affairs... but the other countries should be prepared to stop receiving aid from us.  Legitimate trade is fine... but that's all.  Our military should be top notch, but more concentrated on our own defense than overseas activity.

I guess most of my beliefs would follow this same pattern... its time that people, cities, states and countries start taking responsibility for themselves and not relying on others to carry them, and blaming others for their misfortunes... which is why I support equal opportunity so much... this way there's no excuse.



Equality for ALL (including gay marriage)
Religious freedom
Socialize healthcare
Socialize education (including higher education)
Pro-enviorment
Legalization of marijuana
Campaign finance limitations
Pay as you go-spending. Not borrow the hell out of the country.
Get rid of waste in Government-i.e. taxpayers $$$ to build a bridge to nowhere and defense contracts to the likes of Halliburton.
Instant Run-off Elections


Yes, these are all domestic issues. As for foriegn affairs-I think we should clean our own back yard before trying to create "our way of life" in other parts of the world.

Cat



Aside from what I struck through on Darko's post, this would be pretty much an ideal party IMO. So why the hell doesn't anyone run on a platform like this?

Most of what I was going to list is more of law changes (which IMO we need a major overhaul) or an ideal country than political party.


Things that don't interfere with the public's lives (such as gay marriage, abortion, medicinal marijuana) would be allowed.  Things that do adversely interfere with the public's lives (such as gangs, drunk driving, theft) would be dealt with harshly.


Well, theft is already pretty much there, it is just the enforcement of existing laws. AFAIK any theft over 200$ is grand larceny and already a felony.

Virigina passed 20 new provisions/laws last summer (or maybe it was in 2004) raising the penalties substantially against drunk driving.


Of the people, by the people, for the people, sums it up.  Of course the Supreme Court would have to reverse that ruling that states
that legally a company has the legal standing of a person.  I just can't grasp that one. ???


Agree there too, but you lost me on the company/legal standing thing.

Well, theft is already pretty much there, it is just the enforcement of existing laws. AFAIK any theft over 200$ is grand larceny and already a felony.




Yeah, but it's still usually just a night in jail... if that.  Personally, I'd rather see "I am a thief" tattooed on their foreheads for a couple years for all to see... but of course, that's not realistic... ::)

Yeah, but it's still usually just a night in jail... if that.   Personally, I'd rather see "I am a thief" tattooed on their foreheads for a couple years for all to see... but of course, that's not realistic... ::)


True on jailtime* but a felony conviction is a lifetime ban from voting and owning guns and adopting and ...

*Depends on the circumstances. Recently I know of someone who got 6 years for grand theft (250$ value stolen, a decent DVD player) since he had multiple prior theft and drug convictions.

If that had been his first charge he might have walked with probation and the charge reduced to a misdemeanor.

Having been on the receiving end of a grand theft twice (neither time the suspects were caught), I must say that if I had caught the people myself they'd have gotten a hell of a lot more than a tattoo.

I do not support a ban on voting for convicted felons. Everyone 18+ who is not legally declared mentally incapable should have the right to vote, felon or not.

I do not support a ban on voting for convicted felons. Everyone 18+ who is not legally declared mentally incapable should have the right to vote, felon or not.


I agree.  The government is supposed to represent the people.

ASIAN LATIN BLACK AND WHITE
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

OK, here are a few views that I would put as a "Plank" if I was to start a new party:

1.  Term limits.  This applies for all elected officials.  5 terms for the House, 3 for the Senate, 2 for Executive.  And that would apply for Federal, State, and Local levels.

2.  No discrimination.  None, for any reason.  "Hate Groups" to be hunted down and eliminated through education.  If that does not work, incarceration as a last resort.

3.  Universal employment, hand-in-hand with universal welfare.  But if the person refuses to work, then they get nothing.  Work can be something as simple as picking up trash along a highway or in a city park for a few hours a week, to attending school full-time (in the hope that at the end they will have usefull job skill).

4.  Make it easier to "homestead".  There are millions of acres of land owned by the BLM, largely sitting vacant.  Set up a system to let people buy (or long term lease) this land, for either residential or agricultural use.  No commercial or industrial uses allowed.

5.  Change the regressive tax rules for US flagged ships.  One reason so many ships owned by US Corporations are flagged overseas, is because the taxes are so high, it is impossible to make a profit if they were US flagged.  Change this, to bring that money back into the US.  Give firther breaks to ships that are built in the US.  This will also stimulate the sale of US built ships, a large undustry that has largely gone overseas in the last 50 years.  Not a subsidy, but an incentive.  The amount lost in per-ship revenue will be more then made up for by the increased volume.

6.  Set up "Recripricol Tarrifs" with foreign nations.  If they put in restrictive terrifs for goods we export, place the same restrictions on goods they export to the US.  This will make for a level playing field, and will return some of the jobs exported in the last 40 years to return to the US.  Fair trading partners will be reqarded, and unfair trading partners will be punished.

7.  Require overseas holdings of US Corporations to follow basic US Regulations.  IN other words, since the minimum age to work in the US is 16, no overseas facilities of US Companies can employ children under the age of 16.  This would apply to all safety, living wage, and working condition laws.  Companies that do not comply to be fined and punished in the same way as if the location was in the US.

8.  Strict conservation laws.  Companies that recycle are to be given an incentive to recycle, and to use recycled materials.  Companies that deal with the use of natural resources (mining, oil drilling, timber, etc) are to be carefully monitored.  As long as they show a track record of returning areas to original or better condition, they would be rewarded with extended rights.  If they show themselves to be destructive to the environment, they are to be punished, even to the extend of having all such rights denied.

Now I am sure a lot of people are wondering "What the heck is he thinking?"  Those are not listed in any particular order, simply the order that they came to mind.  And many of those, it would be impossible for me to say "this is more important then that".  And I am sure that a lot in here will be surprised or even shocked with some of the things I listed.

I do not support a ban on voting for convicted felons. Everyone 18+ who is not legally declared mentally incapable should have the right to vote, felon or not.



I agree.  The government is supposed to represent the people.


The removal of voting rights to Felons goes way back to "Common Law".

If you commit a felony, you basically loose some of your Constitutional Rights.  This is because you have proven yourself to be unconcerned with the Constitutional RIghts of others.

And do you really want some of these people to have a choice in what kinds of laws are voted in?  Do you want a convicted pedophile to have a right in antimolestation laws?  Do you want somebody convicted of a "Hate Crime" to decide on laws reguarding the rights of minorities?  Do you want somebody convicted of a major crime to be sitting on a jury?

The removal of voting rights to Felons goes way back to "Common Law".

If you commit a felony, you basically loose some of your Constitutional Rights.  This is because you have proven yourself to be unconcerned with the Constitutional RIghts of others.



Not all felony convictions though have to do with a lack of concern for others Constitutional rights. Most felony drug possession convictions fall into this category IMO.



And do you really want some of these people to have a choice in what kinds of laws are voted in?



Who are "these people"?  ???



Do you want a convicted pedophile to have a right in antimolestation laws?  Do you want somebody convicted of a "Hate Crime" to decide on laws reguarding the rights of minorities? 



No and No.



Do you want somebody convicted of a major crime to be sitting on a jury?


That depends on what you consider a "major crime" and also the case being tried. Would I want a convicted arsonist sitting on a jury in an arson case? No

Would I want (or accept) a convicted substance abuser sitting in on a rape trial? If he was clean and met the same standards that non convict jurors did I see nothing wrong with him as a juror in that case.

While some convicted felons should have all rights restored, no one currently serving time for a felony conviction should have the right to vote. I guess a way to break it down would be severity of the felony, for number's sake anything Class 3 to 1 would still be a voting ban but those convicted of lesser felony charges (and no longer in prison) should have the same rights as anyone else.

Excluding felons from voting though fails to take into account one major thing in my book: There are numerous (probably millions) of Americans that have committed felonies of varying degrees and never been caught. Don't believe for a second there aren't pedophiles/rapists/murderers/etc. voting at every election.

BTW, I agree with your previous post, the 8 things you listed are quite good (especially #3 and 6).

I've got an idea. Let's have some *real* campaign finance reform in order to make our "dream parties" possible in the first place. It doesn't do you any good to have great ideas if you don't have major financial backing...unless your name happens to be Ross Perot.

Until sweeping reforms are made, I'm withholding comment on the perfect party. So there!  ;D

Would I want (or accept) a convicted substance abuser sitting in on a rape trial? If he was clean and met the same standards that non convict jurors did I see nothing wrong with him as a juror in that case.

While some convicted felons should have all rights restored, no one currently serving time for a felony conviction should have the right to vote. I guess a way to break it down would be severity of the felony, for number's sake anything Class 3 to 1 would still be a voting ban but those convicted of lesser felony charges (and no longer in prison) should have the same rights as anyone else.

Excluding felons from voting though fails to take into account one major thing in my book: There are numerous (probably millions) of Americans that have committed felonies of varying degrees and never been caught. Don't believe for a second there aren't pedophiles/rapists/murderers/etc. voting at every election.

BTW, I agree with your previous post, the 8 things you listed are quite good (especially #3 and 6).


Well, I do not want any felons to sit on any jury.  The jury system simply does not allow you to segregate potential jurors by crimes the ymay have comitted.  I have been in a jury pool before.  You are given a number, and when your number is called, you report to a courtroom.  They do not know your name, your background, or anything else for the most part.  The 2 trials I sat in on were rather straightforward.  The first one was for assault, and the person pled guilty 1 hour into the trial.  The other one was a drunk driving case.  After 4 hours of trial, we had a 30 minute deliberation, and came back guilty.

And remember, most crimes are comitted by repeat criminals.  And I really do not care about the hypthetical "those that got away".  After all, I believe Robert Blake and OJ Simpson are guilty as hell, but since they were tried and released, they have all their rights.

And thanks.  All of those things are rather important to me, and are really not things that most people could argue against, unless they are 8 term Senators who wear white robes on the weekends, own overseas sweatshops and run pollution factories.  :P

I've got an idea. Let's have some *real* campaign finance reform in order to make our "dream parties" possible in the first place. It doesn't do you any good to have great ideas if you don't have major financial backing...unless your name happens to be Ross Perot.

Until sweeping reforms are made, I'm withholding comment on the perfect party. So there!  ;D


Campaign reform is largely a fantasy.  Because it will never work.

The only real result of the laws they passed a few years ago is the expansion of the PAC run campaigns.  And those are impossible to stop.

This is because any attempt to stop a PAC from running an ad runs smakc up against "Freedom Of Speech" issues.  Any group has the right to buy TV and radio airtime, and say whatever they want.  Trying to regulate that is against the Constitution.  The more they try and regulate the parties, the more will simply shift to PAC and other groups, and they will act as a mouthpiece.

This can be seen in the 2004 campaign.  MoveOn.Org and Swift Boat Veterans both ran extensive smear campaigns against the candidates, unhampered by any regulations or reforms.  And there is no way that there will ever be laws passed to try and stop them.

// The jury system simply does not allow you to segregate potential jurors by crimes the ymay have comitted.  I have been in a jury pool before.  You are given a number, and when your number is called, you report to a courtroom.  They do not know your name, your background, or anything else for the most part.  //


Very true and valid point there, and since I would not want background checks and the like on potential jurors (even in my "ideal party world") I would say it is too much trouble to seperate out the 'light felons' from the heavy ones for possible jury duty.


And remember, most crimes are comitted by repeat criminals.  And I really do not care about the hypthetical "those that got away".  After all, I believe Robert Blake and OJ Simpson are guilty as hell, but since they were tried and released, they have all their rights.



Agreed about the crimes fact, though there is nothing hypothetical about the ones that got away. A large percentage of major crimes never get solved.  What percentage of non-prosecuted offenders vote is impossible to know, but it is obviously greater than 0%. It seems pretty messed up to me that a person an animal who commits a rape but never got caught can vote, but a person convicted 25 years ago with and who has since made no mistakes can't.


And thanks.  All of those things are rather important to me, and are really not things that most people could argue against, unless they are 8 term Senators who wear white robes on the weekends, own overseas sweatshops and run pollution factories.  :P


You're welcome. It puzzles me though that we do not have a system like this already in place, especially for your #3 point which I feel strongly about as well. I guess there are too many loopholes in the current system.