The political party I want

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Feb 25, 2017.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    I consider both major parties out of touch with America. I want a real party that only cares about its citizens and not it's own interests. So here is a party platform I would support.

    Less involvement in the Middle East war zone. Don't prop up huge corporations with big tax cuts or special favors. Focus on clean energy to insure the health and stability of the planet. Pay attention to the American people and actually listen to their issues and needs. Find a way to build a real healthcare system that doesn't just make money for itself and then hope you die. Stop catering to lobbyists and giving them high end cabinet positions. Stop catering to billionaires and giving them cabinet positions. Learn to say no if something costs too much money or goes against the constitution. Above all work for the American people not against them.
     
  2. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    Yeah. I think this year was the hardest for me. I was one of the many who voted what they believed was the "Lesser evil".

    I think politicians in general are so far detached from the common citizen it's really sad.

    I also know it's going to take a major event to overhaul our slowly eroding systems like healthcare.

    It isn't going to be a fun ride.
     
  3. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #3
    What if we allow all candidates to be voted in Nov? Having only one person to vote for in Nov for each party sucks. Or maybe narrow it down to three per party. It would also dimish both party's stronghold on everything.

    Just a thought .... don't respond as if I thought this through.
     
  4. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    The primary season is way to long. I would like a free for all 2 week campaign season. Make your best pitch right away before the background noise creeps in.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    What if we remove their party affiliation and vote bas d on record or what they claim they stand for?
     
  6. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Because they always end up changing their stance anyways once they get the votes. It's abhorrent but it's a pattern.
     
  7. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    They need to sign a contract. Are these the policies you stand for and will follow if elected. If you break these we have the right to kick you out.
     
  8. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #8
    Then you'll just end up going through a long unofficial campaign. :p
    --- Post Merged, Feb 25, 2017 ---
    DAMN RIGHT!!! I'm for that.
     
  9. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    We should technically be able to do that now right? It's just that not enough people care to unite in asking for them to keep their word. =/
     
  10. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    Anybody who campaigns outside of the official window will be barred from running.
     
  11. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    As I have said before, I'd just like solely Publicly-funded Elections (at each level). That should cut down on the length of Campaigns and allow those Elected to actually work and not spend a bunch of time fundraising for the next Election.
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    That would either be unenforceable or ensure that there is no compromise.

    If you have a problem with the candidates running then run for office yourself. There's not a high bar to get into congress or your state legislature and many districts have people running unopposed, provide some opposition. Plus Trump just proved that you don't need any experience to run for office and win.
     
  13. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #13
    I like the ideas in your first post...all of them. But this one I cannot agree on as I do not think a mere two weeks is enough time to properly vett someone. Granted, all the vetting in the world didn't have an effect on Trump, but that's not usually the case. I'd definitely be okay with shrinking it down though...but two weeks is cutting into the bone and just too little time.
     
  14. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    I don't care if people campaign for a long time, but the primary should be held nation wide on the same day. There is no reason Iowa and New Hampshire should have more say than other states in who becomes the next president. My preference would be a national primary day in June with the option of if one candidate gets over 50% of the vote they win, and otherwise the top two go in November. Obviously that would require some changes to the constitution and probably couldn't get the support to have happen.
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    But then wouldn't people only campaign in the bigger states and ignore smaller ones?
     
  16. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    If you ignore States you run the risk of losing the election as we saw this last time around when clinton decided to ignore the Midwest.

    Edit: Also given that we now have TV and internet for most of our news it doesn't matter too much where the actual campaigning is done.
     
  17. Plutonius, Feb 25, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017

    Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #17
    Here is the party that I support :).

    [​IMG]


    NH and Iowa are dry test runs for the candidates. They are small enough for the candidates to directly interact with the voters and they have no more or less say then the other states.

    Besides, a national primary only favors the candidates the RNC / DNC are pushing. Most candidates do not have the money for a national campaign and rely on doing well in primaries to keep the money rolling in for the next one. If you have a national primary, most (if not all) candidates would spend their limited time / money in a few bigger states and you would have less people running for president.
     
  18. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    Running for public office should not be dependent on who raises the most money. It should be an equal playing field for everyone.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    In less than 1 year. Not till next election :D
     
  20. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #20
    You said two opposite things there. First you say if you ignore you'll lose, but then say go ahead and ignore, we've got TV and the internet now. I'm confused at what point you are making. Is campaigning in the individual states valuable or not?
     
  21. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
  22. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #22
    Not if we attach giant shock collars to them!
     
  23. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #23
    Never going to happen. It cost lots of money to campaign and advertise.
     
  24. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    That would make things absolutely hilarious. Is that wrong of me?
     
  25. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    But should it. I've always said that campaign advertisements should be considered public service announcements and free of charge.
     

Share This Page