[VUzgOhgv]

Praetor: I am going to start over with you, as I preceive I started off on the wrong tack.
First off, I have read your Falcolnist platform, and have already stated that I am strongly opposed to the majority of it, It also appears, considering the comments both here and especially on the thread you created to expose it, that nearly everyone agrees with me. I must say, that I am NOT interested in what "WE" (the Falconist platform) thinks, or what it's platform is. Nor would I be interested in the platform of the DRC or RNC.( or the platform of any other political party. I am however interested in what YOU individually beleive, and what your PERSONAL "INDIVIDUAL" political philosophy might be.
This is not, and was not intended as a platform, but rather as a sounding board to learn what various persons INDIVIDUALLY beleive, about my Ideas, and any ideas THEY wish to contribute. All this in hopes that jointly we might come up with a mini- Constitutional convention of our own that just perhaps other more influential persons might adopt, and/or support. Thus, I will answer anything that has already been introduced to this thread, but will not continue to address portions of your platform that are not germaine to this discussion. OK????
That being said, I will re-address certain parts of your previous posts, with more complete responses, and lastly, get to your latest post.
------------------------------------------------------------
Praeto POST 2quote)
The House will have its seats apportioned among the political parties on the basis of the percentage of the popular vote won by each party. . This defeats the whole purpose of the House of Reps, which is intended to provide representation of "EACH" area of the country (IE : one man/one vote).
The Senate would have its seats apportioned among all political parties in proportion to the percentage of states won by each party.Nearly Identical to the electorial college
.In both houses, bonus seats will be awarded to the party that has won the pluarity of votes as well as the Presidency Amongst other things, this smacks of totalitarianism . Further, You want to reward minor parties with additional clout, and then turn arround and want to reward the winning party with more clout. "Can you say controdictory""
------------------------------------------------------
Post 12, and parts I hadn't covered
We also like your idea of merging the federal services but keeping their missions intact. We proposed the same thing which included In some ways similar but definitely not the same.
Merging the Army and Marine Corps, Marines will still retain their uniforms, customs, division organization, and fighting style. Marines and Paratroopers will retain their identies. The new outfit will have command of all aircraft including strategic bombers hence the elimination of the Air Force. Nope, see my plan
Transfer control of all nuclear weapons to the Navy and allowing the Navy to retain its air arm. If such were necessary, it should be a separate agency under the Defense Depatrment.
Merging all the noncombat arms of the separate armed services into a single service support corps Nope, they should be part of the Army/Marines
Merging the ROTC and OCS programs of the separate armed services with specialization in air and naval operations after graduation [COLOR-"Blue"]Immaterial[/COLOR]
Replacing the separate departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force with a Joint Force Defense HQ run by the Minister of War Logicaly and basically what I have suggested.
Two systems of rank, Military and Naval Agreed but changed and simplified somewhat
One system of "Marine Corps" style boot camp for the entire military More or less
The military will be refered to as the US Defense Forces (USDF) OK
There will be a system of universal military training and mandatory national service for the American people Perhaps but limited
----------------------------------------
Post 15 A more complete answer to your questions in this post:
How does the Falconist Party platform take us back to the middle ages and feudal conditions?. Let me answer that with an analogy:
"The great King "Iwantit" from the far away country of "SoItakeit (DC)" exacts a tribute fron it's serfs (citizens of 20% of the citizens worth, and if they can't afford it, 20 percent of their property is confiscated and added to the King's treasury, and maybe even in the form of barrels of corn. and then, perhaps out of the goodness of his heart, he returns $2,000 to the peasant, in the form of Tax Credit.(Welfare). That sir is a good picture of Fuedalism
If anything, our party plans to take America and the world into the future with commitments to space exploration, rebuilding America, research and development, and manifest destiny Perhaps so, after robbing the people blind.

As for your plan for drawing Congressional districts, you still have the problem of the two-party oligarchy. Your political party wouldn't stand a chance in the winner take all system unless you incorporated preferential voting where you had multiple candidates and people selected a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Every 1st choice vote would equal 3 points, evenry 2nd choice vote would equal 2 points, every 3rd choice vote would equal 1 point. The candidates with the most points would win the election.
IMHOThis part of your plan is constructed out of whole cloth and conjecture. First of all, there is no present two-party system. At this point of time is two groups of people with the same priorities masqurading as two separate parties. This has nothing to do with redistricting, in that there would still be One person elected from each district.
Also, you seem to think I have a party. NOT SO, I beleive it will soon be on us that there will be a very small minority of Ultra-Conservatives, Likewise Ultra-Liberals, and the remainder will be made up of smaller political persuasions. Certainly, this would not help in a Presidential race, but then again, my plan does away with the presidential race by the public.
---------------------------------------------
Post17 The latest.
Why is giving minor parties a voice in Congress utter nonsense? Your system keeps the two party oligarchy in power. You want to talk feudalism, we already have it with the transnational corporations and the two-party oligarchy. Under our proposed system, we do away with gerrymandering, we give minor parties a say in government, and we give the "peasants" more of a voice in how laws are made. I have already answered that above

From what I re-read so far, it appears you want to impose the British system on America except the President is elected by the Parliament but performs the functions of the King and Prime Minister.Well I did say at the "offing"that my plan was a combo which included parlimantarianism

And the one-time assets tax of 14% we propose will fall on only those whose assets are worth $10 million or more and would only be levied once. The 20% Flat Income Tax will actually be progressive as since we include annual tax credits of $2000 per child, quite a few working families will not only get all their taxes refunded but may see an increase in income. I am totally opposed to any and all sorts of tax credits. They are nothing more than a diffrerent form of welfare Please note, I am not opposed to welfare, as needed, but let's call a Spade, a "SPADE"

However, were also debating whether or not to keep the flat tax. We may just scrap it and propose a progressive consumption tax. Why not "NO state tax?, make it all US ]/COLOR]

So you have no party to carry out your plan. Maybe you can sell it to either of the two political parties or sell it to an existing political party. COLOR-"Blue"]As stated earlier, It is a suggestive form of action. I have no intention of trying to "Sell" it to an existing party. That would be self-defeating.It's an interesting read though.

I like your idea for a State Law Enforcement Command for each state. Our party would call for State Police Chiefs (3-Stars) to have supreme command of all law enforcement, fire, and rescue units in a state with state police commanders (full-birds) in-charge of state police forces. County Sheriffs (2-Stars) would have command of all law enforcement and first responder forces in a county while a Undersheriff would command the Sheriff's Deputies. Municipal Police Forces would be under the command of local police chiefs (Majors-2 Star Generals depending on population). Fire and Rescue units will be under the command of local fire chiefs
Of course you had to screw it up by mis-reading it. In no way would I suggest combining the Police, and fire departments. At the present time, the fire departments in many areas won't enter an area until there is a police presence. Thus many things burn down which could have been saved. A better plan would be to allow the Fire Department to be armed, (and cut out the middleman.
I also notice that you seem to be obcessed with Generals. These are not, and should not be part of a Civilian enterprise.

The US Police Comissioner (Five Stars) would have supreme command of all law enforcement agencies in the nation while the USPF high command (all 4-star chiefs) will conduct the day-to-day operations of running the USPF NO WAY, Keep the Feds the Hell out of Civil law enforcemnt except in a supportive capacity.
This should cover everything up to now.
[COLOR='Red"]HEY, where's the rest of you people???[/COLOR]