Parties concerned the election process doesn't represent, serve or accommodate the public equally can push for a Convention of States.
To set up separate Adminstrations by Party for social policies, benefits and tax terms and credits for internal domestic programs and social welfare
Vs
External govt policy for national security and interstate commerce as well as international relations
Where we agree on policy can be recognized as public. Where we disagree on policies and funding due to differences in beliefs, that can stay private for consenting parties to fund and follow on their own.
Why do you want to destroy the United States as we know it and skuttle the constitutiom? Separate administrations? Seriously.? Isn't there enough chaos already? You seem to thive on it.
We could have has separate administrations if Lincold was not hell bent on preserving the union. We should have just let the south go, then deport the northern racists and other mental defectives to the south. But to have "a separate administration" in the same geographical area is rediculous and unworkable
And just what the hell does this mean: Where we agree on policy can be recognized as public. Where we disagree on policies and funding due to differences in beliefs, that can stay private for consenting parties to fund and follow on their own.
Try some plain english with examples. Otherwise it is just word salad
Hi
TheProgressivePatriot
1. It isn't dividing America for States to have State administrations separate from federal. It isn't dividing America to have Catholic churches under their own central administration over their schools and social services SEPARATE from Baptist or Protestant Conferences over their churches, schools and charitable outreach.
How hard is it to quit fighting over school policies, social benefits, prochoice and prolife health care and just allow parties to fund their own policies and benefits elected by their members to pay for with their taxes, tax credits and breaks?
This is nothing new.
We already have parties establishing their own beliefs in platforms like political religions. Why not just acknowledge we have whole networks of taxpayers organized in groups based on political beliefs and denominations, and require them to pay for their own member policies (like other religious organizations already do) instead of imposing beliefs through govt on other citizens and force taxpayers to fund them?
2. What I mean by separating the policies:
A. Where parties do NOT agree to fund or follow the same faith based beliefs and policies, we agree to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction and keep those programs privately funded by choice of members and taxpayers
B. Where parties AGREE on the same policies, then those can be made public for everyone to follow and fund
Again, this is no different from separating private religious beliefs from govt.
This is merely recognizing secular political beliefs equally as faith based choices, and treating them the same as religious beliefs, so that NEITHER type of belief gets incorporated by govt UNLESS the public consents.
If we don't agree to the same beliefs, those stay private and personal free choice, not dictated or regulated by govt.