Jump to content

Tell Me Your Party's Position.


Knight of God
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here it is. A thread where you simply explain your party's position. Not another party, but your own. No jumping into another lane. Explain to me and sell me on why I should vote for your candidate. Give me ample opportunity to ask my questions freely and no personal attacks.

I am serious and want to know.

I want to know your party's name, platform, pro's, con's, and I want all truth here. I'm seriously on the fence as my party has no official candidate. So, I'm a free agent. I want to choose by tomorrow so that I can get everything in order. This is serious. Sincere and honest. I'm ready to settle on someone.

Gary Johnson is top on my list, but I'm as satified as a dog in a cage.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't fall squarely into one party. My beliefs would be a mixture of the Republican Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party values.

I agree with most of the issue positions in the platforms of all 3 but not all.

Republican Platform:

http://www.gop.com/2...-platform_home/

Constitution Party Platform:

http://www.constitut...ty_platform.php

Libertarian Party Platform:

http://www.lp.org/platform

My party is close cousins to the Constitution Party. Know quite a bit about them.

Again Tell me about the platform that you are voting on.

I want to know your party's name, platform, pro's, con's, and I want all truth here. I'm seriously on the fence as my party has no official candidate. So, I'm a free agent. I want to choose by tomorrow so that I can get everything in order. This is serious. Sincere and honest. I'm ready to settle on someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm trying to say. There's no party platform that I agree with 100%.

Comparing the 3 I'd say they rank like this:

Fiscal Conservatism:

1. Libertarian and Constitution Party (tied)

3. Republican Party

Social Conservatism:

1. Constitution Party

2. Republican Party

3. Libertarian Party

Since I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate I tend to agree with the Constution Party and Libertarian parties the most on fiscal issues. On social issues I'd say I'm mostly in line with the Republican party but there are a couple of issues that I swing Libertarian or Constitution.

So from what I understand, you will be voting for Romney this year. Give me a breakdown on "why Mitt Romney" and what you feel are honest pro's and con's.

I notice most aren't touching this thread. I'm very serious right here and treat me like a serious voter. Please. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be voting for Gary Johnson more than likely

his 'stated' positions are to be fiscally conservative, socially progressive, advocates limited government, and wants to limit our involvement in foreign affairs. As far as I know, he showed himself to be fiscally conservative and socially progressive as governor of New Mexico, but we really don't know how he will handled the other two things since he has never been in a position to deal with them.

He seems to be in line with most of the things I want, but I still recognize that he is a politician and their promises can be taken with a grain of salt usually. Plus, even if he were elected, he would probably be a lame duck since he isn't with either major party. Still, it would have the benefit of opening more eyes to a possibility outside of Repub or Democrat as well as maybe sending a message that Americans are tired of the same old same old to the two major parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be voting for Gary Johnson more than likely

his 'stated' positions are to be fiscally conservative, socially progressive, advocates limited government, and wants to limit our involvement in foreign affairs. As far as I know, he showed himself to be fiscally conservative and socially progressive as governor of New Mexico, but we really don't know how he will handled the other two things since he has never been in a position to deal with them.

He seems to be in line with most of the things I want, but I still recognize that he is a politician and their promises can be taken with a grain of salt usually. Plus, even if he were elected, he would probably be a lame duck since he isn't with either major party. Still, it would have the benefit of opening more eyes to a possibility outside of Repub or Democrat as well as maybe sending a message that Americans are tired of the same old same old to the two major parties.

I did notice that. He was my choice while trying to keep away from the other two evils, but he is opposite to me as I am fiscally moderate and socially conservative. That won't really work, but if left with nothing...he'll get the vote by default. This is why I'm taking this day to really figure out where I stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest reason: He's not Barack Obama and has the best chance of beating Barack Obama. I don't hate Obama but I can't stand his ideology. BUT...I'm still not 100% convinced I will be voting for Romney. In 08 I voted 3rd party.

The biggest pro to Romney is that what he says I agree with more than any candidate:

The biggest con to Romney is that his history doesn't exactly back up the platform given in his speech. But then again Reagan was a Democrat when he was younger and changed his ways so it's possible that Romney is doing the same...or maybe not.

That's most people siding with him. It worked for Kerry too. That's not going to get it for me. I personally dislike him, but would like to see if there is anything in his platform that I have missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that makes you a populist maybe? The small "New Populist Party" might be your best match actually. Ken Cross is their candidate:

http://www.kencross....php?pagesize=30

Good read, I saw nothing that irritated me on that and they do have a candidate. I want to research some more and found nothing. 0% chance of winning this. Better than what I've seen though. Almost in tune with the party I am a part of. I'm almost believing that a group should all come together and just decide to strong platform and move together, but...alas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is the problem with third parties....brand name recognition

we need a third party that will call themselves The Third Party and literally run on the platform "are you better off? stop voting for these ******** then and let them know you don't need them"

the problem with third parties is that they actually try to get into the issues....they don't stick to rhetoric and kissing babies. they need to tap into the herd mentality of America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how people need to rely on links and videos to explain their position.

I do not belong to any political party, but I would like to consider myself a Centrist. I like to avoid the far end of any political party whether it be PETA loving liberals, or Tea Party Republicans and I feel both groups are destroying American politics. They are making it a team sport, which is odd because were all Americans so we should be on the same team.

Why I am voting Obama: I feel Obama has displayed a desire to rule from the middle, although he has often bent over for the GOP by giving in to their demands too easily. I think Obama has done some good things, and he has done some bad things. Examples:

Focused too much on healthcare at the wrong time and didn't give the people the right plan, although "ObamaCare" is a good start. It seems the people in Romneys state likes it.

Didn't do a proper stimulus. It was much too small and didn't have enough infrastructure money, although it was good enough to start a recovery. In my opinion, people hated his stimulus because it didn't include a check in the mail.

Lilly Ledbetter Act, Credit Card Protection Act, Killing Osama Bin Laden, draw down in Iraq, homosexual civil rights, ending don't ask don't tell. All good things.

If Obama had some cooperation from the right, or if he had more democrats in Congress, he could get a lot more done.

Why I won't vote Mitt Romney. Justice Ginsburg is going to retire soon, and I do not want another Alito or Thomas on the bench. Romney would appoint a pro-life justice who would help kill Roe v Wade. Romney will gut social programs and increase defense spending all while lowering taxes and deregulating Wall Street even further. A vote for Romney would put us one step closer to an American Theocracy, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd parties had a chance when there were limits on donations, but now all hope is lost. Far too many people in America do whatever the TV tells them. They are too lazy to fact check, and are too dumb to research on their own and have free thoughts. They would rather rely on a video they saw on Youtube to give them an opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how people need to rely on links and videos to explain their position.

I do not belong to any political party, but I would like to consider myself a Centrist. I like to avoid the far end of any political party whether it be PETA loving liberals, or Tea Party Republicans and I feel both groups are destroying American politics. They are making it a team sport, which is odd because were all Americans so we should be on the same team.

Why I am voting Obama: I feel Obama has displayed a desire to rule from the middle, although he has often bent over for the GOP by giving in to their demands too easily. I think Obama has done some good things, and he has done some bad things. Examples:

Focused too much on healthcare at the wrong time and didn't give the people the right plan, although "ObamaCare" is a good start. It seems the people in Romneys state likes it.

Didn't do a proper stimulus. It was much too small and didn't have enough infrastructure money, although it was good enough to start a recovery. In my opinion, people hated his stimulus because it didn't include a check in the mail.

Lilly Ledbetter Act, Credit Card Protection Act, Killing Osama Bin Laden, draw down in Iraq, homosexual civil rights, ending don't ask don't tell. All good things.

If Obama had some cooperation from the right, or if he had more democrats in Congress, he could get a lot more done.

Why I won't vote Mitt Romney. Justice Ginsburg is going to retire soon, and I do not want another Alito or Thomas on the bench. Romney would appoint a pro-life justice who would help kill Roe v Wade. Romney will gut social programs and increase defense spending all while lowering taxes and deregulating Wall Street even further. A vote for Romney would put us one step closer to an American Theocracy, in my opinion.

1) Congress (whomever authored the bill) deserves credit for the Lilly Ledbetter Act

2) The Credit Card Protection Act is actually having a negative effect. Instead of fees being avoidable (don't use credit cards or make sure to pay on time), banks are now coming up with new fees that nobody who uses banks can avoid (i.e. banks doing away with free checking/savings). Also, the banks can make up the fees by not offering good interest rates on CDs, savings, etc.

3) The stimulus was not 'small' and the lack of anything that could help the middle class was not a mistake or oversight

Edited by Dago 3.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Congress (whomever authored the bill) deserves credit for the Lilly Ledbetter Act

2) The Credit Card Protection Act is actually having a negative effect. Instead of fees being avoidable (don't use credit cards or make sure to pay on time), banks are now coming up with new fees that nobody who uses banks can avoid (i.e. banks doing away with free checking/savings). Also, the banks can make up the fees by not offering good interest rates on CDs, savings, etc.

3) The stimulus was not 'small' and the lack of anything that could help the middle class was not a mistake or oversight

Here it is. A thread where you simply explain your party's position. Not another party, but your own. No jumping into another lane. Explain to me and sell me on why I should vote for your candidate. Give me ample opportunity to ask my questions freely and no personal attacks.

I am serious and want to know.

I want to know your party's name, platform, pro's, con's, and I want all truth here. I'm seriously on the fence as my party has no official candidate. So, I'm a free agent. I want to choose by tomorrow so that I can get everything in order. This is serious. Sincere and honest. I'm ready to settle on someone.

Gary Johnson is top on my list, but I'm as satified as a dog in a cage.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how people need to rely on links and videos to explain their position.

I do not belong to any political party, but I would like to consider myself a Centrist. I like to avoid the far end of any political party whether it be PETA loving liberals, or Tea Party Republicans and I feel both groups are destroying American politics. They are making it a team sport, which is odd because were all Americans so we should be on the same team.

Why I am voting Obama: I feel Obama has displayed a desire to rule from the middle, although he has often bent over for the GOP by giving in to their demands too easily. I think Obama has done some good things, and he has done some bad things. Examples:

Focused too much on healthcare at the wrong time and didn't give the people the right plan, although "ObamaCare" is a good start. It seems the people in Romneys state likes it.

Didn't do a proper stimulus. It was much too small and didn't have enough infrastructure money, although it was good enough to start a recovery. In my opinion, people hated his stimulus because it didn't include a check in the mail.

Lilly Ledbetter Act, Credit Card Protection Act, Killing Osama Bin Laden, draw down in Iraq, homosexual civil rights, ending don't ask don't tell. All good things.

If Obama had some cooperation from the right, or if he had more democrats in Congress, he could get a lot more done.

Why I won't vote Mitt Romney. Justice Ginsburg is going to retire soon, and I do not want another Alito or Thomas on the bench. Romney would appoint a pro-life justice who would help kill Roe v Wade. Romney will gut social programs and increase defense spending all while lowering taxes and deregulating Wall Street even further. A vote for Romney would put us one step closer to an American Theocracy, in my opinion.

I like what you said in this post and agree with most of it absolutely. I believe Obama will not attempt to gut social programs that are much needed by many of the people of our country and I think Romney will get rid of as many of those programs as he can. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade reversed although I don't think abortion should be treated as cavalierly(sp) as it is today. It should not be seen as some type of legitimate birth control option.

I know that there are certainly "free riders" who will take advantage of social programs and get benefits that they do not need because they are capable of helping get themselves out of bad financial situations. However I much prefer a system in which some people can "get over" and have things given to them that they might not desserve over a system in which those who legitimately need help cannot get it. And I think the Republicans (even more than Romney) would take an axe to too many programs in an effort to appear "fiscally conservative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what you said in this post and agree with most of it absolutely. I believe Obama will not attempt to gut social programs that are much needed by many of the people of our country and I think Romney will get rid of as many of those programs as he can. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade reversed although I don't think abortion should be treated as cavalierly(sp) as it is today. It should not be seen as some type of legitimate birth control option.

I know that there are certainly "free riders" who will take advantage of social programs and get benefits that they do not need because they are capable of helping get themselves out of bad financial situations. However I much prefer a system in which some people can "get over" and have things given to them that they might not desserve over a system in which those who legitimately need help cannot get it. And I think the Republicans (even more than Romney) would take an axe to too many programs in an effort to appear "fiscally conservative".

Okay, here is the problem. Everyone votes on their own beliefs right? Okay, I vote on mine as well. I'm a Christian first and foremost. I eat, sleep, and drink my Faith in God and His undying Word. Its more important to me than any...ANY worldly belief, program, ideology, lifestyle, or anything else. Now, I'm not here to argue about what the Bible says, doesn't say or anything else. We're talking personal faith here which can get very circular if trivialized but it needs to be known and understand in a very strong way before anyone tries to answer this question.

Tell me why socially liberal policies would be a selling point with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Congress (whomever authored the bill) deserves credit for the Lilly Ledbetter Act

2) The Credit Card Protection Act is actually having a negative effect. Instead of fees being avoidable (don't use credit cards or make sure to pay on time), banks are now coming up with new fees that nobody who uses banks can avoid (i.e. banks doing away with free checking/savings). Also, the banks can make up the fees by not offering good interest rates on CDs, savings, etc.

3) The stimulus was not 'small' and the lack of anything that could help the middle class was not a mistake or oversight

The answer to number 2 is simple......... instead of a big bank go to either a small local bank or a credit union.

Credit Unions are FAR more regulated than banks , and since they are not for profit they typically do not charge the outlandish fees that say WF or BOA would charge.

Most checking accounts at credit unions are still free, although some services that may have once been free may have a small nominal fee ( like a 5 dollar fee for a web bill pay).

That is an easy solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here is the problem. Everyone votes on their own beliefs right? Okay, I vote on mine as well. I'm a Christian first and foremost. I eat, sleep, and drink my Faith in God and His undying Word. Its more important to me than any...ANY worldly belief, program, ideology, lifestyle, or anything else. Now, I'm not here to argue about what the Bible says, doesn't say or anything else. We're talking personal faith here which can get very circular if trivialized but it needs to be known and understand in a very strong way before anyone tries to answer this question.

Tell me why socially liberal policies would be a selling point with me.

If you were really that involved in your faith (i.e., belief that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior) wouldn't you be more inclined to vote based on the teachings of christ? Christ himself never mentioned anything about homosexuals from what I understand, and he was an advocate of the poor. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

If Jesus were real, and if he were alive today, I would have to believe that he would be a liberal and would support social programs for the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were really that involved in your faith (i.e., belief that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior) wouldn't you be more inclined to vote based on the teachings of christ? Christ himself never mentioned anything about homosexuals from what I understand, and he was an advocate of the poor. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

If Jesus were real, and if he were alive today, I would have to believe that he would be a liberal and would support social programs for the poor.

What makes you think I was talking about homosexuals in all honesty? How do you know I have an issue with that in particular? I'm making sure that I stay with non-specifics on purpose just so we don't go too far into a Biblical discussion based on Eccl 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly just pulled that out of my *** to use as an example since it seems to be a big one with the religious.

Well, still tell me why you would use socially liberal views to sway a social conservative.

*checks bible* - Nope it doesn't say give all your money to Caesar so that Caesar can have a program to take money from other people to help the poor for you.

I believe it asks YOU to make a personal decision to help others, give to the church, give to charity, etc... Not asking the government to point a gun at your neighbor's head and make *them* give to the poor.

If you want to help the poor, then help them directly or give to charity. Don't create an all powerful government to take money from some to give to others at gunpoint.

Let's not trivialize the Word of God in this thread please sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the point of the thread.

I am swaying between Johnson and Obama.

Johnson sounds fantastic in some of his views but I wonder how much good really will be done because the other 2 parties are just going to block everything. ( look how little work has been done the last 2 years, and multiply that suckitude x2 for twice as long..... not something the country can afford.) so that is something I have to reconcile with my self and if I feel the vote is being "wasted".... Althought I have always held the notion that if you are voting for what you REALLY believe in then no vote is a waste.

The Democrats platform at the convention had 2 things I hold as very important, The support of 2 consenting adults regardless of sex being able to be married, and the government staying out of a personal decision between a Woman and her doctor.

Matters like that which are private concern and are none of the "gubments bidness".

If they would only come to their senses and had a platform of if not out right legalizing but at least decriminalizing less harmful drugs like pot and put it on the same level as tobacco and alcohol it would be a no brainer.

As far Obama himself I think in a second term we would see a more aggressive approach.. far too often in his first term PARTICULARLY in the first year or 2 he tried too much to be Mr nice guy and tried to be too much to the center. Which I agree with but when it became clear that one party had ZERO intention of working with him he should have just given them the proverbial middle finger and did things his way.

A second term would hopefully change that mentality.

But even when he did things his way he was still trying to appease people who would not work with him period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is off topic and strays from the point of this thread but I have to know.

Dago: So you feel that no President in the history of this country deserves any kind of credit for bills they signed in to law, or is it only with Obama?

I feel like the President gets far too much credit and blame for what Congress does. Let's be honest here....the president doesn't author them, he doesn't fight to push them through Congress, he doesn't 'vote' on it and he certainly wouldn't play political suicide by vetoing a bill like this even if he were against it.

I do agree he made the right call on Obama and am tired of those on the right trying to nitpick his decision on it...I would be scared of the president who DIDN'T take a moment to consider the repercussions of that action.

As I have said before, I am not against universal healthcare in theory, but I think that what we have here is short sighted and more about a political victory than a system that will work well and not end up being a bloated, inefficient drain of money with little oversight like every other major social program we have but that isn't just on Obama....Congress shares that responsibility.

I wish Americans would vote out ALL those sons of ****** because the truth is that they have forgotten that we are their employers and it is the fault of the American people for being so apathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knight of God, this was a very good post explaining our current economic situation that I would rather just quote than befuddle any attempt to paraphrase.

Okay.

I want you to look at this graph:

large_debt_depression_war.jpg

After the crash of 1929, but before Roosevelt took office, interest rates were raised and an emphasis was put on paying down the debt as a solution to fix the crisis, much as it is today. Note in the graph that total debt declines until 1933, and debt as a percentage of GDP maxes out at 300%.

What does this mean? Seeing as how Republicans are fond of household analogies, allow me to explain: let us say you have credit card debt, a job providing a regular source of income, and assets that get you to and from work, give you a place to sleep, etc.

Until 1933, our government was doing the equivalent of selling the car in order to pay down the credit card bill. Yes, the total debt is lower, however now that you've lost your job, the debt burden itself is many times more burdensome.

The reason the debt-to-GDP ratio was so problematic despite the total debt burden falling is because contractionary economic policies (aka, austerity) fed into a deflationary spiral, resulting in businesses laying off workers due to a shortage of demand, resulting in even less demand, and more layoffs. And with every round of layoffs comes fewer taxes paid.

Take another look at the graph. When FDR becomes president, total debt goes up (OMG the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% and you libs think you can spend your way out of debt?! Actually...yes.), and the debt to GDP ratio falls (economy improves) until the "mistake of 1937" when they let off of government spending too soon. You see, by the government stepping in and taking advantage of this time to do infrastructure programs, etc, the private sector deleverages, and results in greater economic efficiency via the economic multipliers generated from infrastructure, relieves pressure on welfare programs, and, by putting people to work, increases tax revenues as well as consumer spending, creating the demand required for private business to once again hire.

This is like biking to work with modest debt. Then, you apply for a job that is too far away for biking, but pays you 10 times as much. In that case, you take out additional debt for a car, but your overall financial situation has improved due to the disproportionately greater income.

Take a look at that graph one more time:

WOW! Look at that total debt skyrocket! That is as a result from the least efficient of all government spending, the spending the helps the economy the least, military spending. Yet! Even then, the debt-to-GDP ratio plummets, and country is on a sounder fiscal footing because of it.

Now, when I read what you've written here, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. If we launched a MASSIVE, 50-state public works program fixing up all of our roads, old bridges, etc, and provided funding for high-speed rail (let's say a total of $2 trillion, less than half of the total cost of the War on Terror by the time Obama first took office), not only would we effectively pay back less than we borrowed, but the unemployment crisis would be over in a matter of a couple of months, GDP would grow quickly both in the short term (due to government purchases and the increase in private consumer demand), as well as the long term due to upgrading that aspect of our economy which acts of the lubricant for much of our transactions: infrastructure (and, ****, add renewable energy and research to this list).

So, to recap, our overall debt-to-GDP ratio would decline due to guaranteed growth, and money we borrow at negative interest rates will pay for people to do necessary infrastructure work that removes them from receiving government safety net spending, increases tax receipts, and provides the "spark" our economic engine needs via the government stepping in to fill a shortage of demand, resulting in the private sector hiring more people to meet that increased demand.

As the infrastructure program winds down, more and more of that labor force will feed into that positive feedback loop of private employment.

With the short term economic crisis over, we raise taxes (starting with the most disbalanced area of our economy, finance/the wealthy), cut military spending, and pay down our debt.

I understand that this is not politically feasible, but I would love to hear a response from you that indicates why either, A) throwing our economy into a deflationary death spiral via austerity is better than the status quo, or B) How austerity or the status quo make more economic sense than the plan I just laid out for you, in an intellectually honest way that argues in good faith.

If you have any questions, I'd ask that you respond to everything here and include those areas of question into your response, and not simply respond to one thing in an obtuse fashion on purpose in order to wiggle out of the rest of this.

Thank you =).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to explain the mis characterization that Jesus would be some kind of socialist.

C'mon man, I'm tired of that word. I want to learn more. That doesn't help me at all and I said that I didn't want to get Biblical here. If you don't know the Word then be careful on how you touch it. You may not know what you're saying. I mean that seriously.

What is this bad habit of cherry picking the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...