A change in the judicial branch, more penalties for frivolous lawsuits & less money being awarded. Also, no more rewarding people for ignorance. To stupid to know that coffee is hot? To bad. 90 million dollars is more than any human being deserves for their own stupidity. Maybe they deserved medical costs, but that's it. Also, more charity donations will be allowed in leui of high taxes. Restructuring of House & Senate elections. Longer terms & less time spent campaigning. Regulation of government lobbying. Increased interest in creating viable energy sources outside of oil. IMO, simply becoming a third party would force "moderation in all things". It's the only place to gain voters and there's no real way to go extreme without drifting into one of the other parties' realms & thus lose voters. The question becomes, is the general public educated enough to make the decision & vote for a third party. Or are they to accustomed to voting left or right wing? The only problem I see with a third party is that much of the public votes for a certain party because their parents did or because they always have. They might not even know the issues. Would they be willing & able to recognize such a party & it's contribution possabilities?
CParso...you've got my vote man. I keep waiting for a candidate like this, but I don't think it is going to happen. I tend to vote republican but I rarely agree with the party on everything. I tend to be more liberal on social issues. Like you, I have no problem if two gay people want to get married, or a 'civil union' if people somehow think calling it marriage cheapens there own. (that, i will never understand btw). I am pro-choice as long as it is done early enough. I think the first-trimester is a reasonable time-frame. However, I am conservative when it comes to most financial issues. I think social security is in huge trouble and it needs to be overhauled. I think welfare is a load of crap right now. I am not against helping somebody out of poverty, but only for a limited time, while they are actively trying to find a job. I could go on, but these are the basic premises I would run under. Of course, we would never win. We would be called heartless by the democrats for our plans regarding social security and welfare. We would be called immoral people by the republicans on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. I think we would have a lot of younger, male voters. But not enough to make a big impact.
Aubie, I agree with you that I really have my doubts about whether such a party could succeed. Ever since I was 11 years old I've said that I want to be the President of the United States. However, since turning 18 and really starting to understand politics I realized that the only way to become an elected official is to become a tool of your party. I doubt that Bush believes everything he says, but his financial backers and the Republican party won't support him if he doesn't say it. I've come to the conclussion that running as in individual under one of the parties is damn near impossible, especially on the national level. That's when I really started considering this idea of a Moderate third party. IMO in order for it to succeed, it would have to be gradually introduced to the population and succeed on a smaller scale before being taken seriously for a presidential campaign.
There's actually not a problem with spending more than you take in. The problem is that it has gotten out of hand. I agree with that theology in general, but in times of a recession it would be better for the economy if the government increases spending & decreases taxes. So I agree as long as you don't take it to strictly. I don't see any way for the government to stay aloof of issues such as euthanasia and abortion. IF it is considered murder, the government would have to decide penalties. If it isn't the government would have to decide at what point is it not. I like your ideas on military power. To often we've had politicians that are eager to go to war. Approval ratings are higher during war times in general, so politicians have an incentive to incite such wars. A moderate party should be willing & able to use force but not "pick fights", per say. You've got a good mixture of balance in there that I like, especially pertaining to the borders. Number 4? That sounded way to broad with no real meaning or plan of action behind it. Could you expand upon it?
Do not allow school-instituted prayer in public schools. However, individuals ability & right to prayer will not be imposed upon.
I think our NATO allies are important. I think we have common interests that shouldn't be derailed without good reason. I think we have common enemies in Asia and the Middle East who would like us to be devisive and this tendency must be fought. Our military and economic power is doubled when our allies our with us. We have be sure that protection of our vital interests does not adversely impact our allies interests and vice-versa. To put it simply, we must be inclusive of our allies, not exclusive. We don't want them to sit out important wars, so we don't try to drag them into unimportant wars. The balance I'm looking for here is the concept that our allies best interests are important to us because they comprise a portion of our best interests.
No offense meant here red, you have made some very good points, but, your not seeing the truly big picture here. Some people have the wrong idea of who our allies are. The simplistic outlook is "Lets get along with others in order for them to get along with us". Hasn't history taught us anything? Those who we traditionally think of as our allies are no better than our known enemys. Do you not think that all of Europe is out to see the U.S. fall from glory. When was the last time you were over there. These people no longer look up to us, that was past generations, they envy us. Envy breeds contempt and contempt leads to hatred. Siding with us on just about any issue now makes them feel subservient. They now take pride in standing against us. The whole idea of the EU is due to our power and influence. Each one of them feel threatened by us, hell, half of them would be talking a different language if it wasn't for us. That is what has led to this problem. In my opinion, our only true ally in this world now is Israel. The Bible will tell you the significant importance of this. If we don't change some of our attitudes when it comes to political relations with Europe, and other parts of the world, we will go the way of the Romans and so many others before them. We need to worry about us and everyone else be damned. Self preservation in order to ensure our children and grandchildren have the same country that we so selfishly enjoy should be our chief concern. People have to realize that our relationships with countries such as France, Spain, Russia, Italy, Germany, ect...... ,are never going to strengthen. No matter what we do or say there is always going to be opposition to it. In my opinion, that's fine. It's more important to know who your enemies are rather than your friends.
Frogleg's political party: Government takes care of national defense. Free markets, free people. People keep most everything they earn. Productive, acheiving people will thrive. In general, lazy moochers will not. Those truly not capable will survive by the grace of those who can. Mandatory gun ownership. Old people who have neglected their retirement, will pay for their mistake. Basically, you are an independent man, do what you will.
Unless you don't want to own a gun, then too bad... You've got some decent ideas, it just doesn't seem you've thought them through.
