Here's your 3rd-party platform

[The Rabbi]

Mindlessly picking sides on individual hot button issues is just really really stupid.
Generally the answers to any of them will come from a well formed political viewpoint. Since most people aren't capable of that, we have the mess we have.

 

[Destroyer2]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

I like most of it, but I actually really dislike #16 (assuming gas drilling includes fracking, which is absolutely shit for the environment and any nearby people).

 

[ScienceRocks]

Any third party that isn't for infrastructure, science, tech and education isn't worth shit. What Obama and Bush have done to the funding for these is sad.

Someone wants to fuck over the people of the United states and reward themselves.

 

[cutter]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

rejected

msnbc "polling" is not considered valid information.

As I predicted, the partisans won't like it, either side.

That's usually a pretty good sign.

.

You'll never get a third party to include democrats because they vote party only. They don't care about platform, candidate or anything but the "D" after the name.

 

[Mac1958]

rejected

msnbc "polling" is not considered valid information.

As I predicted, the partisans won't like it, either side.

That's usually a pretty good sign.

.

You'll never get a third party to include democrats because they vote party only. They don't care about platform, candidate or anything but the "D" after the name.

I think there's plenty of that silliness happening from the other "side", too.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would consider voting for someone who supported such a platform. Not in total agreement....but it can be worked with.

I think the immigration question and the spending priorities are likely the most contentious of the issues mentioned. Cutting spending now is just a reaction without careful thought. That one could be a deal breaker.

 

[rightwinger]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

Not a bad list. I agree with all except:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.
2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
17. Keep the death penalty.


I would add exploring alternative energy sources, end gerrymandering, expand voting access

 

[zeke]

A good friend of mine that happens to be black has three kids with names like Fred and Penny. I asked him why his kids didn't have Africanized names with 14 consonants and a vowel.

He told me that it was hard enough for a young black person to find work and that he was not going to cause name prejudice so that when a hiring manager looked at one of his kids resume, they wouldn't know what color they were based on a name.

He's a pretty smart guy but his kids have still struggled to find work.

So if a person voluntarily names their kid a name that might make it difficult for that kid to find a job, that's my fault and responsibility? It's then the role of government to step in and mitigate the damage by picking the winner and loser when that poor kid is looking for a job?

Ya got me, I don't even know how to respond to that.

.

Feel free to point out where I said or even implied that it (prejudice) is/was your fault.

I was simply acknowledging what my black friend has lived with all his life; there is prejudice in the work place based on name recognition. It used to be done (name prejudice) all the time. Why you think Jewish people Americanized their names? Or Poles. Or Italians? The knew that their "foreign" sounding names wouldn't get them a job.

If you don't believe that, name yourself some weird blacksounding name that you can't properly pronounce, send your resume showing you being well qualified for what ever position and see if you get a call back for an interview.

Good luck.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, they are "above" having a rational coherent position on the issues. They just pick positions entirely at random. Why would they ever get upset about taking any particular stand on an issue since they have no principles?

You're doing a good job of demonstrating that the middle is populated entirely by morons.

Wow, I can really see how you just don't get it. You're completely flummoxed by the mere thought that most people can consider every individual issue on its own merits. It's like we're from Mars, I'll bet..

If you don't having any guiding set of principles, then how do you judge the merits of any particular policy? The answer is the "centrist" sticks his finger in the wind to see what's popular, or he uses some other method that's even more irrational.

[This is an example of how commitment to a partisan ideology ultimately traps people in an intellectual vacuum. No light gets in. And perhaps most interestingly, the guys on the radio have convinced you that unless you adhere to a simplistic partisan ideology, you have no "principles"...

Rationality is a "vacuum?" Irrationality is "light?" What is the superior method that so-called "centrists" use to judge policy? I'm dying to know. Is some kind of glandular secretion that us mere mortals lack involved?

[Admittedly, considering an issue does take a little more effort than just "choosing a side", which is what we used to do in grammar school. As I predicted, the partisans don't like this idea. Both ends of the spectrum (what, maybe a total of 20%, max?) will have to do what they can to discredit this, before they lose their place in the sandbox.

I didn't "just choose a side" the way a centrist chooses the policies he supports. I didn't just stick my finger in the wind or base it on some feeling in my stomach. I have been studying the issues for decades. I'm on a "side" because that side supports the polices that I have determined to be the most rational based on fundamental principles.

What method do you use other than some kind of animal instinct?

 

[decker]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

Well done for you to have view on range of things. I don,t agree with your views on everything but on some things i do. But good to see you don,t have set views and open to different views on different topics

I have mix view on thing to. I think in the uk we need to spend less but i happy we Legalized gay marriage and two party rule should end.

 

[Avatar4321]

That's a pretty poor platform. Some areas have merit. But how do you eliminate Constitutional originalism? We are supposed to just pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it says? We are to completely ignore what was meant when it was written. So when it says Congress shall make not law abridging the Freedom of speech, we should just assume they can make whatever law they want concerning speech if we want them to.

You really think you can tell the people they can't believe something they choose to believe?

And you want to tax carbon "polluters"? You realize, everyone "pollutes" carbon every second we exhale right? Don't you think we've been taxed enough?

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, they are "above" having a rational coherent position on the issues. They just pick positions entirely at random. Why would they ever get upset about taking any particular stand on an issue since they have no principles?

You're doing a good job of demonstrating that the middle is populated entirely by morons.

Wow, I can really see how you just don't get it. You're completely flummoxed by the mere thought that most people can consider every individual issue on its own merits. It's like we're from Mars, I'll bet..

If you don't having any guiding set of principles, then how do you judge the merits of any particular policy? The answer is the "centrist" sticks his finger in the wind to see what's popular, or he uses some other method that's even more irrational.

[This is an example of how commitment to a partisan ideology ultimately traps people in an intellectual vacuum. No light gets in. And perhaps most interestingly, the guys on the radio have convinced you that unless you adhere to a simplistic partisan ideology, you have no "principles"...

Rationality is a "vacuum?" Irrationality is "light?" What is the superior method that so-called "centrists" use to judge policy? I'm dying to know. Is some kind of glandular secretion that us mere mortals lack involved?

[Admittedly, considering an issue does take a little more effort than just "choosing a side", which is what we used to do in grammar school. As I predicted, the partisans don't like this idea. Both ends of the spectrum (what, maybe a total of 20%, max?) will have to do what they can to discredit this, before they lose their place in the sandbox.

I didn't "just choose a side" the way a centrist chooses the policies he supports. I didn't just stick my finger in the wind or base it on some feeling in my stomach. I have been studying the issues for decades. I'm on a "side" because that side supports the polices that I have determined to be the most rational based on fundamental principles.

What method do you use other than some kind of animal instinct?

I'm happy to answer your questions, which are based on false assumptions.

If you don't having any guiding set of principles, then how do you judge the merits of any particular policy? The answer is the "centrist" sticks his finger in the wind to see what's popular, or he uses some other method that's even more irrational.

I judge the merits of any particular policy on my own set of principles, which have not been provided to me by someone else or some political platform. I developed my own set of principles, which are just as strong as yours, without the input of others. And your "answer" that a "centrist sticks his finger in the wind to see what's popular" is the way Rush defintes centrism, and he lacks perspective to make that determination. He also hates those who choose to think for themselves.

Rationality is a "vacuum?" Irrationality is "light?" What is the superior method that so-called "centrists" use to judge policy? I'm dying to know. Is some kind of glandular secretion that us mere mortals lack involved?

Once again, your definitions, not mine. To me, commiting to a partisan ideology is irrational, not to mention intellectually lazy, incurious and quite often dishonest.

And a centrist judges policy by carefully listening to and considering all arguments. This takes much more effort than just tuning in to the radio, granted, but it's worth it.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I hope you guys know that government was in the marriage business before Jesus was born.

Remember, rulers were marrying their sisters and daughters off to help seal treaties. Such incidents were occuring in Greece, Egypt , Persia and as far East as India.

So I guess religion should get out of the marriage business?

Since Jesus is one manifestion of God - and God has been around long before Greece, Egypt, Persia, and even <gasp> India .... FAIL.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

I judge the merits of any particular policy on my own set of principles, which have not been provided to me by someone else or some political platform. I developed my own set of principles, which are just as strong as yours, without the input of others. And your "answer" that a "centrist sticks his finger in the wind to see what's popular" is the way Rush defintes centrism, and he lacks perspective to make that determination. He also hates those who choose to think for themselves.

.

So you had no parents or anyone who raised you? You never attended school? Never read a book? Never watched movies or TV?
Because that is the only way you would have a set of values not provided to you by someone else.
The list looks like: "Gee, let's take a bunch of hot button issues and divide half libertarian and half liberal" In most of the examples, it involves gov't mandating one sort of action or another as a third party.
And screw that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world&#8217;s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

1. Agree (after statistics confirm that minorities have equal access)
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Agree
6. Agree
7. Don't care much one way or the other
8. Mostly Agree (but I support some reforms)
9. Disagree
10. Agree
11. Agree
12. Agree
13. Agree
14. Agree
15. Agree
16. Agree
17. Disagree

I mostly agree - It comes as close (or closer) as either the Republicans or the Democrats. But I am offended by the implication that failure to agree with some of these policies means you are "paralyzed by your political ideology."

 

[g5000]

.

The partisans in our crowd won't like this, but I sure as hell do.

Esquire magazine has come out with a poll of American centrists that is very telling. I don't agree with everything on this list, but taken as a whole I would definitely vote for someone who ran on this platform, based on the poll's results:

1. End affirmative action in hiring decisions and college applications.

2. No path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

3. End Constitutional originalism.

4. End two-party rule.

5. Require background checks for all gun purchases.

6. End race and gender wage discrimination.

7. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hour.

8. Keep food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

9. Allow abortions, but not after three months.

10. Legalize marijuana.

11. Legalize gay marriage.

12. Stop trying to be the world&#8217;s policeman.

13. Reduce foreign aid.

14. Spend less, period.

15. Tax carbon-polluters.

16. Expand oil and gas drilling.

17. Keep the death penalty.


These are the wishes of those who are not paralyzed by their political ideology.

Center of American Politics - Statistics and Numbers on American Politics - Esquire

Some of those are too ambiguous to be taken seriously. "Stop trying to be the world's policeman", for example.

"End two party rule" is a double-edged sword. I've lived in countries that have multiple parties and, believe me, that cure is worse than the disease.

I am okay with, while not necessarily approving of, many of the proposals. However, I am going to explain why I am deeply opposed to one in particular. But first I would like to say that the aggregate of this "platform" is more palatable than what either of the two major parties have on display today.

Now, to that thing I oppose above all others in the list:

"End Constitutional originalism".

Alexis de Tocqueville completely destroys that belief system in Democracy in America. But it would require me to quote him at great length, which most people would not take the trouble to read, especially considering his archaic language. And it has some big words in it, which some people would say makes him "smug".

So I will provide my own explanation.

The "end Constitutional originalism" argument basically boils down to a familiar gambit; that we are better ruled by extemporaneous decisions which accommodate current conditions (usually a crisis) rather than try to live by time-tested precedents.

This is one of the more dangerous arguments, but one I could plainly see had seduced Barack Obama when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. That was a truly bad day for America.

Why is this dangerous? Simple. If a totalitarian wanted to make a power grab during a crisis (as many Presidents have tried to do), he would be better able to justify his actions by claiming to be a modern man dealing with modern problems and that antiquated precedents are a nuisance and an obstacle to achieving what he has convinced enough sheep are the necessary goals for the "good of the people". Just look at Bush and Obama for recent examples.

This is yet one more of many reasons why every living soul on the planet should read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

 

[g5000]

Great topic, by the way. Human beings don't always make the right choices, but it is interesting to see where polls indicate the middle of the road is.