Third Party Platform of Common Ground for Liberals/Conservatives(No Far Left/Right)

[Bombur]

What "friction" are you referring to and how do you perceive this "natural splitting point" coming about?

It depends on the area but the friction is the competing needs of various groups. For example education funding for poor areas versus suburbs. A lot of policy will end up being targeted towards the poor areas which leaves the moderate Dems representing the middle class paying the bill.

Entitlement reform could be a place where the middle class may have to fight very hard to defend their own interests.

The funding for public education has been an issue for decades and it has never split the Dem party before so there is no reason to believe that it will do so now.

As far as entitlement reform goes that will unite the party since that threat is coming from the right rather than from within the party itself.

The Republican party is the party that is threatening to split and if it did the remnants would have the best shot at appealing to the blue dogs IMO.

The threat to entitlements is coming from the financial reality of entitlements not the political reality. Politicians would like to just ignore them but that is becoming increasingly difficult.

A third party in the US is unlikely no matter what but IMO the most likely scenario is the one I described.

 

[occupied]

That "third way" corporatist shit has already been slapped down by the democrats for no other reason than it is/was an entirely artificial creation of corporate lobbyists and is noting more than the new neocon party. We have had more than enough of that shit.

corporations make up a respectable percentage of our economy and innovation as a nation. America wouldn't be nearly as great without apple, Microsoft, intel, Boeing, Spacex, wall mart, safeway or a dozen others.

Honestly tens of millions of people are employed this way. I want pro-American policies that benefit American corporations....True, I don't want corporations running the government but this is like cutting science and infrastructure on the other hand. stupid....

They already run America, into the ground in some cases, running America for their benefit has failed to bring whatever benefits it was ever supposed to achieve for the greater good of the nation. If they want some love from the left they have a lot of catching up to do, especially the investment/banking sector.

 

[History]

So here is a new idea..

New ways of Public Transportation by Maglev Technology

What will this idea help with??
Drunk driving
Texting and Driving
Traffic volume on highway
Alternative to flying
Oil and Fuel consumption

So I believe that a Subway system supported by Maglev Technology would be an excellent thing for this country..

Maglev (derived from magnetic levitation) is a method of propulsion that uses magnetic levitation to propel vehicles with magnets rather than with wheels, axles and bearings. With maglev, a vehicle is levitated a short distance away from a guide way using magnets to create both lift and thrust. High-speed maglev trains promise dramatic improvements for human travel if widespread adoption occurs.

Maglev trains move more smoothly and somewhat more quietly than wheeled mass transit systems. Their non-reliance on traction and friction means that acceleration and deceleration can surpass that of wheeled transports, and they are unaffected by weather. The power needed for levitation is typically not a large percentage of the overall energy consumption; most of the power is used to overcome air resistance (drag), as with any other high-speed form of transport. Although conventional wheeled transportation can travel very quickly, a maglev system allows routine use of higher top speeds than does conventional rail, and it is this type which holds the speed record for rail transportation. Vacuum tube train systems might hypothetically allow maglev trains to attain speeds in a different order of magnitude, but no such tracks have ever been built.

Compared to conventional wheeled trains, differences in construction affect the economics of maglev trains. In wheeled trains at very high speeds, the wear and tear from friction along with the hammer effect from wheels on rails accelerates equipment deterioration and prevents mechanically-based train systems from routinely achieving higher speeds. Conversely, maglev tracks have historically been found to be much more expensive to construct, but require less maintenance and have lower ongoing costs.

 

[Clementine]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

I don't think the left and right will ever agree to meet halfway or give up pet issues. You can dream, but it won't happen. The founding fathers' vision of people proudly serving the people and upholding the constitution died a long time ago. It's all about power, money and control. Our intended public servants behave more like royalty and we've let them get away with it for decades. While people weren't involved and paying attention, they granted themselves new powers and more money. We let these monsters create themselves and now wonder how we can roll it back.

People are as divided as our representatives on social and economic issues.

Republicans and conservative Republicans see a lot of things differently and they argue a lot. When I look at the left, I never see the same debates going on within the party. The far left dictates the policies and there are no moderate Dems standing in their way.

It's almost like there are 5 parties now:

Democrats (no difference between liberal and far left and I say that because they all stick together)
Conservative Republicans
Republicans
Libertarians
Independents (who can go any way depending on which issues are important to them at election time)

Social issues, like abortion, muddy the waters because there is nothing the federal government can do, or should do. The states should handle some thing. It's legal and will stay that way. The only thing up for debate is whether the left can start spending people's money to pay for them.

Our 2nd amendment rights are solid and the left hasn't had any luck in changing that. They'll keep trying, but until they can convince the majority to shred our bill of rights or some idiot declares himself a king, they will keep using every shooting to state their case, well, except for the every day shootings in Chicago, where there are strict gun laws.

I think a lot of people often vote based on one or two things. I believe this next election will be based on the unemployment rate and loss of insurance due to Obamacare. Of course, the economy is all part of that.

For the midterms, I think we'll see Republicans keeping the House and gaining in the Senate.

Liberals want to keep the status quo, which is a rapidly growing government with overreaching powers.

Polls show people are tired of big government. I think some of the issues the libs have been pushing, like abortion, aren't at the top of most peoples' list of priorities.

The Republicans continue to fight amongst themselves and hard to tell who will emerge as the candidate. Mug slinging has already begun to go after the potential candidates.

Hillary will be the Dem candidate because it's her turn and they owe it to her. They went with Obama to challenge people to prove they weren't racist by electing their guy. They also weren't ready for a woman president. They actually weren't ready for a black president either, which is why they were so mean to Herman Cain. They chose Obama because, as Biden and other Dems explained, he was only half-white so he didn't scare them as much and also he was the first clean and articulate black to run. Never mind the implications of what they implied about all the other blacks in Washington.

Hillary, being the typical liberal, will be all for the oppressive policies started by Obama. She wouldn't repeal Obamacare no matter how much damage it causes. She'll keep pounding the drums on gun control and probably increase the welfare rolls even more. Illegal aliens will get their amnesty with liberals in charge, in fact, expect open borders if the left has their way.

The ideology between the left and right is too different now for them to agree.

You'd think doing what is best for the country would be the guiding principle, but it's not.

One side loves the constitution, the other thinks it's outdated and needs to be scrapped and re-written. There is no middle ground. It's either keep America alive, as our founders intended, or kill it and introduce a whole new system of government.

To hell with compromise. It's a fight to the bitter end.

 

[dblack]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences. So if we are going to do that then We the People must decide upon a platform that is functional and feasible.

I wonder if you can imagine 'we the people' working together voluntarily, without attempting to coerce each other via majoritarian bullying?

Please define what you mean by "majoritarian bullying".

I've found that lately when the phrase 'we the people' is invoked, particularly when it's typed in bold font, it's generally an attempt to elevate majority rule to the prime directive of government, usually with a marked disdain for individual rights and constitutional limits on government power. 'Majoritarian bullying' refers to the process of taking democratic consensus as authoritarian decree - coercing dissenters and squelching resistance. It's the worst sort of mob rule.

It's a shame too, because the phrase ought to be reserved for a voluntary spirit of community, where we support each other and seek out solutions to our problems without resorting to the brute force of government.

 

[oreo]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

Well we already have a group like that in this country--in fact today they outnumber the Republican party membership and also the Democrat party membership.

They're called INDEPENDENTS-

Being independent means you can vote for either party--you're not married to either one--but you do your best to determine the best candidate and vote for that candidate regardless of their party affiliation. IOW--we don't need a 3rd party platform. 3rd parties usually insure that the worst of the worst gets elected. What we need are more INDEPENDENTS in this country.

 

[auditor0007]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

Right in your post you create a big problem because you suggest that only women who can afford to should be permitted to have an abortion. If a woman is poor she must have the child because you do not want the government funding that abortion, yet the government will almost certainly be funding that child and his/her mother for the next 18 years. Or do you suggest that we should force the mother to have the child and then tell the mother it is up to her to support that child?

Sometimes people are very unrealistic about reality.

 

[auditor0007]

It depends on the area but the friction is the competing needs of various groups. For example education funding for poor areas versus suburbs. A lot of policy will end up being targeted towards the poor areas which leaves the moderate Dems representing the middle class paying the bill.

Entitlement reform could be a place where the middle class may have to fight very hard to defend their own interests.

The funding for public education has been an issue for decades and it has never split the Dem party before so there is no reason to believe that it will do so now.

As far as entitlement reform goes that will unite the party since that threat is coming from the right rather than from within the party itself.

The Republican party is the party that is threatening to split and if it did the remnants would have the best shot at appealing to the blue dogs IMO.

The threat to entitlements is coming from the financial reality of entitlements not the political reality. Politicians would like to just ignore them but that is becoming increasingly difficult.

A third party in the US is unlikely no matter what but IMO the most likely scenario is the one I described.

A third party does not work well in our system. If our system was parliamentary it would be different. A parliamentary system might be better for us as it would force coalitions, but that is not our system.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences. So if we are going to do that then We the People must decide upon a platform that is functional and feasible.

In that respect it will break down into a number of categories so let's put the big ones on the table.

1. Taxes and Spending.

This is not a black/white issue where one side is right and the other is wrong. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, we do need to reduce spending too. So the fundamental principle that We the People must agree upon is a 2 phased approach to both lower spending and raise taxes. If cannot compromise on this point then this is not the place you want to be.

2. Economy and Jobs

We the People prosper when everyone has a job that pays a living wage with benefits. That should apply to everyone irrespective of the work that is being done.

e.g. A bus driver has a responsibility to the safety of their passengers and other vehicles on the road. Sometimes those passengers are your own children. Shouldn't the bus driver be paid enough so that they can concentrate on safely getting your children to school instead of worrying that they will be late for their 2nd or 3rd job so that they can make ends meet? This principle holds true for all jobs in society. The person cleaning the toilets at your place of work is actually a healthcare worker and it is your health that they are taking care of. When you see it in that light you realize that their job protects the health of all of the employees. How many of you enjoy using a dirty bathroom? Sure, it is a menial job but toilets don't clean themselves. The people who do it deserve a living wage just as much as you do.

So when everyone is paid a living wage with benefits there are several economic advantages. (a) Living wages means more consumers and that is the basis for a sound economy. (b) When people are paid a living wage with benefits they become taxpayers and no longer need any housing, food or health subsidies.

This is a double gain because it reduces government spending while increasing revenues. Without raising taxes or making any spending cuts in Congress both problems are dealt with in a way that automatically improves the economy and provides prosperity for everyone.

This is a win-win-win all around.

So let's find out who is on board up to this point. If you agree just thank this post and that will give We the People some idea of where we stand moving forward.

Define "living wage".

 

[gallantwarrior]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

Having guns is fine as long you follow the law. Mentally unstable people should not have guns, period. That includes more severe cases of PTSD.


Abortion is a private sadness.


Cut speeding, raise taxes on those that benefit the most from our economy and markets.

What exactly constitutes "mental illness"?
Agreed, abortion is a private issue. Pivately funded, as well as any subsequent counseling that results from the personal decision to have an abortion
Who benefits most from taxes?

 

[TemplarKormac]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences. So if we are going to do that then We the People must decide upon a platform that is functional and feasible.

I wonder if you can imagine 'we the people' working together voluntarily, without attempting to coerce each other via majoritarian bullying?

As long as a minority gives up trying to fuck the rest society out of its educational system, infrastructure, science and safety net. Well, the rest I think can find some common ground...

Is there NOT a post where the words "science" and "infrastructure" don't leave your fingers?

 

[TemplarKormac]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences.

Then why do we call ourselves "united"?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I wonder if you can imagine 'we the people' working together voluntarily, without attempting to coerce each other via majoritarian bullying?

As long as a minority gives up trying to fuck the rest society out of its educational system, infrastructure, science and safety net. Well, the rest I think can find some common ground...

Is there NOT a post where the words "science" and "infrastructure" don't leave your fingers?

They're what makes us a first world nation. Pretty important

 

[Derideo_Te]

It depends on the area but the friction is the competing needs of various groups. For example education funding for poor areas versus suburbs. A lot of policy will end up being targeted towards the poor areas which leaves the moderate Dems representing the middle class paying the bill.

Entitlement reform could be a place where the middle class may have to fight very hard to defend their own interests.

The funding for public education has been an issue for decades and it has never split the Dem party before so there is no reason to believe that it will do so now.

As far as entitlement reform goes that will unite the party since that threat is coming from the right rather than from within the party itself.

The Republican party is the party that is threatening to split and if it did the remnants would have the best shot at appealing to the blue dogs IMO.

The threat to entitlements is coming from the financial reality of entitlements not the political reality. Politicians would like to just ignore them but that is becoming increasingly difficult.

A third party in the US is unlikely no matter what but IMO the most likely scenario is the one I described.

The moderate Republicans are not willing to forfeit the GOP to the extreme right just yet. They will fight tooth and nail for control and that battle will take place this year. I fully expect the TP'ers to cost many moderates their seats by defeating them in the primaries however there will be a cost associated with this and it will be smaller representation overall in the House. Dividing the party will leave open opportunities for Independent and moderate Dems to take seats where the electorate is not happy about the gridlock and obstruction of the extreme right.

Given that scenario there is no reason to believe that blue dog Dems will join the GOP. Historically "party swappers" always move towards power rather than away from it. The power trend is towards the Dems according to the demographics.

The "threat to entitlements" stems primarily from the extreme right. They will need to prevail overwhelmingly in the elections this year in order to make that threat into reality. That means winning 6 Senate seats and losing none at all. Assuming they reach that goal they still won't be able to override a presidential veto because that would mean winning 16 seats without losing any. That is about as likely to happen as winning the Powerball lottery.

So your scenario is based upon an assumption that is unlikely to occur in my opinion. The most likely outcome is that the status quo remains essentially the same as it is now in 2015 give or take a couple of seats here and there. The problem the extreme right has is that it doesn't have any more "political weapons" that it can throw at entitlements. Shutting down the government and refusing to raise the debt ceiling are both discredited and they have cost the GOP dearly so they won't be able to use them again for at least another decade.

All that leaves is good old horse trading and with neophyte TP'ers up against seasoned Dems the outcomes are going to be superficial "victories" without any real substance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I wonder if you can imagine 'we the people' working together voluntarily, without attempting to coerce each other via majoritarian bullying?

Please define what you mean by "majoritarian bullying".

I've found that lately when the phrase 'we the people' is invoked, particularly when it's typed in bold font, it's generally an attempt to elevate majority rule to the prime directive of government, usually with a marked disdain for individual rights and constitutional limits on government power. 'Majoritarian bullying' refers to the process of taking democratic consensus as authoritarian decree - coercing dissenters and squelching resistance. It's the worst sort of mob rule.

It's a shame too, because the phrase ought to be reserved for a voluntary spirit of community, where we support each other and seek out solutions to our problems without resorting to the brute force of government.

Your perceptions are duly noted however since you cannot prove that anything that I have posted even comes close to your allegations I stand by my positions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences. So if we are going to do that then We the People must decide upon a platform that is functional and feasible.

In that respect it will break down into a number of categories so let's put the big ones on the table.

1. Taxes and Spending.

This is not a black/white issue where one side is right and the other is wrong. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, we do need to reduce spending too. So the fundamental principle that We the People must agree upon is a 2 phased approach to both lower spending and raise taxes. If cannot compromise on this point then this is not the place you want to be.

2. Economy and Jobs

We the People prosper when everyone has a job that pays a living wage with benefits. That should apply to everyone irrespective of the work that is being done.

e.g. A bus driver has a responsibility to the safety of their passengers and other vehicles on the road. Sometimes those passengers are your own children. Shouldn't the bus driver be paid enough so that they can concentrate on safely getting your children to school instead of worrying that they will be late for their 2nd or 3rd job so that they can make ends meet? This principle holds true for all jobs in society. The person cleaning the toilets at your place of work is actually a healthcare worker and it is your health that they are taking care of. When you see it in that light you realize that their job protects the health of all of the employees. How many of you enjoy using a dirty bathroom? Sure, it is a menial job but toilets don't clean themselves. The people who do it deserve a living wage just as much as you do.

So when everyone is paid a living wage with benefits there are several economic advantages. (a) Living wages means more consumers and that is the basis for a sound economy. (b) When people are paid a living wage with benefits they become taxpayers and no longer need any housing, food or health subsidies.

This is a double gain because it reduces government spending while increasing revenues. Without raising taxes or making any spending cuts in Congress both problems are dealt with in a way that automatically improves the economy and provides prosperity for everyone.

This is a win-win-win all around.

So let's find out who is on board up to this point. If you agree just thank this post and that will give We the People some idea of where we stand moving forward.

Define "living wage".

A living wage is one that enables someone to house, feed and clothe themselves (and loved ones) and pay their bills without the need for any form of government assistance.

In reality anytime a hardworking American who is putting in 8 hours a day needs some form of government assistance it means that taxpayers are subsidizing the corporation that is employing that person.

If everyone who worked could pay all of their bills from their earnings then there would be no need for government assistance and that would automatically reduce government spending. Not eliminate entirely because some unfortunate people are incapable of working through no fault of their own and they will still require assistance. But they are a very small subset.

It is the working poor who need housing assistance because they are paid too little to afford the rents in the general area where they work that should be paid a living wage by their employers as opposed to taxpayers subsidizing those corporations.

 

[Votto]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

Libertarians have to learn not to be regressive. They must:

1. Embrace abortion
2. Embrace illegal immigration
3. Embrace gay marriage
4. Embrace entitlements and the nanny state
5. Embrace the subsequent needed trillion dollar deficits to fund the nanny state.
6. Embrace the NSA police state.
7. Support a war with Syria.

Now if you can do all that, then maybe.....just maybe, you will find a home in the federal government.

Otherwise you are just a two bit Extremist right winged obstructionist.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if you can imagine 'we the people' working together voluntarily, without attempting to coerce each other via majoritarian bullying?

As long as a minority gives up trying to fuck the rest society out of its educational system, infrastructure, science and safety net. Well, the rest I think can find some common ground...

Is there NOT a post where the words "science" and "infrastructure" don't leave your fingers?

It's a corporatist meme. Government is the fount of all public good.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We the People do need to work together to find Common Ground and resolve our differences. So if we are going to do that then We the People must decide upon a platform that is functional and feasible.

In that respect it will break down into a number of categories so let's put the big ones on the table.

1. Taxes and Spending.

This is not a black/white issue where one side is right and the other is wrong. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, we do need to reduce spending too. So the fundamental principle that We the People must agree upon is a 2 phased approach to both lower spending and raise taxes. If cannot compromise on this point then this is not the place you want to be.

2. Economy and Jobs

We the People prosper when everyone has a job that pays a living wage with benefits. That should apply to everyone irrespective of the work that is being done.

e.g. A bus driver has a responsibility to the safety of their passengers and other vehicles on the road. Sometimes those passengers are your own children. Shouldn't the bus driver be paid enough so that they can concentrate on safely getting your children to school instead of worrying that they will be late for their 2nd or 3rd job so that they can make ends meet? This principle holds true for all jobs in society. The person cleaning the toilets at your place of work is actually a healthcare worker and it is your health that they are taking care of. When you see it in that light you realize that their job protects the health of all of the employees. How many of you enjoy using a dirty bathroom? Sure, it is a menial job but toilets don't clean themselves. The people who do it deserve a living wage just as much as you do.

So when everyone is paid a living wage with benefits there are several economic advantages. (a) Living wages means more consumers and that is the basis for a sound economy. (b) When people are paid a living wage with benefits they become taxpayers and no longer need any housing, food or health subsidies.

This is a double gain because it reduces government spending while increasing revenues. Without raising taxes or making any spending cuts in Congress both problems are dealt with in a way that automatically improves the economy and provides prosperity for everyone.

This is a win-win-win all around.

So let's find out who is on board up to this point. If you agree just thank this post and that will give We the People some idea of where we stand moving forward.

Define "living wage".

A living wage is one that enables someone to house, feed and clothe themselves (and loved ones) and pay their bills without the need for any form of government assistance.

In reality anytime a hardworking American who is putting in 8 hours a day needs some form of government assistance it means that taxpayers are subsidizing the corporation that is employing that person.

If everyone who worked could pay all of their bills from their earnings then there would be no need for government assistance and that would automatically reduce government spending. Not eliminate entirely because some unfortunate people are incapable of working through no fault of their own and they will still require assistance. But they are a very small subset.

It is the working poor who need housing assistance because they are paid too little to afford the rents in the general area where they work that should be paid a living wage by their employers as opposed to taxpayers subsidizing those corporations.

Alright. So everyone should be able to afford to house, clothe, and feed themselves and their loved ones. Now, what would you consider an acceptable standard for those basic provisions?

 

[Bombur]

The funding for public education has been an issue for decades and it has never split the Dem party before so there is no reason to believe that it will do so now.

As far as entitlement reform goes that will unite the party since that threat is coming from the right rather than from within the party itself.

The Republican party is the party that is threatening to split and if it did the remnants would have the best shot at appealing to the blue dogs IMO.

The threat to entitlements is coming from the financial reality of entitlements not the political reality. Politicians would like to just ignore them but that is becoming increasingly difficult.

A third party in the US is unlikely no matter what but IMO the most likely scenario is the one I described.

The moderate Republicans are not willing to forfeit the GOP to the extreme right just yet. They will fight tooth and nail for control and that battle will take place this year. I fully expect the TP'ers to cost many moderates their seats by defeating them in the primaries however there will be a cost associated with this and it will be smaller representation overall in the House. Dividing the party will leave open opportunities for Independent and moderate Dems to take seats where the electorate is not happy about the gridlock and obstruction of the extreme right.

Given that scenario there is no reason to believe that blue dog Dems will join the GOP. Historically "party swappers" always move towards power rather than away from it. The power trend is towards the Dems according to the demographics.

The "threat to entitlements" stems primarily from the extreme right. They will need to prevail overwhelmingly in the elections this year in order to make that threat into reality. That means winning 6 Senate seats and losing none at all. Assuming they reach that goal they still won't be able to override a presidential veto because that would mean winning 16 seats without losing any. That is about as likely to happen as winning the Powerball lottery.

So your scenario is based upon an assumption that is unlikely to occur in my opinion. The most likely outcome is that the status quo remains essentially the same as it is now in 2015 give or take a couple of seats here and there. The problem the extreme right has is that it doesn't have any more "political weapons" that it can throw at entitlements. Shutting down the government and refusing to raise the debt ceiling are both discredited and they have cost the GOP dearly so they won't be able to use them again for at least another decade.

All that leaves is good old horse trading and with neophyte TP'ers up against seasoned Dems the outcomes are going to be superficial "victories" without any real substance.

There are a lot of moderate to right leaning voters in this country. The TP platform will continue to attack moderate Republicans in primaries in heavily Republican districts. This will open the door for right or moderate leaning Dems to attract the Republicans who are not as extreme as the TP.

Moderates and the middle class have been ignored by both parties to the detriment of the nation. It is just a matter of time before they start fighting back.

Entitlements are a financial problem. There is really no point in denying that.

The "libertarian" arm of the Republican party has plenty of money and power to remain in power.

The only real hope the nation has for a third party is a moderate party.