Can't we have a neutral political party?

I dunno... im just throwing this idea out there...

maybe one day, we could have a party (since the US is a one party state after all) that combines the *best* of both the republican and democrats. That word best is quite subjective, hence the emphasis. But maybe there could be a party that is sort of like a compromise between the two? Something that everyone could agree with, ideally? Sounds like a fantasy, but isn't it just possible?

I don't believe in the repub vs demo argument, so please don't take it that way. I think that both of those parties have their own innate virtues in and of themselves.

But what about a leader or coalition government that...

preserves the constitution, limits the size of the federal government... but also... creates a national healthcare system and significantly decreases the military budget by something like 75%?

ensures the moral well-being of the people, but doesn't attempt to limit the advances the sciences that might be considered controversial?

lowers taxes but increases the amount of social services available to the public (a 75% decrease in military spending is a heckuva lot of money, see?)

eh... just being imaginative. i like both repubs and dems. I think that the confusion starts when people start to make uneducated claims and display ignorant perspectives on life in general that get the parties they are representing in trouble. (i.e: nuke them terrorists!!) in short... can't we all just get along?

There is a good middle party but it doesnt work like you discribed. The Libertarians take IMO the best of both parties. They believe in VASTLY smaller government and Personal freedom. They would cut taxes almost compleatly on people AND companies (who do you think creates jobs).

The savings from all this could go toward better benefits and more pay/jobs.

On the social end they are for getting rid of the drug war and equal rights for all.

If you are looking for a government "mommy" to kiss your boo boos we are not the party but if you just wished to be left alone to live your life we ARE the party. I almost forgot heres a link

www.lp.org...

[edit on 16-11-2004 by Amuk]

my friend, amuk, I am technically a libertarian. I consider myself neutral, but their candidates seem to match my views and political wishes more closely.

I am proud to say that most of my votes were directed towards libertarian candidates, including Badnarik, WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INTO THAT &^!@#O*&^@*&# debate!!!

and lol I am not looking for mommy to kiss my boo boos. i just dont want any more boo boos. is that too much to ask?

[edit on 11/16/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
and lol I am not looking for mommy to kiss my boo boos. i[edit on 11/16/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

This was not pointed at you directly.

A lot of people seem to think that the government should follow you around from cradle to grave taking care of your every need. We believe different.

The world will never be rid of boo boos and its not the governments purpose to take all the sharp objects away from you. The government has few real purposes, like protecting you from another country, the rest is up to you

I personally like the Libertarians. I like the idea of a neutral party. If you look at my Campaign 2004 sticker under my avatar (it doesn't always show anymore) it shows that I'm neutral. I would love to have a middle party. The libertarians are pretty conservative and I like that but I would like for them to meet more in the middle.

Although I think that all large and small parties alike have their dedicated constituants,...

An interesting thought as pointed out above, is a neutral party.


A party you could vote for, not becouse of a position they have set in stone, but instead a dynamic stance that can represent changes and shifts in the priorities and wills of the people.

More than once I have held interest in particular candidates, only to be turned off due to a particular issue that the candidate declares a position on, not becouse of the will of the people, but becouse it is part of the 'doctrine' of that party in particular as a whole.

unfortunately, there are too many interests associated with Washington. Neutrality (or what you're really saying: Rationality) is impossible in the light of all the dollars at stake.

But all this is moot. According to the election, 'neutrality' is not what is even wanted by the voters. They currently prefer 'radical action'. Perhaps when our post-Iraq hangover sets in, things will change.