Jump to Navigation

Washington D.C.

Preserving American Freedom > Limiting the Expanse of Government Power > Washington D.C.
We oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.We strongly oppose making the District of Columbia a state.
Fault:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health > Protecting Our Children > Parental Rights and Responsibilities
We call for revisions to the Texas Family Code's Rights of Grandparent, Aunt, or Uncle subsection to only permit judgments against unfit parents.We believe that parental rights and responsibilities are inherent and protected by the United States Constitution. Local, state, or federal laws, regulations, or policies shall not be enacted that limit parental rights in the rearing of both biological and adopted children. The Party supports the Texas Parental Rights Restoration Act to amend this statute and restore the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would transfer jurisdiction over parental rights and responsibilities to international bureaucracies.
Reason:

A more direct plank will get the point across better.

The Parental Rights Restoration Act called for changes in the Family Code (link), so reworded to call for the changes instead of attaching hopes to a specific bill.

While the Convention on the Rights of the Child has legitimate criticism, the idea that it transfers jurisdiction to the UN is paranoid.

about a specific bill, wordy, paranoid

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments