My own political leanings

[Stormwarden]

I really don't waste much time calling myself conservative or liberal.

 

Both sides are usually so far skewed to one side that they overlook the simplest solutions to a problem. They are too busy, for instance deciding whether to pull out of Iraq, instead of making sure that proper management brings them back sooner or taking steps to improve supply chain.

 

The fact that Bush went off half-cocked into going into Iraq (faulty intelligence, poor planning, and worse execution of the invasion) doesn't change the fact that they are there all the same.

 

So how do I decide where my leanings are? By my conscience. And let me just say how much it sucks to be an independent in a polarized nation, where everyone thinks that I am independent because I haven't decided.

 

I have decided. I have looked at both parties, been in both parties, and I have the t-shirts to prove it. And you know what? They have both been sharing Washington so long they have grown complacent and stagnant. If it were up to me, I'd clear out both houses and start from scratch with a spending cap on elections (based on public office). It sickens me to see both sides so polarized that they gain the "You are for me or against me" attitude of the fundies!

 

Yes, you heard me. I declare that the two major parties of the US are no better than the fundamentalists or terrorists, especially since all of the above use fear as a weapon. Can't stop terrorism abroad by allowing it to happen here.

 

But to get back to the point of my post, I am basically an independent for the above reasons. The political parties just disgust me so completely that I have no reason to join them.

 

I am pro-gun, pro-choice (in the sense that no male should make that decision for a woman), more for a flat tax, anti-censorship, believe sword duels should be brought back, and anti-death penalty (about 2/3s of death penalty cases are found wrong post-mortem). I am also a believer in environmentalism and the forgiving of the stupid people

[Dianka]

I like to consider meself a swing voter. I am primarily a Dem., but if I ever found a Republican to campaign a better deal, I would have no problem voting across the party lines. Political affiliation should be left to politicians, and the people of this country should look at where the better deal lies be it Democratic or Republican.

 

Right on dude

[♦ nivek ♦]

I didn't leave the Repubicand, they left me.

 

Party of Goldwater and the limited powers, Constitutional aligned, separation of Branches, balanced Powers between the Tri-legged setup of Founders was co-opted long ago by those with an agenda far from what i can support.

 

Is easier for most of the sound_bytten sorts to describe myself as "Libertarian", however the modern Big-L's have succumbed to *party_poweritis*, thinking and practicing much the same as the JanusParty (same company, different faces) does.

 

I like chefranden's "anarchy", "Not a lack of rules, just a lack of Rulers".

 

We've allowed ourselves to become *us*, ruled by *them*. Willingly and ignorantly socially contracted, made in to little Payment_Number_Proles, pushed fearfully into pens and manhandled, examined, xrayed, inspected.

 

Seems that the fearsome anger and intelligence of the criminal classes and those wanting Freedom at any cost not too many centuries past has been bred out of *americans*, exchanged for for the world standardlessness of a generic *Citizen*.

 

As for me and mine? We'll raise a contentious little pain in the Proctor's ass Man. One who won't take to being bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated easily.

 

Hopefully someday a wave of intelligence and rationality will sweep across AmeriKa and the desire for Freedom for self and others will become paramount, despite Party and politics.

 

Until then, daFatman keeps loading Vetos, knowing that Ballistics Parties might come before rationality..

 

kL

[spamandham]

My vote would be for no more rulers as well.

 

People get so worked up over poltics and practically fight over who to vote for, without ever considering that their vote is irrelevant. Buying a lottery ticket is much lower cost than voting and has about the same odds of changing your life as does voting. Even if your vote decides the election, so what? Nothing's going to change.

 

Voting just encourages the bastards.

[Dianka]

My vote would be for no more rulers as well.

 

People get so worked up over poltics and practically fight over who to vote for, without ever considering that their vote is irrelevant. Buying a lottery ticket is much lower cost than voting and has about the same odds of changing your life as does voting. Even if your vote decides the election, so what? Nothing's going to change.

 

Voting just encourages the bastards.

 

But then what does not voting do??

[Stormwarden]

It keeps things stagnant, and we can't be having that. Thing is, isn't that what you get when the same two parties run things for over 100+ years?

 

"Darned if you don't, damned if you do."

[spamandham]

But then what does not voting do??

 

...saves you 20 minutes of actual vote time, plus however long it took you to become informed enough to feel it was worth that 20 minutes to vote, plus registration time. Most people who vote get wrapped up in politics all year 'round in an effort to "stay in the loop". If you enjoy that, then great. If you'd rather watch Seinfeld reruns or porn, then you're no worse off for blowing off election day.

 

Low voter turnout causes waves of fear in the politicians, because they know a radical minority then has a chance of winning. Let them eat chads.

[Dianka]

It keeps things stagnant, and we can't be having that. Thing is, isn't that what you get when the same two parties run things for over 100+ years?

 

"Darned if you don't, damned if you do."

 

Sure, I vote to change a few things, but really I vote to keep things the same. Usually social conflict raises the standards of our society (equal rights for minorities, woman's right to vote, etc.) but voting keeps them there. So I agree with you, voting does not revolutionize our way of life. However, it does maintain it.

[Prolix]

Most of the time, saying 'All the sides suck!' is a cop-out. It isn't when you actually believe that instead of just harping what others have said before (sorta like those people who make lawyer jokes but have never met a crooked lawyer).

 

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, but most of the time I just say I'm Libertarian to avoid the uninformed who say 'liek, you suppurt choas?'

 

(why are all my posts so short. ah well i don't talk much irl either)

[spamandham]

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, but most of the time I just say I'm Libertarian to avoid the uninformed who say 'liek, you suppurt choas?'

 

I usually just call myself a libertarian as well. Most people have no idea what anarcho-capitalism is, but it seems almost everyone equates anarchy with chaos. Anarcho-capitalism may be a fine term to use amongst those who know what it means, but for everyone else, "libertarian" makes more sense.

[All Gods Fail]

I didn't leave the Repubicand, they left me.

 

Party of Goldwater and the limited powers, Constitutional aligned, separation of Branches, balanced Powers between the Tri-legged setup of Founders was co-opted long ago by those with an agenda far from what i can support.

Amen, Bro. Nivek. Although I'm not at all Libertarian, the Republican party left me in the dust a long time ago. Now I vote for whoever is likely to defeat them.

 

I don't really have a party right now - I'm not crazy about the Democrats, and good independents are mostly an anomaly. I don't agree w/Libertarianism, either. I'm a man w/out a country!

 

I'd like to see a viable, moderate 3rd party emerge to balance things out but I don't think that'll happen in my lifetime.

[Stormwarden]

AGF, that makes two of us. I am a man without a country as well in that sense. My gravest concern is that the nation will be so polarized that if you side with one side even on a single issue, you will be opposed by the other.

[Heimdall]

I am a true "middle-of-the-roader" in both my voting record and my political outlook. I agree with SW that liberals are too liberal and conservatives are too conservative. I do not vote a straight party line, but for those that I percieve as closer to my political beliefs (it gets harder all the time). - Heimdall

[Vigile]

I would be interested to hear from those who don't vote a party line how they feel about the fact that a politician in the US is not a free man/woman? For example, you can vote for a Republican because you like them but when it comes down to a floor vote he has to tow the party line or else pay reprecutions; sometimes severe. This is equally true with those on the dem ticket.

 

Essentially since the US is a two party system, virtually no matter who you vote for you are voting for the party and not the person.

[Kuroikaze]

I agree totally, both political parties suck. I personally think Bush is an idiot....but how much better of would we have been with any of his opponents had been elected. They might not have made the same mistakes....just a whole bunch of other mistakes.

 

I'd probably be libritarian if it weren't for them being pacifistic. Don't get me wrong I don't like war, but a government can't be pacifistic, I think our current presedent is a big too war happy, but there are still times when a country has to fight wars. I guess I like the Taoist notion about war, it says to kill if you must but do so with a reluctance, don't enjoy killing others, and use the least amout of force to resolve the conflict.

 

I watch C-span from time to time and I'm constantly amazed at the stupidity both sides display.

 

I would be interested to hear from those who don't vote a party line how they feel about the fact that a politician in the US is not a free man/woman? For example, you can vote for a Republican because you like them but when it comes down to a floor vote he has to tow the party line or else pay reprecutions; sometimes severe. This is equally true with those on the dem ticket.

 

Essentially since the US is a two party system, virtually no matter who you vote for you are voting for the party and not the person.

yeah this bothers me too.

 

Interistingly enough when washinton made his farewell address he warned people about political parties. He said it was part of human nature to group together into political parties, but that we had to work to curb this tendancy, though it could never be entirely eleminated.

 

Washinton believed that parties would destory the political system if left unchecked......seems to me that is what is happening today.

[spamandham]

I'd probably be libritarian if it weren't for them being pacifistic.

 

Generally speaking, libertarians are not pacifists, we are nonagressors. If you pose a serious and imminent threat, most of us wouldn't hesitate to take you out.

[Vigile]

Washinton believed that parties would destory the political system if left unchecked......seems to me that is what is happening today.

 

Present continuous and not past tense?

[HadouKen24]

Montesquieu knew exactly what was going to happen to America if we kept going on down this road of total equality, total democracy, and total individualism. All of our citizens became private citizens. That is, to be a citizen is to be a private person. You don't have to worry about the government. You can just deal with your own stuff. There's no guilt if you don't get involved in the government. There's no shame in apathy.

 

Keep on down this road, and Montesquieu knew we'd reach this point: soft despotism. As long as the government keeps us fat and happy, we don't have the energy or ambition to go make changes. The rulers can do what they want. So opportunities to make a substantial difference are slowly whittled away. Now, there really isn't much an individual can do. It's in the hands of those who have enough money to buy off a senator or two.

 

And so here I sit, seeing the seeds of my disenfranchisment being planted, but unable to go unroot them. Maybe I'll be in a position to do something about that someday. Maybe not. We'll see.

[Vigile]

Montesquieu

 

Now there's a name that brings back memories. [inside joke from a Poli Phil class years ago]

 

Keep on down this road, and Montesquieu knew we'd reach this point: soft despotism. As long as the government keeps us fat and happy, we don't have the energy or ambition to go make changes. The rulers can do what they want. So opportunities to make a substantial difference are slowly whittled away. Now, there really isn't much an individual can do. It's in the hands of those who have enough money to buy off a senator or two.

 

What is really interesting is that Russia today perfectly exemplifies this description as well. Probably the major difference between the average Russian and average American is that the average American actually still thinks they can make a difference while the average Russian knows they cannot nor do they care.

 

People take very little political interest here and they are fairly aware of the fact that they are disenfranchised. At the same time they are pretty comfortable and unless beer and vodka were to suddenly disappear from their grocer's shelves there is little threat of an uprising.

 

Sometimes I entertain the thought that the world never really did eschew feudalism, it just changed form.

[spamandham]

Sometimes I entertain the thought that the world never really did eschew feudalism, it just changed form.

 

I believe this thought is correct. The Lords have simply obscured themselves, and magnified both thier tributes and their holdings immensly in the process.

[Chad3232132]

I suppose liberal would be a quite accurate description of myself. Although I prefer being labeled a socialist as it is more accurate in describing me. I've been a registered Democrat ever since I first registered 8 years ago. I vote for Democrats about 95%+ of the time, mainly for lack of options since there are no viable 3rd parties in our system.

 

My views on certain key issues:

 

Taxes- For progressive taxation. I believe wealthier people should pay a higher share.

 

Guns- 100% pro-gun. I believe all Americans have the right to own guns as they see fit without any restriction. And I say this even though I don't own a gun, nor have I ever fired one. That being said, I feel no need to restrict the rights of others who choose to own guns. Gun issues are probably my biggest disagreement with fellow Democrats.

 

Foreign Policy- Anti-war unless America is directly threatened and the peace process fails. I was in complete agreement that we were right for invading Afghanistan due to it's harborin and aiding known terrorists, and opposed 100% to invading Iraq basically because I never though the case for war was compelling.

 

Gay Marriage- In favor. I think the whole idea of state sanctioned marriage is stupid to begin with, but if straight people can get suckered into marriage why ot gays too?

 

Social Services- In favor of social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, and other safety net programs. I believe that capitalism is not a bad thing, but is not infallable. We need a strong safety net to prevent hardworking people from falling though the cracks.

 

Healthcare- For a socialized health care system. All one needs to do is look at the statistics to see that privatized health care has completely failed the American people. We pay more than double what most fully developed countries pay each year, and we have little to show for it. My mother was dropped from her insurance because she had breast cancer and can't get health insurance now.... way to go corporate controlled healthcare!

[spamandham]

I vote for Democrats about 95%+ of the time, mainly for lack of options since there are no viable 3rd parties in our system.

 

If that's the reason you vote that way, you might consider the following: your vote is not going to decide the election.

 

If you agree with that, then why not vote for the candidate you actually want? It isn't a wasted vote any more than any other vote is a wasted vote, because yours will not be the deciding vote.

[Chad3232132]

I vote for Democrats about 95%+ of the time, mainly for lack of options since there are no viable 3rd parties in our system.

 

If that's the reason you vote that way, you might consider the following: your vote is not going to decide the election.

 

If you agree with that, then why not vote for the candidate you actually want? It isn't a wasted vote any more than any other vote is a wasted vote, because yours will not be the deciding vote.

 

If you look at what my views are on issues later in the post you'll see I agree with the Democratic Party the majority of the time. In fact I don't know any Republican who agrees with their party anywhere near 100% or Democrat that agrees 100% of the time. I am a also registered Democrat because I can vote for my party's candidate in the primary elections. Having the ability to vote in primaries gives me a chance to to pick the kind of people I want running for office for my party.

 

If everyone who voted only did so if they agreed with their party 95%+ of the time we'd have only a handful of kool-aid drinkers at the polls each election.

[spamandham]

If you look at what my views are on issues later in the post you'll see I agree with the Democratic Party the majority of the time.

 

Well, ok then. It sounded like you would prefer to vote for a third party but thought it was not a "real" choice.

[nightflight]

The old paradigms of Left/Right are breaking down.

 

(Any excuse to use the word paradigm.)