The American Family Political Party

According to my researched knowledge of us Americans ..

.. The great majority of adults in America:

1) Are or have been married.
2) Are heterosexual.
3) Are parents (and close to half of adults are grandparents).
4) Believe in God, are spiritually affiliated, but are not greatly religious.
5) Are citizens of our country (including immigrants, an immigrant being someone who has completed the INS requirements to be bestowed that status).
6) Do not do pot and other drugs.
7) Work (or have retired).
8) If they work, they are employees or sole proprietors, not owners of a multi-employee enterprise.
9) If they work, they depend on their regular income from employment, not on savings or other investments.
10) If they are retired, they significantly depend on Social Security and Medicare.
11) Were significantly impacted by The Great Recession that began in December of 2007 and have not completely recovered from its effects, if at all.
12) Are financially challenged to make ends meet.
13) Live in crowded major metropolitan or suburban areas (250 million Americans in 2011, meaning more than 75% of the population, share just 3% of the land).
14) Value liberty and their freedom.
15) Value justice and their security.
16) Value their country and its constitution.
17) Are opposed to their country being reduced to a city-state subservient to a one-world U.N. government and its laws and policies.
18) Are opposed to their country’s government officials being puppets of international conglomerate agendas corrupting the American democratic process.
19) Want their kids to be better off than they were.
20) Are not presently regularly politically involved/active (roughly only half of all eligible voters voting in national Presidential elections themselves).

Item 20 indicates that no present political party really comes close to appealing to the great majority of Americans, and thus the great majority of Americans are likely resigned to, disenchanted with or disgusted at the present political parties and their left v. right polemic conflict politics as usual, and, because the current political parties fail to support their views, the great majority also likely fears that being an American citizen no longer affords the respect in America that it rightly should.

But items 14, 15, and 16 indicate that the great majority of Americans have a respect for social ethics, and would value social, ethical participation in America’s political process if they had a party that represented them.

All political parties today calibrate at, near, or beyond the liberal or conservative wings of the spectrum.

There is no such active political party that would thus likely appeal to the great majority of Americans, who are centrist by nature.

Thus I propose creating the following political party that appeals to the great majority of American adults:

The American Family Political Party.

It would be centrist in calibration.

Its philosophy: to support American parents and their children in providing for the personal and socioeconomic wellbeing of themselves and their families.

Its motto: liberty and justice for all Americans.

Its political strategy: to improve the standard of living for all Americans.

Its tactics:

1. Support American business growth in America.
2. Eliminate corporate dependency on in-sourced/off-shored labor.
3. Put Americans back to work in America.
4. Improve the living conditions, working conditions, and income of all Americans.
5. Reduce pollution.
6. Secure our borders.
7. Improve healthcare.
8. Create constitutionally supported, sensible social policies.
9. Improve education quality and opportunity for all Americans.
10. Improve government function.

It's platform planks:

1. Reduce corporate taxes.
2. Reduce business regulations.
3. Create national business-owner protection policy.
4. Reduce individual taxes.
5. Create national employee protection policy.
6. Enact tax penalties for businesses that in-source/off-shore non-American labor.
7. Provide tax breaks for businesses that hire Americans.
8. Provide tax breaks for new domestic start-up companies that replace foreign imports.
9. Enact strong tariffs.
10. Increase the multi-national corporation tax.
11. Phased buy-back of controlling interest in American companies from foreign ownership.
12. Corporate tax breaks for "green" environmentally friendly product producers.
13. Corporate tax breaks for progress in development of synthetic crude oil.
14. Subsidize pollution control costs.
15. Manage American resources to prevent over-use and depletion.
16. Implement policies to facilitate a negative population change rate to reduce the number of people in the country.
17. Enforce current immigration law.
18. Improve border security.
19. Revise citizenship law to retroactively prevent abuse by illegal aliens.
20. Enact stiffer penalties on businesses that hire illegal aliens.
21. Encourage and assist illegal aliens to leave America.
22. Require local citizenry vote to approve new business/residential development.
23. Repeal of the Healthcare Reform Act of 2010.
24. End employer involvement in personal/family healthcare procurement.
25. Improved access to healthcare for all.
26. Mandatory healthcare insurance for all, like auto insurance, or pay penalty.
27. Convert healthcare insurance carriers to non-profit, thereby lowering cost.
28. Transfer covered healthcare decisions from insurance carriers to healthcare provider and patient.
29. Enact uniform healthcare cost controls.
30. Eliminate cost penalties for preexisting health conditions.
31. Stricter enforcement of existing criminal law.
32. Corporate tax breaks for development and distribution of new high-tech science conception-prevention “birth control” pills.
33. Keep chemical/surgical abortion safe and legal, and make it rare.
34. Implement a twenty-year multifaceted program to eliminate the barbaric inhuman practice of chemical/surgical abortion as a means of mere birth control.
35. Support government and private enterprise recognition of same-sex unions, but under a different term other than “marriage”.
36. Legalize pot, but, discourage its use, strongly restrict its exposure to those under 21 years of age, and greatly increase the penalties for exposing others to danger while on alcohol, pot, or other listed drugs.
37. Encourage the development of effective “medical marijuana” pharmaceuticals through the standard FDA development and approval process.
38. Support separation of church and state.
39. Create programs of education for K-12 that will effectively educate everyone to the best of their ability and without creating student burnout.
40. Enact uniform cost controls for state and local colleges.
41. Provide college enrollment priority for citizens.
42. Increase college tuition for non-citizens.
43. Greatly reduce truly needless state and federal spending.
44. Require individual single-issue bills, no irrelevant deals, no pork.
45. Reduce government officials' perks, holidays and vacations.
46. Provide “favored nation” status to nations who actively support our policies for improving the standard of living in America.
47. Enforce constitutional requirements for war declaration prior to engagement of hostilities.
48. Increase military development of high technology to neutralize the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
49. When in agreement, actively support U.N. military and peacekeeping efforts to address genocide and severe oppression, insisting all agreeing member-nations participate.
50. Provide support and recommend U.N. support to nations in assistance of their serious efforts to create a negative population change rate.

This political party would quickly dominate political affairs in America.

Comments.

On the surface I could support some of your planks and would be actively opposed to others. However, I would have to take it on a case by case basis. For instance, I would actively oppose #23 (Repeal the HRA) unless something that works better is included in the bill then I would probably actively support it. I LOVE #44 though. On #43 though I think you wont find a consensus about what is truly needed. I dont know of anything that would make me support seperate statuses for heterosexual married couples and homosexual "married" couples. Plus overall I see a lot of reducing taxes with not as many price cutting measures.

tactics sound like a bunch of vague BS, and platforms seem overly obsessed with the divide between "citizens" and "non-citizens," not to mention that it's debatable whether many of the suggested planks are even desirable. And what the hell is with the name? "The American Family?" Is the implication that everyone who joins the party is one big American family? Or that only parents with children consisting of the traditional nuclear family are welcome?

So stolen all ideas form other political parties but with an anti-globalization twist?

Amandi said:

On the surface I could support some of your planks and would be actively opposed to others.

Click to expand...

I think that's true for most people of any party affiliation.

Curious .. do you identify with the OP 20 characteristics of the great majority of Americans?

Amandi said:

However, I would have to take it on a case by case basis.

Click to expand...

Those making a party choice often do.

There's usually some items that are so important that they are used to make an affiliation choice, so it's not just based on "I like 35 of these, aren't sure about 10, and I don't like 5" -- it's often that those 5 are really huge .. though sadly the baby is then often thrown out with the bathwater.

The great majority of Americans will likely support the American Family Political Party as it supports them and their views, whereas no other party today comes even close to that.

Amandi said:

For instance, I would actively oppose #23 (Repeal the HRA) unless something that works better is included in the bill then I would probably actively support it.

Click to expand...

The HRA didn't address the actual costs of both healthcare itself and healthcare insurance.

That's why people are getting "shocked" that their healthcare insurance premiums are going up under the HRA and that some coverage has been eliminated.

The relevant planks of The American Family Political Party address all the key issues of healthcare reform and as the independent items they are.

These items can be effectively addressed whether they are part of a comprehensive "Act" or addressed individually and consecutively.

Amandi said:

I LOVE #44 though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, most people do, and understandably so.

Amandi said:

On #43 though I think you wont find a consensus about what is truly needed.

Click to expand...

It isn't practical at the tactical level to present all of the mechanics to accomplish the tactic.

In actual practice, the tactics idealized need to be adjusted to fit the reality of the moment.

However, what's important is that the party braintrust trained professionals in the field would make those mechanics assessments, and at this level regular party members accept and trust, and don't micromanage as either designers or auditors at the mechanics level.

When regular party members, average people out there, try to make party affiliation decisions based on this huge level of mechanics detail, I, as a competent mental health practitioner, suspect unresolved control issues at work, that are irrelevant to making a good political affiliation decision.

Neverthless, "trust" is a word skewered by pundits when applied to politicians, so it's understandable that preexisting political party "trust" experience can color future affiliation decisions.

Amandi said:

I dont know of anything that would make me support seperate statuses for heterosexual married couples and homosexual "married" couples.

Click to expand...

A recent poll revealed (and published elsewhere at this political discussion site) that if given a reasonable choice in the matter for same-sex unions, 1) to get recognition under the term "marriage", 2) to get recognition under a different term, and 3) not to get recognition, the result was 37% support #1, 33% support #2, and 30% support #3.

That means that 70% favor recognition but the only way to do it nationally would be to do it under a term other than marriage, as 63% oppose the use of the term "marriage".

Thus a great many of the 37% will simply have to compromise.

Now keep in mind, that those who participate in polls are usually those more left and more right of center, the great majority not participating as much, as if they did, indication is, based on their 20 characteristics, that the great majority would cause the #2 to greatly increase percentage-wise, and they're not likely to change their mind at all.

That's why #35 is stated the way it is.

Amandi said:

Plus overall I see a lot of reducing taxes with not as many price cutting measures.

Click to expand...

Much of our tax collection problem in America today is caused by people unemployed, many having dropped off the radar, having lost jobs post- Great Recession to off-shoring of their jobs.

Put them to work, and more taxes are collected.

Much of our tax collection problem in America today is caused by post- Great Recession jobs paying less percentage wise to the continuing increase of expenses, thus there are greater deductions, and less tax paid.

Increase wages, prevent the drop of wage scales "immigration reform" would create, and etc., when you examine all the relevant planks, they improve the income of working Americans, and that means additional tax dollars.

And, #43 is so huge, I can't begin to tell you.

Ontologuy said:

I think that's true for most people of any party affiliation.

Curious .. do you identify with the OP 20 characteristics of the great majority of Americans?

Click to expand...

Not all of them. I am not heterosexual and am strongly Christian but with views that people will call un-Christian. I agree with the rest mainly.

Ontologuy said:

Those making a party choice often do.

There's usually some items that are so important that they are used to make an affiliation choice, so it's not just based on "I like 35 of these, aren't sure about 10, and I don't like 5" -- it's often that those 5 are really huge .. though sadly the baby is then often thrown out with the bathwater.

The great majority of Americans will likely support the American Family Political Party as it supports them and their views, whereas no other party today comes even close to that.

The HRA didn't address the actual costs of both healthcare itself and healthcare insurance.
That's why people are getting "shocked" that their healthcare insurance premiums are going up under the HRA and that some coverage has been eliminated.
The relevant planks of The American Family Political Party address all the key issues of healthcare reform and as the independent items they are.
These items can be effectively addressed whether they are part of a comprehensive "Act" or addressed individually and consecutively.

Click to expand...

I know of too many people that have healthcare now because of the ACA. I dont look at it because of its price but because it provides coverage for people who didnt have any. Also with a son with a lot of preexisting conditions that is rapidly approaching 18, I like the ACA because of that as well. Again, as long as the good isnt thrown out with the bad, I dont mind the ACA being replaced but I wont support "Get rid of the ACA and then we will work on fixing things."

Ontologuy said:

Yeah, most people do, and understandably so.

It isn't practical at the tactical level to present all of the mechanics to accomplish the tactic.

In actual practice, the tactics idealized need to be adjusted to fit the reality of the moment.

However, what's important is that the party braintrust trained professionals in the field would make those mechanics assessments, and at this level regular party members accept and trust, and don't micromanage as either designers or auditors at the mechanics level.

When regular party members, average people out there, try to make party affiliation decisions based on this huge level of mechanics detail, I, as a competent mental health practitioner, suspect unresolved control issues at work, that are irrelevant to making a good political affiliation decision.

Neverthless, "trust" is a word skewered by pundits when applied to politicians, so it's understandable that preexisting political party "trust" experience can color future affiliation decisions.

A recent poll revealed (and published elsewhere at this political discussion site) that if given a reasonable choice in the matter for same-sex unions, 1) to get recognition under the term "marriage", 2) to get recognition under a different term, and 3) not to get recognition, the result was 37% support #1, 33% support #2, and 30% support #3.

That means that 70% favor recognition but the only way to do it nationally would be to do it under a term other than marriage, as 63% oppose the use of the term "marriage".

Thus a great many of the 37% will simply have to compromise.

Now keep in mind, that those who participate in polls are usually those more left and more right of center, the great majority not participating as much, as if they did, indication is, based on their 20 characteristics, that the great majority would cause the #2 to greatly increase percentage-wise, and they're not likely to change their mind at all.

That's why #35 is stated the way it is.

Click to expand...

I would comprimise, I just dont like anything being "Seperate but equal."

Ontologuy said:

Much of our tax collection problem in America today is caused by people unemployed, many having dropped off the radar, having lost jobs post- Great Recession to off-shoring of their jobs.

Put them to work, and more taxes are collected.

Much of our tax collection problem in America today is caused by post- Great Recession jobs paying less percentage wise to the continuing increase of expenses, thus there are greater deductions, and less tax paid.

Increase wages, prevent the drop of wage scales "immigration reform" would create, and etc., when you examine all the relevant planks, they improve the income of working Americans, and that means additional tax dollars.

And, #43 is so huge, I can't begin to tell you.

Click to expand...

I also understand a plank doesnt directly lead to a bill. I just was noting the lots of reducing taxes. If each individual bill has numbers that make sense, I could support it. If a person is going to run on reducing taxes, they better have a plan on how it is going to work that makes sense.

StillBallin75 said:

tactics sound like a bunch of vague BS, and platforms seem overly obsessed with the divide between "citizens" and "non-citizens," not to mention that it's debatable whether many of the suggested planks are even desirable. And what the hell is with the name? "The American Family?" Is the implication that everyone who joins the party is one big American family? Or that only parents with children consisting of the traditional nuclear family are welcome?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

So stolen all ideas form other political parties but with an anti-globalization twist?

Click to expand...

Some, who are closely affiliated with a preexisting wing political party or ideology, will indeed go to laughably absurd extremes to find fault with The American Family Political Party.

This is understandable, as they rightly fear the likelihood of The American Family Political Party coming to power, as it would usurp power from their political party/ideology.

#1 - this is not centrist, no one has sympathy for corporations anymore
#4 - a majority already pays 0 federal tax so good luck with that
#12 - hardly anyone gives a damn about the environment in america to the point of sacrificing anything
#16 - really lol, is this centrist because we're adding 150 million people?
#17-21 - right wing talking points only, the average citizen doesn't give a damn compared to outsourcing, 0 net immigration last year etc
#23, 25, 26 - so you want to repeal the thing you want to keep, mandatory insurance, i'm guessing just to stick it to obama
#27 - the one position that is both truly centrist and difference-making
#30 - again, this is in the ACA already
#31 - world's largest prison population, more than the gulag under stalin, and that's not enough for you - no longer a centrist position for this reason and no state can afford it anyway (see: 3 strikes voted out in CA)
#35 - how did i know you would throw this in there. This is not centrist but right wing and *your* platform only. Majority disagrees with you
#39 - best of luck with that while you lower taxes across the board
#40 - probably centrist, but ignorant of the situation
#41 - not centrist or the states wouldn't have gutted college funding before all else, practically to the point of 0% now - the 3/4 who never graduate don't give a damn
#49-50 - not centrist, people don't care about or even barely aware of syria etc, and i'm skeptical they even care about genocide, much less oppression of gays in uganda and so on

Ontologuy said:

A recent poll revealed (and published elsewhere at this political discussion site) that if given a reasonable choice in the matter for same-sex unions, 1) to get recognition under the term "marriage", 2) to get recognition under a different term, and 3) not to get recognition, the result was 37% support #1, 33% support #2, and 30% support #3.

That means that 70% favor recognition but the only way to do it nationally would be to do it under a term other than marriage, as 63% oppose the use of the term "marriage".

Click to expand...

We've already been thru your crap poll in another thread. 37% wins in that event and even with those options will be over 50% soon, i.e. it is *not* centrist (populist) to platform #2 because MORE want option #1

Let me demonstrate how disingenuous this tactic is:

POLL - what is your favorite color?

40% yellow
35% blue
25% green

"See! What the public really wants is BLUE because a majority did not pick yellow"

Amandi said:

I know of too many people that have healthcare now because of the ACA. I dont look at it because of its price but because it provides coverage for people who didnt have any. Also with a son with a lot of preexisting conditions that is rapidly approaching 18, I like the ACA because of that as well. Again, as long as the good isnt thrown out with the bad, I dont mind the ACA being replaced but I wont support "Get rid of the ACA and then we will work on fixing things."

Click to expand...

Planks 24 thru 30 address all of the good of ACA plus the out-of-control sky-high costs that ACA didn't address.

It's important to remember that ACA wasn't created "so that all could have insurance" as it was spun.

It was created to keep urgent care and trauma centers from going bankrupt and closing in the wake of caring for so many uninsured, greatly exacerbated by uninsured illegal aliens which also weren't addressed in ACA.

Reducing the cost of healthcare to patients would have been counterproductive to that goal.

Reducing costs will allow more people to afford healthcare and less opting to pay the tax penalty in lieu of purchasing healthcare insurance.

And that will mean less people to burden urgent care and trauma centers with unpaid bills threatening bankruptcy and closure.

Amandi said:

I would comprimise, I just dont like anything being "Seperate but equal."

Click to expand...

"Separate but equal" is a discrimination test rightly applied after definitive propriety determines the "equal" part.

The great majority of Americans experience the word "marriage" to mean "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", a valid truthful assertion with respect to multifaceted appeal.

Thus, with respect to definitive propriety, any same-sex union cannot "be" a marriage.

So, from their perspective, we don't move on to the "separate but equal" test, as "equal" failed based upon the first test of definitive propriety.

Had the first test of definitive propriety succeeded, then it would have been appropriate to apply the "separate but equal" test.

Thus there's no discrimination here in requiring a different word other than marriage to be utilized in the matter.

It's like saying cat owners are being treated as "separate but equal" not allowing them to enter their cats in a dog show, requiring them to enter their cats in their own shows called "cat" shows.

By appeal to definitive propriety, a cat is not a dog, and thus it is wrong with respect to definitive propriety to use the word "dog" here.

So the "separate but equal" test is not rightly applied in this matter because the "equal" test failed.

Thus there's no discrimination here in the matter requiring cat owners to accurately and without disrespect to dog owners to not call their shows "dog" shows but to use a more appropriate word, such as "cat" to describe their shows.

This is the perspective of the great majority of Americans.

You admit to a great majority exceptional situation with regard to you not being straight.

All likely things then considered, I can understand where this would be a plank to which you may object.

It nevertheless is the perspective of the great majority of Americans.

They support private enterprise and government recognition of same-sex unions, but, by appeal to definitive propriety, they know that the word "marriage" simply doesn't apply, and they want recognition under a different more definitive propriety appropriate word.

There are many threads in this forum where this has been discussed at length: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/172031-gay-marriage-americas-house-may-not-stay-divided-long-w-29-210-a-53.html.

Amandi said:

I also understand a plank doesnt directly lead to a bill. I just was noting the lots of reducing taxes. If each individual bill has numbers that make sense, I could support it. If a person is going to run on reducing taxes, they better have a plan on how it is going to work that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Reducing taxes is a plank at that tactical level to achieve the strategic goals.

If a person ran emphasizing just one plank, they would likely not fit well in The American Family Political Party.

Candidates approved by the party braintrust would greatly approve of a great majority of the planks, accept the ones they weren't in total agreement, and acquiesce to the few they may not personally support but were nevertheless the democratic wishes of the great majority.

When taken as a systemic whole, all of the planks together accomplish the desired goals.

And that makes sense.

chromium said:

#1 - this is not centrist, no one has sympathy for corporations anymore
#4 - a majority already pays 0 federal tax so good luck with that
#12 - hardly anyone gives a damn about the environment in america to the point of sacrificing anything
#16 - really lol, is this centrist because we're adding 150 million people?
#17-21 - right wing talking points only, the average citizen doesn't give a damn compared to outsourcing, 0 net immigration last year etc
#23, 25, 26 - so you want to repeal the thing you want to keep, mandatory insurance, i'm guessing just to stick it to obama
#27 - the one position that is both truly centrist and difference-making
#30 - again, this is in the ACA already
#31 - world's largest prison population, more than the gulag under stalin, and that's not enough for you - no longer a centrist position for this reason and no state can afford it anyway (see: 3 strikes voted out in CA)
#35 - how did i know you would throw this in there. This is not centrist but right wing and *your* platform only. Majority disagrees with you
#39 - best of luck with that while you lower taxes across the board
#40 - probably centrist, but ignorant of the situation
#41 - not centrist or the states wouldn't have gutted college funding before all else, practically to the point of 0% now - the 3/4 who never graduate don't give a damn
#49-50 - not centrist, people don't care about or even barely aware of syria etc, and i'm skeptical they even care about genocide, much less oppression of gays in uganda and so on

Click to expand...

chromium said:

We've already been thru your crap poll in another thread. 37% wins in that event and even with those options will be over 50% soon, i.e. it is *not* centrist (populist) to platform #2 because MORE want option #1

Let me demonstrate how disingenuous this tactic is:

POLL - what is your favorite color?

40% yellow
35% blue
25% green

"See! What the public really wants is BLUE because a majority did not pick yellow"

Click to expand...

The attitude of some toward the systemic centrist tactics of The American Family Political Party will indicate that they are quite ideologically aligned with their political wing and also out of touch with the perspective of the great majority, those at the center of the political spectrum.

It is thus understandable that The American Family Political Party would not be for them.

Ontologuy said:

The attitude of some toward the systemic centrist tactics of The American Family Political Party will indicate that they are quite ideologically aligned with their political wing and also out of touch with the perspective of the great majority, those at the center of the political spectrum.

It is thus understandable that The American Family Political Party would not be for them.

Click to expand...

What wing is that? I'm not a democrat lol. A blander centrist you will never find than Obama, except maybe hillary. That's all the democratic party is anymore. He may not get everything right or more accurately, get the votes for it in a broken congress, but he sure as hell would never dare to support SSM right before the election unless it was a populist position, something every poll reflects that.

Does anyone else care to argue that compromising away marriage equality is a centrist position?

So instead of explain how your positions are in fact centrist, you attack me as hopelessly biased. Typical. Here's example of the disagreement. You say that the vast majority are heterosexual and put "Family" in the party's name. That is undoubtedly to imply that gays are anti-family and heterosexuals are anti-gay families. It's funny you do this "family values" crap while putting such heavy emphasis on birth/population control.

chromium said:

What wing is that? I'm not a democrat lol. A blander centrist you will never find than Obama, except maybe hillary. That's all the democratic party is anymore. He may not get everything right or more accurately, get the votes for it in a broken congress, but he sure as hell would never dare to support SSM right before the election unless it was a populist position, something every poll reflects that.

Does anyone else care to argue that compromising away marriage equality is a centrist position?

So instead of explain how your positions are in fact centrist, you attack me as hopelessly biased. Typical. Here's example of the disagreement. You say that the vast majority are heterosexual and put "Family" in the party's name. That is undoubtedly to imply that gays are anti-family and heterosexuals are anti-gay families. It's funny you do this "family values" crap while putting such heavy emphasis on birth/population control.

Click to expand...

You say you're not a Democrat, but if you were to choose a preexisting political party, what would it be? In the last four Presidential elections who did you vote for (if you voted) and why?

Your "lean" says "slightly liberal" .. could it be more than slightly? Or, when it comes to plank #35, opposition to which is a darling of the liberal-pandered Disaffected Coalition (http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/182410-disaffected-coalition.html), are you so vehemently opposed that it just seems that you're very liberal?

When it comes to the OP's list of 20 traits of the great majority of Americans, does that match you on all 20? If not, where not?

In addition to plank #35, to what other planks are you just as or nearly as opposed and why?

Ontologuy said:

Planks 24 thru 30 address all of the good of ACA plus the out-of-control sky-high costs that ACA didn't address.

It's important to remember that ACA wasn't created "so that all could have insurance" as it was spun.

It was created to keep urgent care and trauma centers from going bankrupt and closing in the wake of caring for so many uninsured, greatly exacerbated by uninsured illegal aliens which also weren't addressed in ACA.

Reducing the cost of healthcare to patients would have been counterproductive to that goal.

Reducing costs will allow more people to afford healthcare and less opting to pay the tax penalty in lieu of purchasing healthcare insurance.

And that will mean less people to burden urgent care and trauma centers with unpaid bills threatening bankruptcy and closure.



"Separate but equal" is a discrimination test rightly applied after definitive propriety determines the "equal" part.

The great majority of Americans experience the word "marriage" to mean "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", a valid truthful assertion with respect to multifaceted appeal.

Thus, with respect to definitive propriety, any same-sex union cannot "be" a marriage.

So, from their perspective, we don't move on to the "separate but equal" test, as "equal" failed based upon the first test of definitive propriety.

Had the first test of definitive propriety succeeded, then it would have been appropriate to apply the "separate but equal" test.

Thus there's no discrimination here in requiring a different word other than marriage to be utilized in the matter.

It's like saying cat owners are being treated as "separate but equal" not allowing them to enter their cats in a dog show, requiring them to enter their cats in their own shows called "cat" shows.

By appeal to definitive propriety, a cat is not a dog, and thus it is wrong with respect to definitive propriety to use the word "dog" here.

So the "separate but equal" test is not rightly applied in this matter because the "equal" test failed.

Thus there's no discrimination here in the matter requiring cat owners to accurately and without disrespect to dog owners to not call their shows "dog" shows but to use a more appropriate word, such as "cat" to describe their shows.

This is the perspective of the great majority of Americans.

You admit to a great majority exceptional situation with regard to you not being straight.

All likely things then considered, I can understand where this would be a plank to which you may object.

It nevertheless is the perspective of the great majority of Americans.

They support private enterprise and government recognition of same-sex unions, but, by appeal to definitive propriety, they know that the word "marriage" simply doesn't apply, and they want recognition under a different more definitive propriety appropriate word.

There are many threads in this forum where this has been discussed at length: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/172031-gay-marriage-americas-house-may-not-stay-divided-long-w-29-210-a-53.html.



Reducing taxes is a plank at that tactical level to achieve the strategic goals.

If a person ran emphasizing just one plank, they would likely not fit well in The American Family Political Party.

Candidates approved by the party braintrust would greatly approve of a great majority of the planks, accept the ones they weren't in total agreement, and acquiesce to the few they may not personally support but were nevertheless the democratic wishes of the great majority.

When taken as a systemic whole, all of the planks together accomplish the desired goals.

And that makes sense.

Click to expand...

As I said, I might disagree about different words for marriage and same sex unions but it wouldnt be a deal breaker as long as the protections are there. To me your cat annology doesnt go into enough detail that the two institutions are supposed to be giving the exact same benefits from the government. If they give the exact same benefits then I see no need in them being called something different.

As far as the ACA, again, as long as the fix/replacement is passed hand in hand with the repeal, I have no problem with that.

Ontologuy said:

You say you're not a Democrat, but if you were to choose a preexisting political party, what would it be? In the last four Presidential elections who did you vote for (if you voted) and why?

Click to expand...

I'm 19 and wrote in a socialist whose name i forget now (seeing as i knew he would not win, i did not especially care, just voted my conscious) in the last election. The 3 prior elections, well, you can figure that out. I would certainly never vote for either major party.

Ontologuy said:

Your "lean" says "slightly liberal" .. could it be more than slightly? Or, when it comes to plank #35, opposition to which is a darling of the liberal-pandered Disaffected Coalition (http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/182410-disaffected-coalition.html), are you so vehemently opposed that it just seems that you're very liberal?

Click to expand...

I could be more than 'slightly liberal,' i dunno. Relative to the US, probably. To the area i live in, not at all. Seeing as i have many views on many subjects, being a 'slightly liberal' has nothing to do with this one topic. Supporting gay rights including marriage is no longer a liberal position. If you want to oppose it on your own terms, just say so. Don't try to hide behind the 'majority' so you can feel better about it.

It's just silly to blame the 'disaffected coalition' but then yourself support things like "same sex unions with the same rights," employment and housing rights etc. You know that the near-total lack of rights for gay people in many states needs to change, yet you conjur a "disaffected coalition" based on this one word (marriage). Sounds to me like you're more a part of this "coalition" than not.

Ontologuy said:

When it comes to the OP's list of 20 traits of the great majority of Americans, does that match you on all 20? If not, where not?

Click to expand...

I've no desire to be part of the 'majority'; that's not a preoccupation of mine or something to take pride in. Why did you leave off "white" for that matter? It's no less valid in political arguments than "heterosexual," probably more so given how segregated we are.

I care more of fitting in with my peers, 19 year old college students. But to see if there's a point to this...I'm in the majority with #s 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20

Ontologuy said:

In addition to plank #35, to what other planks are you just as or nearly as opposed and why?

Click to expand...

I was just explaining what i thought was centrist or not, but again to see if a point...

1, 7, 9, 17-21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 41, 42

#26 - single payer is my compromise
#36 - end the war for drugs altogether is my compromise
#39 - i would keep basic reading/math intact and allow for some socializing that way, but probably end grades 6-12 because they have indisputably failed and homeschooling is superior

#41 - like K-12, only the top 20 or so colleges have proven effective, plus a few programs in the rest (some specialize in engineering, teaching, aviation etc) ; that leaves about 90% of the public as too uneducated / unintelligent to justify funding a college degree

#42 - these top 20 schools we can actually take pride in and showcase to the world, and it benefits the students there, including domestic, to have real interaction with other bright students from all over ; if not for voluntary protectionism from the private schools (most of the top 20), 80% of students there would be Asian....from Asia. So don't whine about nickel and diming the few who are allowed to enroll.

Just curious what countries would you give special status?

Ontologuy said:

According to my researched knowledge of us Americans ..

.. The great majority of adults in America:

Click to expand...

Some of these are likely spot on, in describing the majority of adults living in the United States. However, there are definitely several that are questionable:

6) I'm actually quite sure that recent studies have shown that, per capita, the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Marijuana in the world. I also recall seeing a statistic that stated a near 50% of all adults in the U.S. have used marijuana. Yet another survey found that more than 35 million U.S. adults have used marijuana within the last year.

Naturally we are only talking about one drug, alcohol being another drug. . . I'd imagine that the numbers are actually the opposite of your stated #6 stat.


17)Having worked with a lot of people, across many states, I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of adults in the U.S. don't really consider the UN to be a negative force. Honestly, I'm sure that most people haven't thought about the UN's role in our political system for more than five minutes over the course of the last year.

Thereby making it the most irrelevant item on the list.

Ontologuy said:

Thus I propose creating the following political party that appeals to the great majority of American adults:

The American Family Political Party.

Click to expand...

In looking at this list, I find a lot of redundancy and plenty that would be either wholly inapplicable to our current political climate or that is contradictory to the values cited in the opening 20 characteristics.

Tactics

3. Great aim, but I'm pretty sure that this is the least unique item on the list.

6. Our borders are secure, but given the true scope of further increasing our border security, most adults would actively oppose any additional precautions. Further, I would wonder how this could be done without sever detriment to liberty, financial stability and equality.

10. Reference #3


Planks

1. I find it interesting that this is your first plank. Especially where you specifically state "are opposed to their country's government officials being puppets of international conglomerate agendas" as a descriptor of the average adult. Most Americans directly associate corporations (especially the international conglomerates directing our politicians) with the downturn of 2007.

2. You talk about ending pollution, while reducing business regulations, these are generally contradictory statements.

3. Protection from whom/ what?

9. With Globalization being what it is, I'd argue that this would be detrimental to the overwhelming majority of your planned constituents.

10. Directly contradicts Plank #1

15. See Plank #2.

16 - 21. I'm honestly wondering where these even fit into the party mission, given the stated philosophy and motto.

23 - 30. While I agree with many of these measures, I think that they offer a stark contrast to your anti-regulation philosophy as evidenced in some earlier planks, such as #2. Also, through lots of reading and research, I'm quite sure that we'd not only save money, but also improve overall health care quality for the overwhelming majority of adults, by moving to a government run universal health care.

32. I see where you are going, but the realist in me thinks that condoms and actual 'sexual education' in schools would go a long way. I'll agree that more research should be placed upon birth control methods though.

33/34. Abortion is unfortunate, but it's really disingenuous to call it a method of 'birth control.'

35. Currently 120 million Americans live in states where both the local and federal government recognize the marriages of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Further, Current polls show that the popular support for marriage equality is rapidly shifting further towards respecting peoples right to marry. That being the case, I don't think this is a valid platform.

Besides, haven't we already been down the separate but equal road before?

40. Again, reference plank #2.

45. Given that the United States government is the single largest employer of adults in the U.S., I think this would not be a very good angle to actually pitch.

48. Why are you trying to increase military spending?

Ontologuy said:

This political party would quickly dominate political affairs in America.

Click to expand...

Without a major corporate sponsor, this party stands little chance of moving anywhere.

Ontologuy said:

"Separate but equal" is a discrimination test rightly applied after definitive propriety determines the "equal" part.

The great majority of Americans experience the word "marriage" to mean "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", a valid truthful assertion with respect to multifaceted appeal.

Click to expand...

That's not actually how 'separate, but equal' is determined. For your position, there are two options:

1. Eliminate the word marriage altogether from the governmental lexicon.

2. Remove the practice of recognizing unions between consenting adults from governmental responsibility.

Regardless, more recent polls actually show that this is not the case anymore anyway. With more than 100 million Americans currently living in jurisdictions that currently recognize same-sex marriage. I actually question the validity of the statement that the overwhelming majority of adults currently experience the word marriage to solely mean between a man and a woman.

Especially anyone who's turned on a television within the past six years.

Starbuck said:

Some of these are likely spot on, in describing the majority of adults living in the United States. However, there are definitely several that are questionable:

6) I'm actually quite sure that recent studies have shown that, per capita, the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Marijuana in the world. I also recall seeing a statistic that stated a near 50% of all adults in the U.S. have used marijuana. Yet another survey found that more than 35 million U.S. adults have used marijuana within the last year.

Naturally we are only talking about one drug, alcohol being another drug. . . I'd imagine that the numbers are actually the opposite of your stated #6 stat.

Click to expand...

According to this Gallup poll, only 7% of American adults currently do pot: In U.S., 38% Have Tried Marijuana, Little Changed Since '80s.

38% may have tried pot, but that's not how #6 is stated. The question is do they actively do pot. The great majority does not do pot.

Most pot and other drug usage is by young people, as this 12 years-old and older set of stats present: DrugFacts: Nationwide Trends | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

So the OP #6 is spot on.

By "drugs", #6 refers to illegal drugs (whether or not pot has been legalized somewhere already).

Alcohol use is a separate issue the lack of which does not identify the great majority of American adults.

Starbuck said:

17)Having worked with a lot of people, across many states, I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of adults in the U.S. don't really consider the UN to be a negative force. Honestly, I'm sure that most people haven't thought about the UN's role in our political system for more than five minutes over the course of the last year.

Thereby making it the most irrelevant item on the list.

Click to expand...

#17 is not about the U.N. itself.

It's about the idealized future role of the U.N. frequently spoken by left-wing ideologues, that often gets media play and thus exposure to the general public.

The great majority of Americans are opposed to this.

Starbuck said:

17)In looking at this list, I find a lot of redundancy and plenty that would be either wholly inapplicable to our current political climate or that is contradictory to the values cited in the opening 20 characteristics.

Click to expand...

The current political climate is a disappointment to the great majority of Americans, and thus the American Family Political Party would function to change that climate.

Whether there is redundancy or close relationship in the tactics, none of them, obviously, are contradictory to the values cited in the opening 20 characteristics of the great majority of Americans.

Don't assume the great majority of Americans are conservatives. They aren't.

Starbuck said:

Tactics

3. Great aim, but I'm pretty sure that this is the least unique item on the list.

Click to expand...

Whether or not other political parties have this stated aim is irrelevant.

What's important is that it's clearly expressed at the high tactical level and helps to accomplish the strategy of the party in accordance with its philosophy.

I assure you, #3 is not mere rhetoric for The American Family Political Party as it clearly has been with other preexisting parties.

Starbuck said:

17)6. Our borders are secure, but given the true scope of further increasing our border security, most adults would actively oppose any additional precautions. Further, I would wonder how this could be done without sever detriment to liberty, financial stability and equality.

Click to expand...

No, obviously, 20 million illegal aliens attest to the fact that our borders simply are not secure and have not been secure for some time.

The great majority of Americans oppose illegal aliens keeping their ill gotten gains at the injustice expense of American citizens from who they stole.

Excess of liberty is unacceptable to the great majority of American adults if it comes at the injustice expense of someone else.

Financial stability for some may be experienced by closing the borders and dealing with the illegal alien problem, like unscrupulous business owners who hire illegals, and adjustments of economic scale will be felt .. but in a very short time, we'll adjust to the comparatively small price of creating justice for all.

As for equality, the inequality suffered by American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens stealing their jobs, living space, classrooms, etc. will be eliminated as their belongings will be returned to them, and that promotes not only justice, but equality.

Starbuck said:

110. Reference #3

Click to expand...

#10 is, obviously, not a synonym or redundancy of #3.

Starbuck said:

Planks

1. I find it interesting that this is your first plank. Especially where you specifically state "are opposed to their country's government officials being puppets of international conglomerate agendas" as a descriptor of the average adult. Most Americans directly associate corporations (especially the international conglomerates directing our politicians) with the downturn of 2007.

Click to expand...

Most are aware, though many have forgotten I'm sure, that the sub-prime securities speculators triggered The Great Recession, and that the gun was loaded by questionable conglomerate as well as government practices, including, of course, unscrupulous local business owners hiring illegals.

But, that's neither here nor there with respect to the great majority of adults in America.

They recognize the need for successful U.S. businesses for there to be good jobs .. and #1 is part of helping businesses succeed.

It is liberals, not the majority of American adults (centrist by nature) who have it in for corporations.

#18 of traits simply means the great majority doesn't want the American political process corrupted by international conglomerate "influence" over government officials.

Starbuck said:

2. You talk about ending pollution, while reducing business regulations, these are generally contradictory statements.

3. Protection from whom/ what?

9. With Globalization being what it is, I'd argue that this would be detrimental to the overwhelming majority of your planned constituents.

10. Directly contradicts Plank #1

15. See Plank #2.

16 - 21. I'm honestly wondering where these even fit into the party mission, given the stated philosophy and motto.

Click to expand...

All of these fit systemically as mechanics to accomplish the tactics.

Some of the way you questions these indicates you are happily affiliated with another party/ideology.

Starbuck said:

16 - 21. I'm honestly wondering where these even fit into the party mission, given the stated philosophy and motto.

Click to expand...

Whereas I see it clearly as obvious that these planks contribute to the stated philosophy and motto.

I don't know how you could see it otherwise.

Starbuck said:

23 - 30. While I agree with many of these measures, I think that they offer a stark contrast to your anti-regulation philosophy as evidenced in some earlier planks, such as #2. Also, through lots of reading and research, I'm quite sure that we'd not only save money, but also improve overall health care quality for the overwhelming majority of adults, by moving to a government run universal health care.

Click to expand...

Public utilities are regulated.

Treating healthcare insurance companies as non-profit public utilities, in effect, via uniform cost regulations, is the right thing to do in conjunction with compulsory purchase.

Many regulations on regular businesses are simply either unjustly expensive or truly unnecessary, and they make it very difficult to do business without costing employees in remuneration and consumers in high prices.

Whether or not single-payer is in our future, whether or not it would be government run, or whether healthcare insurance companies will become like the Edison Company, remains to be seen.

Until the more famous downsides of single-payer are first addressed, the great majority of Americans will be hesitant to surrender their healthcare liberties and medical decisions to government military-backed power.

Starbuck said:

32. I see where you are going, but the realist in me thinks that condoms and actual 'sexual education' in schools would go a long way. I'll agree that more research should be placed upon birth control methods though.

Click to expand...

New "pills" for men to take that lop of the tails of sperm and new "pills" for women to take that harden the "shells" of released eggs are currently in development, some in FDA testing, are non-systemic (won't screw up the woman's hormonal balance) are target-directed pharmaceuticals, touted as being 100% safe, effective, and easy to use .. and, they are conception-prevention in nature.

That's the future .. almost here.

The old-tech ways have clearly failed us.

Starbuck said:

33/34. Abortion is unfortunate, but it's really disingenuous to call it a method of 'birth control.'

Click to expand...

Every abortion takes the life of a young human, a scientific fact, as the great majority of American adults know.

It is thus more than "unfortunate", it is truly tragic.

It is not at all "disingenuous" to call many chemical/surgical abortions what they truly are: a method of birth control, post-conception, for reasons of "love" or money.

The percentage of abortions for extreme situations, such as to save the mother's life/grave health (whether at risk due to direct physical or related psychological causes) is a very small percentage of all chemical/surgical abortions.

The great majority of chemical/surgical abortions are, as the great majority of Americans know, are for the purpose of mere after-the-fact birth control, nothing more, a truly barbaric practice.

Starbuck said:

35. Currently 120 million Americans live in states where both the local and federal government recognize the marriages of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Further, Current polls show that the popular support for marriage equality is rapidly shifting further towards respecting peoples right to marry. That being the case, I don't think this is a valid platform.

Click to expand...

And, of course, legislatures controlled by liberals are something the great majority of Americans oppose.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if erroneous thinking-based decisions occurred in a minority of states, what matters is that these mistakes can be undone and that the great majority supports #35.

As I presented previously in this thread, the current poll shows that all the so-called shift has occurred, despite continuous liberal media bombardment.

70% of the American people polled support recognition of same-sex unions.

But, a solid 63% of the American people polled oppose the use of the word "marriage" for these unions.

Clearly the compromise onus is on the minority 37% that supports the word "marriage" for these unions, many of whom would just as easily support the increasing 70% once the great majority of Americans weigh in on the matter (most poll responders being liberals and conservatives, not the great majority of Americans, who are centrists and who favor recognition under a different word than "marriage").

Your responses so far indicate your support for liberal ideologies, and that you aren't likely to find a centrist political party like The American Family Political Party attractive.

Starbuck said:

Besides, haven't we already been down the separate but equal road before?

Click to expand...

As I accurately presented earlier in this thread, the situation regarding #35 is not subject to the "separate but equal" test.

Starbuck said:

40. Again, reference plank #2.

Click to expand...

Numbers 2 and 40 are neither contradictory or redundant; they're complementary, eliminating loopholes.

Starbuck said:

45. Given that the United States government is the single largest employer of adults in the U.S., I think this would not be a very good angle to actually pitch.

Click to expand...

The fact that the government may be the single largest employer of adults in the U.S. is 1) irrelevant with respect to the fact that when compared to employment in total it is a very small percentage of total employment, and 2) #45 is addressing government officials, like those in the legislatures, courts, and executives, a teeny, tiny handful who historically abuse their trust in this regard.

The great majority of American adults are tired of these abuses of "privilege", and will greatly support #45 from a justice standpoint.

Starbuck said:

48. Why are you trying to increase military spending?

Click to expand...

Your focus on the spending is, I sense, mere rhetoric.

That some so inclined to such rhetoric tend to forget the imminent growing danger from proliferating WMDs is truly, truly sad.

But, the great majority of American adults haven't forgotten that, as they frequently think about their kids, want their kids to have things better than they had them, and, of course, they want their kids to be safe.

Starbuck said:

Without a major corporate sponsor, this party stands little chance of moving anywhere.

Click to expand...

False, obviously, as human history clearly shows.

When enough Americans are tired of not being politically represented, when enough Americans are fed up with "the current political climate" .. they will make it happen.

Soon, hopefully.

Starbuck said:

That's not actually how 'separate, but equal' is determined. For your position, there are two options:

1. Eliminate the word marriage altogether from the governmental lexicon.

2. Remove the practice of recognizing unions between consenting adults from governmental responsibility.

Regardless, more recent polls actually show that this is not the case anymore anyway. With more than 100 million Americans currently living in jurisdictions that currently recognize same-sex marriage. I actually question the validity of the statement that the overwhelming majority of adults currently experience the word marriage to solely mean between a man and a woman.

Especially anyone who's turned on a television within the past six years.

Click to expand...

No, my presentation of when and how to apply "separate but equal" is spot on.

Here you error in thinking that it's all about government authority.

It's not.

Human society is the authority, and government has been authorized to serve American society.

Service to American society means doing what government does, legislate to manage socioeconomic material usage.

Thus, because marriages and other unions utilize materials and money, laws, made by government, about how people can ethically utilize these things and how they should not unethically utilize these things are created to help people manage their affairs and are recognized by private enterprise.

It is irrational to think that government will not continue their reasonable statute involvement in these matters.

But I can understand where a social left-winger would want to imply that the only two options involve getting government out of the matter, as it is two-thirds of the state governments that are standing in the way of the liberal error of same-sex "marriage".

Repeating yourself about how many people live in jurisdiction where error-based liberal ideology-based laws were temporarily made in no way functions as a real argument.

And your six years of television implication that liberal media bombardment is tantamount to great majority agreement is truly laughable, another social liberal mistake.

chromium said:

I'm 19 and wrote in a socialist whose name i forget now (seeing as i knew he would not win, i did not especially care, just voted my conscious) in the last election. The 3 prior elections, well, you can figure that out. I would certainly never vote for either major party.



I could be more than 'slightly liberal,' i dunno. Relative to the US, probably. To the area i live in, not at all. Seeing as i have many views on many subjects, being a 'slightly liberal' has nothing to do with this one topic. Supporting gay rights including marriage is no longer a liberal position. If you want to oppose it on your own terms, just say so. Don't try to hide behind the 'majority' so you can feel better about it.

It's just silly to blame the 'disaffected coalition' but then yourself support things like "same sex unions with the same rights," employment and housing rights etc. You know that the near-total lack of rights for gay people in many states needs to change, yet you conjur a "disaffected coalition" based on this one word (marriage). Sounds to me like you're more a part of this "coalition" than not.



I've no desire to be part of the 'majority'; that's not a preoccupation of mine or something to take pride in. Why did you leave off "white" for that matter? It's no less valid in political arguments than "heterosexual," probably more so given how segregated we are.

I care more of fitting in with my peers, 19 year old college students. But to see if there's a point to this...I'm in the majority with #s 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20



I was just explaining what i thought was centrist or not, but again to see if a point...

1, 7, 9, 17-21, 26, 31, 36, 39, 41, 42

#26 - single payer is my compromise
#36 - end the war for drugs altogether is my compromise
#39 - i would keep basic reading/math intact and allow for some socializing that way, but probably end grades 6-12 because they have indisputably failed and homeschooling is superior

#41 - like K-12, only the top 20 or so colleges have proven effective, plus a few programs in the rest (some specialize in engineering, teaching, aviation etc) ; that leaves about 90% of the public as too uneducated / unintelligent to justify funding a college degree

#42 - these top 20 schools we can actually take pride in and showcase to the world, and it benefits the students there, including domestic, to have real interaction with other bright students from all over ; if not for voluntary protectionism from the private schools (most of the top 20), 80% of students there would be Asian....from Asia. So don't whine about nickel and diming the few who are allowed to enroll.

Click to expand...

That you only match the great majority in 7 of the 20 areas is sufficient indication that you are simply not part of the great majority of Americans, let alone, at age 19 (as you clearly imply), a 21-year-old adult American.

Thus it makes sense that you would not support The American Family Political Party as the great majority of American adults would, and why you deride it so.

But give it a few years .. and we'll see where you are when you're 30.

Carjosse said:

Just curious what countries would you give special status?

Click to expand...

As #46 states, those nations who actively support our policies for improving the standard of living in America.

As to what specific nations those will be, when The American Family Political Party is clearly ascending to power, we'll watch the response of other nations to our policies of improving the standard of living in America, and those so in favor will be the ones likely to receive favored-nation status.

Ontologuy said:

That you only match the great majority in 7 of the 20 areas is sufficient indication that you are simply not part of the great majority of Americans, let alone, at age 19 (as you clearly imply), a 21-year-old adult American.

Thus it makes sense that you would not support The American Family Political Party as the great majority of American adults would, and why you deride it so.

But give it a few years .. and we'll see where you are when you're 30.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm definitely gonna be heterosexual at age 30 :roll: At least you're honest about who your party considers worthy. Sounding more like republicans to be honest. Will also be difficult to become retired or retroactively harmed by a recession that began when i was 14 (#10-11).

Some of it could change by then i'll admit. For instance, i could stop doing drugs...conceivably.

chromium said:

Yeah, i'm definitely gonna be heterosexual at age 30 :roll:

Click to expand...

If you find yourself in more the 18 out of 20 category in a few years, you may indeed appreciate The American Family Political Party, especially if you're raising children.

chromium said:

At least you're honest about who your party considers worthy.

Click to expand...

I can understand your penchant for liberal rhetoric, but I assure you you are mistaken on this matter.

chromium said:

Sounding more like republicans to be honest.

Click to expand...

Most wingers are myopic when it comes to perceiving toward the center of the political spectrum.

Left-wingers, like yourself, see everything to the right as "conservative", even the great centrist majority who are not conservative.

Right-wingers tend to see everything to the left, including the great centrist majority, as "liberal".

chromium said:

Will also be difficult to become retired or retroactively harmed by a recession that began when i was 14 (#10-11).

Click to expand...

Yes, true, directly, perhaps.

But did you not suffer in some way indirectly because of your parents directly suffering from it?

chromium said:

Some of it could change by then i'll admit. For instance, i could stop doing drugs...conceivably.

Click to expand...

Since 38% of American adults have previously done pot, but only 7% of adults currently do pot (a very small minority), it is, indeed, conceivable that you could one day stop doing pot as many have.

Many stop when they realize they don't want their kids to be pot-heads like they were, as they want things better for their kids than they had it (#19 of traits).