Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

NOTE: This is a public post

I had an epithany. And people have different reactions when I say this. Some people, like Sam, ignore me, likely running for their lives at the thought of me thinking too much. Others dismiss me, like Ed, who said "will I be able to prod hobos?". A few were interested, like Sara Jaye, Samu and M.A.N. As well they should be! It's a brilliant, yet gutsy, plan!

I'm going to start my own political party.

See, I'm a Libertarian. But in reality, my economic policies are too far left. I believe in socialized health care, I believe in controlling corporations, I believe in higher taxes... let's face it, "Everyone for themselves" doesn't work when we have virtually no middle class anymore. And everyone is extreme now; Democrats are strictly liberal, Republicans are strictly various levels of conservative (though the Neo-Cons run the show), and everyone else is one varying extreme or another.

No one uses common sense anymore.

And that's when it hit me. I was talking to my mother over email on Monday while at work, and predicted the paranoia and hyperbole that would result from the VT shootings way too easily (the Thompson interview did the trick). I stated that we don't have any common sense, and she retorted with "Well, you should start your own party!", since she thinks I'm not "extreme" enough to be a Lib (she calls them "right wing nut jobs").

... And that's what I'm thinking of doing. I'm going to call it the Sensetarian Party. What is "Sensetarian"? The belief of common sense in politics. We over think things in this country; it's ridiculous, we spend so much time talking about shit that nothing truly gets done, and when something's about to get done, some asshole tries to sneak in some unrelated legislation, and it either goes through with no one noticing, or gets defeated because of it. I think we'd be a lot better if we stopped caring about the fringes of society, and started taking a common sense approach to things.

Now here's where things get sticky: I actually came up with a platform for this. Definitive stances that my party would take. If you want to classify it, it's... conservaliberal. Very moderate; I take stances on both sides. You know... common sense.

Here is my platform:

ABORTION: Fully legal from weeks 1-20. Most medical facts that I personally have seen have stated that a foetus isn't really a living organism until the third trimester; this gives enough time to know that you're pregnant and make a decision. Furthermore, I'd enforce a mandatory 10 days between going to a clinic and saying "I want an abortion" and getting the abortion; no more, no less. This is for two reasons: one, this is to prevent a woman gettind delayed by pro-life plants who either scare them shitless or blow them off until third trimester. Secondly, it means the woman has to really think about it before she goes in; once you're in, if you back out, you're not ready for an abortion.

"But Chris! What about people that just use it as birth control?" Yeah, what about them? Let 'em in. Let them do it. Why? Well, let's see... is it better to abort a foetus before you give birth to it, or do you give birth to an unwanted child, risk it being ignored, abused, put into the DCF cycle, etc. for 18 years, and then after that, pray that he's not a career criminal once he grows up fucked up? I'll take my chances on the former. Furthermore, we have Bob Barker telling us "control the pet population" by getting them spayed and neutered, and if that doesn't work, we put puppies and kitty-witties down to "sleep"... yet we can't do that to UNBORN children? Maybe we'd be better off if we said we were putting foetuses to sleep...

My mother feels that abortions should be covered by welfare. I don't agree, because I don't agree with the welfare system as it is, though I would make it necessary for health insurance to cover it for health purposes (her life is in danger). But the fact of the matter is that abortion is not the moral sewer that people think it is, and so far, the only reason I'm seeing to ban abortion is a bunch of Brits singing "Every Sperm is Sacred". That's not gonna cut it, especially since that's based on religion. More on THAT dagwood later.

DRUG POLICY: Marijuana would become a fully legal drug. Don't tell me it's worse than alcohol or nicotine; marijuana is not addictive by design. The reason why beer and nicotine are legal are because they have better lobbying arms; nothing more, nothing less. Marijuana has medicinal uses, and when used in moderation, can be a relaxing drug much in the vein of alcohol.

With that, I would give Marijuana a sin tax equal to that which alcohol and cigarettes already get. You want to grow it? Be my guest.

Furthermore, the ability to use drugs does not give you the right to be an asshole. For one, marijuana gives a contact high when smoked; smoke it in your house. Furthermore, if you've committed a crime under the influence of a drug? You're going to jail; we'll work on the time later, but my first instinct says a MINIMUM of eighteen months. If that's what it takes to teach moderation to this country...

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Everyone talks about what WE can do to stem this problem of Mexicans consistently trying our border. I have the perfect solution: put the onus on Mexico. Tell Mexico "OK, assholes... you have no self-solvent economy, your only exports are drugs, and you're generally a lawless nation that people try to escape to survive... we will help you get your economy off the ground, but only IF you stem the amount of people going over our border. If X amount of people come over in a period of X months, or more, then you will see harsh economic sanctions. Handle your business."

Notice: Canada and America don't have problems with each other in terms of illegal immigrants. Why? Because we both have solvent economies.

NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS: I fail to see how we can "rehabilitate" someone in an environment where it's fairly assumed that you're going to get anally raped. Rape is the #1 dehumanizing thing you can do to someone, yet it's generally accepted that you're going to get butt-fucked in jail, might as well enjoy the ride, Jean Genet. While I generally don't care what happens to truly evil criminals, we stick too many non-violent criminals in jail just because it's what we do. That's wrong. Drug users being rehabilitated in jail? Doesn't happen. "If I went to jail, I wouldn't come out of jail rehabilitated, I'd come out wanting to mainline heroin into my eyeballs" (Bill Hicks). It's apropos.

So from now on? We don't stick non-violent criminals in jail until it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. They commit a crime? Depending on the level of the crime, increase the penalty; they're going to counselling, and paying a fine, and the counselling is at their expense. They don't have that money? Fine, they can work it off with community service. They don't want to do community service? Congrats, you're now on house arrest, THEN you're still doing community service. After that? THEN you can go to jail. I'd only recommend jail for MASSIVE white-collar crime; the kind of crime that ruins lives (Enron, Adelphia).

And going to jail would likely be a LOT tougher, because it would be filled with people that commit...

VIOLENT CRIME: From now on, if you commit a violent crime, you're officially a felon. And I don't mean a violent crime like two guys beating the shit out of each other at a bar over the Yankees vs. the Red Sox. Everything from a mugging on up, you're now a felon, and you're going to jail for a minimum of two years (and none of my jail plans involve parole, either). Second offence? Now we're up to five years. If you can't learn by the third time, then you're too stupid to live among the rest of us. You're going to jail for life.

There is one exception to this: spousal abuse. This is not to say that I think hitting spouses/girlfriends is acceptable; on the contrary, I can't think about so much as TICKLING my girlfriend excessively without having the need to vomit. But there's other factors that go into this, and the abused spouse might want to keep the other parent/other source of income around to keep the family together. Therefore, the first chance, it's up to the spouse in question. Second time? We're taking it out of her hands. If he/she chooses to keep the spouse around, they're going into counselling for over a year.

That said, "hate crimes" would no longer exist. Why, you ask? I mean, isn't beating someone because of their race, sexuality or what not hateful? Yes, it is. But is it less "hateful" than beating someone for any other reason? A mugging is done with hate. And why does this only affect minorities? A white man going through Compton doesn't have a long life expectancy mainly because he's white. That sounds to me like the definition of a "hate" crime, no? The reality is that any violent crime is hate-based, and for our minority groups to have true equality, we need to stop both hindering them and pampering them both. Punish all these crimes equally... and punish them HARSHLY.

GUN CONTROL: America was founded with the ideal that Americans could arm themselves to defend themselves; yes, the ideal that Americans can fight back against their government is as outdated as the musket (I own a GLOCK, the government owns really big bombs... who's gonna win?), but the fact of the matter is that not every gun owner in America is an illegal criminal. So therefore, I believe we have effective gun laws as it is. They just need to be enforced. It's short-sighted to think that just forbidding guns is going to prevent everyone from getting them; only the outlaws will truly have guns in that case. Europe has very strict gun laws, but they're not immune anymore; they're starting to get more firearm murders now, thanks to the black market. In THIS country? Forget it.

Sorry, but a people that can't defend themselves will get trampled. And the answer isn't just "more police", because we don't want a Police State; give up that liberty, and it's a slick slope. And if it's someone with a gun vs. a bunch without? Well... you get Virginia Tech.

Just making things illegal isn't going to work; look what it did for drugs, and alcohol in the Prohibition era. So if some asshole criminal busts into a man's house with an illegally bought gun, I want that man to be able to defend himself and his family. Otherwise? They're all dead. And gun regulations are now officially useless.

HOWEVER! Just owning an illegal gun would make you a felon, carrying a five year prison sentence, minimum. Second one after that? 15. Then, you're going away... but at that point, you've lost 20 years, so at that point, you're ready to die anyway. And if you shoot anyone in anything other than self defence, with ANY gun? Minimum 15 years. Kill someone? Without DNA proof, you're going away for life. With? You're going to die... and with a heavily streamlined appeals process, it won't take long.

I'd use the Death Penalty for two cases. The first one was above. The second, I'll get into below...

SEX CRIMES/AGE OF CONSENT: I put the two together, even though "Age of consent" isn't just the age you can fuck at.

First off, let's define what the age of consent is. It's simple: Sex, drinking, smoking, you name it... you can do it all at sixteen years old. Across the board.

Seems a little bit low? That's OK, because you're still under your parents' control until 18, unless you're emancipated. This way, you can learn to HANDLE drugs/alcohol/whatever while under their control. If that's too much for people to handle, then compromise: you can drink at 16, but wherever you are, you have to STAY (so you'd better be drinking at a house, supervised). That's more or less how it is today unofficially (my first drink was at 15, with Dad), but that would make it official.

That means kids can have sex at 16, with no consequences, across the board. Technically, it would allow someone my age - 27 in a month - to have sex with a 16 year old. After that? You do need a tier system, due to the dynamics of high school. Here's how that would work (since people asked):

- Over 16, under 18, have sex with someone under 16: No crime. Let the parents handle the situation.

- Over 18, have sex with someone 14-15: Misdemeanour, and you're open for a lawsuit should the parents want to.

- Over 18, have sex with someone 13 or under: You are officially a paedophile. And you're going to be executed.

Paedophiles that act on their urges are incurable; no amount of rehabilitation will heal them. Furthermore, we've made it in this country where they're better off in jail anyway! A registered child sex offender can't do SHIT in most places; Megan's Law (a noble law) makes it in some places where you can't live 500 feet from where children congregate. Not just places like schools, etc.; we're talking ANY bus stop, ANY park, just about... everywhere. In Miami, they have these people living UNDER A BRIDGE. Like trolls. This fosters an unhealthy situation; we're saying "we want you dead, but we don't want your blood on our hands. So we're going to restrict you to the point where we... ah... we were hoping, you know... could you do it yourself?". Very hypocritical, knee-jerk legislation. So this is what we're going to do: either we repeal Megan's Law, and hope these people don't do it again, or kill them, get them out of society, and prevent them from plugging our legal system any longer.

Now, more "conventional" rapists? Minimum of 15 years. Do it again, and you're dead. This is ONLY if you prove that force was used; none of this "yes yes no" shit. If you can't defend yourself, if you can't TRY to, then I'm sorry, I have no time for you.

COURT/LAW REFORM: First off, we need to establish a minimum competency for jurors. Not much; you have to speak English, you need to have at least graduated Year 10, and you have to be lucid. That's about it, but you have to show that you're at least competent enough to sit through a trial.

After that, you have to worry about two things: lawyers, and lawsuits. We'll tackle lawyers, first. It's my opinion that lawyers are completely out of control. It seems to me that the winner of most court cases has no bearing on the actual facts displayed, but the skill and sheer amount of lawyers involved. How many times do we hear that someone can't sue someone or something simply because they don't have the money, or at least enough money to handle the retaliatory measures that will come from some corporation?

That's fixed like this: make sure that, depending on the size of the firm, and the income of the firm, a firm takes on a set number, on a scale, of pro bono cases. This way, they can make their money with the larger cases (and probably have to charge a premium to corporations), while poor people don't have to worry about legal representation.

As for lawsuits? Japan has the right answer: you lose? You pay the balance of legal fees and everything else. And to ensure that some judge doesn't see thing from a borderline retarded angle (like the idiot that made McDonalds pay money because the fucking coffee wasn't marked as hot), everything has to pass through a three person board before it even gets heard.

FINANCIAL REFORM: This is where I alienate the rich. First off, corporations would have a profit windfall tax. As it is, we're rewarding corporations for their profits with tax breaks, when they get those profits through means such as layoffs, outsourcing, and other means that help nothing but the share price and the CEO's compensation. This is what we call "Trickle Down" economics, which is a wonderful ideal if everyone plays along. That's much like Communism: too reliant on human nature. I don't believe that we can rely on an ideal like that when 27 years of Republican policies have shown that it simply doesn't work; the gulf between the lower and middle classes has widened to a chasm, and it's taken the middle class with it. No, I'm not saying corporations shouldn't make money; far from it. But we need to tax those incomes, just like they tax my income. This is more or less aimed at the Oil industry. I'm not QUITE sure how to tackle the problem of the oil people raising oil prices to have us almost exclusively pay their taxes - I can see it happening, we're reliant on oil, after all - but something has to be done. Gas is back up to $3 a gallon for no reason that I can think of, while CEOs get multi-million dollar compensation packages.

Now, some companies are keeping their profits to ridiculous levels by either laying off workers, outsourcing positions, or both. Time to stop this shit; you have to lay off people? You're going to see some sanctions/fines. I'm getting a little tired - like everyone else - of people like Carly Fiorina telling Congress that we need to be "competitive", and laying off people/outsourcing is the way to do that. Jobs are going to India because your average Indian makes less money than our minimum wage, and does it with a passive smile on his face, and their work isn't as good (and don't get me started on China). Maybe someone needs to remind Carly, while we're at it, that the only reason she can make such boasts is because people fought for equal rights for women; we need that kind of fight for the average American worker, apparently (burn TPS reports instead of bras, perhaps?)

As for what the average American pays in taxes, I hate to say it, but my ideal is a country that looks out for each other; the worst thing any person can say is "that doesn't affect me", because it really does, you selfish prick. With that, taxes would not he TOO high, but likely higher than we are used to, especially for the upper classes. This goes towards...

EDUCATION: There's one thing that Education reform needs, and everything stems off from there: money. Teachers don't get paid enough, ESPECIALLY in inner-cities, which are almost like war zones. Therefore, teachers have no support from their administrators - who are afraid of lawsuits and at worst, being shot - so it burns teachers out, and it gets to the point where all a teacher wants to do is get into school, get through the day, go home without too much stress, and pick up enough time in to get their pensions. One of the things my old school nurse told me during a chance meeting at a Wal-Mart one day was that it was to the point at my old school where they couldn't get volunteers to do shit; everyone was just "what's in this for me? Am I getting paid overtime?". That's not because the teachers are just bigger dicks; they don't get paid enough, and don't have control of their classroom. First off, we need to pay them, and throw some money toward the schools themselves (teachers should never have to buy school supplies). Inner-cities? They should be paid more than those in suburban schools; call it "combat pay", if you like. Then again, with gun crime laws punished far more harshly than in the past, schools shouldn't be so dangerous as they have been anyway. With more money and tougher crime laws, teachers - who almost always have noble ideals when they get into the profession - should stay motivated to teach their children right, help the ones that need the most help, and generally make school the place it's supposed to be. Some parents want to ruin the fun by suing the school system for daring to discipline their little shitbag? Refer to "frivolous lawsuits" above. By the way, under my government, I'd handle two problematic areas very easily, and very swiftly:

- Creationism vs. Evolution: Where's the debate? Keep Creationism to the Catholic schools, and teach Evolution elsewhere, as the facts - not a fictional book written by man - point to Evolution being MUCH more right than "God just said 'click'".

Sex Education: Not only would it be ALLOWED in my schools, it would be MANDATORY. Just telling teenagers "don't have sex!" hasn't worked for years, and with sex everywhere on TV and elsewhere - and it's not going away anytime soon, nor should it - it's not going to work anytime soon. Education is the key to protection against things like pregnancy or disease, and if a kid is going to "experiment" with anything, I want him or her to at least be aware of the risks involved. Abstinence is NOT the only option, and someone taught that knows better than to believe it.

The other place the money would go?

SOCIALIZED MEDICATION: I read an article that said that 60$ of Connecticut residents don't have any kind of health insurance. None. If they are hurt, they're flat-out fucked. I still - STILL - owe $3,479 to Griffin Hospital for my 7th concussion back in 2004; I have no other alternatives, since I couldn't go to the Veterans' Affairs hospital - I wasn't lucid enough to tell them to take me there - where Veterans' Insurance takes care of me. I was simply told "tough shit, pay up", something I refuse to do out of principle.

That has to stop. Canada has the right idea: every citizen, regardless of wealth, has health insurance. Period. I understand this is cost-intensive, but we need to get every citizen in this country insured. There's not much around that. "That's un-American!" You're right. It's better. And last I checked, higher taxes - the VAT, specifically - was working fine for Europe. That reminds me...

FOREIGN POLICY/DOMESTIC CULTURE: I hear a lot about how some things are "Un-American", and therefore, instantly inferior. Weather it's a product or an ideal, it's always something, and too many politicians use that to their advantages, knowing they can get the less-educated among us to agree simply out of principle. Well, no, we're not doing everything better than everyone else, and the more we hold to antiquated principles, the fewer things we will do better. It's a culture of Xenophobia in this country, and has really been prevalent since 9/11. I think in order to truly get better as a people, we need to open up to other peoples' ideas, even if we essentially keep to ourselves with them.

And that's another key: we act as the police force for the rest of the world, which is bullshit; we invaded Iraq with disinformation and lies, all to either get into Saddam's oil supply, have an open road to Iran, or both, while we either covertly operate in or flat-out ignore other countries that really DO have serious needs (like Zimbabwe). Here's the answer: a simple ideal, don't fuck with us, we won't fuck with you. I want America to become the Switzerland of the Western Hemisphere. Maybe, if we stopped meddling in everyone else's business, the Middle East wouldn't be able to call us the White Devil so much, eh?

And for those that DO fuck with us? We are going to bomb the shit out of you. And bomb you. And bomb you. And then we'll bomb you some more. We're going to aim at military targets, but if a few civilians die? Tough shit, welcome to war, and the last time I checked, Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda or any other group that wants us dead... they don't care two shits about how many of our civilians die.

So where does that leave us with Iraq? Not as hard as you think: get all of our top generals in a big room, and have them formulate a strategy to get us out while not fully surrendering; at this point, we can't just stick around, and saying "we'll be out by August 1!" is just saying "hold in there longer, guys!". Then you classify that information, ant if it's leaked, you have that person EXECUTED; loose lips sink ships, after all. And you pull our people out... after going on a total offensive. "But Chris, they're using human shields!", you say, to which I say, those people are dead anyway; sorry, but as it stands, we're using our men as human shields as it is (they can't shoot anything, but they can sure look good standing around), and this is about protecting American soldiers, something that people like Dick Cheney - who says "you want out of Iraq, you're abandoning your troops", yet had "other things to do" when it came to Vietnam - don't know shit about.

I'm not saying I'm for cripping our military; far from it, I'm ex military myself. But we should be funding national DEFENCE; as it is, we're funding national OFFENCE; there's a difference.

RELIGION: It's a little embarrassing that religion has taken such a role in our national political scheme. If you stop to think about it, we were a nation founded on the principle of practising the religion of your choice (we'll forget that little "Salem" witch thing), and yet, all of our "moral" laws are nothing more than "Christian" laws, and everything that people want done in terms of what is "right" or "morally just" is just what the Christian religions - or really, the Catholic Church - really want. Ideally, religion would be no more powerful than any other other special interest; the Catholics are just as powerful as any other religion, which has technically as much power in this country as MADD, the NNACP, and even NAMBLA (a group that would no longer exist under my government; after all, a group that specifically exposes that a young boy can have consentual sex with a grown man is the very antithesis of common sense). I feel that enforcing the separation of church and state is important. However, I would keep around religious holidays; people should have the time they need to practise the religion of their choice. The KEY here is keeping the beliefs of one group of people from affecting the lives of another group; a Christian having to cover an extra shift at work because of Rosh Hashanah doesn't count. And for the Athiest freaks that say that things like the Easter Bunny, a menorah or the Nativity are "offensive" to their precious sensitivities? First off, they're lying; they're just wanting to cause trouble. But for that... well, see "frivolous lawsuits" again. :)

This would include legalization of Prostitution. It is unbelievable that we still have prostitution as an illegal act in this country (and that Norway is about to make it illegal), but it's legal in Las Vegas... what the fuck? As Carlin said, "Selling is legal, fucking is legal... why isn't selling fucking legal?" The only reason to make prostitution illegal, with any sort of sense, is because it's immoral. With religion out of the picture, that's no longer an issue.

And with religion out of the way, we have one more thing taken care of...

GAY MARRIAGE: Well, look at that! The last obstacle to gay marriage is gone! The only thing keeping gays from getting equal treatment in this country is the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a belief that primarily comes from religious texts, be it the Bible, the Qu'ran, whatever. Well, they no longer apply to government. So therefore, gays should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.

For those of you that argue that the very ideal of marriage is religiously based, you might have a point. So you need one of two things: ignore that caveat and call them all marriages, or call every legal - key word, as married couples have benefits that non-married couples don't get, such as shared pensions, insurances, and the like - union a "Civil Union". One or the other, no exceptions.

Sadly, while I believe that gays SHOULD be 100% equal to everyone, there's one place where I can't make that happen with a clear concience, because of my experiences in one particular area. Therefore, it's with great sadness that I point this out...

GAYS/WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: Here's a fact about enlisted men: not all of them are educated. Some of them very poorly, at that. Therefore, there are too many people that believe that "fags" are evil, are going to burn in hell, what have you, and have no qualms about beating up fags, and would revolt if they knew that a "fag" was to be serving in their regiment.

"Well, they just have to deal!" Not so fast. You're underestimating the effect or morale on a military unit. If something like this were to happen, morale would plummet, as people take sides. We cannot afford that kind of disunity among the ranks. Not until we get a chance to reeducate people about gays the way we had to about blacks and women in this country, anyway.

So I'm sorry, gays; I'm all for "Don't ask, don't tell". I can't endorse anything different.

As for women, there's one problem with women that won't go away; men want to fuck them, and vice versa. In a combat zone, that's potentially deadly; at best, she could get knocked up, and then you're one body down. At worst... divisions could happen within the regiment itself, and that's where things get really messy.

So I'd keep women out of combat zones. You can say "don't do this or you'll get in trouble" all you want; it won't stop people from fucking when they shouldn't. Shit, it didn't stop ME from doing it! Furthermore, the ideal of staggered fitness tests is bullshit; women of a certain age should be able to do the same fitness tests that a man can do (ie: run the same mile, do the same number of push-ups and sit-ups), or she shouldn't be in the military. Enough with political correctness fucking up our military.


That's about all I can think of for now. I want everyone that can read this to take a gander at it, see what I've got, and come up with your own ideas. Want to take me on about a particular issue? Go for it. Got something else you want me to tackle? Go for it. This is something I WANT feedback on... and I'm not above bugging the shit out of people for it.

EDIT: Just to make everyone aware, I'm SERIOUS about this. Like, looking up what it takes to be classified as a political party at the state and national levels, looking into registering a .org, you name it. That's why I'd REALLY like some feedback as to how this could work, and whether or not I'm an idiot.


( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 23rd, 2007 06:38 am (UTC)
Hilariously, I cannot remember my reaction when you said this at all, which probably means me ignoring you was a product of me being totally scatterbrained as a result of...something or other. Paper hell, or one of my many trips afk in which I forgot to put my away up, or something.

Apr. 23rd, 2007 10:55 pm (UTC)
Cool! So what'd you think?
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:31 pm (UTC)
Well, setting aside the fact that I laugh every time I hear the "but what about people who use abortion as birth control?" argument, because I think people are highly exaggerating the number of people who would actually rely on a highly uncomfortable surgical procedure instead of slipping on a condom or taking the pill...

But we all know abortion rights is my favorite soapbox, so I won't jump on it now.

Thumbs up on the marijuana policy, although I think this country could also benefit from a more down-to-earth education in that department; in school, I remember getting a lot of "ONE PUFF AND YOU'LL BE HOOKED FOR LIFE!!!!" about it.

Does Mexico have the resources to control that problem? I admit I'm not up with the news in that department, but if they don't, then it seems like that problem could really hit the downward spiral.

I dislike the death penalty in general, and I'm pretty :/ at the idea of applying it as you've outlined, but no platform is going to please everyone.

Big thumbs up on educational policy.

Legalization of prostitution would need some regulations, mandatory regular check-ups, that kind of thing, I think.

And I'm all in favor of marriage reform. Giving gays and lesbians the right to civil unions as they currently exist won't suffice, with a civil union not coming with all the same rights as a legal marriage.

My opinions on the platform in general aside, I have to echo what everyone else has pointed out, about third parties being much more likely to find success at the local level, but if you're serious about this, I say go for it.

(And having looked at the comments, I say A++ to going after Kyoto.)
Apr. 23rd, 2007 07:15 am (UTC)
1) Mr. Met is a hideous chud.

2) I never dismissed you! I just want my hobo-poking rights to be protected.

Apr. 23rd, 2007 09:04 am (UTC)
I don't know Chris. You can start a party but you're not the first person to think this way. Independents have a hard time getting people to vote for them. :(
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:10 am (UTC)
(Welcome to Zimbabwe! What do you think of our 80% unemployment and 4,000% inflation? ... What a shithole.)

You and I have already discussed this, but I will add that there is a precedent for a third party functioning at the local level. Here in Cincinnati (in the actual city, not in the Republican belt where I am imprisoned live), we have the Charter Party, which is somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans on the ideology scale, and it's been represented on City Council since the late 1800s. So ... who knows, get the right sponsors, you might make it.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 01:09 pm (UTC)
Piss off the left, and piss off the right. A+ plan here.

Though in all seriousness, I know that here in Canada it takes about 15 years for a political party to grow up to the point where it will make any signifigant waves. I'm not sure if it's the same down there. If you can see yourself doing this in 15 years than all power to you. I can tell you it's probably going to be an uphill battle.

Also, you may want to look into an environmental policy.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 10:53 pm (UTC)
My goal isn't so much national recognition, as much as just causing waves, and making people THINK. We have two parties in America, the Republicans (Conservatives + Neo Cons) and the Democrats (Liberals), with the third parties - primarily the Libertarians and Green Party - taking up so few people they're insignificant. I'm looking for local notoriety.

As for my environmental policy, that's really easy. We HAVE one, and it would work... if we'd RATIFY it.

That's right: I'm going after Kyoto.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:03 pm (UTC)
Will local noteriety be worth all of the effort?
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:05 pm (UTC)
With a global media and Google? It could be parlayed into more.

Besides, you only live once. Have to make an impact while you can.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:10 pm (UTC)
I guess. Well, good luck with it.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 03:21 pm (UTC)
You already know my thoughts on... Oh, at least 90% of your "platforms." No reason for me to make a scene over it. My only advice would be that one person doesn't equal a party. If you're serious about this, you need to start "recruiting" so to speak. And... I had something else to say, but now my mind is blank.

However, I will say that you need a stance on campaign finance reform. My personal platform in that respect is punching McCain and Feingold in the gut, but hey, to each their own.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 10:54 pm (UTC)
It sucks that the few people that respond just say "we've been there and done that, and we're both still bleeding". :(

I'd have to educate myself about the details of campaign finance before I attempted to sprout off about what I'd like to change about it.
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:02 pm (UTC)
"like the idiot that made McDonalds pay money because the fucking coffee wasn't marked as hot"

This paticular issue is something that irked me. Please do not use wrong information to support a claim (I do agree with the point). McDonalds coffee is so hot, it DOES cause burns, serious ones.

Just pointing it out because I'm a detail-oriented weirdo. :X
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:04 pm (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I'm the one using wrong information?
Apr. 23rd, 2007 11:08 pm (UTC)
My understanding of what you said in the post was that the judge should have let the person (not McDonalds) pay the fees completely.

If I got the interpretation wrong, please say so.
Apr. 24th, 2007 01:39 am (UTC)
McDonalds coffee is so hot, it DOES cause burns, serious ones.

Which doesn't change the fact that she decided to put it in her lap and then sue for more than just her medical bills.
Apr. 24th, 2007 06:40 pm (UTC)
Wow, impressive work, Chris. I can agree more or less with most on that list, except most notably the gun control, but that'd be my European genes talking.

Like Willfor said, more environmental stuff. Keep in mind that reaching Kyoto isn't that easy. You'd need environmental taxes, investments in alternative energy sources, sensibilisation campaigns, etc... People love to make the world cleaner, as long as they don't have to change shit about their own lifes.
Jul. 29th, 2007 10:07 pm (UTC)
I'm late, you don't know me, but that's not to say I don't have an opinion. So for you I wrote up my review of your system, what I believe, all that good stuff. The link is:

( 19 comments — Leave a comment )


Mr. Met
Superbus the BRAVE!!!

Latest Month

July 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner