Hypothetical new party

The abortion lobby fights these things tooth and nail as well. There is no majority in this country that wants all abortions to be outlawed. But, neither is there a majority that wants abortion on demand to be legal either. The ultimate purpose for abortion is birth control for people who insist on having sex outside of marriage.

With the possible exception of eclampsia, when a woman has been healthy enough to reach her 9th month of pregnancy the healthiest thing she can do is finish the pregnancy and give birth. I was born 10 weeks pre-term in 1968. I only weighed 3 pounds, 6 ounces, but I survived by spending the first 2 months post-birth in an incubator. But, with today’s medical technology it is common for babies born earlier than I was and weighing less than I did to survive. But, yet more than one liberal/libertarian on the internet has told me that I didn’t deserve to live because I needed medical help to do it.

To keep people like Cliven Bundy from owning guns.

Tell that to people like Zimmerman.

Have 3 levels of insurance. The 1st would cover routine medical care. The 2nd would be for chronic conditions (such as high blood pressure). The 3rd would be for catastrophic conditions such as cancer or paralysis.

All insurance companies would have to sell policies that cover everything that would be included in each kind of policy. All insurance companies would have to publish their premium price.

Everybody would have to be examined to determine how much risk they have of ever filing a claim for the 2nd type of policy. Everybody in the country would get a government subsidy covering the national average cost of a type 1 policy minus an amount determined by their risk of needing type 2 coverage. This would give incentive for people to stop smoking, eat better, exercise, etcetera.

If you buy a type 1 policy that costs more than the national average, you pay the difference. If your policy costs less, you can use the difference to buy a type 2 policy. You’d get another subsidy for that policy and do the same thing, and again you’d do the same thing for a type 3 policy. Any money you have left over after buying all 3 types of insurance can either go into your pocket or use it for alternative medical care.

All medical providers who supply goods and services covered by each type of insurance would have to publish their prices. If your insurance policies cover less than the average cost for the care you need, you pay the difference. If your insurance covers more than the average you can use the extra to buy the next type of insurance and eventually put what you have left over towards alternative medical care or pocket it.

People like you are absolute idiots. You are a typical rightwinger- clueless.

In its Roe decision the Court ruled that Congress could pass a law that defines legal personhood in such a way that it includes the unborn. The Court declared that such a law would put the unborn person’s 14th Amendment right to life in conflict with a woman’s privacy right to an abortion and give the Court cause to revisit its Roe decision.

And who has said anything about this new party not proposing constitutional amendments?

The population doesn’t support issues. The population supports specific policies. But, if there were specific policies that had broad support, Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t be at each others’ throats all the time and voter turnout would be more than 60% in presidential elections. For a new party to win popular support it will have to propose specific policies that everyone will compromise to support.

Henga, we have rules at the SDMB. One of the top ones is that you can’t insult other posters. The rule is that you must address the post, not the poster.

I’m giving you a warning for this. Sufficient warnings over a span of time can lead to suspension or even revocation of your posting privileges. Please don’t do it again.

But, you can’t make a party out of that 1/3; they’re all over the place politically – centrists, RWs right of the Pubs, LWs left of the Dems, orthogonal-to-the-left-right-spectrum things like the Greens and Libertarians and White Nationalists – plus a very significant number who simply take no interest in politics, or are ineligible to vote.

If you want to know the real political makeup of the American people, check out the 2014 edition of the Pew Political Typology. Use that as a starting point to figure out what is and is not possible for a third-party effort.

Of course the court can revisit its decisions. To meet your aim here, they’d have to reverse two previous decisions. Just stating the obvious.

Putting the cart before the horse, no?

That’s what I intended to convey.

Google poll results on the three measures I mentioned. Universal background checks poll at around 88% support. Broad support isn’t always enough.

See post #24 – sure, people can compromise with their immediate neighbors on the ideological map (usually – at present Tea Party Pubs in Congress can’t even compromise with establishment Pubs) – but it gets harder and harder compromising with people whose political views are more and more different from yours. Among that diverse 1/3 you want to organize, you won’t find enough common ground to reach platform-compromises on anything that is both important and at all controversial. Which leaves you with a newspaper horoscope for a platform.

Rather than a plethora of specific positions on diverse issues that lock a party in, I’d like a party that focuses on a single most important issue. In the present system, there’s no place for for a politician who supports gun rights but also wants to reduce the influence of Wall St. Or a politican that supports Right to Life, but wants to address poverty.

Perhaps not you, but many many Americans agree with me about what the most important issues are. A just-started thread points out that supporters of Trump and Sanders are unified on important issues!

Your examples don’t demonstrate anything. Is the single issue being focussed on gun rights, or poverty, or Right to Life, or reducing the influence of Wall St.?

And a party that focusses on one single issue isn’t going to be elected to national office more than once. Suppose you run a candidate for President who wants to reduce the influence of Wall St. What does he say when somebody asks about abortion, or immigration? “I am not concerned about that - I just want to reduce the influence of Wall St.”

There is more than one important issue in American politics. A party that wants to be elected needs to address more than just their pet peeve. I haven’t noticed the Grass Roots party holding a lot of seats in Congress.

Regards,
Shodan

If one were to start a new party, I think the last thing you want to do is come up with a list of hard and fast positions, particularly social issues. If the number of positions is at all large, then you’re going to alienate most everybody on at least one issue and not get any significant following.

For better or for worse, the two party system in the US will last as long as the republic. If you want to mold a party in your image, you need seize control of the existing party that matches you most closely and then remold it.

There has to be some means of controlling their slate of candidates, so any yahoos can’t just call themselves members and run under the party name for elections. That presumes their candidates must be pledged to a party platform, or at least the majority of the platform.

It’s almost as if the government and society have complex issues to deal with.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Ideal candidate: Paul Tsongas with a personality (and still alive).

Or in other words - stay out of my wallet AND my bedroom with your rules.

Reality would be nice. step 1) What do we want our government to do? step 2) Generate revenue to pay for it.

You can’t have a party run by its inmates, it has to be top-down. At the most, the people who created the party will not be doing so out of the goodness of their hearts, they will be doing so to get rich and consolidate their power. No major party will ever be bottom-up more than top-down.

That party would win roughly 2-3% percentage of the vote optimistically speaking.

I thought this was part of the problem.

It is tough to know how many people really agree with you or if it just appears that most do because you are in an echo chamber.

With that caveat, I think a lot of people would support an anti-abortion plans that tries to reduce abortions by reducing the need for them versus legal bans. Making birth control free and easily accessible should be the first anti-abortion action. Education is key.