https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Ripened_Warm_Tomato_Party

Socially Liberal (For semi-conservative reasons, I just don't think the government should legislate culture and inhibit anyone's free will for non-violent things)

Economy- I believe utilities such as Water, Energy, and Heating should be government run like socialism. But luxury items should be run privately run. Also I believe in very heavy import taxes and extremely low taxes on products produced in the United States.

Education: Federal standards (very clear benchmarks for what a 8th grade student should know before entering High School and what a High School graduate should know before life.) but states should legislate how to reach those standards.

Foreign Policy: very active america in conflicts, mainly trying to prevent conflicts through diplomacy and maybe even the occasional threat of military force. but military force should always be a last resort.

Immigration: Very simple path to citizenship. extremely simple. almost non-existent. sole purpose is to try to control of rate at which people enter.

Environment: Policies should try to help lessen our impact on the environment but not at the detriment of our economy.

These issues rank:
Education, Economy, Foreign Policy, Social Liberalism, Environment, Immigration

By the way I am american

Democratic Party roughly matches your views. Certainly more than the GOP or fringe parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party

lol damn hippy.

State?

immigration extremely simple. almost non-existent. rip. rip USA.

I kinda agree however I just feel I want the things democrats want but not for the same reasons. I dont know if I am making sense here. but for example. I believe gay-marriage should be legal. not because of anything other than I dont want the federal government regulating peoples sex lives, love lives, or choices. but I talk to democrats who give me a spiel about human rights, and then I say the word choice and they say "being gay isn't a choice, how dare you.. ya da ya da ya da..." I just sit there thinking "but I agreed with you, does it matter if I said choice or not choice, or whatever?" Or when it comes to minimum wage. I do't believe they should be raised I believe fewer restrictions and lower minimums will improve our economy by providing more jobs, less unemployment and thus more income tax and less crime. while a democrat will shout from the rooftops about living wages. I work for a restaurant right now. I started at minimum wage and got a 1$ raise within 30 days. I get it, low wage is hard living but that why i go to work every day and bust my ass to show im worth more. a democrat doesnt agree with that. I feel that I am extremely conservative about the economy just not about those few very socialist ideas I have.

"Economy- I believe utilities such as Water, Energy, and Heating should be government run like socialism. But luxury items should be run privately run. Also I believe in very heavy import taxes and extremely low taxes on products produced in the United States. "

How about a socialist-market hybrid. The state builds and owns the infrastructure, then rents it out to private companies who use the infrastructure to sell directly to consumers.

And if you want the consumers to have a right to, say water, include a basic income provision to pay for their water costs. (You still get lots of benefits of market system, despite this being very socialist)

Pennsllyvania btw

Yeah I still think you're on the Democratic side. You oppose minimum wage but basically are Democratic leaning on every other economic issue. Republicans are much more pro-free trade as a whole than Dems. Republicans would not stand for state control of utilities. And it doesn't really matter your negative vs positive liberal reasoning for being on the left on culture war issues. The Repugs are still not going to side with you.

@Ora- I can see my liking that but not nearly as much as a system in which the water, energy, heating and possibly healthcare are all just included in your taxes and no one goes without, while companies compete instead to sell you different brands of bread. I feel the cost of all those necessities would go down if the government ran them and everyone voted more often; because then politicians would try to run those areas of government as low cost as possible to show to constituents like a badge of honor to get re-elected. If my taxes go up because my electricity isn't being run efficently I know to find out why and boot my rep.

You're not going to do well with any of the major parties. Republicans and the Constitution Party are generally socially conservative. Libertarians are non-interventionist. Democrats aren't all that interested in replacing taxes with tariffs. For a moment I thought the Green Party might suit you, but (a) they're quite happy to extend federal control over education policy and (b) you probably disagree with them over whether their proposed environmental policies would be to the detriment of our economy. This isn't a comprehensive list on policies on which you disagree with the major parties, just points off the top of my head.

FWIW: does Common Core meet your criteria for education or not?
http://www.corestandards.org/

@"I do't believe they should be raised I believe fewer restrictions and lower minimums will improve our economy by providing more jobs, less unemployment and thus more income tax and less crime. "

You're crazy, lower income jobs would each pay less tax - not much net increase. Lower minimum wage workers would still live in poverty - not much crime reduction.
Lower income jobs for current employees would decrease their spending - negative effect on the economy.
Less unemployment but more poverty would help no-one.

The poor can't afford to pay taxes, as you can't get blood from a stone.

Federally mandated $15 minimum wage is a way better policy for social and economic reasons.

@putin- thats why i was wondering if there were some small moderate gaggle of like 20 people or so who I could wear a sticker for lol. reps don;t like my ideas. Dems dont like some of my ideas, and disagree with me on why the things we agree on should be the way they are.

Go for the classic Monster Raving Loony Party.

Dems are big enough tent it doesn't matter. Your views are not ideologically consistent enough to have a small party represent you exactly. Honestly you'd probably fit in just fine with a Ross Perot/1990s version of Donald Trump style Reform Party, but they don't exist anymore.

@ora- I've heard the arguments and I still look at from the numbers perspective (and a small bit of background from working for small family businesses who are hurt drastically when minimum wage increases) when the wage increases businesses cut employees to maintain profit, once they hit the lowest number of employees they can function with (which btw just makes work enviorments stressful) they raise prices until they are back to the profits of before. Then when all the prices go up, the living wage increases and people ask for even higher wages, it's a cycle. Bill Clinton said the best social welfare program is a job. I think if there was a higher number of jobs than workers or a close to equal number than companies would raise wages to compete for the best employees. wages would eventually raise out of competitive desire, My job is about to offer me another raise because the competing restaurant has offered me 1$ more than my current job, they found out when i talked to them about limiting my availability in the coming weeks they asked "how much more are they paying, we will match it, or go higher."

@Leth- my spouse is studying to be a teacher, she doesnt like the level of control on the teachers common core puts down. To me I think a system in which the federal government said students need to know X, Y, Z by 8th grade and then let the state, district and eventually the teachers decide how to get there is the best system. of course with oversight, teachers need to show that every year they have consistent improvement in student performance. Common Core is too much for my liking, not enough flexibility for teachers to teach, and also the common core system makes it harder for parents to continue education at home.

@leth- they don't use Common Core in Kazakhstan, yet I believe they still out perform us (correct me if I am wrong last time a checked our ranking was like 2 years ago).

Look my solution is a universal basic income, which massively drives ip the cost of employing people in crappy service jobs that they don't want, and cut the cost of employing creative people who love their work.

It also ends poverty, and pushes for automation of millions of service jobs....

The world economy does not evenly distribute wealth, and is not designed to. So you can either decide to take care of people, or facilitate their exploitation.... I know which side i'm on. (Also, neither the democrats nor the republicans would be one party if they were in europe, just look at the mess of 9+ parties in the Irish election, far more variety and likelihood of finding a party you agree with)

Common Core is *only* a set of standards.

Common Core is good. Change is hard. Implementation has been bad in many places.

Maybe ora answered my question the best just now. I should start my own party and try to tear down the establishment, look at trump he seems to be doing great with that at his helm. I would just do it without degrading women and spitting toxic venom on every minority in America.

You didn't make outperforming Kazakhstan part of your platform. Naturally I didn't ask about it. Besides, my own reservations about Common Core aside, it's only been in place for a few years, so it's unlikely that it has had a first-order impact on our educational ranking yet. I agree the argument could be made that it's overly specific and therefore overly restrictive.

So if it is only a set of standards why are teachers expected to teach material in very specific ways? I should clarify that to me what matters more is that students know how to come to an answer, and teachers should be capable of teaching most or all ways of solving a problem. Every student is different, some students are excelling under Common Cores standards because thats just how their minds work out the problem naturally, but others are struggling and find methods like counting on fingers and not rounding before subtracting then really subtracting more efficient. I personally like the common core strategy for math; its how my mind works but what works for me doesnt work for everyone. What matters when you enter society and start working isn't how you figured out 2+2=4 but that you have an answer that is correct and passed it up to your boss. Right now the current Common Core wants students to take a problem like 234 + 527 and break it down into 200 + 500 + 30 +20 + 4 + 7 = 761. which is fine. but what if a student prefers and finds it easier to add using the former carry method? 4 + 7 = 11 so thats 1 and you carry the 1. now it's 1 + 3+ 2 = 6. Great. Now 2 + 5 = 7. I just think a student shoudn't be marked down for not getting the answer the right way, but should be praised for figuring it out.

There's this weird notion in bourgeois politics that you must agree with a party or candidate 100% of the time. This isn't realistic. The fractured political systems of Europe aren't exactly fantastic models. Coalition politics leads to shady decision-making. Few of the Lib Dem voters expected their leadership would sell them out to the Tories in the UK. You still need to compromise even if you have more parties. The optimal system is a two party parliamentary system. It avoids the gridlock of presidential style divided governments and avoids the frequent elections and shifting, unaccountable nature of coalition politics.

I think I would be a ton happier if the Byronian Party became america's third party. just saying that Commander Byron has some pretty good policies with mixed tactics and whether you agree or not he can articulate why he believes what he does. Byron 2016 everyone.

"the common core strategy for math"

Wait, hang on. There isn't a "Common Core strategy for math". If that's how Common Core is being presented, that sounds like an implementation issue.