Would you support a truly "Independent Party" , the only party with Integrity!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

Spookybelle



I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.


This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.


Unfortunately you have a point. That is why there are penalties. First for grossly going against your stated platform a removal of party funds for a specified period of time. Second if lack of integrity continues, a total abandonment and admonishment from the party. Not only no money but not allowed to run as a member of the party.
At least there will be standards to uphold which are absent from the current major parties. Not social standards, but enforcing that one upholds their own stated standards which are clearly laid out for the voter. So the voter does not have to vote for a candidate if they feel the platform is socially or morally what they do not believe in.
But the standards set by the candidate will be the measure, the stick by which ones integrity is measured.


And how do you propose to get social liberals and social conservatives to agree on a common platform when their ideals are so completely opposite?

Whichever way the party goes will leave one side out and they will simply abandon your independent party and go back to either the republicans or democrats and you'll be left in the same situation your in now.


Because there is NO COMMON PLATFORM. The candidates will only be accountable to doing what they said they would do and doing their best to follow up on their promises.

The common bond being each representative upholds with the most integrity possible the things they promised the people to whom they are servants.

If they abandon the party because they can not act with integrity or do not wish to act with integrity, good riddance.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

grandmakdw

Blue Shift
"Independent Party" is a bit of an oxymoron. The whole idea of independence is for you as an individual to do what you want to do. If you get a bunch of people together and get them to all act or vote in the same way, then where is the "independence?"

And even if you were able to convince people that they could be a part of a group and still act independently, the minute you get a lot of people doing the same thing, that's powerful, and the minute you get any kind of power, you'll get people wanting to control it. That's the way people are. And it would definitely the opposite of independence.


The point is for the candidates NOT to all act or vote in the same way. To allow the candidates to vote based on what they promised their constituents.

What an LA Independent Party candidate holds as values, goals etc that is best for their constituents and are strongly held values, goals of the candidate - may look very little like what an Alabama Independent Party promises their constituents.

The party members will in no way be obligated to vote on a party line, since there will be none, they are to vote the way they were elected by the people whom they are supposed to serve want them to.

Remember, elected officials are supposed to be OUR SERVANTS, not the other way around. I think the current elected officials and administration as well as prior ones tended to forget "their place". They were elected to serve the people who elected them into office..

Also, I see in your argument that you feel there is no hope, so why try. I assert that social psychology theory (systems theory) says that if just one part of the system (a new party) really tries, then all other parts (parties) will be affected and forced to react (change). The established parts (parties) will resist change but it will be inevitable. This theory is a social theory, psychological theory and an economic theory based on a great deal of research.

Yes, a well organized group committed to a value (integrity in politics) can change the whole system. I really believe that.


If your not voting on a common political platform then you don't have a party. If you have half your members voting for gay marriage and the other half not, what is the point of having a party?

What your suggesting is that politicians sign a contract like the one that republicans signed about not raising taxes. Its a deal between the politician and his voters.

This doesn't require a party, all it needs is for voters to hold their elected official responsible for what they promised. The fact is, that if they are not doing this now, then forming a new "party" will not change it.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

MrSpad

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.



The difference is accountability. No current representative is forced to look at what they promised before they were elected and then have to defend the compromise they make as being consistent with their original promises.

Right now a representative is free to outright lie about what they promised when running for office and no one hold them accountable. That is what has the average american so frustrated with the current system. Currently a representative can lie about what they promised and there are no consequences, and no attempt is even made to hold them accountable as to why they did the polar opposite of what they promised their bosses (the people)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

grandmakdw

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

Spookybelle



I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.


This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.


Unfortunately you have a point. That is why there are penalties. First for grossly going against your stated platform a removal of party funds for a specified period of time. Second if lack of integrity continues, a total abandonment and admonishment from the party. Not only no money but not allowed to run as a member of the party.
At least there will be standards to uphold which are absent from the current major parties. Not social standards, but enforcing that one upholds their own stated standards which are clearly laid out for the voter. So the voter does not have to vote for a candidate if they feel the platform is socially or morally what they do not believe in.
But the standards set by the candidate will be the measure, the stick by which ones integrity is measured.


And how do you propose to get social liberals and social conservatives to agree on a common platform when their ideals are so completely opposite?

Whichever way the party goes will leave one side out and they will simply abandon your independent party and go back to either the republicans or democrats and you'll be left in the same situation your in now.


Because there is NO COMMON PLATFORM. The candidates will only be accountable to doing what they said they would do and doing their best to follow up on their promises.

The common bond being each representative upholds with the most integrity possible the things they promised the people to whom they are servants.

If they abandon the party because they can not act with integrity or do not wish to act with integrity, good riddance.


Let me explain this to you. If you develop a system that holds politicians accountable for exactly what they said do you know what's going to happen?

Politicians will cease giving you specifics. They will say things like, "I plan to do this or that unless something comes up where I can't".

They will leave themselves an out.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

grandmakdw

MrSpad

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.



The difference is accountability. No current representative is forced to look at what they promised before they were elected and then have to defend the compromise they make as being consistent with their original promises.

Right now a representative is free to outright lie about what they promised when running for office and no one hold them accountable. That is what has the average american so frustrated with the current system. Currently a representative can lie about what they promised and there are no consequences, and no attempt is even made to hold them accountable as to why they did the polar opposite of what they promised their bosses (the people)


Isn't this the fault of the people themselves then?

If they aren't holding their politicians accountable now then why do you think they would do it simply because you change the label?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

Blue Shift
"Independent Party" is a bit of an oxymoron. The whole idea of independence is for you as an individual to do what you want to do. If you get a bunch of people together and get them to all act or vote in the same way, then where is the "independence?"

And even if you were able to convince people that they could be a part of a group and still act independently, the minute you get a lot of people doing the same thing, that's powerful, and the minute you get any kind of power, you'll get people wanting to control it. That's the way people are. And it would definitely the opposite of independence.


The point is for the candidates NOT to all act or vote in the same way. To allow the candidates to vote based on what they promised their constituents.

What an LA Independent Party candidate holds as values, goals etc that is best for their constituents and are strongly held values, goals of the candidate - may look very little like what an Alabama Independent Party promises their constituents.

The party members will in no way be obligated to vote on a party line, since there will be none, they are to vote the way they were elected by the people whom they are supposed to serve want them to.

Remember, elected officials are supposed to be OUR SERVANTS, not the other way around. I think the current elected officials and administration as well as prior ones tended to forget "their place". They were elected to serve the people who elected them into office..

Also, I see in your argument that you feel there is no hope, so why try. I assert that social psychology theory (systems theory) says that if just one part of the system (a new party) really tries, then all other parts (parties) will be affected and forced to react (change). The established parts (parties) will resist change but it will be inevitable. This theory is a social theory, psychological theory and an economic theory based on a great deal of research.

Yes, a well organized group committed to a value (integrity in politics) can change the whole system. I really believe that.


If your not voting on a common political platform then you don't have a party. If you have half your members voting for gay marriage and the other half not, what is the point of having a party?

What your suggesting is that politicians sign a contract like the one that republicans signed about not raising taxes. Its a deal between the politician and his voters.

This doesn't require a party, all it needs is for voters to hold their elected official responsible for what they promised. The fact is, that if they are not doing this now, then forming a new "party" will not change it.



The fact is the current parties do not hold their members accountable in any way shape or form And integrity appears to be a dirty word.

The people want real choices and clear and honest promises.

The point of having the party is to give the voters a REAL choice by making it clear what the representative intends to do and then holding them accountable.

There is a platform: Integrity, promises made are genuine and not just to get elected. There will be no "party line" The member will be truly Independent, accountable only to his/her bosses (the people who elected him/her) . That is the entire platform, doing ones best to uphold the promises made to the people.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

grandmakdw
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


They can accept campaign contributions (not bribes) from anyone who chooses to give it to them. That is the law of the land.

You are talking about bribery, no that would not be allowed.


So campaign contributions aren't bribes? Don't be silly............



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

MrSpad

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.



The difference is accountability. No current representative is forced to look at what they promised before they were elected and then have to defend the compromise they make as being consistent with their original promises.

Right now a representative is free to outright lie about what they promised when running for office and no one hold them accountable. That is what has the average american so frustrated with the current system. Currently a representative can lie about what they promised and there are no consequences, and no attempt is even made to hold them accountable as to why they did the polar opposite of what they promised their bosses (the people)


Isn't this the fault of the people themselves then?

If they aren't holding their politicians accountable now then why do you think they would do it simply because you change the label?


It is also the fault of the parties because they choose not to hold representatives accountable to their promises and give them money to go against their promises and values.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

Spookybelle



I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.


This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.


Unfortunately you have a point. That is why there are penalties. First for grossly going against your stated platform a removal of party funds for a specified period of time. Second if lack of integrity continues, a total abandonment and admonishment from the party. Not only no money but not allowed to run as a member of the party.
At least there will be standards to uphold which are absent from the current major parties. Not social standards, but enforcing that one upholds their own stated standards which are clearly laid out for the voter. So the voter does not have to vote for a candidate if they feel the platform is socially or morally what they do not believe in.
But the standards set by the candidate will be the measure, the stick by which ones integrity is measured.


And how do you propose to get social liberals and social conservatives to agree on a common platform when their ideals are so completely opposite?

Whichever way the party goes will leave one side out and they will simply abandon your independent party and go back to either the republicans or democrats and you'll be left in the same situation your in now.


Because there is NO COMMON PLATFORM. The candidates will only be accountable to doing what they said they would do and doing their best to follow up on their promises.

The common bond being each representative upholds with the most integrity possible the things they promised the people to whom they are servants.

If they abandon the party because they can not act with integrity or do not wish to act with integrity, good riddance.


Let me explain this to you. If you develop a system that holds politicians accountable for exactly what they said do you know what's going to happen?

Politicians will cease giving you specifics. They will say things like, "I plan to do this or that unless something comes up where I can't".

They will leave themselves an out.


Well if the people want to vote for someone who says "I plan to do this or that unless something comes up where I can't". Then it is what the voters of that district deserve. But I don't think if someone ran on a platform of wishy, washy they would get voted in.
edit on 16-10-2013 by grandmakdw because: grammar



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Short answer is no. The issue isn't with the parties, the issue is the system built upon corruption.

It's like trying to place a new home on sand for foundation. It may look pretty at first.......
edit on 16-10-2013 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

grandmakdw

Spookybelle

grandmakdw

MrSpad

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.



The difference is accountability. No current representative is forced to look at what they promised before they were elected and then have to defend the compromise they make as being consistent with their original promises.

Right now a representative is free to outright lie about what they promised when running for office and no one hold them accountable. That is what has the average american so frustrated with the current system. Currently a representative can lie about what they promised and there are no consequences, and no attempt is even made to hold them accountable as to why they did the polar opposite of what they promised their bosses (the people)


Isn't this the fault of the people themselves then?

If they aren't holding their politicians accountable now then why do you think they would do it simply because you change the label?


It is also the fault of the parties because they choose not to hold representatives accountable to their promises and give them money to go against their promises and values.


Obviously this isn't what people want since they are not holding their politicians accountable now. Why is anyone going to care any more tomorrow than they do now simply because you stuck a new letter behind the politicians name?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

MrSpad

grandmakdw

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.


You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.


This is what every politician does now. I do not see how this party would be any different than any other.


Let it be known this is the first time I have agreed with MrSpad.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Rosinitiate
Short answer is no. The issue isn't with that parties, the issue is the system built upon corruption.

It's like trying to place a new home on sand for foundation. It may look pretty at first.......



Exactly, I like your metaphor.

What I propose is an entirely new type of foundation for a political party. One built on solid rock, integrity and following up on ones promises.

I truly believe that doing this could wash the sand out from under the parties.

As I said before:
I assert that social psychology theory (systems theory) says that if just one part of the system (a new party) really tries, then all other parts (parties) will be affected and forced to react (change). The established parts (parties) will resist change but it will be inevitable. This theory is a social theory, psychological theory and an economic theory based on a great deal of research.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


So let me ask you this.

Now that we as a people all (mostly) know how to read and write (obviously not that well). We are capable of thinking for ourselves and supporting ourselves whether as a community or otherwise. Why do you feel that we still need to be "governed"?

I know it's crazy right? What a novel idea...not wanting to be a slave....

man could you imagine, if only there were enough people who decided they didn't want to be a slave...oh wait, best not to draw too much attention to myself. *blush*
edit on 16-10-2013 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Rosinitiate
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


So let me ask you this.

Now that we as a people all (mostly) know how to read and write (obviously not that well). We are capable of thinking for ourselves and supporting ourselves whether as a community or otherwise. Why do you feel that we still need to be "governed"?

I know it's crazy right? What a novel idea...not wanting to be a slave....

man could you imagine, if only there were enough people who decided they didn't want to be a slave...oh wait, best not to draw too much attention to myself. *blush*
edit on 16-10-2013 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)


You are making an assumption of who I am.

We need roads, we need police, we need to be able to defend from those who so jealously want our country, we need criminal laws to protect everyone from lynch mobs, there are a lot of things we need government for.

What we don't need is to be governed, as in a slave to the system or a slave to those in power, i.e. the abuses of the NSA, the ridiculous Dept of Education when Education should be "governed" at the local level, the EPA who defends the rights of snails/turtles/owls at the expense of human beings, the abuses of the IRS, I could go on and on. We don't need someone to say who can and can not love someone else or enter into a lifelong contract with them.

However, those are my personal views and my point in all of this is since we have a corrupt government which I believe 85% of the American people agree with, as per recent polls, that someone has to step up and fight for change, fight for honesty and integrity in government.

We have"big, no enormous government", it's too big and to intrusive, but if we want to change things we have to step out in a radical way.

This idea is so radical I can see that both lefties and righties are having trouble with the concept of individual freedom within the framework of a "party" which is necessary to participate in our current government the way it stands.

Yes this is a radical, completely 360 degree way of looking at politics. It is such a radical way of thinking that even the rabid Dems and rabid Reps are agreeing that this "can't'" be done.

Imagine, a party whose only "party line" is tell the people what you want to do and then do your very best to accomplish the goals you set, without lying, without fudging the truth, without changing the truth.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

grandmakdw

This idea is so radical I can see that both lefties and righties are having trouble with the concept of individual freedom within the framework of a "party" which is necessary to participate in our current government the way it stands.

Yes this is a radical, completely 360 degree way of looking at politics. It is such a radical way of thinking that even the rabid Dems and rabid Reps are agreeing that this "can't'" be done.

Imagine, a party whose only "party line" is tell the people what you want to do and then do your very best to accomplish the goals you set, without lying, without fudging the truth, without changing the truth.


Please note I am making no assumptions of you whatsoever.

My response was speaking generally and not taking a shot at you.

However, my opinion is you idea isn't so radical. Radical would be to disband governments alltogether. That my friend is radical. We need government to do all the things you say the need? really?

I understand it takes a paradigm shift to recognize what I am saying. But if we as a people were raised as children to take pride in ourselves, our fellow man and our surroundings we wouldn't need half the things you think the government should exist for.

I am not trying to derail your thread so I will leave it at that. a new party would likely be no worse than what we have now so, hey it's something right?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


Thanks, it is something. At least a meme in the wind for change for a paradigm shift.

Paradigm shifts are difficult for people to accept and to accept a paradigm in politics that says no matter what your platform you can be together in the same party as long as you agree that honesty and integrity in what you promise the people is the only requirement to bind the party together.

Wow, send forth the meme people!

We must have a new Party, one that is totally and completely devoted to doing what they promise to their constituents, with no hidden agenda, no voting before it before voting against it, no lying and self aggrandizing. Promising as a politician to be servants to the people that one represents and to put your word on the line in the calling of servant hood.
edit on 16-10-2013 by grandmakdw because: clarity



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 





This idea is so radical I can see that both lefties and righties are having trouble with the concept of individual freedom within the framework of a "party" which is necessary to participate in our current government the way it stands.


I'm a Libertarian; we are the true and only party of individual freedom; why reinvent the wheel....and my question is...

How do you keep big corporate money from influencing candidates? How do you convince those incorruptible souls to enter politics.

Systems theory breaks down in an unstable environment aka flux. ex. economic realities

jesus-messiah.com...



edit on 16-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


The biggest issue with that is what do you do with a 100 years of terrible terrible legislation?

It would be easier to dissolve the exisitng government and re-write a constitution then it would be to try to rectify this debacle.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join