I am against parties at all. We need a no-party system, with no state representation. All this partying is why nothing gets done.
Libertarians and Independents are 2 completely different, usually oppposing, viewpoints. As for God send, there is no God and it's silly to build another party on one.
My god, we actually agree on something. I'd really like to see a "States Rights" party emerge that really holds true to the values that each states should manage marijuana, health care, gay rights, guns, abortion, assisted suicide, etc as they see fit. The problem is that these values aren't really scalable. A party that believes we should make those decisions locally doesn't really have prescription for how those decisions should be made locally. For example, the party might be be all for Idaho being able to set its own marijuana laws, but no real prescription for how Idaho should construct its own marijuana laws. Essentially, it'd devolve into a libertarian party, which doesn't appeal to me at all. Anyway, I think you'd pretty much have to have a four party system, wouldn't you? A three party system would just be a split of one of the major parties. To win anything, they'd have to vote together to beat the other party. In which case they might as well not have split at all. However, with 4 parties you could get all kinds of crazy coalitions on different issues. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green make the most sense to me.
we need someone rich as fuck to run on the platform of having never taken any contributions. hed get shot though.
There's definitely a massive opening for another billionaire candidate to march in and put a real challenge to Obama. Hopefully whoever that guy is is slightly more sane than Ross Perot.
Obama's playing down to his competition, just about anyone would give him a real challenge right now. If he keeps playing lower, it won't be much of a challenge.
Just pointing out that the majority of independents and libertarians do not believe in mythical super-daddies. They believe in individual human beings who are personally responsible for their actions.
Must be a brand new yet untried idea because if Americans were truly charitable and compassionate there would be no need for social services, nor would there be any billionaires.
I'd be all for more parties that were actually viable in major elections. With two, entrenched parties, a lot of things are in stone and the arguments are at the margins. Let's have a little competition to benefit us consumers!
You are quite mistaken. People have historically donated 10% to charity (the church, whatever), if not more. With an economy the size of the USA's, that's roughly enough to pay for social security and medicare. As for the billionaires, the rich and very rich don't pay so much in taxes since their wealth is typically in stock or ownership of some company or companies (equity, not cash or income). However, they've historically been quite generous when donating to charities and other philanthropic endeavors. Like David Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard) donating $billions to Stanford over the years, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, etc. Even Ken Lay (Enron's CEO) donated large sums to charity while times were good for him. And when they survey IRS tax returns, they find that those who make $1M donate 15% or more on average. You have any other theories?
We need many parties, so everyone can pick one which represents him as exactly as possible. But it works only in coalition politics. If 1-2 parties are much bigger than all the rest, it doesn't work.
