GOP == party ruled by ideology, that uses corruption.
DNC == Party that is ruled by corruption, that uses ideology.
This is old, but I just wanted to bring it up because it shows the inability to see outside your own viewpoints: The majority of republicans would believe the exact opposite, that their party betrays their ideology while the democrats cling to their insane, idiotic beliefs. You could say they only believe that because they are the ideological ones, but it only underscores the point that is entirely viewpoint based. Neither are true. Neither party is solely ruled by, as you say, "Corruption", but neither are they ruled by Ideology. The Republicans are facing a ideological fight, but that they are solely ideological is blatantly wrong. To say so is a simplification of the realities of the system: It'd be easy to say that politicians don't represent the people at all, and so you can claim whatever of the views of a small group of people; but the harder thing is many do and this happens anyway. These parties represent, between them, 300 million people, and simplifying both of them in a short sentence each strikes me as exceedingly arrogant.
As an american centrist, my view is almost certainly suspect as well, but on the other side.
To me, the following is a 'good' (Probably not ideal, or even smart-- but well intentioned) centrist outlook that would be applicable to the USA:
[I got rid of spoiler because apparently you can't put spoilers in spoilers, so you can spoil while you spoil. Or maybe it's just my internet.]
Gun control in cities is a reasonable policy, but outright denial of gun ownership in totality across a country of our size is irrational; not everyone does live in a city, and despite being in the 21st century, life outside a city in the US certainly does mean exposure to dangerous animals. The USA is essentially the size of ALL of europe, and there are VAST tracts of wilderness here. Guns are tools designed to kill things. There is a sensible reason to need to kill things outside of our cities. There really isn't inside of our cities--That is what animal control is for. Gun control should take the form of prohibiting second hand sales and gifts of firearms, coupled with stricter policies on obtaining for persons with permanent residences inside cities, with compulsory and mandatory license registration for ownership, similar to owning a car. It should also require some form of mandatory insurance. (It IS a dangerous tool, equally if not more dangerous than motor vehicles are.) For people who have rural places of permanent residences, getting tools needed to not be mauled by feral dogs (No, seriously, it's a thing. Not a very common thing, but it IS a thing.) is simply good civic mindedness. Felons should not be allowed to own. Second amendment says that all americans must be allowed to own (supreme court has already ruled that felons have waved 2nd amend rights anyway.), which is why city people should be allowed to own, but must have stricter requirements, and must only use for recreational activities (Shooting range, seasonal hunting with proper permit) and have storage and handing requirements requisite for proper urban safety. Failure to comply with such regulations should result in termination of license, and forfeiture of ownership, and a suitably stringent fine. Prohibitions on private resale or exchange of firearms would (in theory) prevent rural persons being "Entrepreneurial" in purchasing these devices for "gifting" to urban friends and family. Proof of insurance at time of purchase should be mandatory, such as with purchasing a vehicle, and weapons should be tagged likewise. Such arrangements are basically identical to what we currently have with cars. People don't object to such things, and many more people own cars than own guns here in the US. There really isn't a rational reason to object to such a restriction. (No, anti government quackery is not rational as a consideration.)
Social infrastructure programs should aim to actually solve the problems they claim to address, and should use hard statistical and or scientific data to back up the policies they intend to implement; If no such policy has ever been implemented before, then test implementations to trial the changes should be performed in isolated test areas, similar to a clinical trial. Nobody profits from public funds being mis-used, certainly not the disadvantaged. Public funds are a limited commodity by their very nature, and the most possible agency should be attained in their employment. Policies intended to coddle public opinion are a gross misuse of public resources, which could have instead been used to ACTUALLY HELP people instead. This is the reason for requiring proof of utility when appropriating or devoting funds.
Military assets and personnel are created and maintained, respectively, for the purposes of DEFENDING the nation. Not for the purposes of ensuring global dominance or bullying. Expenditures or expansions of a military nature must be in response to a change in the nature of the assessed risks posed by possibly hostile outside forces, in line with this purpose. The evaluation should not be based on the premise that "The best defense is a good offense"-- it should be based on the premise of "What do we need to secure and protect our sovereign borders." Military expenditures or allotments should not exceed that required to maintain this defense. The purpose of the military of a peaceful nation is to protect the peace of that nation. Not to incur hostile actions in other nations.
Our nation is NOT the world police. Our nation should not employ its military resources to attempt political or economic changes in other nations. Employing diplomats in a legal, open, and ethical manner is not only acceptable, it is the proscribed method of dealing with dangerous political occurrences.
In line with the military policy, the nation's foreign policy should not be to extract one sided agreements through use of compulsion, of any sort. The interests of the nation should not be ignored, but the interests of the nation should terminate outside of our borders, where the interests of other nations hold precedence. Our nation is NOT entitled to the wealth, resources, or talent of other nations. If other nations want to engage in trade with us, we should engage in trade fairly and equitably. Not through use of subterfuge, or unscrupulously unconscionable actions.
Domestically, the inevitable emergence of oligopolies from completely unregulated markets should be avoided, as it poses a very clear and present danger to the greater interests of the nation, and the sovereignty of the nation, as well as to other nations. This is very similar to why it is not sensible to allow completely unregulated industrial activity-- It inevitably leads to the destruction of the commons in the form of environmental catastrophe, which is counter to the interests of ALL parties. As such, at any given time there should never be fewer than 200 major competitors in ANY market demographic segment. Any requests for acquisition, merger, or industry association formation between any such competitor when this number becomes scarce is to be summarily denied. Industry associations with greater than 20% membership of practicing agencies are prohibited, and any such association should be disbanded. Existing oligopolies should be divided into practicing competing agencies until this number is met. Limits (yet to be determined, but determined through stringent statistical market evaluation) on the total employee wage to profit ratios of such agencies should be enforced to ensure healthy market liquidity. The use of ANY method or practice to evade taxation by a corporate entity is punishable by revocation of corporate charter-- This penalty extends even when the tax sheltering method is sheltering only profits produced in foreign countries. Profits produced in foreign countries ARE to be FULLY TAXED in those foreign countries, in accordance with the laws of those countries, or the charter is to be revoked. There are to be no exceptions.
The interactions between elected officials and industry lobbyists are to be limited exclusively to office visits, and the information exchanged at such visitation is to be a matter of public searchable record. No further relationship is to exist between elected officials and any industry or its lobby. Penalties suitable for infraction are removal from office, if initiated by the official-- and prohibition from engaging in lobby action for the remainder of the political term, if initiated by the lobby. No elected, delegated, or selected official of the state is to have been a former lobbyist, and former elected officials are to be legally prohibited from serving as part of any lobby. Any subsequent act of employment by a company with an active lobby, extended to any former official, is to be stringently and publicly investigated. While performing their terms of public service as officials of the state, such officials are prohibited from engaging in market speculation activities, including money and stock market activities. Any stock portfolios or money market accounts are to be freezed and held until the term of that service has ended.
The separation of church and state is to be upheld. No religious iconography, or religiously themed legal doctrine of any kind is to be present within the government, its premises, or its proceedings. Conversely, no laws shall be created to limit or prevent the private practice of any religious faith.
I think that's a pretty good general outline- missing a lot of flesh concerning domestic social issues, but meh.
Basically anyone from the GOP would see that and should "COMMUNIST!" though.
I would disagree. There are a lot of issues here that don't follow what are traditionally US centrist positions. Especially the part about "social infrastructure". Most Americans believe Welfare is in fact the problem, and the idea of "Cadillac driving welfare queens" are popular. Americans are also much more supportive of religious iconography then you say. And the whole section regarding business is basically a non-starter. And Americans are suspicious of the government and corporations and banks, and their support of the military is much stronger; in fact the Military is one of the most popular institutions in America (
I will certainly have to source this one.) And while non-interventionism is currently popular (and currently is a key word with all things here, many of these weren't even positions a few years ago), They still support strong action against terrorists, including military. Also, The center is a relative term, by definition: It is strictly in relation to others, you cannot claim to be one without actually believing what they believe. I think, rather, you are stating your views as a opponent of the parties and claiming the middle. There's nothing wrong with your opinions, but they are separate from others.
While Obama is certainly quite centrist (which should really tell you something about the Republicans, the center is socialist to them), the fact remains that the Democrats have the perception of being and overall are a center-left party. You can see this best in places that are solidly Democrat, there's little chance of even Europeans seeing a place like Vermont as center-right. A Progressive Democrat will take the Presidency soon enough. It might be 2016, or it might be 2020 (I'm placing my money on the latter, as by then the GOP will be so fucked that the Democrats can afford some bravery.), but as long as the GOP doesn't dive leftwards (and soon) it'll happen. Young people and immigrants hate the GOP; what does that tell you about their future?
I mean, hell, official policy-wise the Democrats are to the left of the Coalition even if they're right of Labor and the Greens, so I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that they're right-wing from.
Blacks and latinos are on average quite conservative, especially when it comes to religion. I wouldn't could out the republicans just yet, Obama isn't quite as popular as he once was. If the GOP manages to find a candidate that isn't a RINO they'll probably win 2016.
I say this as a Libertarian.
RINO. Heh. Republicans have shot themselves in the foot with that. I personally would dispute the black part more then the Hispanics though. And, similar to what I said earlier, there is no such thing as a republican in name: There are exactly two major parties in the US, representing the vast majority of the population. There are going to be some seriously differing viewpoints within the parties, and none can claim to hold the party. If a republican is conservative in every way, save that he supports gay marriage, then he is a republican who supports gay marriage. The parties are not ideological standpoints: This is America, Europeans do that.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 833698 times)