Forums → WEPR → A New Political Party
| 15 | 4091 |
I think we sould have Devlope a new party, a More logical, and thoughtful party, that isn't bound by a religion or a certain, determination, to a political view.
- 15 Replies
It's a good idea, but it's not as simple as just making a party. It doesn't work like that. The problem with our parties is that a lot of people won't even consider the ideas of the other party.
I think we sould have Devlope a new party, a More logical, and thoughtful party, that isn't bound by a religion or a certain, determination, to a political view.
....Go ahead. You need to find enough people to get your guy voted in, which will be difficult to do to start with, after forming your actual ideas. This will be difficult do to on a regional level, let alone a national level in congress, the supreme court, and especially not the president. Each would require the majority of the state, or country in the case of the president, to be on your side.
Why do you capitalize random words?
that isn't bound by a religion
I've always wanted there to be a mainstream party that was in no way affiliated with any particular religion. Sadly, it would not get very far in this country due to there being so many people who would have no problem voting and passing religious beliefs into laws.
I don't vote for any candidate who mentions "God" in their speech.
I don't vote for any candidate who mentions "God" in their speech.
So...You don't vote? It is an interesting criteria to go off of, to say the least...
I've always wanted there to be a mainstream party that was in no way affiliated with any particular religion.
Pfft.
I don't understand why we don't just flat out dispose of the party system. It creates an "us vs them" attitude and tries to force varying goals and ideals into two opposing sides. Now if there were more than two dominant parties, this wouldn't be so much of an issue, but no parties at all would be best. Just do what works, and improve what works, fix what doesn't and -then- bicker about why something isn't fair or should be different while the economy isn't floundering.
yes, this is true, but i think the idea with catch on easly. The Main public "roblems" like:
Gay Rights
Health care Contraception
The "Wars" in the middle east
all of those question can be answers by pure logic and reason.
Gay rights: Hello? isnt this America? What happened to equal rights for all? Then again, the Founding fathers had slaves, but the idea still stands. And didnt the Cival Rights state that a person shall not be Discreminated by there Race, creed, ethnicity, and color. Sexuality is technailly a Creed.
(republician)
Well the bible clearly states!
(me again)
The founding fathers state that the USA shall not be governed by religion, and above all, Christianity. Google it! seriously, John Adams hated Christians with a passion " Christianity is the Perversion of a religion"
all of those question can be answers by pure logic and reason.
Advocating pure logic and reason is no better than advocating only passion and whim.
Anyways, people just aren't like that. It won't happen.
Sexuality is technailly a Creed.
No it's not.
If you think logic and reason can work in politics you need two quarts of reality, a spoonful of cynicism and some pills of truth. That and more reading of the news today.
People aren't going to buy into logic or reason. Just look on the Internetz
yes, this is true, but i think the idea with catch on easly. The Main public "roblems" like:
Gay Rights
Health care Contraception
The "Wars" in the middle east
all of those question can be answers by pure logic and reason.
Forming the ideas is part 1. Getting people to follow them is the hard part.
Gay rights: Hello? isnt this America? What happened to equal rights for all? Then again, the Founding fathers had slaves, but the idea still stands. And didnt the Cival Rights state that a person shall not be Discreminated by there Race, creed, ethnicity, and color. Sexuality is technailly a Creed.
Do you know what a "creed is"? Regardless, even assuming you are correct, how would you get the majority needed to run a successful republic on your side?
(republician)
Well the bible clearly states!
I like how it is a Republican, since of course the Democrats, Communists, Libertarians, Labor Party, Christian Liberty party, Etc will all agree with you whole heartedly and put up no resistance to your ideals.
The founding fathers state that the USA shall not be governed by religion, and above all, Christianity. Google it! seriously, John Adams hated Christians with a passion " Christianity is the Perversion of a religion"
They also said that they would allow people to believe in whatever the hell religion they want. The government can't be run by a religion, nor can it force religion on it's people. But that means it also can't stop people from voting what they think their god wants. You can stop governments from being controlled by religion, but many people are still controlled by it. Are you saying the people with religious objections are just going to go "Well if the founding fathers are all for it, then that must mean everything I know is wrong. Alright, make this guy president!"
So...You don't vote? It is an interesting criteria to go off of, to say the least...
No, I don't care much for politics in general. Religion just happens to be something that I will not tolerate in politics.
Great leaders are hard to come by since they never run for office.
Pfft.
The likelihood of a decent party becoming mainstream? Zero percent.
all of those question can be answers by pure logic and reason.
Tell that to the GOP. Maybe then they'll realize it's 2012 and not 1955.
But I would not be surprised if there was GOP clause that prohibited logic and reason. That would explain a hell of a lot.
Great leaders are hard to come by since they never run for office.
+10
People looking to gain something are the ones who run for office. People who are elected are those willing to bend the most to gain said office, or who are good with words.
The likelihood of a decent party becoming mainstream? Zero percent.
A sad fate.
I do feel that there's a certain idealism that pushes many young leaders to run at the start; it's not wholly about gain. In fact one might ask, what gain? Their salaries are pathetic compared to what they can earn in the private sector. They get lampooned, caricatured, spat venomously on for much of their lives. It's hard to believe that altruism and idealism didn't play a bit role at the very least.
it's not wholly about gain. In fact one might ask, what gain?
Fame, popularity, etc.
Anyone with common sense could tell you that being the president is not worth all the ridiculous things they have to go through just to get there, as well as all the crap they have to put up with during and after their time in office.
Of course, when was the last time anyone with common sense ran for president?
I doubt notoriety and 50% popularity straw polls is the main reason or their entrance.
Of course, when was the last time anyone with common sense ran for president?
We always have the benefit of hindsight when we evaluate Presidents. The Iraq War and the Vietnam War were popular at their time for example.
it's not wholly about gain
Certainly not. They're going to do what they think is best. Probably this is why I get called a cynic, but I would wager they also have ulterior motives which play a large part. Desire for fame/power, wanting to make an impact on the world...they are doing it for themselves for others, not because their one and only goal is to make the world go round.
It's like when someone donates money. Yes, they're doing it to help. They also are doing it because it makes them feel like a better person. The only time I wouldn't question that they're doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do is if they never told anyone unless asked about it, and weren't expecting to be asked about it. Which would likely mean that no one would ever know they had donated something. Likewise, they also wouldn't tell anyone that they had done so not to prove to themselves that they aren't doing it for another reason, but because it does not matter if their action is known.
Of course, when was the last time anyone with common sense ran for president?
Probably this election. I didn't pay attention to -every- person who tried to run. They just didn't get very far because they weren't known/weren't apart of one of the two parties.
You must be logged in to post a reply!