- Dec 1, 2011
- 20,193
- 16,172
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
A point of clarification regarding the Marriage and Family planks, does that include marriages and families of same sex partners?
Upvote
0
A point of clarification regarding the Marriage and Family planks, does that include marriages and families of same sex partners?
Granted nothing is perfect this side of Heaven; however, these three videos provide a general approximation as to what Distributism is. It is a decent and laudable ideal towards which our society ought to aspire and implement. Even if our economy becomes a mixed economy of the 'Free Market' and 'Distributism' with guilds as well, that'd be a 'win' or nearly so in my honest view.
a mixed economy of the 'Free Market' and 'Distributism'
The Party supports Traditional Marriage between one man and one woman; no innovation of the same sex persuasion.A point of clarification regarding the Marriage and Family planks, does that include marriages and families of same sex partners?
They may want to come out and say that explicitly in their platform. Out of curiosity what would become of the legally married same sex couples were the party to gain actual power?The Party supports Traditional Marriage between one man and one woman; no innovation of the same sex persuasion.
Which would leave the legal marriages that were preformed after the ruling where?Quite potentially a status quo ante the Obergefell Decision or before the Legalisation of it in the States?
Is this the American Solidarity Party we/you are talking about now? If so, the first question is "Is it on the ballot in your state?" If not (and it is NOT on the ballot in most states) you won't have the chance to vote for their candidates.I am not a member, nor have I yet voted for them, though I am seriously considering doing so if given the chance, although I disagree with some of their economic solutions.
That is what I mean by "if given the chance". I don't care how electable a party is, when the two options they are trying to force onto you are horrible. There are certain libertarians I would vote for, but their official platform isn't really pro-life. However philosophically, being pro-life is consistent with libertarian ideals. I wouldn't say they don't suffer from these issue, sure they have done a better job with ballot access. But they are still largely ignored by major media (except in this last election where they focused on Johnson's "what is Allepo" gaffe).Is this the American Solidarity Party we/you are talking about now? If so, the first question is "Is it on the ballot in your state?" If not (and it is NOT on the ballot in most states) you won't have the chance to vote for their candidates.
Even in the states where they might be on the ballot, the votes cast for the Party's candidates will never be reported by the media. The Libertarian Party (which I see you have listed as your preference at present) at least does not suffer from those problems.
OK. I can appreciate a stance taken for principle even if it is not going to be noticed by anyone else. What I was suggesting was that there might be another choice besides the American Solidarity Party, which (I assume) isn't even on your state's ballot so that you can throw your vote away (as they say) for the sake of principle. But it was just a thought.That is what I mean by "if given the chance".
Yes. It is a difficult choice. With them you get a little, at least. With the American Solidarity Party, however, you get absolutely nothing. Not even the ability to cast a vote in protest.I don't care how electable a party is, when the two options they are trying to force onto you are horrible. There are certain libertarians I would vote for, but their official platform isn't really pro-life. However philosophically, being pro-life is consistent with libertarian ideals. I wouldn't say they don't suffer from these issue, sure they have done a better job with ballot access.
Even if a minor party gets on the ballot, most rational voters are disinclined to advance their ideological opposites by casting a hail mary throwaway vote on some upstart party.Just bear this in mind. For any third party to get on the ballot is extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Few have ever made it in more than a couple of states, and most have almost no organization. You can give your heart to one of them and never have anything to do about it or with it, no voting for their candidates, participating in conventions, nothing.
Like repealing subsidies that encourage urban sprawl,
....
And as far as Subsidies, I want to know specifically what subsidies they think causes urban sprawl. I can tell you what causes urban sprawl.... it's call 'crime', and 'cost'. Drive 15 minute out of town, and the prices of housing are a fraction of what they are down town, unless you live the crime infested areas.
Stop protesting the police, and start allowing more down town development, and between crime going down, and prices going down, you'll eliminate urban sprawl.
If you think getting rid of some subsidy is going to get me to move into the city with metal bars on my windows, and a $1,500 monthly rent, you are crazy.
Similarly, there is no student loan crisis. Here's a thought... don't borrow money. Not encourage people to borrow even more money, because you are going to allow them to declare bankruptcy. How stupid is that?
You want to claim people are in crisis because they borrowed too much money, and your answer is to encourage them to take out even more loans, by offering them even lower interest, and the hope of using bankruptcy to escape their bad choices? Do you not see how insane that sounds to any reasonable person?
Interesting. I only skimmed it, but at first glance, it seems like a decent mashup of concerns for a socially conscious conservative turned off by the jerky, selfish corporatism of the Republican party.
A more Catholic-friendly party?
s.