NationStates Jolt Archive

Some months ago when I told y’all I’d given up my membership in the Republican Party and re-registered as an Independent, someone suggested I would become a member of the Constitution Party. Well, my wife downloaded all 28 or so pages of the Constitution Party’s platform and I have read all of it.

In short, while there are things in their platform I can agree with, such as eliminating the Department of Education and returning control of the schools to the States, there are many, many things I do not agree with. There is no way I could become a member of that party or vote for one of their candidates.

For those of you who are not familiar with the party or their platform, here is the link http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php It is rather long, but the hyperlinks will take you to the various sections. Many of you won’t even make it through the preamble before getting very upset or outraged, but I implore you to look at the issues to see what it is all about rather than say, Oh, I know where THEY are coming from.

What do I disagree with them about specifically? First are their Foreign and Immigration policies. When I read them, I see isolationism. In today’s world and economy, a country cannot be a viable economy if it practices isolationism. These folks want to do away with the income tax (not a bad idea) and replace it with tariffs which a very bad idea.

Another thing I disagree with is they want to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and go beck to having the Senators chosen by the State Legislatures. I don’t think that’s a good idea because I think Senators should be answerable to the people and not the State government.

We’ll visit this again, but in the meantime, what do you think?

Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers.

And yet, mysteriously, the US economy during the era of trade liberalization has seen its strongest periods of job, employment, income and living standards growth in its history. Our economy today is stronger, more stable, and guarantees more opportunity than it ever did during the protectionist era.

Free trade has been an incredible boon to the US economy; it makes no sense to try and protect industries that are no longer viable, because history has always shown us that new industries create many times more jobs than the ones they displaced. NAFTA cost us 879,280 US jobs, but the economy has created over 26 million over the same time frame; unemployment fell from over 7% to 3.9% in 2000, and is currently at 4.7% despite a severe recession. Since the liberalization of trade, recessions have been progressively milder, unemployment has risen less, and expansions have been longer with stronger real income and GDP growth than during the time before.

This party is trying to recreate the past, a past that is not only no longer viable but is also undesirable. The global economy brings us massive benefit, and if we succumb to economically ignorant populism, we will lose it and we will suffer for it.

I think the Constitution party is the worst party in the United States. imo

This party is trying to recreate the past, a past that is not only no longer viable but is also undesirable. The global economy brings us massive benefit, and if we succumb to economically ignorant populism, we will lose it and we will suffer for it.

I wonder how many Boeing aircraft we could make under their trade policies. Not very many I would think. The parts for those aircraft and the design are being done all over the world. One company in Asia has just finished modifying the first 747 that will be used fly huge pieces of the fuselage of the 787 from Asia to Washington state for final assembly.

I think the Constitution party is the worst party in the United States. imo

Well, there's one thing that you and I can agree on. IMO, we don't need out of the closet fascists in government (we could certainly use less of the closet fascists too).

Well, there's one thing that you and I can agree on. IMO, we don't need out of the closet fascists in government (we could certainly use less of the closet fascists too).

What did you see in their platform that makes you call them facists?

I think the Constitution party is the worst party in the United States. imo

Why do you think it is the worst Party in the US. What is it you don't like about their platform?

I wonder how many Boeing aircraft we could make under their trade policies. Not very many I would think. The parts for those aircraft and the design are being done all over the world. One company in Asia has just finished modifying the first 747 that will be used fly huge pieces of the fuselage of the 787 from Asia to Washington state for final assembly.

Not many. After all, if we put up barriers to foreign companies you know for a fact that they are going to close their markets to us; protectionists have this ridiculous assumption that either the world will simply bend over and take US protectionist policies up its economic ass and do nothing about it or the domestic economy has enough demand to absorb all of the goods normally reserved for exports.

Domestic consumption drives 2/3 of the US economy; if we go protectionist, that means we might end up losing most of that remaining 1/3. A 33% contraction in the economy is going to mean massive unemployment, depressionary deflation, widespread bankruptcy and plunging personal and government income...it would be a disaster of inconcievable proportions.

We also have to remember that the US trade deficit ex-oil has stabilized and exports are growing much faster in real terms than imports; if oil prices fall or our oil demand falls, the deficit is also going to contract appreciably. The trade deficit is not the problem these people make it out to be; if anything, it's meaningless because that money will just end up back in our country anyway. It circulates through the world economy and comes back to us in the end; it's no different than a trade surplus.

Why do you think it is the worst Party in the US. What is it you don't like about their platform?

Largely the fact that they believe religion should play a big part in government. They want the US to be a Christian theocracy where oppression of gays and other minorities would be tolerated. I find it to be very troubling. Not to mention they seem awfully xenophobic and nationalistic.

I'm glad to see that you're opposed to their policies and ideas, especially since many of the higher-ups in the party are linked to both the extremes in the religious right and some old guard racist groups. As I recall, they were trying to convince Judge Roy Moore to be their presidential candidate in 2004.

Well, there's one thing that you and I can agree on. IMO, we don't need out of the closet fascists in government (we could certainly use less of the closet fascists too).

And all the people in the federal government now are not?

What did you see in their platform that makes you call them facists?

Their platform is highly nationalistic, with a heavy reliance on militarism. Their platform advocates a much more authoritarian society, very much akin to historical Italian Fascism. Basically, private property owners are vested with great powers by the government under their policies, which creates a sort of unholy alliance that is good for shareholders and bad for everybody else.

I'm glad to see that you're opposed to their policies and ideas, especially since many of the higher-ups in the party are linked to both the extremes in the religious right and some old guard racist groups. As I recall, they were trying to convince Judge Roy Moore to be their presidential candidate in 2004.

I noticed they mentioned him in their platform. They also want to repeal the voting rights act.

I don't think I agree with the Constitution Party on anything; if it ever became a major party in this country, I would be on my way out.

I noticed they mentioned him in their platform. They also want to repeal the voting rights act.
So which party is up next on your search list?

I don't think I agree with the Constitution Party on anything; if it ever became a major party in this country, I would be on my way out.

I don't think you have to worry about that. With their current platform I doubt they will garner much support.

So which party is up next on your search list?

Libertatian. I know I will never find a party that I agree with 100% but from what I've heard about the Libetarian Party I think it might be what I'm looking for. Also, I'm re-evaluating my position on some issues. More on that later.

P.S. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

They're quite hideous.

They're quite hideous.

Why do you feel that way? What is it about their platform that you don't agree with? Care to pick a couple of points and tell us what you think?

We’ll visit this again, but in the meantime, what do you think?

I wonder why this party calls itself the constitution party. It is quite obvious they do not like that document.

It is quite obvious they do not like that document.

Can you give us some expmples of why you said this?

Why do you feel that way? What is it about their platform that you don't agree with? Care to pick a couple of points and tell us what you think?

The premise that limiting government by restricting it to the foundations of the Constitution is certainly laudable in my eyes. As a constitutional libertarian, I agree. However, somehow blending that into a fundamentalist christian religious dogma is a definite turn-off.

Their restrictive authoritarian views toward abortion, family, sexuality and religion are incompatible with constitutional liberty.

Their views toward limiting government and abolishing unnecessary departments and programs is appealing, but not to the degree they intend. They will leave this country in the hands of the corporate interests and the rich elite will dictate the economic future of every man, woman and child in the country. W're not far from that now, but eliminating regulatory agencies instead of eliminating the need for them is a mistake.

The Constitution Party even wants to do away with gambling on tribal land. :(

Why do they want to repeal the voting rights act?

Some months ago when I told y’all I’d given up my membership in the Republican Party and re-registered as an Independent, someone suggested I would become a member of the Constitution Party. Well, my wife downloaded all 28 or so pages of the Constitution Party’s platform and I have read all of it.

In short, while there are things in their platform I can agree with, such as eliminating the Department of Education and returning control of the schools to the States, there are many, many things I do not agree with. There is no way I could become a member of that party or vote for one of their candidates.

For those of you who are not familiar with the party or their platform, here is the link http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php It is rather long, but the hyperlinks will take you to the various sections. Many of you won’t even make it through the preamble before getting very upset or outraged, but I implore you to look at the issues to see what it is all about rather than say, Oh, I know where THEY are coming from.

What do I disagree with them about specifically? First are their Foreign and Immigration policies. When I read them, I see isolationism. In today’s world and economy, a country cannot be a viable economy if it practices isolationism. These folks want to do away with the income tax (not a bad idea) and replace it with tariffs which a very bad idea.

Another thing I disagree with is they want to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and go beck to having the Senators chosen by the State Legislatures. I don’t think that’s a good idea because I think Senators should be answerable to the people and not the State government.

We’ll visit this again, but in the meantime, what do you think?

I think you should look into the Libertarian Party.

Why do they want to repeal the voting rights act?

I don't know but it is in their party platform.

I don't know but it is in their party platform.

Weirdos.

just to mention this, the feds (department of education) has very little control over education. They provide about 17% of total funding, and NCLB is the most controlling piece of legislation in their history. Even with that in place, the individual states are still free to design and choose their own tests.

by the way, I was curious...what did you end up deciding was your stance on death penalty? I remember discussing it with you a bit, but don't remember the result...(If you'd rather TG me with that so this doesn't turn into a debate about it, feel free)

We’ll visit this again, but in the meantime, what do you think?

I didn't even have to read the whole Preamble and I know I don't like them.

just to mention this, the feds (department of education) has very little control over education. They provide about 17% of total funding, and NCLB is the most controlling piece of legislation in their history. Even with that in place, the individual states are still free to design and choose their own tests.

by the way, I was curious...what did you end up deciding was your stance on death penalty? I remember discussing it with you a bit, but don't remember the result...(If you'd rather TG me with that so this doesn't turn into a debate about it, feel free)

But the funding:requirement ratio is very lopsided. Every time my wife complains about some policy at school, it's due to NCLB. I think it's added a good 20% to her work week.

The only thing I agree with them on is the Senator thing. Everything else is impractical and/or regressive.

But the funding:requirement ratio is very lopsided. Every time my wife complains about some policy at school, it's due to NCLB. I think it's added a good 20% to her work week.

oh, don't get me wrong...I hate NCLB with a passion, and would love to see it go (I'm studying to be a teacher now)...my only point is that states do still have a large ammount of control over education...there is no national curriculum, text books, graduation requirements, etc.

P.S. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

http://www.pirate-party.us/

for the hell of it.

oh, don't get me wrong...I hate NCLB with a passion, and would love to see it go (I'm studying to be a teacher now)...my only point is that states do still have a large ammount of control over education...there is no national curriculum, text books, graduation requirements, etc.
But, you know the national testing requirements drive almost all the decisions a school makes. They need to buy materials and make lesson plans that support the tests they bought. All the reporting that goes on is another huge burden that either gets done after all the 'teaching work' is done or gets done instead of some of the prep to teach the next day. The reports come first, students can wait.

Those very facts really imply a lot of control and it's just because a school system accepts federal funds. Kudos to Utah for refusing all federal funding.

Why do they want to repeal the voting rights act?
My guess? Look at their founders--they tend toward the whole "racial purity" line of thinking.

by the way, I was curious...what did you end up deciding was your stance on death penalty? I remember discussing it with you a bit, but don't remember the result...(If you'd rather TG me with that so this doesn't turn into a debate about it, feel free)

Still haven't come to a hard decision on it. There is a lot to think over and I'm just not sure. Some of the arguements against it are pretty sound, but then there is the always the dirtbag that kills a kid or an old lady.

My guess? Look at their founders--they tend toward the whole "racial purity" line of thinking.

Who are the founders?

just to mention this, the feds (department of education) has very little control over education. They provide about 17% of total funding, and NCLB is the most controlling piece of legislation in their history. Even with that in place, the individual states are still free to design and choose their own tests.

Part of the problem is the unfunded mandates. I seriously believe the local school boards and states could do a much better job of providing an education for the kids if the Feds would just stay the hell out of it.

Instead of collecting the taxes and then distributing them back to the states, why not reduce the federal taxes and let the states raise theirs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

http://www.pirate-party.us/

for the hell of it.
I like comedians. :fluffle: :D

But, you know the national testing requirements drive almost all the decisions a school makes. They need to buy materials and make lesson plans that support the tests they bought. All the reporting that goes on is another huge burden that either gets done after all the 'teaching work' is done or gets done instead of some of the prep to teach the next day. The reports come first, students can wait.

Those very facts really imply a lot of control and it's just because a school system accepts federal funds. Kudos to Utah for refusing all federal funding.definatly agree. I was proud that my state is the first state to come forward and bring the feds to court over the issue (CT), and that several states joined in. It oversteps their boundaries, and wasn't set up properly.

Still haven't come to a hard decision on it. There is a lot to think over and I'm just not sure. Some of the arguements against it are pretty sound, but then there is the always the dirtbag that kills a kid or an old lady.I hear ya. But then, there's always the guy who gets confused for that dirtbag. *shrug*

Part of the problem is the unfunded mandates. I seriously believe the local school boards and states could do a much better job of providing an education for the kids if the Feds would just stay the hell out of it.

Instead of collecting the taxes and then distributing them back to the states, why not reduce the federal taxes and let the states raise theirs. It just doesn't make sense to me.that does make sense. I've never seen the need for a DoE, considering how little they do for education and the massive chance for abuse (NCLB). Aside from NCLB, however, they don't really have much of a say.

My guess? Look at their founders--they tend toward the whole "racial purity" line of thinking.

Weirdos and assholes.

I like comedians. :fluffle: :D

Hey, no one said you had to like it! :D

(and I have an account there soooo. . . ;) )