The Future of the Conservatives Movement in the Republican Party?

[Peter Parka]

I really hope the Green and Libertarian parties gain a foothold.
This two party system is becoming a one party system(corporate) with different window dressing.
I want a greater illusion of choice.

Don't know if your Green party is anything like ours but if they are, I hope to god they dont get any real power. Can't say I'd feel very safe with a government who wants to get rid of our weapons. :willy_nilly:

 

[Accountable]

I think Minor Axis is referring to a Preferential voting system?

We have it here in Australia, it's pretty popular. To win, a candidate has to win 50% + 1 of votes cast. It's slightly more complicated than that, but it does help minor parties participate in the political process. If a major party candidate doesn't win 50% of the votes, other candidates can give them their preferences to help them win. This has resulted in concessions between parties in many cases.

Another system of voting to help minor parties is proportional voting. This means if a party wins a percentage of votes, they are automatically guaranteed a seat. This system is in place in New Zealand, Israel, and upper chamber of parliament in Australia (The Senate). Although i'm not a proponent of that kind of system. For some reason a right-wing Christian conservative whacko got a senate seat here..

That's where you & our two major parties are in agreement. They're hell bent on keeping out anybody that disagrees with them, too.

Our system ostensibly allows multiple parties, but the requirements to get put on the ballot are so stringent that many simply can't do it in time. Even worse, the news media simply ignore the existence of any other party. Often in local elections I walk in expect 2, or at most 3 names, and I get hit with 7 or 8.

 

[Meirionnydd]

That's where you & our two major parties are in agreement. They're hell bent on keeping out anybody that disagrees with them, too.

Yes, sadly no major party will want to secede power to make the system more 'fair'. Fortunately here, in the Senate, minor parties frequently hold the balance of power. It has often caused the Government to make concessions to pull legislation through and in some cases, caused the downfall of government, in 1973 for example.

I support a two-party system, only when the two parties have distinctly different political ideologies. The Republican and Democrat parties have almost become one of the same, and obviously is a failing of a two-party system. Both the GOP and Dem's have become complacent in their positions of power, the entrance of another political movement on the scene would certainly shake things up.

A critique of a proportional voting system would be the situation in Israeli politics, since 1948, no one party has been able to gain a parliamentary majority. To gain a majority, the winner will normally have to form political alliances with fringe extremist parties, something which has probably hurt the peace process.

Our system ostensibly allows multiple parties, but the requirements to get put on the ballot are so stringent that many simply can't do it in time. Even worse, the news media simply ignore the existence of any other party. Often in local elections I walk in expect 2, or at most 3 names, and I get hit with 7 or 8.

Very true. I guess an example of this would be the coverage the media gave to Ron Paul during the election. Someone with a popular support base, and holding a very unique perspective on the issues, completely different from both parties, almost got no coverage. Quite disgraceful.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Republican and Democrat Parties coordinate their efforts to limit and eliminate any other parties, just as the corporations that run them limit and eliminate their competition. They've set up legislation that makes it extremely difficult - damn near impossible - for any other party but them to gain any exposure. It's a Trust.


Didn't we decide something like 100 years ago that trusts and monopolies were bad for America?

I like your idea of a "ranked" vote I guess you'd call it.

In Minnesota it is called Instant Runoff Voting. If your first choice for a candidate does not win, you vote shifts to your second choice. This allows people to vote their conscious and know their vote will not be wasted. However, my understanding is that this is only being used in some counties at low level elections below State Representative. You know the national parties would fight hard to prevent it from reaching the National level.

The 2 parties are not a monopoly although by popular choice, they command most of the vote. There are about 20 U.S. Political Parties. If you could convince a majority of people to vote for you and your ideas as say The Accountable Party, the political landscape in just one election would change.

As per Allen's request: As far as Ron Paul, the starting point was that he thought the 2nd Iraqi War was a huge waste of lives and money. He also seems to prioritize people above corporations. Last I heard he was leaning towards Universal Health Care.

 

[MoonOwl]

As per Allen's request: As far as Ron Paul, the starting point was that he thought the 2nd Iraqi War was a huge waste of lives and money. He also seems to prioritize people above corporations. Last I heard he was leaning towards Universal Health Care.

Now you know why the corporate media labeled him a Kook & a Coward and people bought into it. Voting against their best interests once again......... He stood for us. Not the sold out status quo.

 

[Alien Allen]

I
As per Allen's request: As far as Ron Paul, the starting point was that he thought the 2nd Iraqi War was a huge waste of lives and money. He also seems to prioritize people above corporations. Last I heard he was leaning towards Universal Health Care.

If you really read up on the guy I doubt you would have come close to supporting him. He is for a limited govt and personal responsibility. I don't picture you as very libertarian which is what he really is.

As to health care, unless this is something old then you are incorrect.

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Congressman Ron Paul - Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right - Texas Straight Talk

.

 

[Accountable]

Now you know why the corporate media labeled him a Kook & a Coward and people bought into it. Voting against their best interests once again......... He stood for us. Not the sold out status quo.

If you really read up on the guy I doubt you would have come close to supporting him. He is for a limited govt and personal responsibility. I don't picture you as very libertarian which is what he really is.

As to health care, unless this is something old then you are incorrect.
Congressman Ron Paul - Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right - Texas Straight Talk

.

*wipes a tear*

I'm among my people! :nod::thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

Bill Maher: New Rule: If Mitt Romney, Karl Rove and Sarah Palin all think America has never done anything wrong, we must be doing something wrong. Look at them: an empty suit, an empty heart and an empty head. It looks like the news team on Good Morning Hell. And what they've been competing about lately is who would not apologize the most. America is infallible, and apologies are horrible things that must never, ever be given. Except by me when I make a joke about the Pope.

 

[retro]

Congressman Ron Paul - Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right - Texas Straight Talk

:usa::usa::usa:

 

[Peter Parka]

Ron Paul sounds like a dick if he thinks that nationalised health care, which works better than your current system, isn't the way to go, imo.

 

[retro]

Ron Paul sounds like a dick if he thinks that nationalised health care, which works better than your current system, isn't the way to go, imo.

Care to use facts to back up your assertion that nationalized health care works better than what's in place now? If not, then your words carry the same weight as mine would if I were to say as a fact that the sun is green.

Look at other Nationalized Health Care systems like say, Canada. Did you realize that Dr. Anne Doig,the incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association has said that their health care system is "sick" and "imploding"? In fact, here's a direct quote

We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize

and another

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now — if it keeps on going without change — is not sustainable

But hey, Nationalized Health Care is "better" than what we have now, right? Oh, and I think it's more than a little safe to say that Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D., might have a pretty good grasp on health care and how it works, eh?

 

[Peter Parka]

Care to use facts to back up your assertion that nationalized health care works better than what's in place now? If not, then your words carry the same weight as mine would if I were to say as a fact that the sun is green.

Look at other Nationalized Health Care systems like say, Canada. Did you realize that Dr. Anne Doig,the incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association has said that their health care system is "sick" and "imploding"? In fact, here's a direct quote



and another



But hey, Nationalized Health Care is "better" than what we have now, right? Oh, and I think it's more than a little safe to say that Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D., might have a pretty good grasp on health care and how it works, eh?

Glad to. Compare what the WHO say about the USA and the UK health statistics. I'm not saying our national health service iis perfect but it sure is better than the USA's, statistically speaking, of course.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

 

[Meirionnydd]

Care to use facts to back up your assertion that nationalized health care works better than what's in place now? If not, then your words carry the same weight as mine would if I were to say as a fact that the sun is green.

Look at other Nationalized Health Care systems like say, Canada. Did you realize that Dr. Anne Doig,the incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association has said that their health care system is "sick" and "imploding"? In fact, here's a direct quote

and another

You're simply delusional if you think your healthcare system stacks up well in comparison to other Western nations with a UHC, Canada included. The vast majority of empirical studies support this.

For example, even Cuba, has a roughly equal, or (as some studies indicate) a higher life expectancy than the United States.

But hey, Nationalized Health Care is "better" than what we have now, right? Oh, and I think it's more than a little safe to say that Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D., might have a pretty good grasp on health care and how it works, eh?

Yeah, i'm pretty sure nationalized health care is much better than what you have now.

Considering his political views, it's not surprising that he would take a position like that, it doesn't mean we should adopt his approach because he's simply a doctor.

I'm just proud I live in a part of the world where healthcare is considered a fundamental human right .

 

[nova]

Glad to. Compare what the WHO say about the USA and the UK health statistics. I'm not saying our national health service iis perfect but it sure is better than the USA's, statistically speaking, of course.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

Oh yes, I love that wonderful little WHO report.

Funny thing, if you dig down in their methodology, a big part, no the major part, of their rating metric is how "fair" a health care system is. Their definition of "fair" is how socialized the system is.

The other metrics which are weighted much less than "fairness" are availability of care and outcomes of care.

IIRC the US ranks in the top 5 for both availability of care and outcome of care and yet ranks down in the 30s overall, behind such healthcare power houses as Camaroon and Cuba, because our health care system just isn' socialized enough for the fine folks at the WHO.

Now I hope I'm not the only person in the room who can see the problem with using a study that uses socialization as a major ranking metric to push for a socialized system. Its inherently biased...

Lets go for an absurd example just to make it clear...

I think all forum posters nicknames should be some variant of Nova. To prove that thats the way to go, I'm going to use the OTZ Forum Poster Awesomeness Study.

In this study, quality of posting is worth up to 100 points, at a weight of .1.
Peter Parkas posts are pretty good so I'm going to give him 90 points. Overal points 9.
I'm a newb so I'm gonna give myself 10 points. Overall point 1.

Nicknames are worth up to 100 points, at a weight of 0.9.
Nova and variants theroff are worth 100 points, all other nicknames are worth 10.

So lets add up the results.

Peter Parka: 9 points for quality posts + 9 points for name = 18 points overall.
nova: 1 point for quality posts + 90 points for name = 91 points overal.

I rank #1 on the OTZ Forum Poster Awesomeness Study and therefore all poster nicknames should be named after me.

Is it obvious how ridiculous such a study is?

I'm just proud I live in a part of the world where healthcare is considered a fundamental human right .

So you're proud of the fact that you infringe on the natural liberty rights of others to provide you with goods and services?

150 years ago we had a group of people that were proud of the fact they thought they had the fundamental human right to make other people work for them too. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. In fact its so wrong that we amended our founding documents to explicitly prohibit it.

 

[catisland]

Healthcare is a privilege, not a "right". It is my right to pay for my own healthcare.

 

[Minor Axis]

So you're proud of the fact that you infringe on the natural liberty rights of others to provide you with goods and services?

Who says your not funny?

 

[retro]

Healthcare is a privilege, not a "right". It is my right to pay for my own healthcare.

Exactly... it's such a simple concept.

 

[nova]

Who says your not funny?

WTF is so funny about that? Unless you think John Locke is funny? :dunno

 

[Plaster Caster]

Healthcare is a privilege, not a "right". It is my right to pay for my own healthcare.

And it's your privilege as well.....

 

[Accountable]

Not to mention ... (cover the children's ears, now) ... your responsibility.