We need to work together (the idea behind this whole party) to make a platform that will work for both Democrats and Republicans, and those in between. This will be VERY VERY HARD to accomplish, but we must be up to the challenge. So I propose that we form a Committee, here online, to write and then sumbit a set of rules our party will follow (a platform). An example:
IMMIGRATION: Resolved, that the Unity08 party supports the idea of a wall along the border.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Resolved, that the Unity08 party supports the proposal to change the Social Security program by...
That is an example of what I mean. It would be simple, to the point, and easy for people to understand. It could be in the way above, or in a different way, as shown below:
Today the Congress has promised the American people that the immigration problem will be dealt with, but we still see an increase in Illegal Immigrants, so we support a wall be bulid...
So there. Now for the elections: Any registered user of Shoutbox can enter. Anyone who wants to help can, and we would provide emails with each other so to remain in contact and sharing our ideas. So what do you think, and is anyone interested?!
For the election of the committee, the following rules will apply:
No person/user may ask to be part after 8PM EST Friday; There will be five seats, unless there are not those in number who are interested; The election will take place at that time, and the results will be announced at 10Pm EST on Friday
The Committee has until August 25th, 2024 to report on the Platform
You cant be serious about closing the process while they are still in testing, are you?
Right now from my best estimate we have maybe 15 contributers. Thinking we should be looking out at least a month before we consider anything like that.
I think this person is a troll. The "wall along the border" thing is (I *thought* anyway) something of an extremist position. I'm sure it's the centrist position in some places in the country but it is also taken really personally by recent legal immigrants who frequently have family who are here illegally.
Let's just say that it sounds divisive when compared with something like:
"Effectively controlling both the southern and northern borders (and and the US's many ports) is crucial to security against smuggling of WMD by terrorists.
It is unfortunate that such control is seen by many as a policy designed purely to "end the flow of illegal immigration" (though it would have that effect).
Meanwhile, immigration reform appears important to many people.
It would be good for our country if we could find a way to resolve the immigration issue in a way that at least acknowledges the concerns and dignity of:
(1) the Americans who would other wise be paid good wages for the jobs with wages depressed by the influx of illegal (and hence exploitable) immigrants,
(2) racial or linguistic purists and everyday Americans who simply support the idea of a melting pot who worry that our country is facing a fundamentally new kind of immigration from a nation contiguous with the US whose immigrants, in rare cases, consider their movement a "reconquista" by "la raza", and
(3) the everyday Mexican immigrants and their families who struggle to survive and thrive despite job destroying corruption in Mexico and economic exploitation they face in the US."
See how that *doesn't* raise the hackles of approx 1/3 of the legal citizens of California? See how it's just a request for an honest compromise between valid interests?
...The second post clinches that this is a troll... *OR* the second poster is a different person, highlighting the need for a forum to discuss the Unity Party that actually has verified unique identities.
-Jennifer
We live an a synchronous world where the only things that happen are what happen NOW.
But the meta-verse is largely asynchronous. It gives us the opportunity to do things differently.
I would be disappointed if participation were limited to those people who could be available in an arbitrary -- and short -- time frame.
Further, let's remember that the US spans at least 6 time zones. 8PM EST is 5PM in California and 2PM in Hawaii. The EST hegemony can be eliminated in cyberspace. Let's not arbitrarily re-impose it, ok?
sorry, forgot the dates were tomorrow. And the thing about the wall is simply an example. I don't want a wall! I needed something to show how a platform would look like, I think a wall would be stupid for they would just find away to get around it. and I am not a Troll, I want to help Unity08 the best way possible, not ruin it!
Huh?!?!
We have less than two years to: Move DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS (polar opposites) together into one; get a movement that is strong enough to even be considered for the ballot; generate enough revenue; get potential candidates; organize leadership; and get more members. The faster the better. We MUST be prepared, so let's get started. How do we get two groups of people who dispise each other to work together for the common good?
Quote by Moderate: "How do we get two groups of people who dispise each other to work together for the common good?"
I think we do this by focusing on the people who do NOT despise each other just because another person happens to belong to a different political party. My viewpoint is that democrats and republicians do not hate each other. We are all people first, and there are major issues facing this nation that PEOPLE need resolved.
The only people that despise each other for being Democrat or Republician are those who engage in polarizing politics and thus become blinded to the obviously important issues facing humanity.
Moderate asks, "How do we get two groups of people who dispise each other to work together for the common good?"
I *think* the basic premise of Unity is that the *people* do NOT despise each other but rather that the leadership of both parties has drifted away from the values that the rank and file actually hold.
Sure, the neo-con core of the Republican party -- the "God's on MY side and he's coming for YOU" group -- has come to represent the Republican Party, but I don't think that it really represents the majority of the people who are Republicans. I'm not sure what the parallel characterization of Democrats would be -- perhaps that's the problem with Dems, there's no identity we can get a handle on.
The basic premise is that Unity has traction only if the people actually aren't all that far apart and the challenge is to get around the obstructionists on the upper tiers of the parties themselves.
Restated: Are we all reasonable people who can, when it comes down to it, get along?
There are divisive issues, certainly. Abortion, immigration, and civil rights will always be contentious. But there are also issues that we can agree on -- economy, education, security.
But if we can't separate out those issues where values trump reason then the grand experiment that is the USA is already over. If we can't agree on common ground, then we are not United in the most basic sense and Unity will fail.
The 'Net gives us the ability to link up a much larger proportion of the public than has ever been possible before. That gives us the chance to have the kind of public discourse that the parties, the media, and the establishment has always blocked. It gives us the power of a coalition that makes their largest constitituencies miniscule by comparison.
The basic premise is that we, the people, are able to stand united in spite of our differences in ideology. Whether it will be proven true remains to be seen.
nlowell;
Speaking from the dem side I would characterize it as the split between DNC and DLC.
These differences arent as esy to quantify but in the end people largely feel just as unrepresented.
I don't think it's useful to accuse someone you disagree with on illegal aliens of being a troll, especially since Time Magazine ran a poll in late March that found 56% of Americans support a wall along the entire 2,000 mile U.S./Mexican border. THAT is the moderate position. Therefore let it be...
Resolved: Unity08 agrees with the majority of Americans who call for a wall along the entire 2,000 mile U.S.- Mexican border.
Moderate, I like your format for a Unity08 platform (if the Unity08 community adopts one). Your format looks much less legal and convoluted then the way our two current parties adopt and communicate their platforms.
I purpose a plank today.
War: Resolved, that the Unity08 party supports the proposal to change the way war is made and declared.
The President shall make war on any country, nation or persons that attack the United States sovereign soil or to save the lives of any peoples or any country form tyranny, genocide and starvation.
The Congress shall declare war on any country, nation or persons that attack the United States sovereign soil or to save the lives of any peoples or any country form tyranny, genocide and starvation.
What say you?
http://unity08.com/modules/shoutbox/include/unity_pick_star.png
Unity08 is not a political party. It should not have a platform to puppet-master candidates with. We want our candidates to be themselves; to speak passionately about what they believe. This needs to be completely unlike the major parties treat their candidates.
Let the candidates build their own platforms. And the selection of the candidate is the selection of the Unity08 platform.
Please, No Unity 08 Platform
But don't we have to decide what most of us think about issues to decide who qualifies for running with our backing? We don't have to write the entire policy or even agree on everything. But to decide who should run for us, we have to find out what we, the people, want in a president. If we just want to choose in blind faith that someone will make a good president, we've had that option for centuries.
We need specific polling in most of the issues people feel passionately about. With that, we start looking for someone that fits the mold the best. Once that's agreed upon, we back the guy/gal.
This site should be a forum for discussion of issues, and even polling on them. Prospective candidates should be able to get a feel of what people using the sight are thinking.
But we shouldn’t be tailoring the suit, and then start looking for the puppet to fill it. The candidates should present and own their own platforms. Then discussion centers around who we think is best, not how they measure up to the bullet point of platform positions.
I'm not talking about picking a pupppet. If we wait for candidates to just pop in and show an interest, our choices will be grossly limited. I'm talking about finding out what the majority of the people here believe in so we know who to summon. Not just one, but as big a list as we can that fits the gist at least of what we want. Then we can let them sell what they have to offer. If we just let them throw out a speech, the issues that they feel are controversial will be omited. We have to be able to ask how they feel about our stands. And that implies that we have a stand on the issues.
The entire purpose of these forums and the polls is to get to know what we are thinking, what topics we feel passionately about, and where the majority of us stand. The collection of the forums and the polls will provide much more insightful to potential candidates than a platform committee can. Now, we should work on what questions get posted. Or even create a comprehensive questionnaire that people can complete upon registration.
On another note, we are not in a position to summon a candidate. We need to be working on how to attract them.
The planks laid out so far are dvisive and unmoderate, or worse.
Let us focus on an Agenda for Change and state exactly what we propose to do and what we hope to achieve not a bunch of platitudes with no method or precise intended results.
Let's not try to coddle partisans instead let us inspire Change through ideas and integrity.
I submit that the elements that set aside Unity08 are among others the expectation that every member will help to build the consensus that establishes our Agenda for Change.
This is the first action item of our Convention.
Right after we set out clearly for everyone what our Conventions Purpose is. What our Goals are (i.e. do we address Immigration, Energy etc.).
Once the Agenda for Change is established we can shop or be shopped for suitable candidates to carry out the Unity08 Party Mandate and the will of the American People.
Then we will follow our carefully laid out strategy to take the White House, and substantial seats in the House and Senate.
The Convention has started you are too late for back room deals!
Here are 3 planks I feel certain the majority of United States Americans would love to stand on.
1. Energy Independence using the Apollo Alliance agenda--good jobs & clean energy http://www.apolloalliance.org/
2. End corporate personhood and reclaim democracy.
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/
3. Follow the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, and fight economic injustice by reducing immigration numbers that are now so high as to harm the most vulnerable American workers and their families.
See NumbersUSA
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
I really dislike Greg's war plank. The President should NOT be able to make war. We need to get back to the Consitution and let Congress declare war.
Explain how declaring war on any country where there is starvation or genocide does anything but bankrupt the U.S., and tramples our international reputation. It makes us look like judgemental nation builders and colonizers. What do we do with those countries after we have declared war on them? None of these things are worthy of a Unity08 plank!
I want to concur with the recent message of Unity '08 supporting an Apollo-style alternative energy project and ending corporate personhood. (I don't know too much about the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform).
Americans are continuing to rape the earth and destroy our atmosphere with our dependence on fossile fuels. The survival of human civilization is at stake. The environmental crisis affects all income levels, races, ethnicities, and nations. If this is not a "unity" issue, I don't know what is.
Corporations have been legally recognized as persons since the 19th century. I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to why we should continue this policy.
Resolved: The continuing practice of passing "pork barrel" legislation must end. We encourage and empower the president to veto such legislation even at the cost of a government shutdown. Eliminating government spending on frivolous projects is a national priority. So say the People.
Resolved: The achievements and contributions by persons who have emigrated to the United States is immeasurable.
The damage done to the United States by those who have chosen to ignore our laws is likewise vast and far-reaching.Those individuals are rightly called illegal immigrants and are in violation of federal law. Their immediate repatriation to their country of origin is required.
The borders are to be reenforced by all reasonable means, including the building of barriers and the deployment of law enforcement and military personnel.
Secure borders and strict adherence to immigration laws are a national priority. So say the People.
Resolved: There is a crisis of education in our country. Loans, grants and other aid should be given to those who pursue academic achievement in Mathmatics, Chemistry, Biology, Physics and other " hard" sciences.
Our nation must be a leader in the discovery, innovation, exploration and creation of new technologies, cures, preventive medicines, and advancements for mankind.
Education is the key to unlock the future. Education is a national priority. So say the People.
That's my start at it.
The issue of Social Security may need some debate before we can reach a mutually acceptable resolution. I would like to float an idea, to see whether it can be used as a first step toward a Unity08 resolution. First, recall that part of the purpose of the current Social Security system is to have citizens pay into the system at a rate based upon their current salary (up to a certain limit), and then when they reach retirement age, draw from their Social Security account at a rate that is intended to help them live a reasonably comfortable retired life, even if their employment-based retirement account and personally managed retirement account have for some reason been depleted (or raided, as in the recent scandals such as the Enron debacle). In this respect, the Social Security system functions in part like a retirement account.
Now, I need to explain the source of my idea, to put things into proper perspective: Many retirement accounts allow the account-holders to borrow from the account (that is in the account-holder's name), and pay it back - at an interest rate that is significantly lower than the going rate that can be obtained by securing a traditional loan. For example, if John works for company X for thirteen years, and during that period, his employer matches his contribution to his retirement account, so that in those thirteen years, John saves up $7,500 toward his retirement, and then he gets married, and wants to buy a house, but for some reason, does not have the entire down payment, he can borrow the $7,500 (from himself!), and the annuity company that holds his retirement funds will send him monthly or quarterly statements for him to pay back to his retirement account. For this service, the annuity company charges him some interest, but John pays the debt back with more interest than the annuity company collects - because about half the interest goes back into John's retirement account.
Now, there are many people who would like to eliminate the Social Security system, for a multitude of reasons, some of which are the following:
1. They see it as an additional tax. They are right! But it is limited: There is a cap on the amount that one is ``allowed'' to pay into the Social Security System, while, as I understand it, there is theoretically no cap on the amount that can be collected from an individual by the IRS, because the tax brackets are used to determine tax rates, in terms of percentage of income.
2. They are concerned that the Social Security System pays out more than it takes in, so they are concerned that it will bankrupt itself. They are right! Our government has bailed out the Social Security System before, and will likely do so again.
Now, for the (modest?) proposal: Add to the Social Security System the ability to loan to each citizen a portion of his or her Social Security account, any time after the given citizen's projected Social Security benefits reach some specified level, and set a specific payback period - with interest, part of which goes back into the citizen's Social Security account, but part of which goes to the Social Security System.
Now, as with any proposal in politics and government, etc, there are probably certain almost insurmountable difficulties with mine. However, it seems to me that in order to come up with a usable Unity08 resolution, we need to float a few such proposals, debate them, and work together to hammer out a mutually acceptable final version. So, please poke holes in mine, so we can discuss how to plug the holes, and whether this proposal is a good enough start to make it worth our time to try to plug the holes.
Matt
Response to: Social Security
Matt on July 6, 2024 - 7:29am
Matt- Your three points are wrong in premise and your proposal is absurd.
1. SS is NOT a tax. It's a social insurance program. Pay checks deductions were first called social security and then it changed in the mid 70's to read FICA. The term "TAX" didn't come about until the election of 2024. It is not associated with the IRS or the tax rates.
2. Correction. The government didn't bail out social security. Quite the reverse. SS has been bailing out the federal deficits since LBJ put it on budget in the mid 60's. It went from a sustaining trust to a government obligation in the mid 70's.
3. Taking a loan from one's 401K is at the same rates the normal bank loan scales. While, the amount is on loan it doesnt earn any interest nor is it deductable from your taxes. Its a wash at best.
Offering this same option with ones social security is a giant loop hole that will be utilized by the fraudulent to raid the system. What happens if one can't pay back the loan.. does that mean you have forfeited your SS benefit. Sure? I can see how that will play out. More homeless on the streets with $0 help from SS.. right! Get real!
I see how this goes now. I post something with my name on it, and then you insult me. Thanks, but no thanks.
Definition: According to the online dictionary at ``dictionary.com'', a ``tax'' is ``A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.'' (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax)
Of course, one can find other dictionaries with somewhat varied definitions, but they all end up meaning that the government takes money from its citizens whether they like it or not, for the purpose of running the government. The key here is that for an insurance program, a person can choose from various insurance companies, or one can choose to be ``self-insured''. However, the ``Social Insurance Program'' that is designated ``Social Security'' is a system into which employed persons must pay, to the government, whether or not they wish to do so. You have no choice. Thus it is a tax. (A rose by any other name...)
But, if you would briefly put aside your desire to belittle the members of this forum, perhaps we can hammer out something useful. Notice that I did not, as some would desire, suggest that the Social Security System be eliminated. I suggested that it be revised, so that those who would like to make use of their own Social Security benefits prior to retirement be allowed to do so, with the stipulation that they pay it back, with interest.
You say that this idea would end up with more homeless out on the street. But you don't admit that the way the system works now cannot repay me what I pay into it. Why do I say that? Well, just do the cash balance: I pay in, but before I get to draw anything out, the current Social Security funds I am paying in are being used to support people who never paid into the system, such as the children of deadbeat dads, etc. Thus, overall, more is being paid out of the SS System than is being paid in. Now, I do not advocate leaving those children out of the system, or anyone else, for that matter (except possibly the ``deadbeat dads'', etc, who should not benefit from their choice to abrogate their own personal and social responsibilities).
Perhaps you like the Social Security System the way that it is? If so, then say so, but this would mean, I guess, that you really do not want Unity08 to include in its platform a resolution on a way to change the Social Security System. If that is your position, then make yourself plainly heard, and remove from your responses the epithets you callously toss at anyone who says something you disagree with.
If you want a discussion about a platform.. then esytablish seperate treads fo a limited number of issues.... I have worked and managed campaigns for 47 years,yes I was paid at age 12....
I have learned that issues should be linited to five in a speech... so the candidate can use his/her fingers to speak off the cuff about them...
The 2024 issues will be
1. Immigration
2. Out of Federal spending
and the deficit.
3. Iraq, Iran, North Korea and
terrorism...
4 Economy and raising the
minimun wage
5 Principled Leadership for
America
If a platform is desired .. then let the committes be organized on each...
I would be happy to work on any issue.. as long as the group sticks to that issue.....
Sooner, yep. Though we evidentally are shooting for an agenda not a platform (not being a party) and the agenda sounds like it is some sort of list we'd like the potential tickets to address and not specific ideas, it is evolving.
I guess your rule "that issues should be linited to five in a speech" doesn't apply here. If it weren't for some young ladies wearing sandals I would have lost count of all the issues in your issues.
If I look at just the basics:
1. Immigration
2. Out of control Federal spending
and the deficit.
3. Iraq, Iran, North Korea
4 Economy
5 Principled Leadership for
America
I definitely see a need for new leadership.
That's a 5 plank agenda I could get behind. Simple, concise, and the right kind of issues.
Even something relatively simple like "Immigration" should look at:
H1B visas
Legal immigration
Illegal Immigration
Still there are issues with all of those and this was a simple issue.
Concise: Expressing much in few words; clear and succinct.
5 planks meaning what?
I am pro immigrant but I'd cap the H1B visas and I'd get tough on illegal immigrants so some would say I am anti-immigrant.
I wouldn't raise the minimum wage but I would increase the standard deduction so I would probably lose on his "4 Economy and raising the
minimun wage." Yet the economy is far more diverse than that.
Issue:
Political
Social
Domestic
International
Now I have a concise agenda too.
I know its very fashionable to take some one's thoughta and twist the original meaning....
My point was that you could stress five issues in a bullet like format.. This "agenda " would naturally have the broad support of the unity group...
But as has been pointed out to me .. would not be supported by the extreme right or left...
To imply that my five point issue comment is really more does not address the issue of a clear concise message...
Secondlymy reson for stating five was announced... that off the cuff speeaches the candidate camn readily count them off...
Yo want the voters interested enough to ask questions...
For instances lets take immigration, there are actually 11 sub issues that most organizations address on immigration....
Lets supposed a candidate says they will address immigration as a national security issue.... but also that legal immigration should be encouraged..
That statement covers the entire range of immigration support... one can be for the wall, guest worker program and even penalizing businesses who hire illegal workers.
I could go on each issue this way..... Thats the need for a clear concise message... that also allows alll that are dis satisfied to find a party that supports their views..
Obviously there will be issues on the agenda that the online convention will be divided on...
The most logical course of action is to let the candidate make that decision.... You are not going to find a credible national candidate who agrees with each position....
Maybe if one takes a step back, reflects within for a moment on what resonates, one can generate improved vision. The right vision can win over others, but more importantly helps oneself.
SECURITY. Secure borders, secure ports, secure privacy, secure future: pensions/social security, secure cities, secure employment, secure sources of energy, secure healthcare: secure person and property.
A RISING TIDE THAT LIFTS ALL BOATS:
Improving education, health, rising income, decreasing debt, decreasing deficits, better jobs, cleaner air, cleaner water, life getting steadily better.
A SENSE OF COMMUNITY: fairness, fair play, integrity, honesty, shared sacrifice and shared credit, civility, rehabiliation, teamwork, nonpartisanship, good grace and civilized discourse; friendliness and harmony on the street, at work, home, in the media.
A prosperous civil society free of fear and full of optimism for the future.
Maybe it is not as hard as some people make it out to be. Maybe it is a lot harder than some other people say it will be. Maybe much of it depends upon one's own internal landscape: reduced wants, fears, needs.
Vision is like a lens that helps you see detail more clearly. When you look through the lens, perhaps you notice when someone is trying to make you more fearful rather than more secure, less civil and less tolerant rather than more cordial and influential, less hopeful and more resigned to paths that seem to go nowhere near where you want to head.
Small steps in the right direction outpace bounding leaps from side to side.
When in opposition to someone, some group, some viewpoint, take a moment to imagine standing in their shoes. Looking through the lens, standing in their shoes, is there a common way forward? Perhaps if this is offered rather than bolstering one's position, a sense of forward movement will be attained.
It is less about where you are than it is about where you are headed. Sometimes giving something up lightens one's burden. The things you own also own you. I realize this every time I mow my lawn, walk my dogs, collect my paycheck, and pay my taxes.
Here is the official Unity stance on issues. Not sure why anyone is suggesting anything different. Notice that immigration is not listed as a critical issue.
From the "About" page: (I added the numbering)
"In our opinion, Crucial Issues include:
1. Global terrorism,
2. our national debt,
3. our dependence on foreign oil,
4. the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies,
5. nuclear proliferation,
6. global climate change,
7. the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system,
8. the education of our young,
9. the health care of all,
10. and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.
By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda."
For one thing they were based on a couple of polls in which fully half of the responses were internet based. That's known as 'self selection' and is not a reliable indicator. In other polls including one Time poll, 'Immigration" is the primary concern of most people.
U08 should be taking weekly telephone polls to track what people are really concerned about. And dump the internet polls, they're too easiiy skewed. Frankly I'm suspicious of the poll results that Unity got. They're just too in line with want Unity itself would want.
But hey, they paid for the poll so it ought to reflect their views, right?
Well, let's twig this for a second: it's their site. It's their organization. It's their set of goals that we have voluntarily joined.
The FAQ states the set of issues that are important to the founder of Unity. When the FAQ is updated then we'll have a new set of issues, maybe.
But as long as the FAQ states the important issues on a site owned by a small number of people then you and I have nothing to say about it. This isn't a government owned site. It's not ours. It's theirs.
If they're ever going to get 20 million voters or even close to that number, the issues are going to have to be ones those people are passionate about. Immigration is one such issue yet it didn't appear on Unity08's radar when this site started.
Yet now Unity08 has put one of those "Pick" stars next to the Immigration discussion. And they're asking people to "Suggest an Issue." They're learning as they go along, and changing to fit the concerns of the voter population they want to reach.
It's more like carved in wet cement than stone.
.
"2 writers. 2 lists. 1 goal. Will they Mesh?" ... That's my subject. What does it point to?
The writer is Commonsense.
His List is:
1. Global terrorism
2. National debt
3a. Burning fossil fuels
3b. Energy Independence
4. India and China in the Future
5a. Nuclear Proliferation
5b. Nuclear Accident
6. Global Climate Change
7. Corruption in Washington
8. Education
9. Universal Health Care
10. American Dream in Danger
.
The writer is Thought.
His BIG PICTURE List is:
1. SECURITY, national, personal
2. RISING TIDE to lift all boats
3. COMMUNITY, not just ME-FIRST
4. OPTIMISM, not cynicism or pessimism
.
The GOAL of both lists is to UNITE America -- lest we all "hang separately", at the end of a rope of our own design -- a design that FAILED to unite a people and a nation that would secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Will we pull it off? These many voices, talking to ourselves, not yet well equipped for fruitful conversation?
John Gelles
Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
No platform means no concensus on the major issues.... if we all can't agree on the most basic issues, why are we here??
Jon,
Simple answer this is NOT a political party. It is not even a political movement seeking to enact a set of legislation or support a view of government.
1. One View: Unity 08 has the purpose of providing a reality jolt to the parties in order to move them to the center. The ticket of one R & one D cannot possibly win even in the wildest projections of Unity 08 growth but it can have an effect. This view leaves open the vague possibility, probably to quiet the crowd, that it might become a party. As part of this approach all there is, is an angenda which is a list of things we'd like each potential ticket to address in their pitch to us as delegates. (The views here are so diverse that any ticket that wins will almost certainly split the movement with voters staying home or returnin gto their respective parties like beaten dogs).
2. More cynical view: Unity 08 serves several purposes
a. A vehicle to vent political rage
b. A huge money maker for the movement's president who owns the web development company that will manage this huge e-convention, plus will be a huge mention in his companies portfolio.
c. A lesser money maker for the paid interns but then again better than working fast food or unpaid internship at some ideological think tank.
d. A way to build voter registration and voting lists which will benefit various groups.
e. A home for political junkies like us.
f. A front activity for several non-partisan but highly ideological organizations that could use if for recruirment and fundraising not to mention just the fun of poking the larger system.
3. Oh and you do get a cool bumper sticker!
vry,
RET
Re:Crazy & our Existentialist Political Movement
SATXRick on July 18, 2024 - 9:08pm
SATXRICK, Your very astute. That's exactly my take as well. Except to add perhaps one more;
g. Resume builder for some college aged revolutionaries wanna be's.
I like the donation part. A first class money grabber if i ever saw one.
.
SATXRick says what we recognize as truth: knocking heads together to bring American politics in from the extremes to a less divisive center is our primary attainable goal.
But to deliver such a knock would require exponential growth in Unity's numbers. And to get such growth might well require that we here be less divided -- to enable ourselves to concentrate on so narrow and uncertain a goal.
Is centrism really a thing you can want? Or is it a condition that exists in "uninteresting times".
Jonathan offers a more seductive thought:"No platform means no consensus on the major issues.... if we all can't agree on the most basic issues, why are we here??"
Johathan says it the way we want to hear it: there are issues in which a heavy investment of emotional reserves is worth the risk of losing out to the idiots not on our side.
If we can't play that foolish game, why are we here?
SATXRick admits this too -- and let's it go with a lable: political junkies welcome.
Realists back off from fruitless work like this. They watch the better polls and accept the God-awful fact that it is an imperfect world.
The movie "Network" had all this quite a long time ago. It said to hang out your city window and scream disappointment to your neighbors.
What with all these desktop terminals, why not scream it at the web?
"Network's" writers knew constructive criticism was what you try to do in school -- it's not something we do in politics. Who has the wit to be constructive? Who has the wit to recognize it -- to know if it's even possible?
.
John Gelles
Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
First chance I've had to see this thread - will go back to the front after posting. Am I to discern from this thread that the "platform/agenda" of Unity08 is already selected? If so, why not post it in bold type on the front page so that visitors can decide whether they're in or out? If not, what in the world is this thread about?...
Ok, now that I went back to the front page and read what's there, I am content that (a) the agenda/platform hasn't been set, or (b) its being kept under wraps. Which is it?
I did find the following:
"Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.
In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.
By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda."
I wholeheartedly agree that Unity08 shouldn't bother itself with what it terms "important/not crucial" issues such as gay marriage, gun control, etc. It should in fact avoid any contentious issues which are more likely to generate conflict than unity. Or change its name...
To that end, I concur with the aformentioneioned "Crucial issues" with the following caveats:
The problem isn't Washington lobbying, but private money in our electoral process (read campaign finance reform/public financing.) The fact that lobbyists do it more brazenly is simply a matter of scope and scale. So long as candidates seek re-election (read term limits) and election campaigns require private money, the money will find its way in. This is 100 percent analagous to the so called "drug war," which we haven't won and will never win so long as there is a demand. Add to the menu fully automated computerized redistricting to end the practice of those in power drawing districts solely for the purpose of being challenge-proof, thus ensuring re-election and a steady flow of campaign funds and other goodies from those seeking access and influence (read Tom DeLay & Jack Abramoff.)...
My second caveat regards the last item, the "American Dream." It is pablum, and should be stricken. For some the American dream is private home ownership, while for others its to get out from under the grasp of parasitic mortgage lenders. For some it is a retirement home in Aspen, while for others simply a secure shelter free from drive-by shootings. For some its the freedom to practice their faith openly and loudly, while for others its freedom from the incessant harangues of religious proseletyzers. A "plank that has no clearly articulable meaning should not be included.
What say you all?
Didn't mean for that last to be anonymous, and I know this isn't the venue - but I sure wish Unity08 wouldn't allow anonymous postings - can't really see the need or use and I'm sure many have oopsed as I just did who would gladly have self-identified if reminded...
Lets start this off right with some rational and thoughtful platform positions. Things such as:
1. Immigration and globilaztion helps us all, lets drop barriers.
2. Education: for any people to succeed in the new flattening world, education is vital. Lets find a way to encourage excellence in education, particularly math and the sciences. Multiple languages should also be a priority.
3. Federal term limits. How about a constitutional amendment limiting Federal Elected Office to a cumulative total of 16 years during any one individual's life?
These are just ideas, but why not -- and what alternatives do you have?