Poll: Which U.S. political party do you most strongly agree with? [Archive]

Doctor Q

Dec 11, 2003, 12:06 AM

I never vote for anyone.
I always vote against.
-- W. C. Fields

Just in my own family there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens. Sometimes our votes cancel each other out; sometimes not. California is usually considered to be a "blue state" in national elections, but the Democrats have no monopoly on politics here. Our new governor is really middle of the road and not a poster boy for either major party.

It's easy to be cynical about politicians and political parties, but it still amazes me that people are willing to put themselves in the public eye, with reporters ready to publicize their every misstep, often making a nominal salary, to represent their parties and the people in their city, district, county, or state. Let's give the good politicians a pat on the back for what they do! Hooray!

rainman::|:|

Dec 11, 2003, 12:11 AM

libertarian and damn proud of it.

http://www.lp.org

pnw

Awimoway

Dec 11, 2003, 12:14 AM

Grew up among Republicans and thought I was one too. It was only in the last couple of years that I gave trying to make sense of Republican/conservative arguments and admitted to myself and the world that I'm a liberal. I'll be voting Democrat next year. I still love all my Republican family and friends even if they eye me suspiciously now. :D

supercres

Dec 11, 2003, 12:18 AM

I'm not surprised by the results so far.

Not to stereotype or anything, but I see the Republican party as encouraging a lot more conformity that Dems, and much more than a party like the Greens. We Mac users know a thing or two about non-conformity (boo, beige boxes!)

I went Green myself, but I'll be voting Dem, as it gives the most hope for the ABB platform (http://www.dems.us/notbush/)

:D

miloblithe

Dec 11, 2003, 12:22 AM

I heard today that because of very effective redistricting plans (by both parties, although currently Republicans as they are in power) has left the House with only about 30 truly contestable seats. The rest are districted in ways that the outcome, Democrat or Republican, is a foregone conclusion. It's incredibly sad really. Our democracy needs a lot of work.

Bunzi2k4

Dec 11, 2003, 12:25 AM

republican all the way...

TeknoTurd

Dec 11, 2003, 12:27 AM

Coming from an Irish background it was a given that my family is all Democrat. When I came of age to vote I realized that the party today is not the same party that my ancestors and relatives stood for. I have found myself leaning to the right since high school. Though I am registered as a republican I am not opposed to voting in different parties. A perfect example would be San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newson. I just try to vote for who I think is the best man for the job, party lines aside.

theipodgod16

Dec 11, 2003, 12:41 AM

i cant vote yet, though i would not have voted for either candidate of the last "election". (Bush, Gore).

I was never convinced that AL Gore was any better than bush, and i never really liked him.

I after reading an article about Wesley Clark in the New Yorker, i think that he really embodies someone who is fit for the job. He was out there, on the battlegrounds, while bush was comfy in texas AWOL.

I HATE bush more than anyone in the world, and am looking forward to seeing GENERAL Wesley Clark tear him to pieces in the debates.

I guess that leaves me....liberal/independent/free thinker. Typical Berkeley, Ca teen mindset.

rainman::|:|

Dec 11, 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by theipodgod16
GENERAL Wesley Clark tear him to pieces in the debates.

I'm supporting Clark in this one, too. great guy, best chance the democrats have of taking the white house. dean may win the primaries, but he'll lose the election...

my friend pretty well runs the grassroots campaign in des moines, ia... we're hoping to get some sort of turnout for the caucus... it's coming fast. if clark can make any showing at all, and can take NH 3rd or 2nd, we'll be in very good shape.

i look forward to living under an intelligent, philosophical president again. the environment might yet stand a chance... remember that, people? the environment? it was here before the "threat of terrorism" and it'll be here a lot longer... the big man in charge is intent on letting, i'm sorry, evil little trolls from corporations own our nation's mountains, rivers, and forests...

pnw

theipodgod16

Dec 11, 2003, 12:58 AM

the big man in charge is intent on letting, i'm sorry, evil little trolls from corporations own our nation's mountains, rivers, and forests...
pnw [/B]

fellow liberal, not only are they intent on owning the environment, they are intent on destroying it, for the sake of profit. And its all about the oil. This whole "War In Iraq"

OIL.
terrorists? HA! 16 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia. This war is about one thing. OIL.

And its damned sick that we are killing children in iraq to get oil, when we have the technology to be less dependant on foreign oil. Its damned sick!

And the only reason we aren't utilizing that technology is becuse the president is so tied up to all the corporations, that he doesnt want to hurt his friends business by driving up the costs of operation.

Counterfit

Dec 11, 2003, 12:59 AM

Well, according to the nifty "figure out your party" thing on the libertarian party's website, I would vote in this order: Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian. Surprised the hell outta me... I seriously do not know who I'm gonna vote for. I do know, however, that I am NOT voting for Dubya.

edit: spelling

rainman::|:|

Dec 11, 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Well, according to the nifty "figure out your party" thing on the libertarian party's website, I would vote in this order: Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian. Surprised the hell outta me... I seriously do not know who I'm gonna vote for. I don know, however, that I am NOT voting for Dubya.

it doesn't account for facism, so in this scale republicans do not include bush. they're still considered the people that want a leaner, more privatized government. bush is something else entirely.

pnw

Counterfit

Dec 11, 2003, 01:04 AM

Counterfit

Dec 11, 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
it doesn't account for facism, so in this scale republicans do not include bush. they're still considered the people that want a leaner, more privatized government. bush is something else entirely.

pnw But how many of the "Republicans" support him fully? Far too many. Maybe if we got rid of all the yes-men (and women!) in Washington....

nagromme

Dec 11, 2003, 01:13 AM

I vote Democratic most of the time. Democrats are by far the lesser of two evils.

Still evil, though. :) I'd vote Green, and would love to see some alternative parties become truly viable at the national level. But how to support the Greens, say, without simply fragmenting the Democratic vote and handing public offices to the Republicans? (For the record, I second the "open-minded" comment, and have voted Republican several times myself--although only at the local level.)

But whether you're liberal-minded like me or not, I'd say there are two basic things the US needs to solve:

1. End the 2-party dominance and give a spectrum of truly DIFFERENT policies/viewpoints a fair chance to change things.

2. End the ownership of nearly all media (which could be true "watchdogs") by a handful of big corporations.

Fix those two fundamental things, and we'll have ourselves a democracy! (Maybe even one in which the candidate who gets a half-million more votes than the other actually BECOMES president? Good ol' Electoral College.)

Sadly, they both have me stumped. And both would probably depend on an educated, involved American public with a halfway decent attention span for understanding what's really behind the headlines, and a sense of the greater good to temper their self-interest. Maybe even some open minds instead of the fear of anything "different." I feel, at times, that such people may be a minority. It's nice to see the intelligent discussion that has appeared on this thread though!

...Then, with those 2 solved, we can tackle the little stuff like world peace, health care, destruction of the environment, repression of various minorities, the national mental health crisis, and the domination of big corporations in controlling public policy ;)

(PS, for the 2004 election, I support: http://www.kucinich.us ... or anyone but Bush.)

This Cheery Holiday Message of Doom (TM) brought to you by...

SilvorX

Dec 11, 2003, 01:26 AM

I'm not an american, but I'm for the Canadian NDP Party, which is the main social democratic party in Canada, sure Americans were taught that socialism is bad ever since the early 1900s, but in Canada, there's rarely ever been problems with a social democratic government. The two most famous people who ever graduated at the university I go to were both very famous (atleast in canada) members of the social democratic party. One of them, Tommy Douglas, formed the first Socialist government in North America when WW2 was still going on, his party wanted change for his province, wanted his province (canadian equiv of state) to get out of debt due to the great depression, as well as generate hundreds, if not thousands of new jobs (since the population wasnt that large). He was successfully and he was the father of free universal healthcare, which many countries have since adopted. The other famous member tried to push for Unemployment Insurance for years (welfare) since thousands of people were starving at that time. They never became the leading party in Canadian government but sure changed Canada forever.

My university tuition was paid for by the provincial government (NDP), which saved my parents since they wouldnt be able to afford it anyways due to Mad cow scare up here in canada and stupid droughts :(. I dont know how it was paid for but for some reason I'm concidered 'special' by the gov.

Awimoway

Dec 11, 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
2. End the ownership of nearly all media (which could be true "watchdogs") by a handful of big corporations.[/B]

I don't know about the other candidates, but my man Howard Dean has already stated that he intends to reverse the media ownership consolidation that is going on.

And, yes, I think he can squarely face Bush in the general election and win. See:
Link 1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47806-2003Dec8?language=printer)
Link 2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?ex=1071723600&en=cf35cedabb3022e5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)
Both show that even Republicans see him as a threat.

etoiles

Dec 11, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
[b]1. End the 2-party dominance and give a spectrum of truly DIFFERENT policies/viewpoints a fair chance to change things.

EXACTLY ! This is something that has been bothering me for a while... how can you call a country a democracy if you can only chose between two parties ? Especially when both have pretty much the same policies, just favoring different industries ?

The result being two candidates basically saying the same thing (we'll make things better) and having to spent huge amounts of money to differentiate themselves for the lack of real solutions.

--
Ok, sorry, I am a bit bitter because my own country (Switzerland) took some beating today, ending 40years of political consensus by granting some trouble-maker a seat as a minister...oh well, democraZy, I guess.

pinto32

Dec 11, 2003, 02:02 AM

I'm definatly liberal...still debating what party to affiliate myself with.....I'll be voting Democrat in national elections, just cause its the only way to stop the conservatives from killing us all.

I actually think that the two-party system is probably the best fit for America. It ensures that progress will be made in congress (whether its for the better or worse is another matter), and it ensures that we won't have our own version of Hitler come to power (didn't Germany have like 30 national parties when he was elected??). This is really one of my greatest concerns, seeing as how 50% of Americans don't even vote, and 50% of those who do vote don't even put thought into who they are voting for. It seems that it would be way to easy for some no-name to come in, get 10% of the vote and win! (Bush got a few hundred thousand votes less than Gore and look at the outrage......my scenario would cause complete civil war).

So, the fact that the two-party system isn't going anywhere (at least in the forseeable future) doesn't bother me too much....

...then again,
"a little revolution every once in a while isn't such a bad thing"......

Sailfish

Dec 11, 2003, 03:06 AM

I vote for none of the above...

My life is free of religion and politics

: )

Sabenth

Dec 11, 2003, 03:10 AM

if only that was true Sailfish lol intesting to see how people vote though

caveman_uk

Dec 11, 2003, 03:39 AM

I'm not American but I guess I'd be a democrat - although both American parties are quite right-wing compared with European parties. Over here I'd vote Liberal Democrat. I used to be a Labour voter until Blair turned it into Tory-lite.

m_gerbik

Dec 11, 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by theipodgod16
I HATE bush more than anyone in the world, and am looking forward to seeing GENERAL Wesley Clark tear him to pieces in the debates.Word up on the Bush hating. He is the worst president in my lifetime including Nixon. Wesley Clark performs very poorly in the debates so far though. I think exactly the opposite. He's going to get chewed up by Bush if he makes it. Not that Bush is good at it, but Clark has nothing to say. He has no plans for any of the issues including Iraq which he has been most vocal about. He doesn't want to pull the troops out so even that is too similar to Bush. I really don't get what people like about this guy. He has no real, tangible plans and no political experience. What we need is someone who represents a clear contrast to the corporate fueled, right-wing agenda of war-profiteering and environmental holocaust and continual fear. I support Dennis Kucinich because he is a real Democrat.. like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. He won the 2003 International Ghandi Peace Prize. He has REAL plans. Check his web site! http://www.kucinich.us

fixyourthinking

Dec 11, 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by miloblithe
I heard today that because of very effective redistricting plans (by both parties, although currently Republicans as they are in power) has left the House with only about 30 truly contestable seats. The rest are districted in ways that the outcome, Democrat or Republican, is a foregone conclusion. It's incredibly sad really. Our democracy needs a lot of work.

I wrote a /. journal entry last week, entitled: Do you really want to live in a Democracy... a good read for the poll question here.

http://slashdot.org/~adzoox/journal/53630

As for the poll choices. The choices really aren't that fair. Most of the answers are just splinters of liberal minded political parties. For instance, the Green Party is just Democrats who care more about the environment than the economy. (That's almost verbatim from Nader) Also, out of those that don't vote or don't live in the US, the majority tend to be liberal (or socialist/communist).

Trowaman

Dec 11, 2003, 04:19 AM

Also voted Green but I will be voting Democrat. Most important issue to me is the environment. I'm a tree hugging hippie and proud of it. A lot of stuff Bush has bee pulling on deregulating facories and the endangered species list is making me sick. Save the endangered *insert random/weird endangered animal here*!!!

m_gerbik

Dec 11, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
1. End the 2-party dominance and give a spectrum of truly DIFFERENT policies/viewpoints a fair chance to change things.

2. End the ownership of nearly all media (which could be true "watchdogs") by a handful of big corporations.

(PS, for the 2004 election, I support: http://www.kucinich.us ... or anyone but Bush.)[/B] 3. True "Campaign Finance Reform" based on pure Federally funded campaign money. Elections should be about who has the best ideas, not who has the richest friends. I think that is the fundamental stumbling block to our having a true democracy.

PS Did you see Kucinich smack down Ted Koppel for focusing the debate on endorsements, polls and campaign money? The crowd went wild with applause and today ABC pulled their embedded journalists from the campaigns of Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich. The media is trying very hard to engineer this election by sidelining these candidate as also-rans.

It's really shameful to dismiss a candidate 11 months before the election because of their bank balance rather than anything that they have said or done. If Bush is reelected, I'm moving to the Himalayas where I will live as a goat.

richters

Dec 11, 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Sailfish
I vote for none of the above...
My life is free of religion and politics

That is a religious and political statement...

richters

Dec 11, 2003, 05:25 AM

Not to be a party pooper (pun intended), but this forum is a MacRumors spin off, and the subject of (American) politics is rather irrelevant here.
Unless, of course, someone can give us a news scoop, e.g. that Microsoft will be broken up in competitive units by one of the candidate presidents, or that on a major federal government level Linux, Lindows, Sun's Javasystems will be purchased (hurray for British, Brasilian, German, Chinese governements for making that switch already).

Sheebahawk

Dec 11, 2003, 05:35 AM

Wesley Clark in 2004. Yes hes the most fit man to run this country, the opposite of mr. bush. A man I actually believe in. This will be my first presidential election, if Polpot-I mena G.W. Bush is reelected I'm moving to british columbia. But he won't win. He'll lose just like he did last time.

Why not ask everyone's religion and sexual preference in the next poll?

leet1

Dec 11, 2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Sheebahawk
Wesley Clark in 2004.

no no no...its all about Pres. Sharpton :D

Centris 650

Dec 11, 2003, 07:24 AM

When I was in college I was a Democrat. Then I graduated and started paying taxes. :D

macFanDave

Dec 11, 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Centris 650
When I was in college I was a Democrat. Then I graduated and started paying taxes. :D

With the Republicans controlling the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, their reckless spending is plunging our country into Reagan/Bush Sr. depths of debt.

Dubya's little tax cut ploy is popular among stupid voters because someone is going to have to pay for his adventures overseas and his $400 billion gift to drug and insurance companies called Medicare reform. Enjoy your lower tax bill right now, Centris 650, and think of it as rolling up the tab for your children or even yourself at a later date. Whether we pay for Bush's vote-buying, imperialism and massive transfers of public funds to his wealthy corporate cronies with higher taxes, reduced services, currency devaluation or government default, the bill is going to have to be painfully reckoned.

It's funny how the "tax and spend" Democrats brought this country full employment, low inflation, low interest rates, a booming stock market (aka optimism), relative peace AND a federal budget SURPLUS while the Republicans, who are thought to be more fiscally responsible and to favor reduced government have caused massive unemployment, plunging markets, two ongoing wars and two more in the offing (Iran and North Korea), a pathetically weak dollar and an atmosphere of fear and pessimism while creating an enormous federal DEBT. Maybe the stereotypes ought to be turned around!

Howard Dean for President!

achmafooma

Dec 11, 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by macFanDave
Dubya's little tax cut ploy is popular among stupid voters...
Originally posted by arn
ok...

Keep the discussion on this civil.

No Party/People bashing.

arn
Calling fans of Bush's tax cut stupid is "Party/People bashing" in my book.

Let's keep away from the "you're an idiot for liking policy X" rhetoric. This kind of hatred you see in politics nowadays--on both sides--is a lot worse than any single party's policies.

Has anybody ever considered that Democracy is better served by civil debate between groups than by partisan wrangling? Imagine if, instead of "this plan is stupid," people actually had honest debates. Imagine if the politicians were actually open-minded enough to change their minds if and when they realize that their opponent has a good point.

There's something to be said about all the major parties. They all have their strong points, and their weak points. The real shame in the American political world now is that so few people seem to understand that, and prefer instead to think "I'm right and everybody else is WRONG and EVIL."

Sad. I picked one of the parties (won't tell you which), but I'm honestly pretty unhappy with all of them.

ITR 81

Dec 11, 2003, 08:25 AM

Well if I don't like anyone running I don't vote. But if I like someone I'll vote for them simple as that. I have no party because as far as I know it doesn't exist.

I'm mostly neutral party but lean on the side of the Authoritian left.

Yikes

Dec 11, 2003, 08:38 AM

Hate to break it to you, but partisanship dates back to the founding of the USA... I don't really understand where the idea that there was a golden age of politics comes from. Perhaps the difference between then and now is that the language used in the past to argue was more elegant, but also consider that duels with pistols were known to occur (e.g. Hamilton). And yes there were sex scandals even in early post-colonial USA.

What bothers me about today's political climate is the free pass that politicians get from a press that (1) fails to call out politicians when they obviously lie to promote their issues and (2) fails to provide accurate information so that people (voters) can make informed decisions during elections. The kid glove treatment that Bush gets from the press is unbelievable when compared to his predecessors (including his father) and the doublestandard they employed during the Bush/Gore election was unbelievable (where Bush 'exaggeratons' were not called out but Gore's 'exaggerations' were called out).

fixyourthinking

Dec 11, 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Centris 650
When I was in college I was a Democrat. Then I graduated and started paying taxes. :D

Good quote from a fellow statesmen ;)

And my God, this man been brainwashed:

"With the Republicans controlling the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, their reckless spending is plunging our country into Reagan/Bush Sr. depths of debt.

Dubya's little tax cut ploy is popular among stupid voters because someone is going to have to pay for his adventures overseas and his $400 billion gift to drug and insurance companies called Medicare reform. Enjoy your lower tax bill right now, Centris 650, and think of it as rolling up the tab for your children or even yourself at a later date. Whether we pay for Bush's vote-buying, imperialism and massive transfers of public funds to his wealthy corporate cronies with higher taxes, reduced services, currency devaluation or government default, the bill is going to have to be painfully reckoned.

It's funny how the "tax and spend" Democrats brought this country full employment, low inflation, low interest rates, a booming stock market (aka optimism), relative peace AND a federal budget SURPLUS while the Republicans, who are thought to be more fiscally responsible and to favor reduced government have caused massive unemployment, plunging markets, two ongoing wars and two more in the offing (Iran and North Korea), a pathetically weak dollar and an atmosphere of fear and pessimism while creating an enormous federal DEBT. Maybe the stereotypes ought to be turned around!"

First off, you're right, Reagan did come dangerously close to bankrupting us. But, that had the effect of outgunning, outspending the iron curtain, and removing a threat far greater than terrorism, people who want land and your freedom - the communists. Russia cared not for our religion, like the terrorists did. Most families did quite well in the 80's and it was A FAR greater REAL expansion than in the 90's. Carter had ruined the economy. It takes a democrat to make us feel good - the drugs, but it takes a republican to actually make us better - the doctor.

The same thing happened under Clinton. (You also give him an unfair economic boom - th internet) NO PRESIDENT, not even railroad, land rush, world war presidents have had such an economic blessing as the internet. During the Clinton presidency millionaires increased by 1400% (yes 1400%) - but that was IN NO correlation to his politics. He was blessed with the people that were stealing capital and blowing hot air into a stock market bubble. Can anyone say: Pets.com, Flooz.com, Amazon?

The entire economy of the 90's was just like the Clinton presidency. It appeared to be good, everything seemed ok. Underneath, falling apart, detoriorating due to lack of ethical behaviour. He was a fitting President.

I don't know what democrats are posting here, but focus on reality. Business and the economy is booming. It's doing the best it's done in 20 years! Yes 20 years, was twenty years ago during a Clinton or democrat Presidency?

I don't think GW is the best man for the job, but he's the best that's running AND the best that has a chance.

QuiteSure

Dec 11, 2003, 09:13 AM

I used to be a dyed in the wool democrat; then I started thinking with an open mind and determined that all republicans did not necessarily need to be evil; then I turned my open mind on the democrats, who began to look like whiners; now I decided that the very nature of politics and political parties is to polarize and alienate voters, so I can't stand either party or their politicians.

tazo

Dec 11, 2003, 09:18 AM

I voted republican, although my views are much more centered. I lean to the right but I am still in the middle a tad :)

eric_n_dfw

Dec 11, 2003, 09:25 AM

I'm pretty conservative; in 2000, I voted for Keyes in the primary and Bush in the election. So I guess that makes me a Republican. (Made for interesting water cooler talk as I was working in Portland, OR at the time and was one of 2 conservatives at the company! Luckily, the other one was one of the co-founders! )

Actually, I'd probably be a Libertarian except for their stance on drug legalization and abortion.

trebblekicked

Dec 11, 2003, 09:32 AM

green all the way

QuiteSure

Dec 11, 2003, 09:44 AM

I'd like to compare the results of this poll with the results of the same poll on a Windows oriented forum.

Are Apple users a more liberal bunch?

evolu

Dec 11, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Awimoway
Grew up among Republicans and thought I was one too. It was only in the last couple of years that I gave trying to make sense of Republican/conservative arguments and admitted to myself and the world that I'm a liberal. I'll be voting Democrat next year. I still love all my Republican family and friends even if they eye me suspiciously now. :D

Ah! A switcher! Welcome...

gerror

Dec 11, 2003, 09:55 AM

I'm not an American but the Democrats always had my 'vote'
But since I read Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference, Democrats or Republican.

Sonofhaig

Dec 11, 2003, 09:59 AM

But.... if I were ever to vote for someone other then Bush, I'd vote for Lieberman.
I think the poor guy got the bums rush from Gore. And Dean scares me. He reminds me of the character running for President from the movie "The dead zone". Personally. I'd rather see all our politicians more "main stream". The US, in my opinion, has become too polarized in it's political thinking. I'll get off my soap box now.... and by the way... working as an artist, I know I'm in the minority. I see most artists as being more diversified in political thinking. I often fight with myself on many issues. I'm my own Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde when it come to politics.

gwuMACaddict

Dec 11, 2003, 10:11 AM

republican

pgwalsh

Dec 11, 2003, 10:12 AM

I'm a Moderate Republican and I'm not necessarily happy with everything Bush has done. However, he has been productive. I think heÕs a great president and I think heÕs done a good job meeting both parties in the middleÉ DoesnÕt mean I think itÕs a good thing.

Do I like the Medicare bill? hmmm.. Not really.

Do I like what where doing in Iraq? hmmm not really, but I think we need to tackle Iraq and the terrorist problem and we can go very deep on this one... Which I rather not until I have some coffee. ;)

My biggest issue with the Government right now is spending... Stop the spending.

I prefer locally controlled governments and not federally controlled. Smaller government and more privatization...

macFanDave

Dec 11, 2003, 10:18 AM

Carter had ruined the economy.
He simply failed to overcome what Nixon and Ford had handed him.

NO PRESIDENT, not even railroad, land rush, world war presidents have had such an economic blessing as the internet.

How dare you say he had nothing to do with it? Although many people say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, he has been misquoted. However, he DID lead the way in opening up the Internet to commerce. Clinton campaigned on the "Information Superhighway" in '92 and pursued policies to popularize the Internet.

It appeared to be good, everything seemed ok. Underneath, falling apart, detoriorating due to lack of ethical behaviour.

Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction, about the Iraq-Al Qaeda links, about the uranium purchase from Niger, about the high-strength aluminum tubes and about seriously looking for the White House source who revealed the identity of a CIA operative (who happened to be the wife of the man who exposed the Niger uranium lie). This administration is far more unethical, and worse, their lies and deceptions are FAR more destructive to the American people. Almost every day, the ratio of American deaths caused by Bush's Iraq lies to the deaths caused by "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms. Lewinsky" works out to infinity.

(And before you call me some kind of namby-pamby pacifist afraid of confrontation, I've believed for many years that there existed many good, solid, true reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I'm ashamed that our President had to concoct a pack of lies to achieve an otherwise desirable outcome.)

And, by the way, it seems like the Bushies also lied about the aftermath of their conquest of Iraq.

I don't know what democrats are posting here, but focus on reality. Business and the economy is booming. It's doing the best it's done in 20 years!

Nice spin. These statistics are compared to the previous years performance. After falling into a stupor under Bush's mishandling of the economy, any business activity is going to seem like a boom.

I don't think GW is the best man for the job,
My prediction is coming true: George W. Bush is really achieving the position as the worst president in American history. The fault is really not W's himself since I do not believe he is really calling the shots -- he's too stupid. It's really Cheney running the show with Rumsfeld and Ashcroft acting as his lieutenants. Or maybe they are a triumvirate.

I'd like see one of you right-wing Republican humps give me a single example of where Bush made a decision that went against Cheney's desires.

yellow

Dec 11, 2003, 10:38 AM

I most strongly agree with the Kegger Party.

etoiles

Dec 11, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by adzoox
people who want land and your freedom - the communists.

I think the Russians thought pretty much the same of the US...

Sonofhaig

Dec 11, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by macFanDave
I'd like see one of you right-wing Republican humps give me a single example of where Bush made a decision that went against Cheney's desires.

No. I wouldn't catagorize you as trolling or angry.... Sorry, I'll take Arn's lead on this subject.... You could have written that in a much nicer tone... no?

Beside, responding to you will only bring on more angry retoric from you. :rolleyes:

etoiles

Dec 11, 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by richters
Not to be a party pooper (pun intended), but this forum is a MacRumors spin off, and the subject of (American) politics is rather irrelevant here.

you haven't been around here for too long, have you ? :p

Eslyjah

Dec 11, 2003, 11:37 AM

I'm a Republican with strong libertarian leanings. I don't want the government to provide healthcare for anybody. I think getting rid of Saddam is a good start, but we shouldn't ignore the regimes in Syria, the Sudan, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. The UN is a joke--we should withdraw. Free trade is good, and we should make use of more bilateral agreements (Australia and New Zealand have been begging us to do this for years). I don't like spending a week every year working on my taxes, and favor drastic simplification of the tax code (preferably a sales tax instead of an income tax). I don't think courts should make laws, no matter how badly they want to. I'd rather not pay Social Security taxes and save for my own retirement. I favor full implementation of school vouchers so parents can have a choice of where to send their kids, and so that teachers will be less able to indoctrinate the youth of America. The way to protect the environment is through pollution taxes that are equal to the amount of damage of the pollution. Pork is a disgrace, and should be cut out of the budget.

I haven't covered everything, but that should give you an idea. By the way, I used to work on Capitol Hill for a Republican Congressman.

yellow

Dec 11, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Eslyjah
preferably a sales tax instead of an income tax I think 7% is high enough.. I can't imagine paying an extra 15% on everything I buy.

gwuMACaddict

Dec 11, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by yellow
I most strongly agree with the Kegger Party.

ooo :D i think we're throwing one of those parties next week if anyone is in the district :D

Awimoway

Dec 11, 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by evolu
Ah! A switcher! Welcome...

Yes, oddly enough, I switched to Mac about the same time. I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence, but who knows? :)

pgwalsh

Dec 11, 2003, 11:55 AM

Eslyjah

Dec 11, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by yellow
I think 7% is high enough.. I can't imagine paying an extra 15% on everything I buy.

I'm not addressing the amount of taxation (which I think should be as low as possible). I am just referring to the structure. Suppose there is an income tax of 15%, and suppose that it was to be switched to a 15% sales tax. The sales tax would be lower, because you would only be paying taxes on the income that you spent. Your savings wouldn't be touched. This is much better, in my view, because people would be encouraged to save more for retirement, emergencies, etc.

I agree with your sentiment that taxes are too high. However, don't forget that you are already paying taxes on every dollar you earn, even before you pay sales tax. I'd favor eliminating that, even if I would be reminded of how greedy the government is every time I made a purchase.

danbirchall

Dec 11, 2003, 12:04 PM

Bummer. I couldn't figure out which party he'd belong in...

TomSmithMacEd

Dec 11, 2003, 12:11 PM

Right now I'm supporting the Democrats, because in reality no 3rd party canidate will ever get into the white house. Wesly Clark seems like a great canidate. He would destroy Bush in the debates. There wouldn't even be a challenge. I couldn't see Bush winning any debate, because unless someone writes something for him, he is bad off the cuff. He is a great speaker though. I don't know it will all be interesting.

If I really want to get into it the whole democricy system is crippled in America. When most people think of two parties as the only way to go you lost it right there. I think we should have around 5 people from various polical views to get on national TV and debate.

Woops I have to work in class now.

yellow

Dec 11, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
ooo :D i think we're throwing one of those parties next week if anyone is in the district :D You have my vote!

bryanc

Dec 11, 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by miloblithe
Our democracy needs a lot of work.

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I thought I'd reply to this post anyway...sorry if this has already come up.

When discussing the America democratic system, two things seem to come up frequently. 1) The US government is a de facto world government, but it is elected by American citizens who are generally amazingly ignorant of even their local, let alone global issues. And 2), as miloblithe points out, democracy needs a lot of work.

What increasing numbers of people are recognizing is that their votes are not sufficiently effective in making the changes they'd like to see in society. Sadly, many people respond to this by becoming apathetic, and not voting.

I'm not naive enough to think that 'if only people would vote' that would solve the problem. However, if we recognize that governments, especially the American government, now function primarily to protect the interests of the multinational corporations who pay to keep them in power, we recognize that it is the *corporations* and not the politicians we need to exert our wills upon.

But, since corporate boards are not elected by the citizenry, how can we do this? By recognizing that every purchase we make is a political statement. And, for those of us fortunate enough to have the affluence that allows investing in stocks, by investing in companies that behave responsibly, and refusing to invest in companies that don't (no matter how profitable they may be).

This means going against our cultural programming, and making decisions that may not be the most financially rewarding, but choosing to make less money in order to make the world a better place. It also means that having more money means having more power, but this has always been true. The challenge is to prevent people who pursue power/money for its own sake from achieving those goals.

The age of consumer sovereignty is upon us. But unless we, as consumers, make the effort to become educated regarding the corporations we support, and insist on alternatives (i.e., opposing monopolies), we will remain powerless.

Cheers

yellow

Dec 11, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by bryanc
The age of consumer sovereignty is upon us. But unless we, as consumers, make the effort to become educated regarding the corporations we support, and insist on alternatives (i.e., opposing monopolies), we will remain powerless.
Stop buying Windoze!

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by adzoox
I wrote a /. journal entry last week, entitled: Do you really want to live in a Democracy... a good read for the poll question here.

http://slashdot.org/~adzoox/journal/53630

As for the poll choices. The choices really aren't that fair. Most of the answers are just splinters of liberal minded political parties. For instance, the Green Party is just Democrats who care more about the environment than the economy. (That's almost verbatim from Nader) Also, out of those that don't vote or don't live in the US, the majority tend to be liberal (or socialist/communist).

good article btw. I read it as 2 liberal 2 conservative and 1 moderate.

Going from left to right
Green
Democrat
Libertarian
Republican
Constitution.

If they really to skew liberal they would have added the communist party and the peoples workers party.

idkew

Dec 11, 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by tazo
I voted republican, although my views are much more centered. I lean to the right but I am still in the middle a tad :)

ditto.

unfortunately, i will probably be voting against bush this election. i like the environment too much. i agree with a lot of republican ideals, and some democratic ideals... i hate big government (r), i want to save the environment (d).... like low and fair taxes (r), hate half my hard earned money going to others (d). (and i am not rich, YET)

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by m_gerbik
3. True "Campaign Finance Reform" based on pure Federally funded campaign money. Elections should be about who has the best ideas, not who has the richest friends. I think that is the fundamental stumbling block to our having a true democracy.

You won't be able to change the fact that it is a game. You will only manage to change the rules. News shows are always going to be exempt from time and spending limitations. How would you like to see the NBC nightly news changed into a half hour infomercial on Bush. There are all sorts of loopholes and all sorts of people whoring for the money. Its a good idea. My preferred candidate in the 2000 election didn't stand a chance due to funding issues and not being taken seriously by the media because he didn't have the money.

Originally posted by m_gerbik
It's really shameful to dismiss a candidate 11 months before the election because of their bank balance rather than anything that they have said or done. If Bush is reelected, I'm moving to the Himalayas where I will live as a goat.

The future is a lot closer than you think. First voting is a month away. There is only one candidate who IMHO has a chance of beating Bush and he is won of the also rans.

StealthyKiller

Dec 11, 2003, 02:06 PM

If you don't vote . . .

you can't complain, bitch or argue. You need to be a part of the process.

_Stealthy

idkew

Dec 11, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by bryanc
...we recognize that it is the *corporations* and not the politicians we need to exert our wills upon.

The age of consumer sovereignty is upon us. But unless we, as consumers, make the effort to become educated regarding the corporations we support, and insist on alternatives (i.e., opposing monopolies), we will remain powerless.

Cheers

i totally agree. we are entering in a new political world. the traditional government is losing power to large corporations. we have yet to find a way to consitutionally and successfully control their power.

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Centris 650
When I was in college I was a Democrat. Then I graduated and started paying taxes. :D

WHen I was in college I had a teacher who called Reagan a classic liberal... :)

That was a fun class.

sfhc21

Dec 11, 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by m_gerbik
Not that Bush is good at it, but Clark has nothing to say. He has no plans for any of the issues including Iraq which he has been most vocal about.

Isn't this the case with all the Democrat Nominee's? None of them have anything to say. They just like to complain about Bush...just complain, complain, complain. Why not talk about real issues instead of just complaining about Bush?

I don't support Bush 100% of them time, but I can give the guy credit for the good he has done for this country...whats sad is that if people like yourself don't support Bush, you HATE him. Get over it. Talk about the issues instead of hatred, which breeds terrorism.

I try to be in the middle, thinking about both sides. Balance is the key....

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I'm pretty conservative; in 2000, I voted for Keyes in the primary and Bush in the election. So I guess that makes me a Republican. (Made for interesting water cooler talk as I was working in Portland, OR at the time and was one of 2 conservatives at the company! Luckily, the other one was one of the co-founders! )

I got bronchitis trying to get him on the ballot here in PA. I was astonished at how many democrats I had to turn away from signing the petition so it would be legitimate. When the primary rolled around I was handing out write in stickers and I got a lot of democrats asking for them

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Actually, I'd probably be a Libertarian except for their stance on drug legalization and abortion.

I thought they didn't have a stance on abortion. That they tended to be pro-abortion but it wasn't a plank.

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by sfhc21
Isn't this the case with all the Democrat Nominee's? None of them have anything to say. They just like to complain about Bush...just complain, complain, complain. Why not talk about real issues instead of just complaining about Bush?

I don't support Bush 100% of them time, but I can give the guy credit for the good he has done for this country...whats sad is that if people like yourself don't support Bush, you HATE him. Get over it. Talk about the issues instead of hatred, which breeds terrorism.

I try to be in the middle, thinking about both sides. Balance is the key....

They aren't talking to you. The primary is about who has the support of the core. The core of the democratic party hate Bush worse than the Republicans hated Clinton.

They will get over it after the primary is decided.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 11, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Eslyjah
I'm a Republican with strong libertarian leanings. I don't want the government to provide healthcare for anybody. I think getting rid of Saddam is a good start, but we shouldn't ignore the regimes in Syria, the Sudan, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. The UN is a joke--we should withdraw. Free trade is good, and we should make use of more bilateral agreements (Australia and New Zealand have been begging us to do this for years). I don't like spending a week every year working on my taxes, and favor drastic simplification of the tax code (preferably a sales tax instead of an income tax). I don't think courts should make laws, no matter how badly they want to. I'd rather not pay Social Security taxes and save for my own retirement. I favor full implementation of school vouchers so parents can have a choice of where to send their kids, and so that teachers will be less able to indoctrinate the youth of America. The way to protect the environment is through pollution taxes that are equal to the amount of damage of the pollution. Pork is a disgrace, and should be cut out of the budget.

I haven't covered everything, but that should give you an idea. By the way, I used to work on Capitol Hill for a Republican Congressman. Man i love it, but you have to admit the Republicans and Democrats are so busy fighting each other that in the end we all are loosing. i dont remember the constitution saying we had to pay taxes in the first place! Didnt they have a little Tea party because of unfair taxes. The American is getting the shaft from both parties all the time. I like a lot of the libertarian philosophy, stay out of my life as much as possible and I will be much happier thank you. Democrats/Republicans are constantly tearing down all the dreams our framers of the constitution had for us. There is 2 things Govt is good for. fighting wars and taxing the piss out of us and it seems they are doing a fantastic job at both.

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 02:42 PM

Java

Dec 11, 2003, 02:53 PM

I voted democrat because officially I am registered as one, but I am not big on anyones agenda.

I feel that the more we try and seperate ourselves the more we see that we are all one.

Doctor Q

Dec 11, 2003, 02:53 PM

It's nice to see a fairly polite political discussion going on. Thanks, everyone!

Originally posted by caveman_uk
both American parties are quite right-wing compared with European parties.I'm curious but ignorant. Can someone explain why this is true?

Originally posted by leet1
no no no...its all about Pres. Sharpton :D He's the only candidate who says he prefers Macs to PCs without hedging. That oughta be worth a few votes.

Originally posted by yellow
I most strongly agree with the Kegger Party. That's better than being a registered member of the Donner Party (http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/)!

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
I'm supporting Clark in this one, too. great guy, best chance the democrats have of taking the white house. dean may win the primaries, but he'll lose the election...

my friend pretty well runs the grassroots campaign in des moines, ia... we're hoping to get some sort of turnout for the caucus... it's coming fast. if clark can make any showing at all, and can take NH 3rd or 2nd, we'll be in very good shape.

i look forward to living under an intelligent, philosophical president again. the environment might yet stand a chance... remember that, people? the environment? it was here before the "threat of terrorism" and it'll be here a lot longer... the big man in charge is intent on letting, i'm sorry, evil little trolls from corporations own our nation's mountains, rivers, and forests...

pnw

libertarian? why am I skeptical that you are libertarian, er... Libertarian with the above comment?

A true Libertarian would advocate a smaller government, with public lands being sold to private individuals and parties, and the only public lands that are the 10 square miles in Washington DC, and for forts, arsenals, docks, magazines, etc.

Here is the Libertarian position on the environment (http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html)

Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.

Eslyjah

Dec 11, 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Man i love it, but you have to admit the Republicans and Democrats are so busy fighting each other that in the end we all are loosing. i dont remember the constitution saying we had to pay taxes in the first place! Didnt they have a little Tea party because of unfair taxes. The American is getting the shaft from both parties all the time. I like a lot of the libertarian philosophy, stay out of my life as much as possible and I will be much happier thank you. Democrats/Republicans are constantly tearing down all the dreams our framers of the constitution had for us. There is 2 things Govt is good for. fighting wars and taxing the piss out of us and it seems they are doing a fantastic job at both.

I think you need to look at the individuals rather than the party. There are some very liberal Republicans (Arlen Specter comes to mind) that are really RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). If people vote for those guys, they should be stuck with them. If you want the more free-market oriented Republicans you need to support those. There's a great group called the Club for Growth that works to elect Republicans that truly believe in free markets and economic liberty. If this is the kind of thing that interests you, you might consider joining (http://www.clubforgrowth.com/).

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
Fix those two fundamental things, and we'll have ourselves a democracy! (Maybe even one in which the candidate who gets a half-million more votes than the other actually BECOMES president? Good ol' Electoral College.)

Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Better to live in a constitutionally-limited republic.

Here (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm) is an article comparing a democracy to a constitutionally-limited republic. PaulWhannel might recognize the author, if he is Libertarian, as he claims to be. (Sorry, with the last comment about environmental issues, you don't sound Libertarian to me.)

A simpler analogy for Democracy and constitutionally-limited republic is...

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on whats for dinner.
Constitutionally-limited Republic is where the sheep has veto power over the choice made by the wolves.

Here's (http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/000217.html) another article where a Democracy vs Republic is discussed. This one is more colorful. ;)

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Eslyjah
I'm not addressing the amount of taxation (which I think should be as low as possible). I am just referring to the structure. Suppose there is an income tax of 15%, and suppose that it was to be switched to a 15% sales tax. The sales tax would be lower, because you would only be paying taxes on the income that you spent. Your savings wouldn't be touched. This is much better, in my view, because people would be encouraged to save more for retirement, emergencies, etc.

Hear! Hear!

I just got a notification from my HR saying that the amount for the 401K tax-exempt contribution has increased. I think that there should be NO limit to the 401K tax-exempt contribution.

If I can live off of macaroni and cheese and Top Ramen, and put away 80% of my income for retirement, why should the first 10% be the only part that is untaxed?

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
[B]Right now I'm supporting the Democrats, because in reality no 3rd party canidate will ever get into the white house. Wesly Clark seems like a great canidate. He would destroy Bush in the debates. There wouldn't even be a challenge. I couldn't see Bush winning any debate, because unless someone writes something for him, he is bad off the cuff. He is a great speaker though. I don't know it will all be interesting.

Didn't George W Bush write some speeches for Reagan when he was president? I don't think speech writing is a skill that you would lose overnight. Its akin to riding a bicycle.

noel4r

Dec 11, 2003, 03:35 PM

foreign policy, tax, crime - Republican

Environmental Issues - Democrat

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by bryanc
But, since corporate boards are not elected by the citizenry, how can we do this? By recognizing that every purchase we make is a political statement. And, for those of us fortunate enough to have the affluence that allows investing in stocks, by investing in companies that behave responsibly, and refusing to invest in companies that don't (no matter how profitable they may be).

This means going against our cultural programming, and making decisions that may not be the most financially rewarding, but choosing to make less money in order to make the world a better place. It also means that having more money means having more power, but this has always been true. The challenge is to prevent people who pursue power/money for its own sake from achieving those goals.

The age of consumer sovereignty is upon us. But unless we, as consumers, make the effort to become educated regarding the corporations we support, and insist on alternatives (i.e., opposing monopolies), we will remain powerless.

Cheers [/B]

Consumers have always had the power over the businesses. Its just that consumers have not exercised that power in a long time. As to only supporting companies that behave correctly, that is a power/choice that consumers already have, in capitalist societies. For some consumers, a correctly behaving company is one that is responsive to their customers, have good customer service and gives value. For other consumers, they add on other criteria on top of a company delivering value, such as environmental concerns, conservative family value concerns, etc. Here, the market will decide for itself what it wants.

Current market conditions indicate that Sin companies (tobacco, gambling, etc) make more money than the other types of companies (ice cream). That is just the way the market is at this point. Besides, there is nothing (except advertising costs) that is stopping a consumer group from berating Sin companies and exalting the 'good' companies. Its when you start using the government stick to do so that people get worried. Because now that you have given government the ability to stick it to certain companies/individuals, what is there to stop it from doing to others?

Its better to have the power in private consumer groups where it can be counteracted (if used badly) by other private consumer groups, than have the government be involved.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 11, 2003, 03:46 PM

thank you Eslyjah it looks interesting, ill give it a good look.

wdlove

Dec 11, 2003, 03:55 PM

I'm a Republican. I want to see a strong constitution, smaller govenment, strong foreign policy, strong military, and lower taxes.

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 03:58 PM

Its very weird.

Somehow, the Democrats have been given the credit for being more caring of the environment than Republicans.

But I pose to you one question. Which party would the consumer group that lobbied to subject themselves to a 10% excise tax (Pittman-Robertson) vote for?

Seems to me that this group has been more pro-environment than the recent environmentalists (read, lawyers), and have actually put their money where their mouth is, and actually have used the money for wetland preservation and habitat improvement.

How many of these recent environmentalists are millionaires after getting large multi-million dollar environmental lawsuit judgements? How much of these monies are funnelled back into actually improving the environment?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

For the Google-impaired, the consumer group I talk about are the hunters and fishermen. They have been paying 10% of sporting supplies for use in wildlife habitat improvements, and even some outright purchases of land for conservation (and even some for preservation).

Difference between conservation and preservation is one is wise use of renewable resources, while preservation is no use of nonrenewable resources.

Recent environmentalists are preservationists, wanting no use of resources, even if they might be renewable. This is what turned me off from the environmentalist groups.

MacFan25

Dec 11, 2003, 04:02 PM

I lean more to the Republican side on most issues, but I'm not old enough to vote yet. However, I wouldn't mind seeing Wesley Clark be our next president.

2jaded2care

Dec 11, 2003, 04:18 PM

Glad to see there are a few Republican Apple users out there.

BTW, thanks, Frohickey, for making the "democracy" vs. "republic" argument. I don't know what words some of these people use when they say the pledge of allegiance (assuming they ever say it).

I used to consider myself a Dem when I was a naive high-schooler and didn't understand why we all just couldn't "get along". Then, I fell under the Libertarianism spell when I realized that there are truly evil people out there who would as soon kill you as look at you. Now that I have a kid, I guess I'm a Republican ("Libertarian lite", if you will), since I'm protective and despise most of the current popular culture. Besides, Libertarianism kind of falls apart if you just watch "Cops". You really think some of these people can determine their own lives? Think the rest of us can stomach watching them try?

A national sales tax would be great. I would love to see it spelled out on every receipt, that way it's not taken from your pay before you even see it. Plus, it would simplify everything and get rid of the bureaucracy. Exactly why it won't happen.

Just too bad most Republicans don't care enough about environmental issues (and people in general are just too lazy to recycle). It's a very short-sighted view which will bite (cost) us eventually. Sure, landfills are cheap. Do you want to live next to one? Never happen? Maybe...

Anonymous Freak

Dec 11, 2003, 05:08 PM

I'm a pro-environment, pro-states rights, pro-Constitution, liberal Republican.

Yes, that's right.

I agree with what the Republican political party is supposed to stand for. (Small government, little taxes, balanced budget, and little interference from the government in personal and corporate affairs.) But I am a social liberal (pro-Abortion, pro-Assisted suicide, pro-death penalty, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pretty much pro-letting-you-do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-doesn't-infringe-on-my-freedom,) and I strongly support environmental protection (I believe that federally controlled wildlands should *NOT* be clearcut or have mining or drilling allowed.) I believe in giving over most of the control to the individual states (as the constitution says,) with a tiny federal government that exists solely to handle international affairs and the military.

Oh, yeah, and I'm pro military. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but I don't support the lies that were used to make it come about.

Needless to say, it's really hard for me to find a presidential candidate I actually like. I care more for personal freedoms than anything else, so even though I'm registered as a Republican, I tend to vote Democrat more often than not. (I'm also a realist, so I don't vote for candidates that have no chance of winning, even if I prefer them, like Nader.)

bryanc

Dec 11, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Consumers have always had the power over the businesses. Its just that consumers have not exercised that power in a long time.

I think we're basically in agreement. My point is that most people don't pause to think about what their dollars are supporting when they make a purchase. Even those of us who do think about this are usually in possession of so little information about the corporations we're buying from (and the corporations that own them) that we can't make an informed decision. What I'm suggesting is that, in order for society to function in this post-democratic century, we need to develop and use more tools for 'following-the-money'.

For the determined, there are ways to find out what the companies you're supporting are up to, globally, but they're difficult/expensive. One role I'd like to see governments filling is in the dissemination of complete and unbiased data on what corporations are doing what (and who owns what percentages of who, and how much they're making).

Given that governments are now no longer in control of what corporations can and cannot do, at least they could be telling their citizens what corporations are doing, so that the citizens could make rational decisions about whether they wanted support said corporations.

Cheers

Gyroscope

Dec 11, 2003, 06:12 PM

I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will loose next elections. Bill Clinton was one of greatest US presidents ever. He wasn't perfect(no human being really is !!hm maybe except me :D) but that dude was so damn cool. Call me wrong here but looking back 30-40 years it seems to me that only democratic presidents had that aura of humanity around them(Kennedy,Carter) while republican presidents were more cold calculated,ignorant and sometimes rather nasty.

Regards

MongoTheGeek

Dec 11, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yeah.

Redistricting ought to be done by a computer, subdividing the location with hex grids, ala board wargames. ;)

That is close to what they have gone to. They use the computers to gerrymander. Its more efficiently evil.

:)

Personally I think the boundaries should follow county lines, then major water features.

pgwalsh

Dec 11, 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Gyroscope
I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. Good! Our plan is working.. :D

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Glad to see there are a few Republican Apple users out there.

BTW, thanks, Frohickey, for making the "democracy" vs. "republic" argument. I don't know what words some of these people use when they say the pledge of allegiance (assuming they ever say it).

I used to consider myself a Dem when I was a naive high-schooler and didn't understand why we all just couldn't "get along". Then, I fell under the Libertarianism spell when I realized that there are truly evil people out there who would as soon kill you as look at you. Now that I have a kid, I guess I'm a Republican ("Libertarian lite", if you will), since I'm protective and despise most of the current popular culture. Besides, Libertarianism kind of falls apart if you just watch "Cops". You really think some of these people can determine their own lives? Think the rest of us can stomach watching them try?

A national sales tax would be great. I would love to see it spelled out on every receipt, that way it's not taken from your pay before you even see it. Plus, it would simplify everything and get rid of the bureaucracy. Exactly why it won't happen.

Just too bad most Republicans don't care enough about environmental issues (and people in general are just too lazy to recycle). It's a very short-sighted view which will bite (cost) us eventually. Sure, landfills are cheap. Do you want to live next to one? Never happen? Maybe...

A flat national sales tax would put so many tax preparers and accountants out of work that I doubt it would happen. It would be nice if it happened though. :D

As to the myth that Republicans don't care about environmental issues. I think that is a myth. Republicans breathe air and drink water too. Recycling is a good thing too. I remember before this current trend of recycling aluminum cans and plastics and stuff, back in the 80s. My sister and I would go and dumpster dive for cans, and go to the recycling center. We'd get money for recycling, and that would supplement out small allowances. This continues on to a smaller degree. I still save my cans and bottles, but I do so on my own, and I don't put it in the yellow bin provided by the city trash. Why should I give them money that I could otherwise have on my own if I recycled it myself?

What this large scale recycling by the municipalities have done is given more city bureaucracy, and have dropped recycling prices. You used to have street people hover around the recycling places, and some make enough to do just that, and not panhandle, prices are low enough now that these guys are hurt.

Libertarianism and 'Cops'. People should be able to run their own lives. Thats what freedom is all about. Not saying that people should be able to run around and hurt other people. That is what government is for, to protect my rights from others. What the Demopublicans have done is not that at all. No knock drug raids on the wrong house ending in dead homeowners that tried to protect himself from the ninja-clad drug police breaking down his door at 3am in the morning. Or the pregnant wife that got thrown during these raids to miscarry! :mad:

As to living near landfills... I was told stories that landfills are good places to shoot at rats for target practice. :D

Les Kern

Dec 11, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by m_gerbik
I support Dennis Kucinich because he is a real Democrat..

He does have some wonderful ideas, if only the damn media took him seriously.
Right now I'm leaning Dean, mainly because, like Kucinich, he's not afraid to say what needs to be said, and, unlike Kucinich, is electable.
I used to be a staunch republican, but I had an INCREDIBLE epiphany a few years ago. Now I believe the neo-cons (NOT the average republican) are the most dangerous threat to America since we were founded.

Les Kern

Dec 11, 2003, 07:45 PM

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Gyroscope
I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will loose next elections. Bill Clinton was one of greatest US presidents ever. He wasn't perfect(no human being really is !!hm maybe except me :D) but that dude was so damn cool. Call me wrong here but looking back 30-40 years it seems to me that only democratic presidents had that aura of humanity around them(Kennedy,Carter) while republican presidents were more cold calculated,ignorant and sometimes rather nasty.

Regards

Wow. Someone that actually thinks the measure of a good president is being a cool dude. Tell you what, how about getting US citizenship before you start talking about internal US elections and politics.

As to aura of humanities, Kennedy did not do a thing for blacks during his term. It took LBJ to do what Kennedy talked about. Also, getting out of Vietnam, or at least getting to the point where we can disengage from Vietnam, it took Nixon and his escalation of the war in order to bring the Vietnamese back to the table in Paris. Bankrupting the old Soviet Union, and the liberation of the millions trapped in that area... Ronald Reagan.

Carter brought us the current mess in Iran, where we cut and ran and was seen to be bullied by terrorist hostage takers, plus his negotiation with North Korea for fuel/food to stop their nuclear development program. Oh sure...:rolleyes:

Clinton was not a good role model for personal behavior for young people as President. He did some good welfare reform while in office, but there were lots of talk of corruption, such as disappearing Pittman-Robertson funds, disappearing White House furniture, etc.

For a democratic politician that I respect, hmm... I would need to go back to Truman, or maybe RFK, if he were elected.

Eisenhower should have supported Vietnamese independence from France when he had the chance. Here, we got caught in what ol' Georgie-boy warned as 'entangling alliances'.

Not saying Republicans are saints... that guy Hutchinson from Arkansas that divorced his wife when he was caught cheating with a campaign staffer???!!!

Frohickey

Dec 11, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
That is close to what they have gone to. They use the computers to gerrymander. Its more efficiently evil.

:)

Personally I think the boundaries should follow county lines, then major water features.

Well... a hex-grid system would make for districts where the center of mass of a district is inside of the district. Each one would be a circular-ish district. Not looking like a Level-99 difficulty 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle.

GeeYouEye

Dec 11, 2003, 08:39 PM

I picked Constitution, but only because the Libertarian Party is far too anarchist for my taste. The Republicans are scum. The Greens are insane. The Democrats are dangerous. (all IMNSHO, of course)

The real question is: where do you stand on the political compass (www.politicalcompass.org).

I'll plot a map of MR members if anyone's interested.

EDIT: forgot to post my score.

Econ L/R: 9.12
Auth/Lib: -5.18

and this without even manipulating the results to get a more accurate answer.

balconycollapse

Dec 11, 2003, 09:19 PM

I hold a deep deep view that everything is interconnected and indirectly affects everything else somewhere along the line.

I will be voting for Howard Dean whom i have supported for about a year (hopefully Clark or any of the other candidates as a vp) provided he is a candidate in the next election and agree with the policies laid out by Democratic/Green/Lib leaders more often then Republican. I will not support the Republican party as long as it associates itself with the subsect of extremely conservative voters. I argue that these people are not the bulk of the party but they sure are the loudest and most detestable which get the most attention.

In my experience people i've met who are extreme in the way have tended to be in favor of returning to something that was, object to civil discourse, harbor hatred or fear of something that is or could be ( minorites, women in power to name a few), have an inablility to sympathize with plights of others until it afflicts them directly, and a tendency to be won over by superficial things like a southern drawl or a history of high school football glory days or military service, as well as a need to tell us all about their religion and how it is the only mode of living.

Lastly what i feel is lacking in america more then anything is an ability to cope with information. We need to teach people to ask why all the time of the media they are fed. If more knew how we may not be where we are. Its too easy to just "go along". Information overload from every possible angle. We need courses in media awareness and filtering data to find true meaning as young as pre-school. An uneducated populous is easily swayed.

vniow

Dec 11, 2003, 09:57 PM

Come on, no one has mentioned the PPP yet? It really doesn't matter anywayz since that will be all that matters come 2k16....

http://organicallydigital.com/ppp/

skytown205

Dec 11, 2003, 11:02 PM

I grew up staunch Republican--right-wing, fundamentalist Republican, as in Jerry Falwell and the rest. But it never seemed correct to me, and the more I looked into things, the more I found myself moving left-ward. After a radical phase, I suppose I would describe myself as a not-quite-moderate Democrat--though the actions of the current administration seem to be driving me back out there, to left of left.

yamadataro

Dec 11, 2003, 11:06 PM

I always enjoy voting in the Daily Poll here at Macrumors. And the American politics is a damn important matter for sure (even for me, a Japanese citizen!)

But I'm wondering about today's topic. I just don't feel comfortable to see this happening at a Mac site's FRONT PAGE.

In any case, the conversation here has been productive I think.

mproud

Dec 11, 2003, 11:31 PM

Howard Dean for President! :)
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

Republicans alike, you know:
http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

Independents as well:
http://deanindependents.org/

Libertarians, too:
http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/

coolsoldier

Dec 12, 2003, 12:35 AM

I've never found a political party I really agree with. I describe myself as a populist (anti-corporate and anti-government) on domestic issues and pacifist of foreign policy issues.

And I end up voting against the incumbent in every election.

Edit: that didn't quite come out right. I'm not quite "anti-government", but I think the government's role (other than screwing corporations) should be as limited as possible. I'm all for getting rid of corporations completely though. They're nothing more than a way to dodge individual responsibility.

richters

Dec 12, 2003, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Better to live in a constitutionally-limited republic.

Strange how the definition of the word "Republic" is being warped, even all the way to the US government. How dumb a government official is that. A 'republic' is a form of government with a chosen or nominated president, as opposed to a, for example non-elected, monarch. Or: a republic has elected officials all the way to the top.
A word opposite to 'democracy' may be 'autocracy'. A 'republic' may have the character of a democracy or an autocracy.
A country run only by a monarch would be an autocracy. The US, run by elected officials, is a republic AND a democracy.

ph_555_shag

Dec 12, 2003, 08:27 AM

I live in australia and i am an ALP member (think a little more left wing democrats)
IMHO i think the biggest problem in america is the way in which the government is elected, i personally am a strong believer in the australian system (i cant find a website)
where u have (in our case) 150 electorates that each elect a representative to parliament, normally based on their party membership, an then the party with the most votes has their leader as prime-minster.
I also believe that it is everyones RESPONSIBILITY to vote (i.e.. compulsory voting)
i am also a strong supporter of preferential voting ( http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml )

btw my political compass was
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

m_gerbik

Dec 12, 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by wdlove
I'm a Republican. I want to see a strong constitution, smaller govenment, strong foreign policy, strong military, and lower taxes. I have to recommend switching parties then. During the last three years George Bush and the Republican Right has stomped on the constitution with the Patriot act...
Expanded the role of the government with the massive Department of Homeland Security (who's role it is to snoop on American's)...
Alienated the rest of the world with a very weak, separatist foreign policy...
Weakened our military by trivializing its role and cutting pay and benefits to the soldiers who are risking everything for us...
and ultimately causes much higher taxes by throwing us hundreds of billions of dollars into deficit, which we just have to pay later. Don't worry you can blame the Democrats or whoever you want when taxes get raised to clean up the mess made by corporate welfare.

m_gerbik

Dec 12, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Les Kern
He does have some wonderful ideas, if only the damn media took him seriously.
Right now I'm leaning Dean, mainly because, like Kucinich, he's not afraid to say what needs to be said, and, unlike Kucinich, is electable.
I used to be a staunch republican, but I had an INCREDIBLE epiphany a few years ago. Now I believe the neo-cons (NOT the average republican) are the most dangerous threat to America since we were founded. I really believe that Kucinich has the best chance of beating Bush because of the sharp contrast. People are ready for a big change right now and he inspires people. He will not be able to be ignored by the media if nominated. I'm really tired of this mood of fear that causes Democrats to compromise and lean right. The right-wing is shaping the agenda of the Democratic party, fragmenting us and causing us to believe that we can't have what we really want. If we put as much work into this as the Republicans do, Dennis Kucinich would be unstoppable. Instead we say, I guess Dean is ok. Dean WILL lose to Bush though because he doesn't want to leave Iraq, doesn't want to remove profits from health care, doesn't want to leave NAFTA and WTO which are ruining us. We have the opportunity to evolve here as a nation, but because of this idea that the best people can't possibly be elected we will again compromise and lose. Same old, same old.

m_gerbik

Dec 12, 2003, 09:45 AM

yamabushi

Dec 12, 2003, 11:45 AM

My score for the political compass is:
Economic -5.5 Libertarian/Authoritarian -4.82

I was surprised at the economic score. I support free trade, free markets and greater global economic integration. I also noticed that President G.W. Bush scored far to the right towards free markets despite the fact that he erected barriers to trade in the form of protectionist tariffs on steel imports. I would therefore assume that the left/right scale is not purely economic but rather reflects other factors as well.

2jaded2care

Dec 12, 2003, 01:35 PM

Frohickey, I miswrote when I wrote that some people can't determine their own lives. Obviously, in this country everyone can and does, regardless of the laws. I just fear that if you give some people too much (legal) choice, the results will not be pretty for them or the ones affected by them. For example, "ideally" there should be no helmet laws for motorcyclists. Nevertheless, I don't want to see the results of that change firsthand. Or (in today's world anyway) fork out the medical expenses for those who can't pay for their own actions...

Libertarians tend to assume that most people are responsible, reasonable people, as they see themselves. And anyone who's not, well, they'll just have to deal with it... I don't think most people will be able to sit by and watch them attempt it. Maybe it would work as an evolution, but as a revolution, it would cause a big backlash.

Changing subjects, I think the only Dem candidate who has a chance against Bush is Clark. I don't support or know that much about him, but I get the feeling he's the only one the Republicans are scared of. I don't think the others have a chance. Dean will be loved by the libs, but I can't see him winning. Lieberman would be an interesting nominee, if only in the context of our world situation...

See ya at the landfill, Frohickey; I'll be wearing orange...

Frohickey

Dec 12, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by m_gerbik
Wow Forhickey. That's really rude. How about leaving Candyland before talking about US politics?

Candyland? Hah!
I live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia... in the belly of the the beast. I keep hoping that my company would move into the United States... at least the free states. ;)

I was rooting for Gray Davis and a few more rolling blackouts. Nothing like blackouts to make a company think they ought to move somewhere else.

Yeah, I know. A little bit of schadenfreude... or is it some other term when you are hoping for bad things to happen to yourself.... oh well.

Besides, we put people in jail for participating in elections if they inject foreign influences into it. Ask a few of Clinton, Gore and Torricelli campaign contributors. ;)

Awimoway

Dec 12, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I think the only Dem candidate who has a chance against Bush is Clark. I don't support or know that much about him, but I get the feeling he's the only one the Republicans are scared of. I don't think the others have a chance. Dean will be loved by the libs, but I can't see him winning. Lieberman would be an interesting nominee, if only in the context of our world situation...

See ya at the landfill, Frohickey; I'll be wearing orange...

I think that as long as people assume Dean can't win based on the assumption that being loved by the libs = a bigtime loser in the general election, his chances will be greatly diminished. This is unfortunate, since he all but has the nomination locked up and he's actually quite moderate.

People tend to lack imagination when they try to foresee the future, and they usually forget that candidates move markedly to the center once they've got the nomination. I wish people would take a closer look at Dean and realize how easy it will be for him to move to the center and appeal to a much broader percentage of the electorate. Everyone assumes he's just another McGovern and therefore a hopeless loser, and if the Republicans and more moderate Democrats continue to convince themselves that Dean is a flaming liberal McGovern reincarnation, no one will even give him the time of day and look at what he really stands for.

The fact is that his appeal is that he 1. Opposed the war (which a lot of people agree or at least sympathize with now) and 2. He's feisty as hell. He's not some head in the clouds liberal. He's scrappy and smart and he will move to the center after the primaries, and his record in Vermont will back up his claims of being a centrist.

Clark, on the other hand, isn't even much of a Democrat. He has a Republican voting record, and his two-faced support for the war will do nothing to differentiate him in the general election.

I don't understand why everyone thinks the only chance the Democrats have is some kind of militant Bush-lite. Faced with a choice between Bush and Bush-lite, swing voters will vote for the genuine article and dissatisfied liberals will make protest votes for Nader, who is making rumblings about running again.

2jaded2care

Dec 12, 2003, 02:17 PM

Awimoway, you make some good points. Clark isn't much of a Democrat, but he is a Dem candidate (for now). Maybe Dean will tone down the rhetoric after he's shored up the party faithful, but he's already lost some of us (who weren't likely to vote for him anyway, admittedly). That said, I don't understand why any candidate has to "move to the center". Doesn't that mean, either he or she was lying before, or is lying now? Of course, I'm not a politician. (Probably they prefer the word "spin" to "lie".)

BTW, I appreciate your reference to Bush as the "genuine article"! (Out of context? Me? No!)

Awimoway

Dec 12, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Awimoway, you make some good points. Clark isn't much of a Democrat, but he is a Dem candidate (for now). Maybe Dean will tone down the rhetoric after he's shored up the party faithful, but he's already lost some of us (who weren't likely to vote for him anyway, admittedly). That said, I don't understand why any candidate has to "move to the center". Doesn't that mean, either he or she was lying before, or is lying now? Of course, I'm not a politician. (Probably they prefer the word "spin" to "lie".)

BTW, I appreciate your reference to Bush as the "genuine article"! (Out of context? Me? No!)

Moving to the wings or to the center does not necessarily mean the candidate is lying at one time or the other. It can just be a difference in emphasis. Emphasize your more extreme points in the primary, empasize your more centrist points in the general.

We always want politics to be about principle when in fact it is about compromise. Sometimes when a candidate changes their rhetoric, we assume they are without principle when in fact they are compromising their wishes with those of the electorate because, overall, they believe that the people would be better served by even a toned-down version of themselves than it would by the other candidates.

As for the "genuine article" bit... Well, yes, Bush is the "genuine article" ... genuinely lousy. :)

bryanc

Dec 12, 2003, 02:46 PM

I encourage everyone to go to The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) and then post their co-ordinates.

It'll be fun to see if/how we cluster on a scatter plot. I expect, as is the case for so many measurements, I will be an outlier.

My co-ordinates are:
left: -8
libertarian: -7

Cheers

2jaded2care

Dec 12, 2003, 02:53 PM

If it's just a change of emphasis in topics, but the basic answers stay the same, I guess that's OK. The thing I can't stand is when they say one thing to one group, then something which seems contradictory to another group, and won't admit they've either changed their position, misspoken, or deceived.

You wrote "Sometimes when a candidate changes their rhetoric, we assume they are without principle when in fact they are compromising their wishes with those of the electorate because, overall, they believe that the people would be better served by even a toned-down version of themselves than it would by the other candidates."

Gee, that sounds good (are you in politics?). But it seems an awful lot like "tell the people what you think they want to hear -- whatever it takes to get elected." ...But what would I know?

coolsoldier

Dec 12, 2003, 03:30 PM

Left/Right: -4.50
Lib/Auth: -4.05

I distrust the results of the test though, and here's why -- The linear representation of the political spectrum is certainly oversimplified, but so is a planar representation. To be really accurate, the "compass" would need an axis for every issue

Awimoway

Dec 12, 2003, 04:01 PM

I agree. My results, Economic Left/Right: -5.38, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44, fail to show that I am a religious, social conservative (society is too promiscuous, abortion on demand is wrong), yet I support affirmative action, gay rights, and a liberal economic agenda. There's just no way to encapsulate that on a 2-axis grid. Frankly, I would have thought I'd be high on the authoritarian scale. I think the poll operates too much on the guilt by association theory--if you subscribe to belief X, then you belong in group X. Not always true.

Awimoway

Dec 12, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Gee, that sounds good (are you in politics?). But it seems an awful lot like "tell the people what you think they want to hear -- whatever it takes to get elected." ...But what would I know?

Maybe you're just too jaded to care. ;)

I don't know. I get tired of the way Americans (and I am one myself) habitually make blanket statements of pessimism about politics, government, society ("things", for example, are never the "way they used to be"). It's conventional wisdom that all politicians are liars. It's conventional wisdom that government is always out to screw you.

I mean, it's too easy to dismiss the whole process that way rather than really look at it for what it actually is--an imperfect system peopled by imperfect people who must respond to the demands of an imperfect society. Politics is like advertising. It must please or it will fail. Who's fault is it that we vote for the person we like most or buy the product we think is the best? Is there any way to make the process (either politics or advertising) more honest? Or to make our selections more accurate? I can't think of one. Can you?

In the meantime, politicians will continue to tell us what we want to hear and we will be forced to choose among the lesser of schmoozers. I don't think everyone who is attracted to running for office is fundamentally dishonest. I think the system selects successful candidates according to their ability to persuade people that they are likeable or more honest (whether or not they really are). Not that they are better leaders.

coolsoldier

Dec 12, 2003, 06:31 PM

The fundamental problem with American politics, society, etc. is that it is easier not to think. It is easier to follow a political party, or to look at that political compass grid and pick the candidate whose dot is closest to yours. What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you.

Datazoid

Dec 12, 2003, 07:41 PM

Coordinates:
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13

I'm as left as they come, baby! ;) *dons flame-retardant suit*

EDIT: Is it just me, or does the +/- system seem to reflect "negatively" on liberals? ;)

Frohickey

Dec 12, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
The fundamental problem with American politics, society, etc. is that it is easier not to think. It is easier to follow a political party, or to look at that political compass grid and pick the candidate whose dot is closest to yours. What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you.

Voting along party lines, you mean.

How about the ones that vote for the candidate that they thing is the 'cool dude' because they have not researched the issues close enough?

There should be another choice 'None of the above'. When the number of people voting for 'None of the above' reaches a certain amount, or if the majority chooses 'None of the above', then the election for that office is considered postponed until the next election.

Roger1

Dec 12, 2003, 08:42 PM

Here is my political compass score.
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Dumb question: does this make me a democrat or a republican?

coolsoldier

Dec 12, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Roger1
Dumb question: does this make me a democrat or a republican?

They have a page showing where the different political parties fall on the chart:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Edit: don't put too much weight into where your dot falls in relation to these parties -- Two people can disagree on most of the issues and still come out at the same place on the chart -- that happened with me and several of my buddies. We all came out in the left-libertarian quadrant despite differing on over half of the questions.

Counterfit

Dec 12, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you. But the entire point of electing someone is to elect someone that represents you. Obviously, the elected person can't represent everyone 100%, but you should vote for whoever comes the closest. However, I think that should be moot if the person running is a buffoon *cough*W*cough* :rolleyes:

Datazoid

Dec 12, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
They have a page showing where the different political parties fall on the chart:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Edit: don't put too much weight into where your dot falls in relation to these parties -- Two people can disagree on most of the issues and still come out at the same place on the chart -- that happened with me and several of my buddies. We all came out in the left-libertarian quadrant despite differing on over half of the questions.

Just a note - those are British political parties, not American parties.

wdlove

Dec 13, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
But the entire point of electing someone is to elect someone that represents you. Obviously, the elected person can't represent everyone 100%, but you should vote for whoever comes the closest. However, I think that should be moot if the person running is a buffoon *cough*W*cough* :rolleyes:

I agree, you are not going to agree with an elected official on everything. It is important to vote. Almost evveryone can agree on a political philosphy when it comes to the amount of government, freedom, and taxes.

JDar

Dec 13, 2003, 12:04 PM

Political parties are as web browsers:all of them suck in one way or the other.

Gymnut

Dec 13, 2003, 04:56 PM

Republican althought here in Hawaii it's predominantly Democrat.

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 10:27 AM

Soooooo many people that don't know the truth to things in this forum; I don't know where to start... I'll just say a couple things.

...to make a long story short, (and I know what I'm talking about) Iraq is not about oil, and don't believe idiodic spin comin from morons like moveon.org. Gov't officials generally really DO mean the things they say about the WHY of things.

... Gore probably would have been sitting in a corner of the White House with his thumb up his $%& after 9/11.

.... oh, and Clark is a fool who should have been dishonerably discharged after the things he did as nato commander during the Kosovo conflict, (as it was, he was basically fired); not one general will vouch for him, and for good reason.

Counterfit

Dec 14, 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Sunrunner
Soooooo many people that don't know the truth to things in this forum; I don't know where to start... I'll just say a couple things.

...to make a long story short, (and I know what I'm talking about) Iraq is not about oil, and don't believe idiodic spin comin from morons like moveon.org. Gov't officials generally really DO mean the things they say about the WHY of things.

... Gore probably would have been sitting in a corner of the White House with his thumb up his $%& after 9/11.

.... oh, and Clark is a fool who should have been dishonerably discharged after the things he did as nato commander during the Kosovo conflict, (as it was, he was basically fired); not one general will vouch for him, and for good reason. What part of "Do not make this into a person/party flamewar" didn't you understand?

coolsoldier

Dec 14, 2003, 02:04 PM

I just love it when people feel the need to state that "they know what they're talking about". If you do, it'll show in your argument. If you don't, that'll show too. But in general, if you have to say it...

I don't quite understand what you are saying, though. You say that gov't officials are generally honest and can be trusted, but then go on to name officials and hint at why they can't be trusted.

Politics should not be based on trust, because it only takes one untrustworthy individual to break a system based on trust. A system based on facts can be broken only by a universal conspiracy.

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Counterfit
What part of "Do not make this into a person/party flamewar" didn't you understand?

I guess that was a little inflamitory. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just expressing my viewpoint. I hope nobody is toooo offended... I posted my comments under the premise that we operate under at least a moderate level of assumed co-maturity.

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I just love it when people feel the need to state that "they know what they're talking about". If you do, it'll show in your argument. If you don't, that'll show too. But in general, if you have to say it...

I don't quite understand what you are saying, though. You say that gov't officials are generally honest and can be trusted, but then go on to name officials and hint at why they can't be trusted.

Politics should not be based on trust, because it only takes one untrustworthy individual to break a system based on trust. A system based on facts can be broken only by a universal conspiracy.

It is certainly very true that politicians lie, cheat, and the rest. However, large decisions such as the Iraq issue tend to transcend the smaller political bickering and are treated with much more seriousness. What I ment about trustworthiness of government officials was ment in that vein. They are mostly people like you and me, and generally really do have the intrests of the U.S. and the larger good at heart. Politics are based trust, but operational planning is not... thus, since there is no universal conspiracy, you can be assured that the Iraq issue was handled the way it was for valid reasons.

As for the General Clark thing, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing in Kosovo, but the fact is, he caused alot of unneccecary U.S. deaths with bad decisions, and repeatedly ignored his chain of command as well as orders given to him.

As for Gore, you saw all they would approve the military to do for going after UBL in AF while he was VP, just a couple cruise missiles aimed at a farm... He was too worried about diplomatic ramifications and politics. You know what that kind of light-handed approach got us.... it got us 9/11.

Awimoway

Dec 14, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Sunrunner
As for Gore, you saw all they would approve the military to do for going after UBL in AF while he was VP, just a couple cruise missiles aimed at a farm... He was too worried about diplomatic ramifications and politics. You know what that kind of light-handed approach got us.... it got us 9/11.

So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

:rolleyes:

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Awimoway
So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

How is hat a response? You still need a direct and RECENT reason to go and attack a country, to justify it. Otherwise, people with political leanings similar to what I think yours are would run around crying and screaming. The first WTC attacks were a reason, the embasy bombings in Africa were a reason, the 16 UN resolutions (in the case of Iraq) were a reason. Bush, only several months into his term, had no good and recent reason.

Lets also not forget the fact that clinton/gore were OFFERED UBL for extradition by Sudan and TURNED IT DOWN. They declined to take him into custody! I think it is clear that you can nearly directly blame UBLs freedom in 2001, and thus the 9/11 attacks, on the Clinton/Gore administration.

coolsoldier

Dec 14, 2003, 09:21 PM

bin Laden != Iraq

Let's stick to one topic here ;)

Counterfit

Dec 14, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Awimoway
So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

:rolleyes: Actually no he didn't...
"Elected" December 2000
Inaugurated January 2001
September 11th 2001
Military actions in Afghanistan commence in October 2001.

Counterfit

Dec 14, 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Sunrunner
I think it is clear that you can nearly directly blame UBLs freedom in 2001, and thus the 9/11 attacks, on the Clinton/Gore administration. Perhaps the MASSIVE FUNDING of him by the United States during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan helped a bit?

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Perhaps the MASSIVE FUNDING of him by the United States during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan helped a bit?

You and your political cronies should read a history book instead of propaganda articles. The U.S. did NOT finance UBL. The U.S. financed the ISID (Pakistani Intelligince) who gave the arms and support to the people THEY chose. At the time, UBL was only a peon extremist who came to AF to fight after disagreements with his father in Saudi Arabia, as well as to answer calls by Shia mullahs for all good muslims to go to AF and fight the invading USSR. The U.S. is guilty of extremist support by proxy, yes, but the U.S. NEVER gave support directly to UBL.

The extremist problem for the west started to materialize after the russians left AF and all of these fighters were concentrated in the region without anyone to fight. al-Qaida becaime a viable organization efter it merged with Egyption Islamic Jihad (EIJ)-- more specifically when UBL and Zawahiri linked up. UBL has always been more of a figurehead; Zawahiri is the real operational planner and power, and HE had nothing to do with AF. Of course AQ would have never made it to the level they did in 2001 without either UBL or Zawahiri, which is why UBLs capture before then would have been such a crippling blow, because his financial and rallying support were essential to the organizations cohesiveness. Zawahiri was the real brains though, and the big schemer. In summary, it is apparent to me you don't have a clue...

The 9/11/ attacks were in final planning well before Bush was elected, nothing he realisticly could have done, (unless he was psychic) would have stopped those attacks.

Geeeez

Counterfit

Dec 14, 2003, 10:08 PM

Political cronies? I wish!

So our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama? Whatever. Just a few more posts like that from you, and it's off to the Wasteland for Mr. Thread...

Sunrunner

Dec 14, 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Political cronies? I wish!

So our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama? Whatever. Just a few more posts like that from you, and it's off to the Wasteland for Mr. Thread...

I am trying to find the spot were I said "our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama", but I can't seem to find it. Our funding did nothing to help Osama directly, it did allow the ISID to create a resovoir of extremists which gave bin laden a group to draw from. Bin Laden was a millionare well before he went to AF, our money had nothing to do with that.

My point is that Bin Laden is not the key to AQ like some seem to think. His removal from the scene will not do much to change the operational threat picture for the U.S.. Some people need to pull their heads out of Osamas butt and look around at the truth of the threat.