Org Mobile Site
Thread: poll: Dem., Rep., Indie., none?
which U.S. political party do you belong to? you dont have to post your opinions if you dont want too, and please dont say anything that may start a flame war, then this would be shut down and i will be sad.
Independent. Always have been. Now it's not so bad, but in New York it was a real pain, since Independents were forbidden from voting in primaries. Since so many NYC elections were determined in the primaries, this meant I really didn't have a vote.
Nobody's got love for the Indies.
Nobody's got love for the Indies.
I consider myself a 'citizen of the Universe'. LOL
I'm a moderate Republican. I support a majority of their positions, but some I just don't agree with (stem cells, cloning)
I'm a moderate Republican. I support a majority of their positions, but some I just don't agree with (stem cells, cloning)
If I was a U.S. citizen, I would stay away from the party system. Moderation (only in politics, not in drink) is the most intelligent way to go, for one is never bound by party allegiance, only by one's concious.
In US i would be independent.Here im moderate.And ofcourse everybody hates moderates in US so i put it there for all of you people.You have two party system with two right wing parties.Nothing to choose in that system.
Did you say
Wow, lets see
Democrats-Homosexuality
Republicans-Heterosexuality
Democrats-Left
Republicans-Right
American politics were moderates, with a few extremes. Now, its going a little more extreme. The problem before was that the 2-party system usually absorbed the moderate ideas, preventing a large 3rd party. I'm not saying it won't occur (1850's and Republicans is an excellent example) but it'll take some major work to achieve.
I'm going on a semi-tangent rant here on Orson Scott Cards book EMPIRE. I thought it was an excellent book about what can happen when you identify yourself with a party and are forced into their political realm, and you have to agree with everything they say.
In America, your can't really be an independent (you can, along with every other party available) but there are mostly Democrats and Republicans. There are a minority, but they are that, a minority.
Most Americans tend to gravitate to one party or the other, whether due to the parties gravitas, their policies, or promises. Thats why the Democrats were sent into Congress. To 'clean house' of the Republicans and their policies. However, they screwed it up (no fiscal budget for the government aside from Defense and Homeland security). I'm thinking that the independants should all band together because the Democrats and Republicans are both nincompoots (don't care about spelling). It won't happen though, at least not yet.
However, you can vote for whoever you want to, but it does tend to be more party than individual driven.
My Rant, I'm so proud.
Originally Posted by :
two right wing parties
You did. two right wing parties
Wow, lets see
Democrats-Homosexuality
Republicans-Heterosexuality
Democrats-Left
Republicans-Right
American politics were moderates, with a few extremes. Now, its going a little more extreme. The problem before was that the 2-party system usually absorbed the moderate ideas, preventing a large 3rd party. I'm not saying it won't occur (1850's and Republicans is an excellent example) but it'll take some major work to achieve.
I'm going on a semi-tangent rant here on Orson Scott Cards book EMPIRE. I thought it was an excellent book about what can happen when you identify yourself with a party and are forced into their political realm, and you have to agree with everything they say.
In America, your can't really be an independent (you can, along with every other party available) but there are mostly Democrats and Republicans. There are a minority, but they are that, a minority.
Most Americans tend to gravitate to one party or the other, whether due to the parties gravitas, their policies, or promises. Thats why the Democrats were sent into Congress. To 'clean house' of the Republicans and their policies. However, they screwed it up (no fiscal budget for the government aside from Defense and Homeland security). I'm thinking that the independants should all band together because the Democrats and Republicans are both nincompoots (don't care about spelling). It won't happen though, at least not yet.
However, you can vote for whoever you want to, but it does tend to be more party than individual driven.
My Rant, I'm so proud.
Independant. As a whole, the other two parties have serious lackings. But, they complete each other.
I'm Republican because the Republican Party best represents my views. I do not hold with them on everything, but a lot more than I do with Democrats. The problem I see with the 2-Party system is that everyone votes for their party canidate, if he's the scum of the earth or not! I am Republican, but there have been times I voted Democrat, and there may still be more (Say if McCain runs for President on the Republican ticket...unless Hillary or Fiengold run against him. I think even McCain would be better than tose two :D). That is why the founding fathers were so against the party system (that and that it would bring in foriegn influence - which it did...wonder where Bill Clinton got all him campaign money? Other countries wanted him elected. That should tell you something, if it is in another country's best interests for a canidate to be elected, it probably isn't in the US's. Don't want to start a debate about 'Monica-boy' here, just something to think about...). The party system is a pretty stupid idea since people vote along their party lines instead of how their concience tells them to. But yes, out of the two, I would be a Republican.
If I were a USA citizen, I'd probably vote for independents most of the time, but I'd review my choice on a case-by-case basis. I hold mixed right/left views, so both the Republicans and Democrats could occasionally field candidates that are palatable to me.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
That is why the founding fathers were so against the party system (that and that it would bring in foriegn influence - which it did...wonder where Bill Clinton got all him campaign money? Other countries wanted him elected. That should tell you something, if it is in another country's best interests for a canidate to be elected, it probably isn't in the US's. Don't want to start a debate about 'Monica-boy' here, just something to think about...). The party system is a pretty stupid idea since people vote along their party lines instead of how their concience tells them to. But yes, out of the two, I would be a Republican.
Clinton used foreign money for his election campaigns? Last time the USA had fairly strict regulations on that, even before McCains party finance reform. During the 2004 elections, I read that Dutch journalists who were attending fundraiser events could enter for free, unlike US citizens, because foreigners weren't legally allowed to contribute to either candidate.That is why the founding fathers were so against the party system (that and that it would bring in foriegn influence - which it did...wonder where Bill Clinton got all him campaign money? Other countries wanted him elected. That should tell you something, if it is in another country's best interests for a canidate to be elected, it probably isn't in the US's. Don't want to start a debate about 'Monica-boy' here, just something to think about...). The party system is a pretty stupid idea since people vote along their party lines instead of how their concience tells them to. But yes, out of the two, I would be a Republican.
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat:
Democrats-Homosexuality
Republicans-Heterosexuality
Oh please, go tell it to Ted Haggard, Lynn Cheney and Ken Mehlman. If you want a longer list, I can certainly oblige. On the subject of sexuality, I would put it thus:Democrats-Homosexuality
Republicans-Heterosexuality
Republicans: Closet tolerants who attack gays during election years (see Bush, Rice, etc.) and closeted self-hating gay men who attack homosexuals all year long (see Haggard, Mehlman, etc.)
Democrats: No coherent position.
I'll take the incoherent over the hypocritical and self-hating any day of the week.
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat:
I'm going on a semi-tangent rant here on Orson Scott Cards book EMPIRE. I thought it was an excellent book about what can happen when you identify yourself with a party and are forced into their political realm, and you have to agree with everything they say.
I'm old enough to remember when Orson Scott Card was one of the best writers in America. Read Ender's Game, and then read anything he's written in the last ten years. You would swear it was a different author. And not a better one.I'm going on a semi-tangent rant here on Orson Scott Cards book EMPIRE. I thought it was an excellent book about what can happen when you identify yourself with a party and are forced into their political realm, and you have to agree with everything they say.
His take on politics and human nature has gotten so simplified and two-dimensional that the word "caricature" is a kindness. The thing that bothers me more than anything about his current prose -- everybody always communicates perfectly. No misunderstandings, no misdirection, just cut-out characters speaking Absolute Truth to each other. In long, long speeches that go nowhere.
Ugh. The devolution of OSC is a sore point with the lemur. He had so much promise ...
I'll start a different thread for that.
Lemur:
When did Dr. Rice attack homosexuals?
When did Dr. Rice attack homosexuals?
Originally Posted by Lemur:
...Democrats: No coherent position....
Leave it to the Lemur to summarize a political party in one neat phrase....Democrats: No coherent position....
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma:
When did Dr. Rice attack homosexuals?
Never. In fact, she is on record as being very supportive of transgendered staff while at Stanford. She is rather more tolerant than the average American. Likewise, Laura Bush is known to be kind and tolerant to gay staff. And El Presidente himself is on record being kind, supportive and understanding to gay couples.When did Dr. Rice attack homosexuals?
Which makes the every-two-year saber rattling about the evils of the homosexual agenda and the Assault On Marriage rhetoric even more amusing. I suspect that the Religious Right is catching on to how thoroughly it has been duped.
If I lived in the US I would be a moderate Republican.
There is no party that matches my position on assorted issues, and I often change my mind or get more or less convinced of my position on issues as I hear new information or points from the other side, so I try to choose on a case-by-case basis instead of subscribing to any party line. Unfortunately, since I don't focus enough on politics to know most individual candidates' positions or ideals, and since most of what they publish is meaningless platitudes, I don't consider myself able to vote intelligently.
Ajax
edit: as an aside, a friend and I have talked about gathering signatures to start an 'Imperialist' party by the next local elections for kicks and giggles, and apparently one of the teachers at my school, after hearing about the success of the 'Individual Choice' party in the last elections (which gained many more votes than expected from people who mistakenly thought they needed to click on it to choose candidates individually), is considering starting a 'Click here to continue' party.
Ajax
edit: as an aside, a friend and I have talked about gathering signatures to start an 'Imperialist' party by the next local elections for kicks and giggles, and apparently one of the teachers at my school, after hearing about the success of the 'Individual Choice' party in the last elections (which gained many more votes than expected from people who mistakenly thought they needed to click on it to choose candidates individually), is considering starting a 'Click here to continue' party.
None.
Voting and politics suck and are useless. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, what significant difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Go out with you friends on election day.
Voting and politics suck and are useless. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, what significant difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Go out with you friends on election day.
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink:
Voting and politics suck and are useless. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, what significant difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Or as a particularly cynical friend of mine used to say, "If voting made a difference they'd outlaw it." I didn't agree, but I thought it was funny.Voting and politics suck and are useless. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, what significant difference between Democrats and Republicans?
I don't get the point of being registered "independent"- particularly in states where you can only vote in primaries for the party you're registered in. There's no binding commitment, you can change affiliation at will and you get to participated in primaries.... Seems like a big trade-off just to be able to claim you're "above" party politics. 
Hell, I've considered registering Democrat so I could try to help keep their next nominee from being another total ass-clown. At least when there are no particularly appealing Republicans in the running, I could try to keep the most unsavory Dem from getting the nod.
Hell, I've considered registering Democrat so I could try to help keep their next nominee from being another total ass-clown. At least when there are no particularly appealing Republicans in the running, I could try to keep the most unsavory Dem from getting the nod.
Personally, I would rather have officials know that there's one more registered independent. They do look at these things.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
I am Republican, but there have been times I voted Democrat, and there may still be more (Say if McCain runs for President on the Republican ticket...
LOL, same for me! Except the exact opposite. lolI am Republican, but there have been times I voted Democrat, and there may still be more (Say if McCain runs for President on the Republican ticket...
In other words, I really like McCain. Perhaps he's a Democratic spy? Most moderate dems like myself really like him. I really really really wish he'd have won the primary back in 2000. The ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals should never ever ever have control of this country. Unfortunately, we haven't had a moderate president since, who? Johnson? Coolage?
Originally Posted by :
Democrats-Left
Republicans-Right
I've often wondered how are the democrats left, they're liberals mostly aren't they? As far as I know liberalism is most often center or center-right...Democrats-Left
Republicans-Right
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Or as a particularly cynical friend of mine used to say, "If voting made a difference they'd outlaw it." I didn't agree, but I thought it was funny.
Voting (in political elections) is the opiate of the masses. Or as a particularly cynical friend of mine used to say, "If voting made a difference they'd outlaw it." I didn't agree, but I thought it was funny.
By the way, not all voting is bad...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In8UZ4ZFg7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wMzSbFQ5x4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0ZTcPnMIo
I love Lidstrom, but if this guy starts the All Star game, the novelty will make up for it.
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan:
I've often wondered how are the democrats left, they're liberals mostly aren't they? As far as I know liberalism is most often center or center-right...
In US, the term liberalism has evolved to mean something completely else.I've often wondered how are the democrats left, they're liberals mostly aren't they? As far as I know liberalism is most often center or center-right...
When a European says liberal, he means: free market, investment friendly policies, limited social security, neutral or supportive of gay rights, abortion etc.
The last one is the only thing they have in common with "liberals" in the US, who have a reputation of supporting increases on social security and higher taxes.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
In US, the term liberalism has evolved to mean something completely else.
When a European says liberal, he means: free market, investment friendly policies, limited social security, neutral or supportive of gay rights, abortion etc.
The last one is the only thing they have in common with "liberals" in the US, who have a reputation of supporting increases on social security and higher taxes.
Well, if you think of it in the terms of the US being founded as a small government, free market country then it makes more sense since most conservatives are in favor of keeping that tradition. OTOH, liberals can be seen as generally in favor of increased social services and bigger government- which would be a departure from our past, thus liberal.In US, the term liberalism has evolved to mean something completely else.
When a European says liberal, he means: free market, investment friendly policies, limited social security, neutral or supportive of gay rights, abortion etc.
The last one is the only thing they have in common with "liberals" in the US, who have a reputation of supporting increases on social security and higher taxes.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
OTOH, liberals can be seen as generally in favor of increased social services and bigger government- which would be a departure from our past, thus liberal.
Hrm, based on the past six years, I think the Republicans have decisively and triumphantly grabbed the "big government" crown from the Democrats. We'll see if the Dems can win it back by '08.OTOH, liberals can be seen as generally in favor of increased social services and bigger government- which would be a departure from our past, thus liberal.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Hrm, based on the past six years, I think the Republicans have decisively and triumphantly grabbed the "big government" crown from the Democrats. We'll see if the Dems can win it back by '08.
I have little doubt that they can pull it off- they've already got nice new programs and expenditures lined up with nary a word about what it'll cost or how to offset them. Combine that with a president who has apparently lost his veto pen and I like their odds. It'll be tough to beat the new Medicare entitlement, but have a little faith. Hrm, based on the past six years, I think the Republicans have decisively and triumphantly grabbed the "big government" crown from the Democrats. We'll see if the Dems can win it back by '08.
Originally Posted by Rameusb5:
LOL, same for me! Except the exact opposite. lol
In other words, I really like McCain. Perhaps he's a Democratic spy? Most moderate dems like myself really like him. I really really really wish he'd have won the primary back in 2000. The ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals should never ever ever have control of this country. Unfortunately, we haven't had a moderate president since, who? Johnson? Coolage?
LOL, same for me! Except the exact opposite. lol
In other words, I really like McCain. Perhaps he's a Democratic spy? Most moderate dems like myself really like him. I really really really wish he'd have won the primary back in 2000. The ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals should never ever ever have control of this country. Unfortunately, we haven't had a moderate president since, who? Johnson? Coolage?
McCain is an arse in the truest sense. He is antigun, antilife, antimarriage, and everything else in the world. He flip flops more than John Kerry ever did. If he gets elected both Republicans and Democrats had better look out.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Never. In fact, she is on record as being very supportive of transgendered staff while at Stanford. She is rather more tolerant than the average American. Likewise, Laura Bush is known to be kind and tolerant to gay staff. And El Presidente himself is on record being kind, supportive and understanding to gay couples.
Which makes the every-two-year saber rattling about the evils of the homosexual agenda and the Assault On Marriage rhetoric even more amusing. I suspect that the Religious Right is catching on to how thoroughly it has been duped.
Never. In fact, she is on record as being very supportive of transgendered staff while at Stanford. She is rather more tolerant than the average American. Likewise, Laura Bush is known to be kind and tolerant to gay staff. And El Presidente himself is on record being kind, supportive and understanding to gay couples.
Which makes the every-two-year saber rattling about the evils of the homosexual agenda and the Assault On Marriage rhetoric even more amusing. I suspect that the Religious Right is catching on to how thoroughly it has been duped.
Then why did you say this:
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Republicans: Closet tolerants who attack gays during election years (see Bush, Rice, etc.)
You are correct about Bush and other social conservatives, but lumping Rice in there was not exactly accurate.Republicans: Closet tolerants who attack gays during election years (see Bush, Rice, etc.)
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I have little doubt that they can pull it off- they've already got nice new programs and expenditures lined up with nary a word about what it'll cost or how to offset them. Combine that with a president who has apparently lost his veto pen and I like their odds. It'll be tough to beat the new Medicare entitlement, but have a little faith.
Funny, I don't think GW Bush was ever given his veto pen in the first place. Might have been part of the deal that made him the Rep's number one boy instead of McCain back in the 2000 election. I can still recall the 'WTF?!?' look on McCain's face the week GW got the nod. I have little doubt that they can pull it off- they've already got nice new programs and expenditures lined up with nary a word about what it'll cost or how to offset them. Combine that with a president who has apparently lost his veto pen and I like their odds. It'll be tough to beat the new Medicare entitlement, but have a little faith.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO