PDA

View Full Version : What determined your choice to be a Democrat, Republican or Independent?


2jaded2care
Jul 1, 2004, 09:24 AM
Now, I'm really not trying to be divisive, but -- what was it that made you decide to support the Democrats, Republicans, or some independent group? I mean for life, not just as applies to this election.

Some recent discussions with friends have made me wonder what it is that determines peoples' political views. As I have said before, I know lots of highly intelligent and educated Democrats, and just-as-intelligent and educated Republicans and, for example, Libertarians. I suppose it's not just one simple thing that makes the difference, but I am curious... Did you decide mainly because of your parents' views? Other life experiences? Did one issue decide it for you (abortion/choice, guns, sexual preference, the environment, etc.)? Can you even pinpoint it?

I'd appreciate it if we could stay away from "loaded" responses ("Because Bush is an idiot", or "Because Hillary is the devil incarnate", or even "Being ______ is just the logical choice", which doesn't help at all)...

As I said, I'm just curious, not trying to stir up trouble (I think)... My apologies if this topic has been posted before (don't see it) or just seems stupid.

Sayhey
Jul 1, 2004, 10:07 AM
I'm a Democrat not because of a love of my party. I've been an independent before and I could end up in another party (I've voted for Green Party candidates before.) I'm where I'm at now because it seems to me that the Democratic Party is the best choice tactically to make a difference for the better in the lives of ordinary Americans. If I find a better option, then I will switch in a minute.

Almost as important is that the other choice for so many people is a party who's policies I've fought against most of my life. Beginning with Nixon (the Vietnam War and Watergate), Ford (the Nixon pardon), Reagan (destruction of the safety net, Iran/Contra, support for Apartheid, Star Wars, etc.), and continuing through the two Bush presidencies, I've opposed most of the policies of the GOP. My choice of political parties has been shaped in large measure by what is the most effective vehicle to stop the agenda of the Republican Party and what I believe is its unrelenting attack on the social and economic gains of ordinary Americans.

takao
Jul 1, 2004, 10:11 AM
Now, I'm really not trying to be divisive, but -- what was it that made you decide to support the Democrats, Republicans, or some independent group? I mean for life, not just as applies to this election.

Some recent discussions with friends have made me wonder what it is that determines peoples' political views. As I have said before, I know lots of highly intelligent and educated Democrats, and just-as-intelligent and educated Republicans and, for example, Libertarians. I suppose it's not just one simple thing that makes the difference, but I am curious... Did you decide mainly because of your parents' views? Other life experiences? Did one issue decide it for you (abortion/choice, guns, sexual preference, the environment, etc.)? Can you even pinpoint it?

I'd appreciate it if we could stay away from "loaded" responses ("Because Bush is an idiot", or "Because Hillary is the devil incarnate", or even "Being ______ is just the logical choice", which doesn't help at all)...

As I said, I'm just curious, not trying to stir up trouble (I think)... My apologies if this topic has been posted before (don't see it) or just seems stupid.


well since i'm not american i can only make my comment about the ones who i'm voting for :
my choices are:
VP (perhaps a mixture of 40% republican, 40% democratic, 20% libertarian from the ideology but still very conservative/catholic)
SP (roughly the democratic party 90% but with a 10% touch of socialism)
FP ( 50% republican 20% libertarian,30% ultra right wing/xenophibic)
Die Grnen ('green party' : 50% democratic, 30% "save mother earth", 10%socialistic)
KP (the communists who always try to get a seat in the parliament)

VP: too "catholic-conservative" for me, and they are screwing up the educational system at the moment
SP: concentrate too much on idealistic trench-fighting against their conservative arch-rivals at the moment but are still votable if they change conservatives screw it up even more
FP: the jrg haider party ..perhaps the most instable party which ever existed..they are exchanging their higher positions faster than you can say "let's get some work done"...and of course they are lacking aserious party programm and sympathic members....in one word: unvotable
Die Grnen: perhaps the most votable at the moment ..msot of te tiem they concetrate on the isssues/facts and don't use rethoric to turn them around ...
KP:... the 'funny' freak party...

IJ Reilly
Jul 1, 2004, 10:18 AM
When I was first old enough to vote, I registered as a Democrat. It was what my family of New Deal Democrats did. It's a bit like growing up in a church. Then in 1976 I changed my registration to "no party," mainly because I was unhappy with the nomination of Jimmy Carter. Since that time I've been an independent, and I've never been seriously tempted me to register with any party. They all demand a kind of loyalty that I find myself unable to supply, especially given that no party reflects my ideals anyway.

jsw
Jul 1, 2004, 10:59 AM
I'm registered as a Democrat, mainly because I've tended to align myself more with the Democratic views of issues than those of Republicans. I'm probably going to go "no party" after this election, because I really am more of a moderate than a real Democrat.

I am not particularly Green, but I am outraged by Republican environmental policies. And that says a lot, since I'm not that good at, oh, avoiding styrofoam, recycling, all of that. And still, their policies offend me.

I am also more of a "let everyone believe what they want" than a "shove a Protestant God and Baptist morality down their throats" kind of person, so I'm more Democrat in that the Democrats seem to keep their religions more private.

Related to that, I'm very much pro-choice. Not because I personally think abortion is a good thing, but because I know people will get abortions, and I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore that just so I can feel good about "saving unborn children". If my daughter some day should end up pregnant and unwilling to have the child, then, although I can't predict my feelings on the matter at that time, I want her to be able to safely terminate the pregnancy, not end up in some back alley.

Likewise, I'm in favor of drug legalization and control, which seems to have marginally more Democratic than Republican support. I don't do drugs, and, aside from very minor experimentation in college, never have. I think it's stupid. But, again, people are going to do it, and I'd rather control, tax, and make safe a practice that people are going to do anyway than flood prisons with people who aren't really criminals except in a technical sense - they haven't actually hurt anyone in any way.

Basically, the Republicans seem to be controlled by the far right, and they seem to base every decision on one of two things: (1) what does the Bible say, and (2) what do the rich want. These aren't my criteria, so I can't go Republican.

On the other hand, Democrats are, in my opinion, far too willing to help people than to let them help themselves. More of a "give a man a fish" than a "teach a man to fish" sort of party, and I do not like that. My wife is an RN in Lawrence, MA, a place with such liberal maternity programs that - and I mean this literally - women fly in from places like the Dominican Republic to have their children here just because the taxpayer will foot the bill. That disgusts me. Also, the whole paid-to-have-kids thing, the various ways to work the system (many women my wife cares for have many children with the same man and have lived with him for many years - in one case recently, twenty - but aren't married because that would cut back on their welfare), all these things are the result of overly liberal policies.

I like the idea of a safety net. That's why, among other reasons, I've remained a Democrat until now. I want children to be safe, fed, medically cared for, and educated. However, I don't want them to grow up to leach off of the system. The welfare system has been improved, but, in my mind, is still far too bloated, far too lenient or favorable towards large families, and far too reactive and not proactive.

So now I'm thinking of going Independent.

What I really want is somehting like a Rationalist party - one that does things which are realistic, not idealistic. Things that help the general good. Legalize some drugs, use the resultant tax money to help schools. Require birth control for women on welfare until they can begin to work again - and fund research into male birth control - so that, if you can't support yourself, you don't bring even more children into the population that I need to pay for. Children are innocent, and the ones that are out there need to be provided for. But I personally don't think children should be a "right" if you're using state funds to have and raise them. I want a party that provides more equitable taxation of the super-wealthy. The way I see it, if you're worth a billion dollars, you could afford to pay substantially more in taxes without feeling any - any - pain. Stop red-light cameras. They don't help safety, they just raise local law enforcement revenue. For that matter, revise traffic laws so people are ticketed for actually being reckless, as opposed to being picked out from a crowd and ticketed for no real safety violation. Dramatically reduce the payouts for legal suits - the biggest two problems in medicine today are, I think, litigation-induced malpractice fees (which trickle down to higher medical bills for all) and relatively unregulated pharmaceutical prices. Fix those problems, and medical care will be more affordable for all. Legalize euthanasia; people who are terminally ill and of sound mind should have the right to dictate how they will die. Base decisions on ethics, not morals.

Anyone know of such a party now?

Neserk
Jul 1, 2004, 11:02 AM
I am a non affiliated. I don't care for labels as they never fit.

mactastic
Jul 1, 2004, 11:13 AM
I'm a progressive. My vote is up for grabs. I actually despise both the Republican and Democratic machinery, and would very happily support a good 3rd party candidate.

I agree heartily with IJ here, no party supports what I believe completely. Therefore I must evaluate and compromise to decide which candidate to support. Hell, no one agrees with me on everything. Not even my wife sees things the same way politically that I do, and she's the one person I've found who's most like me politically.

pdham
Jul 1, 2004, 11:41 AM
This is a tough question, because I have very strong feelings about many issues, but I don't fit neatly into any one category (actually I kinda like that). Many of my beliefs stem from my strong religious beliefs. I dont support any form of abortion, I don't support gay marrriage (although I also don't think it is the governments place to decide the issue), so there I guess I fall conservative Republican.
Now, conversely I feel we need to have a reformed health care system that truely includes everyone, I think we spend too much money on bombs and not enough on education, I dislike the Patriot act, don't support the NRA or the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment (i.e. automatic weapons), I don't like the death penalty, I don't support this new fangled "preemptive-strike" nonsense, and certainly don't think that the war with Iraq or the war on terrorism is a war "God wants us to fight." Interestingly enough I feel that all of these latter positions are also a result of my stong Christian beliefs, but they wouldnt fall into a traditional role of conservative Christian. I guess I have a different reading of what Jesus teaches.

I also have no idea who to vote for as one area of my beliefs must be compromised, either my "social beliefs", or my "political beliefs"

Paul

Voltron
Jul 1, 2004, 12:09 PM
I don't like Democrats win at all cost strategy in trying to beat the Republicans.
I don't like Democrats lies, deceit, and dishonor that seems to premeat through their ranks.
I don't believe that those who earn money should have their money taken away at gun point and given to those who don't. Some of whom I know from first hand knowledge are no good lazy bums exploiting the system.
I don't believe it is healthy to tax the rich to the point they take their money and leave our country.
I don't believe it is healthy to set restrictions so tight on corporations or taxes so high that they move their operations to other countries.
I don't believe everyone has a right to health or a doctors time.
I believe that if Government made health care cheaper through over regulation, people would quit becoming doctors and health care would get more expensive or long lines would result.
I don't believe in allowing international court, or the UN to be in charge of our court system or how we use our military as long as they have totilitatian dictators and retards in their leadership positions.
So I can't be a Democrat.

I don't like Republicans holier than though crapola trying to force everyone to live up to their moral standards.
I think individuals should be free to be individuals.
I think I own my own body and if someone else wants to ruin theirs with drugs they should be allowed to do so.
I don't like Bush trying go out of his way to appease liberals by pretending to believe in liberal agendas.
I don't like the Republicans in congress who are such wimps they won't force the democrats to turn their fillibuster into a real fillibuster.
So I can't be a Republican.

I don't like the libertarians isolationist philosophy they don't realize the dangers if we actually implemented 100% of them.
I don't like folks stealing money from higher tax earners to give to wellfare mothers who continue to pop out more leaches, or other leaches who have no real intention of ever being a productive member of society. However, I see nothing wrong with giving those who really do want to become a productive member of society a helping hand, but only long enough to get them on their feet and kick them in the rear and let them propel themselves the rest of the way. After all everyone has to deal with bad luck from time to time, course the smart ones prepare for that stuff. If you are stupid enough to have more kids then you can afford maybe you should go to jail and work off the wellfare that will have to be paid to insure your children don't starve.

I can't be 100% for any party. Don't bring up the lunatics in the green party.

takao
Jul 1, 2004, 12:20 PM
I can't be 100% for any party. Don't bring up the lunatics in the green party.

you mean those lunatics who have the majority of the votes in the city where i am stuying ? (at least according to the last EU election) ;)

Voltron
Jul 1, 2004, 12:41 PM
you mean those lunatics who have the majority of the votes in the city where i am stuying ? (at least according to the last EU election) ;)
The Green Party in the US is the same as the Green Party in the EU?

takao
Jul 1, 2004, 12:49 PM
The Green Party in the US is the same as the Green Party in the EU?

they are pretty global
http://www.globalgreens.info/

for europe:
www.eurogreens.org

Thanatoast
Jul 1, 2004, 03:27 PM
I don't consider myself a democrat, but I vote with them out of necessity. The last three Republican presidents, over twenty-five years, have been disasters for the nation. Each one has raised the deficit, and the debt, to new, historic heights. Reagan and W have built their base out of conservative chrisitians, whose morality and philosophy I am utterly at odds with. Each has raised military spending, two by starting wars in a highly unstable part of the world.

Essentially, when the Republicans say they are for smaller government, they are not telling the truth, as the budget has ballooned under their leadership. When they say they are for more personal freedom, they mean as long as your freedom doesn't violate the two-thousand year old mystic teachings of their religion. I don't think I've *ever* heard a Republican say they are for world peace, they all seem to be of the thought that "If they didn't want an ass-kicking, they shoulda done what we said" mind-set.

The Democrats are the only viable alternative party. Our election system is set up in a way to guarantee two-party dominance (though that wasn't on purpose in the beginning). I'm picking the lesser of the two evils, here.

2jaded2care
Jul 1, 2004, 03:29 PM
Maybe I should have used the terms "progressive" and "conservative" instead of political party labels in the original question, but then that's a lot less specific, and where do the myriad independents fit into that?

I guess I am trying to figure out why two people can theoretically watch pretty much the same news, read the same papers, and politically reach two opposing conclusions. Not that people exist only on some Pavlovian plane, I know everyone's complex in their thinking, and of course the influences and information we experience are different (by our choice as well as circumstance), but still it puzzles me.

Is it simply that "progressives" are unhappy with the status quo, want to help the underdogs and think government should make things fair (and change is good)? Is it simply that "conservatives" are happy with the status quo and think that self-reliance is the key (and why "buy a new car when all you need is a new tire")? If so, do we reach those conclusions based mostly on whether we personally are happy or not? Are "progressives" more "A-types"? More "right-brained"? And vice-versa?

Or maybe it's simply a silly question without a real answer. Still, I'd like to hear what people think.

IJ Reilly
Jul 1, 2004, 03:36 PM
I'm going to confuse you and call myself a communitarian. Government isn't there to make things right for everyone, it's there to do what government does best, or can do only, to promote the common welfare.

Thanatoast
Jul 1, 2004, 03:43 PM
Or maybe it's simply a silly question without a real answer. Still, I'd like to hear what people think.If you want a technical explanation, I can sketch one for you.

90% or so of the time, people choose the political party of their parents. Children start becoming aware of their affiliation before they know what it means. Later, their peers influence their decisions, as well as their teachers.

The political party a person chooses at 18 will 90% of the time be the party they vote with for the rest of their life.

Studies done on the subject have shown that the household you are raised in essentially determines your party affiliation. People may have reasons behind their decisions when they're older, but I'd question those as a chicken/egg problem. If you're raised in the household of two staunch democrats, you are naturally going to grow up suspicious of Republicans. And the same goes for the other side. If you grow up listening to Rush on the radio, of course you're going to develop an instinctual hatred for Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. It's environment first, reason second.

blackfox
Jul 1, 2004, 04:06 PM
enlightening thread...My position is a mixture of jsw's and thanatoasts...I have pretty big problems with both major parties right now, but morally left-leaning politics seem to fit better.

As noted, both parties seem to not adequately represent me, however, the ways in which the Democrats do not seem a lot less destructive to myself and society at large then the Republicans...

I think the real problem, however, is the change in the political system...with the costs of Modern Politics, and the resultant need of candidates to raise larger and larger campaign chests, you end up with political candidates based on their abilities to raise money, not necessarily on their leadership abilities...there also seems to be a system in which you must pay your dues to the Party you are affiliated with to have a shot at a big office. There is also the tendency to spout such moderate, centrist positions as to make yourself nearly indistinguishable from your opponent, only so not to alienate any voters. All the fund-raising involved also seems to leave the candidates beholden to special-interests, on both sides, although genrally those special interests are a little more benign on the Democratic side, but real and wrong nontheless.

These things (and others), I feel have stripped Politics of any Integrity, and reduced what was once probably a noble profession, to the status of lawyers - necessary, but often despicable. Political Parties and individual candidates rarely seem about big ideas anymore, lest the risk alienating the power structure in their Party, the "system" seemingly agreed upon by both parties, or their donors. I find this sad.

All of this also has something to do with the populace. In the face of TV, and other modern conveniences, it seems as the voting population has gotten lazier and more self-centered as time has gone on...I do mean self-centered as in selfish, but unable to look at the larger picture outside of their frame of reference...myopic, if you like. Forced to deal with a public that wants things explained to them in neat little soundbites, and grand platitudes, Politicians must become even more rhetorical and shallow with their messages, providing the opposite party with ample opportunity to attack the obvious distortions inherent in such a delivery. People seem to think that it is the politicians' job to deal with the intricacies of policy, but that does not mean that people won't voice strong opinions about them, usually in the negative, without actually knowing what they are talking about. The irony is, that this ill-informed surge of domestic opinion can derail a good policy for no good reason. The Populace still has a lot of power, but we do not seem to take enough time to educate ourselves about the issues, and the intricacies of various proposals, nor do we engage in local-level Civics, to attempt to understand the real situation and context of the larger community...

I could make some partisan comments, but I believe some can be inferred. Until the issues I have ranted on about are addressed, we will continue to have a shallow, ineffective system where the people are involved, which is where it probably should be the deepest. We will have lackluster candidates, and lackluster ideas...I would love to vote for a third-party candidate, but everyone is convinced that it is a waste of a vote, and as long as people believe this in large numbers, it will be.

So I am fed-up and cynical. That is my party affiliation. Perhaps Canada, or another multi-party system is for me, I don't know.

Sorry for the rant, I think there are some points in there somewhere...

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 1, 2004, 04:17 PM
When I was first old enough to vote, I registered as a Democrat. It was what my family of New Deal Democrats did. It's a bit like growing up in a church. Then in 1976 I changed my registration to "no party," mainly because I was unhappy with the nomination of Jimmy Carter. Since that time I've been an independent, and I've never been seriously tempted me to register with any party. They all demand a kind of loyalty that I find myself unable to supply, especially given that no party reflects my ideals anyway.

I guess I was lucky. In my family Party affiliation was never a priority. It was the character and substance of a candidate's position. So in '72 I supported Nixon as a youth volunteer (too young to vote).

Since then I have supported Democratic candidates for President. For I feel they have a stronger interest in the well being and rights of all, compared to the GOP who now seems bent to limit rights with any chance they have. My hot button issues are affordable healthcare, smart tax and spending policies, and civil/equal rights issues.

In local elections, I am more mixed. I generally look at moderates of both parties. For at the local level I have them to be less divisive than National candidates.

brap
Jul 1, 2004, 04:21 PM
I'm registered as a Democrat ...
Registered...?
So, when you US guys register to vote, you have to give them your preferred party line?* That so crazy.
Don't bring up the lunatics in the green party.
The southeast UK has a Green Euro-MP... has had for a couple of elections, too... She has some mad "blanket-NO!" policies, but is quite reasonable to local issues. Give the manifesto a read sometime.

Personally, I look at the party who shares my ideals (currently none), and the local candidate who has taken the time to produce their own local agenda. I figure it's better to vote for the local candidate with the best policies for me, and take a hit on the ideals. After all, every party currently has a Euro-sceptic/neo-BNP line. It's the new in-thing.

*Caveat: Please excuse my ignorance. I'm a moron, who knows nothing about American politics. This is just what I inferred...

jsw
Jul 1, 2004, 04:25 PM
Registered...?
So, when you US guys register to vote, you have to give them your preferred party line?* That so crazy.
*Caveat: Please excuse my ignorance. I'm a moron, who knows nothing about American politics. This is just what I inferred...

Don't be hard on yourself. The true morons are in American politics.

You don't need to declare a party (I don't think - it's been a while...perhaps I'm the moron), but you can't vote in the primaries unless you do.

blackfox
Jul 1, 2004, 04:26 PM
Brap, your ignorance is more excuseable than mine, as I live in the US...in answer to the registration question, as far as I know, you do not have to be registered to vote on general (final) elections, but in party primaries (choosing final candidate for party), you do...to some, this makes a difference, to others not as much. If anyone would care to point out the incompleteness/inaccuracies of my explanation, please do...

takao
Jul 1, 2004, 04:42 PM
Registered...?
So, when you US guys register to vote, you have to give them your preferred party line?* That so crazy.


yeah i wondered about that too...


heck i don't even know what my parents are voting...i guess my mother is voting for social democrats...but i'm not sure perhaps she is voting for the greens too....she got very "anti-globalization" in the last 3-4 years... i don't remember her beeing very political interested...
for my father...i have no idea...perhaps social-democrats..perhaps the conservatives...perhaps even the greens(but i doubt it).....definatly not the FP
but on the other side my grandmother who is living in the same house with us is definatly voting for the conservatives...(but she isn't so sure about it anymore)
for us 'kids' (sister being 23 an myself 20) it's pretty much clear.. at the moment only the greens are adressing youth problems the other party seem to focus on the 50+ years or older groups...
but in the last presidental election i voted for the social democratic candidate (the upcoming president Fischer) because there wasn't a green candidate and i didn't wan't the conservative party to have both government _and_ president.. (the position of the president is rather limited but he can take away the power of the government if it goes too far...)

Sayhey
Jul 1, 2004, 04:52 PM
Don't be hard on yourself. The true morons are in American politics.

You don't need to declare a party (I don't think - it's been a while...perhaps I'm the moron), but you can't vote in the primaries unless you do.

The answer is, get ready our European friends .... it depends! It depends on where you live. Some states have open primaries in which people from other parties can vote in the primary election of opposing parties. Others, have closed primaries where only Democrats vote in Democratic primaries and only Republicans vote in Republican primaries, etc. It takes a full time interpreter to sort out the crazy, patch-work quilt of US election laws. Sorry guys, but that's the truth.

brap
Jul 1, 2004, 05:04 PM
Some states have open primaries in which people from other parties can vote in the primary election of opposing parties. Others, have closed primaries where only Democrats vote in Democratic primaries and only Republicans vote in Republican primaries, etc. It takes a full time interpreter to sort out the crazy, patch-work quilt of US election laws. Sorry guys, but that's the truth.
Woah.

Sorry about the thread hijack, but that just sounded too insane to be true. I can honestly say, if that was the way things were organised here, I'd probably not vote at all.

takao
Jul 1, 2004, 05:06 PM
The answer is, get ready our European friends .... it depends! It depends on where you live. Some states have open primaries in which people from other parties can vote in the primary election of opposing parties. Others, have closed primaries where only Democrats vote in Democratic primaries and only Republicans vote in Republican primaries, etc. It takes a full time interpreter to sort out the crazy, patch-work quilt of US election laws. Sorry guys, but that's the truth.

well get ready too...there are local differences here too...
for example in austria:
5-7 years ago there was a law in vorarlberg ( the austrian 'Bundesland' west of tyrol on theb order to switzerland) that you _have_ to vote ....and with law it meant "have a good excuse" or go voting.... the law was enforced.. (not very strict but still)
with the result of election turnouts around >95% ...
but they changed it that you don't have to go to 'federal' elections(voting parliament and president) but you still have to go to the elections concering the local government.. (i guess there is still the same law for tyrol)

the last parliament election had only a 80% turnout (for whole austria)...and some were already talking about "disaster"...

blackfox
Jul 1, 2004, 05:15 PM
Down here, if you don't register you don't vote. When you register to vote you don't have to give a party affiliation. If you don't register to vote before the election (usually 30 days before an election), then your name will not be on the register and you will not be allowed to vote.
Stelliform, I am afraid I was unclear with my post, I meant only that you need not formally align yourself with a party when registeristing...sorry for the sloppiness.

Ugg
Jul 1, 2004, 05:46 PM
The Republican party has always stood for excess and greed and in the past decade, religious extremism. During the Clinton years, I was a staunch Democrat but the Demos have lost their footing so I am now more of an Independent. I wish there was a truly viable third party and that the forefathers of this country could have foreseen the time when the country would be come polarized and as a result, the political process turned into a farce of the highest order.

My family was staunchily apolitical. I can never remember anything other than the current pres/gov/senator being denigrated for whatever they were doing. The rest of my family is moderate Republican to extremist Republican to politically indifferent. Politics simply arent' discussed when I'm around :)

While living in Alaska , I was a member of the Green Party. Ah, memories of the Kenai....

zimv20
Jul 1, 2004, 05:52 PM
I wish there was a truly viable third party
i think that's the only way this country is going to survive. we need coalition governments to keep each party honest.

amnesiac1984
Jul 1, 2004, 06:56 PM
Look at the monster you make
look at the monster you pay
But you claim no responsibility
cause it's each to his self
in these times that we live

Does God have a sense of humour
then the joke's on us
Cause we're chasing our tails
for how long
The tussle makes us how strong
vintage poor people fun


I want a party that stands for the human responsibility, responsibility for others over oneself, sometimes I feel like I not only belong to another party that doesn't exist, but that maybe I should be in another universe.

If people were driven by exploration and creativity instead of material gain then perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Frohickey
Jul 1, 2004, 07:14 PM
Used to be a registered Democrat when I first registered to vote.
Slowly, I figured out that the Democrats do not have my best interest at heart. Its as if in the act of helping the unfortunate ones in society, the Democrats seek to punish the fortunate ones in society. I do see why that is the case, since government itself does not have any means of production, aside from what is collected from the people, in taxes.

Its turned into the party of the entitlements, which has led to the growth of government, and the erosion of personal responsibility. Its human nature to take more risks if you know that there is a safety net waiting for you at the bottom, but this safety net is always available, even for repeat risk-takers. Thats unacceptable to me, but how would a governmental bureaucracy prevent this?

The other is the Democrat party's aversion to private ownership of arms. How could you trust a politician that doesn't trust you with arms. Are you supposed to place a politician in a position to affect your life if he/she doesn't trust you with arms? I can understand their aversion to the misuse of arms, I am in agreement with them, but the method they seek to address the problem affects the innocent as well.

I feel that the assassinations that turned the Democrats away from arms are the Kennedys assassinations and the MLKjr. assassination. I actually agreed with JFK's policies, dropping the income tax rates, his private gun ownership stance, RFK's civil rights stance, as well as MLKjr's. But its as if the Democrats have gone insane with rage, and would harm both friend and foe alike in their pain of loss. Not good. (The 'friend' here would be the individual civil right to keep and bear arms. The 'foe' here are the violent criminals.)

As to the GOP, their intimacy with the religious right does not sit well with me. I take small comfort in that the Democrats and ACLU can keep the GOP's religious right in check via lawsuits and judgements, so I see the GOP's 'marriage' to the religious right to be neutralized by keeping the Democrats around. (See, they are good for something. :eek: )

Frohickey
Jul 1, 2004, 07:27 PM
I want a party that stands for the human responsibility, responsibility for others over oneself, sometimes I feel like I not only belong to another party that doesn't exist, but that maybe I should be in another universe.

If people were driven by exploration and creativity instead of material gain then perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Does the 'responsibility for others over oneself' a voluntary task that a responsible person voluntarilly undertakes for himself/herself, or is this task mandated for all?

Desertrat
Jul 1, 2004, 11:41 PM
I grew up as an independent. That had little to do with politics; I was asking, "Why?" as a kid. I wandered the world a good bit in the 1950s, seeing the wreckage of the Philippines and learning of the Jap-imposed horrors on friends and relatives. I served on occupation duty in Korea in 1954. I was stationed for two years in Paris, and listened to a good bit of Communist rhetoric.

Somewhere along the line I "grew" a general distaste for the idea that people in government knew better than I what is good or bad for me. Or for you. Why would a bunch of second-raters who can't make it in the private sector somehow be so knowledgeable?

As I've thought about political philosophy, rather than just politics, and tried to answer the various questions about the whys and wherefores of government, I've come to believe that any group which promotes the idea that government not only can but should solve all social problems is just plain nuts. They're ignoring human nature, regardless of their sincerity and belief. (I don't at all deny their sincerity in their beliefs.)

At the local level, I try to know enough about all the candidates to vote for the person. Pretty much the same at the state level. In the last thirty or so years, for national politics, I've mostly held my nose and mostly voted Republican. It's not that I'm a Republican so much as I disagree with a higher percentage of Democratic Party platforms. They sound good, but cost way too much and are mostly ineffective, as well as creating unintended consequences which are too often harmful to the middle economic class.

As to individual ideas, I'd have to disagree with some of Sayhey's ideas about Nixon and Vietnam; LBJ got us in and Nixon got us out. As to Star Wars, that's pretty much what put the bankruptcy straw in the USSR milkshake. That it never really went anywhere was irrelevant...

:), 'Rat

crazytom
Jul 1, 2004, 11:59 PM
Like jsw, I feel I belong to a party that doesn't exist...

What I'd really like to see is this:

First off, a majority of American's have computers and internet access, or have some form of access to it. With that in mind, why can't we become more of a 'true democracy'? Where every citizen has the right and the privilege to vote on the individual issues that matter to them, not just a candidate that blows sunshine up our butts during the campaign process and may or may not keep their promises. We have the technology to do it. Give politics back to the people. I know that we all wouldn't have time to follow each and every issue out there, but every voice that wants to be heard, could be heard AND counted. The process could be like an online survey (Do you support X? How much money does Y get to be implemented? etc.) The federal government is in business to spend our hard earned dollars and they won't be cutting back any time soon (when's the last time Congress voted down a pay raise for themselves?).

What would you call a 'party' like that? The 'Me Party'? Individualist?

zimv20
Jul 2, 2004, 12:09 AM
What would you call a 'party' like that? The 'Me Party'? Individualist?
gov't by referendum. i'd be more interested if the average intelligence of the electorate and level of being informed were much higher.

amnesiac1984
Jul 2, 2004, 03:10 AM
Does the 'responsibility for others over oneself' a voluntary task that a responsible person voluntarilly undertakes for himself/herself, or is this task mandated for all?

I don't have the answer to that yet, maybe I never will. But all I know is that in the current system, people always put themselves first, and this system of competition we have called capitalism only makes it easier for them to do so. Even the nicest kindest people I know are still far too selfish in my opinion. People tell me that when I grow up and work hard for my money I won't want to see it taken away by taxes. What kind of sick greedy attitude is that?

I'm not saying socialism or communism is the answer, but survival of the fittest is an animal behaviour, as we progress we become less like animals and more "enlightened", surely the notion of survival of the fittest is long overdue to disappear.

Competitions in sport can be fun and harmless, but this is life and it needs to be fairer.

I was having this conversation the other day, and maybe, at its root level, capitalism is a great idea. It allows us to support ourselves in what we want to do in life, with freedom. This is okay as long as people think of material wealth as the ability to gain more tools for creativity. The problem is people have gotten far too caught up in filling their toolbox with the latest and greatest as opposed to getting on with their lives. They are encouraged from the earliest possible age to try and make as much for themselves as they can.

I decided the other day that I'm going to do one of two things. Get the hell out of so called western "civilisation" (would be a good idea) or make enough money to really have some oomph and make a difference. Thats what people should be working for.

zimv20
Jul 2, 2004, 03:14 AM
I was having this conversation the other day, and maybe, at its root level, capitalism is a great idea. It allows us to support ourselves in what we want to do in life, with freedom.
it's a continual balance of letting people make their own way but ensuring they don't **** over other people too badly in the process.

maximize the freedom while minimizing the ****ing. pure capitalists see only the first part, pure socialists see only the second. the other 99.9% of the population is somewhere in between.

skunk
Jul 2, 2004, 03:38 AM
maximize the freedom while minimizing the ****ing.
What's wrong with ****ing? Celibacy isn't for everyone. :cool:

zimv20
Jul 2, 2004, 03:46 AM
What's wrong with ****ing? Celibacy isn't for everyone. :cool:
some people **** 24/7/365. some never do. 99.9% of the population is in between.

:-)

tristan
Jul 2, 2004, 07:59 AM
I'm a democrat. My parents were dems, my grandparents were dems.

But there are a lot of degrees to Dems. I think FDR was the greatest president and embodied all of the democratic ideals. Clinton was very good too. Carter/Mondale/Dukakis - not so good.

I also draw a distinction between democrats and liberals - if you think corporations are bad and Cuba's good and the first Iraq war was bad and European Socialism's good and the WTO's bad and the ACLU's good, then you're a liberal or a progressive or a green or something. We may both be on the left side of the aisle and have some common agreement, but I have a lot of trouble taking those people seriously.

This causes some splits between me and my parents sometimes, who accuse me of being a republican, even though I have about a 95% agreement rate with Kennedy and Clinton and maybe a 40% with Bush. I guess I identify with those third way democrats, if they're still using the term. Clinton was a democrat who created jobs, expanded education, bombed Saddam & captured Miloslovic, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, expanded the middle east peace process, reformed the military, downsized government, and kept very good relations with Europe and the Soviet union. I wish he could run again.

tristan
Jul 2, 2004, 08:16 AM
Oops - I noticed the question was "what determined your choice".

Growing up poor and then working in the corporate world and enjoying it made me a Clinton democrat.

Then I was still a "social progressive" on foreign policy until I spent a lot of time outside the US and got to see the world from a new perspective. (Before, during, and after September 11th.) Now I generally support US foreign policy where before I generally didn't, and I have new respect for Albright and Powell.

jsw
Jul 2, 2004, 08:43 AM
gov't by referendum. i'd be more interested if the average intelligence of the electorate and level of being informed were much higher.

I've always been a fan of making people pass a brief test on the candidates in order to be able to vote. It's likely impossible to implement practically, but I like the concept.

Also, I'd like to see politicians forced to publish their views on a number of common issues in one website.

Voltron
Jul 2, 2004, 08:53 AM
I've always been a fan of making people pass a brief test on the candidates in order to be able to vote. It's likely impossible to implement practically, but I like the concept.

Also, I'd like to see politicians forced to publish their views on a number of common issues in one website.
Who would write the tests a conservative or a democrat?
http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
oh and for Kerry http://www.flipflopper.com/
I'm not biased or anything. :D

jsw
Jul 2, 2004, 09:03 AM
Who would write the tests a conservative or a democrat?
http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
oh and for Kerry http://www.flipflopper.com/
I'm not biased or anything. :D

Oh, sorry, forgot to be clear on that:

I would write the tests.

;)

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 2, 2004, 09:07 AM
I've always been a fan of making people pass a brief test on the candidates in order to be able to vote. It's likely impossible to implement practically, but I like the concept.

Also, I'd like to see politicians forced to publish their views on a number of common issues in one website.

You have a point. Elections are becoming popularity contests.

Many local League of Women Voters do that around here (or have in the past).

mouchoir
Jul 2, 2004, 09:46 AM
The other is the Democrat party's aversion to private ownership of arms. How could you trust a politician that doesn't trust you with arms. Are you supposed to place a politician in a position to affect your life if he/she doesn't trust you with arms? I can understand their aversion to the misuse of arms, I am in agreement with them, but the method they seek to address the problem affects the innocent as well.)

Seriously, I don't trust you with arms, and i've never met you. Why should I trust you with a deadly weapon? Would you feel less safe if nobody was allowed to keep a gun?

The ease in which a US citizen can obtain a gun, the destruction of purchase background check files and the fact the government isn't allowed to keep a database of gun owners is outrageous. (well, on that last point, maybe that isn't so bad if you're planning a revolution).

Why do you need a gun?

Why would an 'innocent' person need an automatic rifle?

Why is there so many gun related crimes in the US?

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 2, 2004, 09:52 AM
Seriously, I don't trust you with arms, and i've never met you. Why should I trust you with a deadly weapon? Would you feel less safe if nobody was allowed to keep a gun?

The ease in which a US citizen can obtain a gun, the destruction of purchase background check files and the fact the government isn't allowed to keep a database of gun owners is outrageous. (well, on that last point, maybe that isn't so bad if you're planning a revolution).

Why do you need a gun?

Why would an 'innocent' person need an automatic rifle?

Why is there so many gun related crimes in the US?

First, I agree with you. Though you just wait for the arguments that then only criminals will have guns.

Do a search here and you'll find the arguments also on what some of us feel was the true meaning of our founding fathers on gun ownership. And of course those that feel that some of us are wrong.

I just didn't want to take this thread down a different path. Sorry if I did.

Though conservatives use the liberals gun control stance as a means of showing that Democrats don't care about rights or protecting the country.

mouchoir
Jul 2, 2004, 10:14 AM
First, I agree with you. Though you just wait for the arguments that then only criminals will have guns.

Do a search here and you'll find the arguments also on what some of us feel was the true meaning of our founding fathers on gun ownership. And of course those that feel that some of us are wrong.

I just didn't want to take this thread down a different path. Sorry if I did.

Though conservatives use the liberals gun control stance as a means of showing that Democrats don't care about rights or protecting the country.

Sorry for moving off topic. I think I may have posted on this topic before also, but I just can't seem to get over this this line of thought.

It's the control issue, more than the 'right to bear arms' that is a massive problem to me, as well as the ease of obtaining a gun.

Neserk
Jul 2, 2004, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Chip NoVaMac]You have a point. Elections are becoming popularity contests.
[\QUOTE]

REminds me of high school :p

jefhatfield
Jul 2, 2004, 11:27 AM
Now, I'm really not trying to be divisive, but -- what was it that made you decide to support the Democrats, Republicans, or some independent group? I mean for life, not just as applies to this election.

Some recent discussions with friends have made me wonder what it is that determines peoples' political views. As I have said before, I know lots of highly intelligent and educated Democrats, and just-as-intelligent and educated Republicans and, for example, Libertarians. I suppose it's not just one simple thing that makes the difference, but I am curious... Did you decide mainly because of your parents' views? Other life experiences? Did one issue decide it for you (abortion/choice, guns, sexual preference, the environment, etc.)? Can you even pinpoint it?

I'd appreciate it if we could stay away from "loaded" responses ("Because Bush is an idiot", or "Because Hillary is the devil incarnate", or even "Being ______ is just the logical choice", which doesn't help at all)...

As I said, I'm just curious, not trying to stir up trouble (I think)... My apologies if this topic has been posted before (don't see it) or just seems stupid.

when i was a kid up though my first couple of years in high school, i was a republican...my hero was richard nixon and gerald ford...and i loathed lyndon johnson

from that time until my late 20s, i was a slightly left leaning independent

and from 1991/92 onward, i have been a democrat, though a sometimes conservative one compared to some of the more liberal members of my party

if the gop got off of their pseudo-religious, pseudo-christian bent, and got back to taking care of business, i might consider them again...the social conservatives have surpassed the fiscal conservatives in the gop and i think it's going to be that way for some time to come

...but with politics, you never know

in the reagan era, if someone predicted a 40-something southern democrat would occupy the white house in five years, political experts would call you crazy

maybe in 2008, the us will have another 40-something president, but a republican with the last name bush...it's plausible

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 01:05 PM
What I'd really like to see is this:

First off, a majority of American's have computers and internet access, or have some form of access to it. With that in mind, why can't we become more of a 'true democracy'?

Because computers and internet traffic can be hacked. The fallback to that would be an implanted electronic ID, but I don't like to be 'branded' either, so the current situation of voting via paper is good enough for me.

If you do not understand what I said about the 'implanted electronic ID' and 'branding', all I can say is that "Its a FREEDOM thing." :D

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 01:13 PM
gov't by referendum. i'd be more interested if the average intelligence of the electorate and level of being informed were much higher.

Isn't that being a bit of an 'elitist'? In a small way, you are right. Why should the dumb ill-informed masses be allowed to dictate terms to me and my smart friends?

I have the ideal solution to the problem though. The dumb, ill-informed masses cannot dictate terms to you when it comes to your private property and individual civil rights. Same goes for your smart elitist friends not being able to dictate terms to the dumb, ill-informed masses about their private property and individual civil rights. Pretty equitable if you ask me.

Its when one group insists that they can make decisions for another group that friction and ill-feelings come about. Independent people do not like having that independence taken away from them, it doesn't matter if its a tyrant, or a well-intentioned busybody! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 01:46 PM
I don't have the answer to that yet, maybe I never will. But all I know is that in the current system, people always put themselves first, and this system of competition we have called capitalism only makes it easier for them to do so. Even the nicest kindest people I know are still far too selfish in my opinion. People tell me that when I grow up and work hard for my money I won't want to see it taken away by taxes. What kind of sick greedy attitude is that?

I'm not saying socialism or communism is the answer, but survival of the fittest is an animal behaviour, as we progress we become less like animals and more "enlightened", surely the notion of survival of the fittest is long overdue to disappear.

Competitions in sport can be fun and harmless, but this is life and it needs to be fairer.

I was having this conversation the other day, and maybe, at its root level, capitalism is a great idea. It allows us to support ourselves in what we want to do in life, with freedom. This is okay as long as people think of material wealth as the ability to gain more tools for creativity. The problem is people have gotten far too caught up in filling their toolbox with the latest and greatest as opposed to getting on with their lives. They are encouraged from the earliest possible age to try and make as much for themselves as they can.

I decided the other day that I'm going to do one of two things. Get the hell out of so called western "civilisation" (would be a good idea) or make enough money to really have some oomph and make a difference. Thats what people should be working for.

Freedom is the main goal. Freedom to succeed means that the freedom to fail is there in equal proportion. Capitalism allows the greediness of man to serve him and propel society along. Capitalism also allows greed to offset sloth, until both are in balance. When you put social welfare in, you allow sloth and greed to grow unchecked, why work hard to get what you want if you can just sit around and have it given to you?

I think that I am making a difference. I work at a job where my talents are appreciated, the level of appreciation is indicated by the amount of money I make, and I am self-sufficient and responsible.

What is this notion of 'fairness'? Is it fair that one person has more talent/skill than the other? Is it fair that one person is smarter than another? Is it fair the one person is more athletic than another?

Each person can only do the best to their abilities and that is all you expect. But is it fair to take from the successful person in order to provide the unsuccessful person? How is that fair? Far better for the aid to be given freely, voluntarily. Now, that is fair.

crazytom
Jul 2, 2004, 02:27 PM
Because computers and internet traffic can be hacked. The fallback to that would be an implanted electronic ID, but I don't like to be 'branded' either, so the current situation of voting via paper is good enough for me.


Yes, but it seems to me that, for the last presidential election, there were a lot of paper votes in Floriduh that were 'hacked'. :eek:

I'd rather see a fallback being that our elected reps send out paper surveys and then vote along the lines of what his/her constituents want. I'd just like to see some of the 'politics' taken out of politics (mainly special interests and big corporate money).

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 2, 2004, 02:34 PM
Because computers and internet traffic can be hacked. The fallback to that would be an implanted electronic ID, but I don't like to be 'branded' either, so the current situation of voting via paper is good enough for me.

If you do not understand what I said about the 'implanted electronic ID' and 'branding', all I can say is that "Its a FREEDOM thing." :D

Right you are. Just look at what the human hand did in past elections eliminating valid names from the voter registration roles.

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 02:53 PM
Right you are. Just look at what the human hand did in past elections eliminating valid names from the voter registration roles.

Its unfortunate that voter registration rolls were purged of names of convicted felons. The debate on whether convicted felons ought to regain their full rights or not belongs elsewhere, but I think that the purging was done incorrectly, and I might add, that it was done incorrectly BY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS.

I do not know how it is in Florida, but here in California, voters receive sample ballots prior to elections, and receive voter registration cards after any change of voter register information. In Florida, what *COULD* have been done is that voters who were 'purged' should have been informed as to what to do after the purge in order to be reregistered again. Clearly, this was not done, so I chalk this up in GOVERNMENTAL BUREAUCRATIC STUPIDITY. But how difficult is it to fire a government employee?

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 03:12 PM
Yes, but it seems to me that, for the last presidential election, there were a lot of paper votes in Floriduh that were 'hacked'. :eek:

I'd rather see a fallback being that our elected reps send out paper surveys and then vote along the lines of what his/her constituents want. I'd just like to see some of the 'politics' taken out of politics (mainly special interests and big corporate money).

I take it that your idea is for policy issues, and not for the election of representatives.

Your idea has some merit to them, but it does defeat the purpose of elected representatives. Plus, it only takes an elected representative to decide that 'she knows more about the issue than her constituents' and the system falls apart, as there is no mechanism that says an elected representative has to follow the paper surveys.

Your system is workable at the extremely small levels of government, so in effect, what you are saying is that you would like for the federal and to a lesser degree, the state government to be very small in scope and power, and most of the important decisions are made at the local level. I agree with that too.

So, how would you organize government to your idea. I think a subdivision of the area in question into a grid, where the number of people within an area is to be a fixed manageable size. Within the area, as much of the decisions are made, using your 'direct vote' system. It could very well be a weekly townhall meeting, thats only for 1 hour a week, every week of the year.

The advantage of this arrangement is that the country as a whole can try multiple experiments of policy all at once, and the benefits and damages created by the policy are limited in size and scope. The upshot being that good policy changes are learned as an 'area' makes them, and its further refined. Other areas learn from other's experiences, and can make the same policy change. Also a good policy for one 'area' doesn't necessarily make it good for another, so the flexibility is there as well. Contrast this with the large/powerful federal government that imposes a one-size-fits-all policy across the country.

I remember reading that the Swiss has/had this type of system, where most of the power is held at the provincial (canton) level. The Swiss republic is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the US was founded. Its clear that we have gone astray from that ideal (and so has the Swiss, to a degree).

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 2, 2004, 04:23 PM
was done incorrectly BY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS.
under orders from a GOP appointee by the accounts I saw appointed the GOP brother of the GOP candidate for president in a state that was considered a battleground state.

But I did not even mention Florida in my first response. You brought up Florida, so I thought I would set my views out there like you did yours.

I was referring to that this has been an issue in the 2000 elections in many other states. Some of it was "done incorrectly BY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS", some quite innocently. Some of it with malice to effect the outcome of the election.

Dirty politics has been around for as long as there has been politicians. But as we become a more divided nation, the dirty tricks have taken on a new level (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77978 and http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77073).

Back to this threads topic, the politics since 1980 are the main reasons that I have found myself more entrenched than ever in the Democratic camp. Yes, there are wounds from the 2000 election, but I think that most Democrats have handled it well. And because of the resolve to set things right in 2004, we have people like you and I at opposite ends.

I find that Democrats are more compassionate (and that does not mean about just giving handouts). And they seem to be more willing to at least listen to their constituents in order to have better opinions. They seem to have the Constitution and Bill of Rights and what it means to the nation in mind, than the GOP does at times.

Today, at least with representatives here in Virginia, the GOP representatives respond more often than not, "that's not how I see the issue" or "I don't believe in that". But yet I do not feel that one party fits all. I supported the initiative to reform welfare. I would support tax cuts (of course more to those that a few extra dollars means much more to, the middle class) that also had true spending cuts in all programs that were equally applied.

Your initial response (not attacking you personally of course) is typical of the differences that I see between the Democrats and the GOP. The GOP rushes in with the "felony" argument. Never mind that legit voters were turned away. Let's turn the argument inwards, so as to make people angry, so they lose sight of the real issues.

Toe
Jul 2, 2004, 04:55 PM
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are firmly in the pockets of big business. It is the nature of any institution to become a tool of the status quo over time, and old, powerful political parties are no exception.

The problem in America is that we are solidly locked into a two-party system. Any attempt at a third party automatically results in a win for the party that least represents the majority of the people (as in the case of GW Bush winning, because Ralph Nader and Al Gore split the votes of the liberal majority).

The two main parties are so entrenched that they've written their existance into the laws. In some states (New York, for example), it is basically impossible for a third party candidate to even get on the ballot. And in the US House and Senate, a third party member has no power at all (because they can't even get on any committees, where all the power is, despite their not being mentioned in the US Constitution) unless they align with one of the big two.

It seems like the only solution is for the Congress to change the laws, which won't happen because the Republicans and Democrats would have to voluntarily take away their own power. Or for the states to re-write the constitution... again, same problem.

So really the only solution is for individual Americans to stop giving their votes to Republicans and Democrats. As long as we bend over and vote for them, we will always be acting against our own interests. We have to stop this lack of democracy some time. When will it be?

Unfortunately, it probably won't be this November, since almost all liberals would rather have the lesser of two evils than to continue to suffer the shame of our current president, and conservatives seem to be happy with the wads of money this president is funneling to them and their interests. But that doesn't mean we have to stick it to ourselves in non-presidential elections, does it?

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 05:12 PM
Dirty politics has been around for as long as there has been politicians.

I find that Democrats are more compassionate (and that does not mean about just giving handouts). And they seem to be more willing to at least listen to their constituents in order to have better opinions. They seem to have the Constitution and Bill of Rights and what it means to the nation in mind, than the GOP does at times.

Your initial response (not attacking you personally of course) is typical of the differences that I see between the Democrats and the GOP. The GOP rushes in with the "felony" argument. Never mind that legit voters were turned away. Let's turn the argument inwards, so as to make people angry, so they lose sight of the real issues.

Goes all the way back to the 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. So, we are not in any new territory here, except that we don't use dueling pistols anymore. :eek:

I don't see that at all. Someone wrote that the Democrats are for the 1st and 6th Amendments, while the GOP are for the 2nd and 5th Amendments. Compassionate and willing to listen is all fine and dandy, but you need to obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all of it. Not saying that the GOP does either. But from where I sit, where I want to enjoy it ALL, 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th (and the rest), I see the fastest way of getting it back is via GOP (and a viable opposition Democrat party, kinda like in the same strength level as a weakened smallpox virus shot). ;) :D :eek:

And to the clearing of the voter rolls, I see why it was done, and I also see what could have been done to make it better. Who's angry here? The felons that were on the rolls and knew that they aren't allowed to vote, or the legitimate voters that got taken off the rolls, not allowed to vote, because they have buttheaded bureaucrats that can't figure out how to simultaneously clear the felons of the voting list *AND* reregister the legitimate voters back onto the rolls.

tristan
Jul 2, 2004, 05:24 PM
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are firmly in the pockets of big business. It is the nature of any institution to become a tool of the status quo over time, and old, powerful political parties are no exception.


Does Apple count as a big business? :-)

blackfox
Jul 2, 2004, 05:44 PM
The problem in America is that we are solidly locked into a two-party system. Any attempt at a third party automatically results in a win for the party that least represents the majority of the people (as in the case of GW Bush winning, because Ralph Nader and Al Gore split the votes of the liberal majority).

With reference to Nader in 2000, imo, what you said is not exactly true. While it could be said that those who voted for Nader would be more likely to vote for Gore if Nader was not on the ballot, many of them may have abstained from voting, gone for another independent candidate, or even voted GOP...nevertheless, your general point is sound. I just wanted to clarify what has been a contentious issue...

The rest of your post also brings up many excellent points, and illustrates the problem with third-party canidates...the fact that they are so far out of the "system" would seem to make them very ineffectual in their capacity to lead. For third-party(s) to work effectively, there would (as you mentioned) need to be a complete overhaul of the system, a "revolution" if you will...which, at least temporarily would cause complete chaos...

I believe the best course of action is an incremental approach, at the local/regional level (as you also suggested), although there would be a period where the power would be concentrated into an ever-decreasing amount of Republicans and Democrats until Independents had enough membership to effectively change the rules of the game. This is assuming that (a) the independents are able to work together, and have some sense of solidarity or common purpose/vision, and (b) that they do not get voted out for perceived ineffectualness before acheiving critical mass in total numbers. There is also the issue of whether they can compete financially with the established party candidates...

Anyway, I liked your post...

jefhatfield
Jul 2, 2004, 06:08 PM
Does Apple count as a big business? :-)

compared to most businesses here in northern california as a whole, then yes

compared to the other shingles on nearby silicon valley buildings (intel, ibm, sun, microsoft, hp/compaq, toshiba...all within five miles of apple hq cupertino) then no, i would call apple inc middle sized

it's all perspective, but when i hear some left wingers go off against big business and corporate greed, apple never seems to be mentioned ;)

some claim steve jobs has sold out because he is, gasp, a billionaire...but i don't think his 1.7 billion is bad compared to a certain unnamed robber baron in redmond, washington who has an unfathomable wealth which has been estimated from 40-90+ billion (low to high, over the years)

blackfox
Jul 2, 2004, 06:35 PM
compared to most businesses here in northern california as a whole, then yes

compared to the other shingles on nearby silicon valley buildings (intel, ibm, sun, microsoft, hp/compaq, toshiba...all within five miles of apple hq cupertino) then no, i would call apple inc middle sized

it's all perspective, but when i hear some left wingers go off against big business and corporate greed, apple never seems to be mentioned ;)

some claim steve jobs has sold out because he is, gasp, a billionaire...but i don't think his 1.7 billion is bad compared to a certain unnamed robber baron in redmond, washington who has an unfathomable wealth which has been estimated from 40-90+ billion (low to high, over the years)
I do not know if, or to whom Apple contributes to politically...if anyone knows, let me know...
I do know this, however:
Among the top priorities for Bush Pioneer and Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.) was an end to the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. Dunn represents Redmond, Wash., where the software giant is based.

In 2000, the Clinton Justice Department won the major parts of its case against Microsoft and proposed breaking the world's largest software company in two. An appeals court threw out the breakup plan the next year and sent the matter back to U.S. District Court. The Bush Justice Department then settled the matter on terms widely seen as favorable to Microsoft. Critics say that the settlement fails to address the harm Microsoft's monopoly power inflicted on other companies. The Justice Department defended the settlement as a fair resolution of the case. A federal judge accepted the terms.

Last week, the Bush administration nominated the lead Justice Department negotiator in the Microsoft case, Deborah P. Majoras, to be chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.

"I just think it is a different atmosphere now," said Dunn, who was one of the first Pioneers, exceeding her $100,000 commitment with the help of Microsoft donors. "In the Clinton administration, the Justice Department brought suit against them. President Bush said 'I'm for innovation -- not regulation.' That was important to Microsoft that he kept his word."

This year, Microsoft has two Pioneers, John Connors and John Kelly. More than 100 people from Microsoft attended an event for Bush, Dunn said. Employees have given more than $160,000 in contributions, placing Microsoft among the top companies donating to Bush, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Excerpt from Wash. Post article 5/17/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31678-2004May16.html

Do not know the current source of Kerry big money donors...

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 06:40 PM
some claim steve jobs has sold out because he is, gasp, a billionaire...but i don't think his 1.7 billion is bad compared to a certain unnamed robber baron in redmond, washington who has an unfathomable wealth which has been estimated from 40-90+ billion (low to high, over the years)

Now now, don't turn this into a Bill Gates bashing thread. We know there are more than enough of those. Well, maybe not quite enough. :D

Putting Bill Gates aside for the moment, I do not see what is wrong with being a man of wealth, as long as it was achieved through legal means. If someone provides a service that is valued, why shouldn't they be compensated fully for it. In the business world, the measure of your contribution is by your salary. In the spiritual world, its something else. Nevertheless, its still a contribution that is acknowledged by the people participating in it as positive, and that should be appreciated, and not denigrated.

jefhatfield
Jul 2, 2004, 06:48 PM
Now now, don't turn this into a Bill Gates bashing thread. We know there are more than enough of those. Well, maybe not quite enough. :D

Putting Bill Gates aside for the moment, I do not see what is wrong with being a man of wealth, as long as it was achieved through legal means. If someone provides a service that is valued, why shouldn't they be compensated fully for it. In the business world, the measure of your contribution is by your salary. In the spiritual world, its something else. Nevertheless, its still a contribution that is acknowledged by the people participating in it as positive, and that should be appreciated, and not denigrated.

where did uncle billy get the idea of gui for computers from?

does windows have certain characteristics similar to another operating system that came before it?

what does the "x" in xp mean and don't you think it kind of borrowed a look similar to another operating system with the letter "x" in it?

...so how does that equate to making money legally ;)

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 06:53 PM
where did uncle billy get the idea of gui for computers from?

does windows have certain characteristics similar to another operating system that came before it?

what does the "x" in xp mean and don't you think it kind of borrowed a look similar to another operating system with the letter "x" in it?

...so how does that equate to making money legally ;)

Don't get me started. :mad:

Apple took Microsoft to court, and we lost the verdict on that one. I believe that the idea was improperly taken, but we did not manage to convince the judge otherwise.

What do you want us to do? Arm every Apple employee with a G3, and march down to Redmond and have ourselves a Bill Gates Lynch party? :eek:

(Now that is a daydream worth having.) :p

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 06:57 PM
I do not know if, or to whom Apple contributes to politically...if anyone knows, let me know...
I do know this, however:


Excerpt from Wash. Post article 5/17/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31678-2004May16.html

Do not know the current source of Kerry big money donors...

Apple as in the company, or Apple as in Apple employees?

I don't think it would be a good idea for Apple to be contributing to political campaigns of any sort, though we do know that a certain ex-politician is represented in the Apple Board of Directors.

Contributing to a political campaign, versus making better computers... what's better use of Apple's money?

jefhatfield
Jul 2, 2004, 07:09 PM
Don't get me started. :mad:

Apple took Microsoft to court, and we lost the verdict on that one. I believe that the idea was improperly taken, but we did not manage to convince the judge otherwise.

What do you want us to do? Arm every Apple employee with a G3, and march down to Redmond and have ourselves a Bill Gates Lynch party? :eek:

(Now that is a daydream worth having.) :p

as much as billy was dishonest, steve and steve were bad businessmen...historically and classically bad in almost every way...business schools study them on how not to grow a business

...some say they are both not real businessmen today

they basically had the computer world in the palm of their hands, numerous times, but uncle billy, cunning that he his, won every time...oh well, it's all said and done and apple inc will remain a boutique curiosity in the world of computers

only us few will know that macs rule

blackfox
Jul 2, 2004, 07:45 PM
only us few will know that macs rule
Finally something in the Political Forums that we can all agree on :D

Frohickey
Jul 2, 2004, 07:51 PM
Finally something in the Political Forums that we can all agree on :D

Nah... Macs suck. They just don't suck as much as PCs. :p

Toe
Jul 2, 2004, 10:09 PM
While it could be said that those who voted for Nader would be more likely to vote for Gore if Nader was not on the ballot, many of them may have abstained from voting, gone for another independent candidate, or even voted GOP...Good point. Though I'm pretty sure that if Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have (officially) won Florida and Washington. Of course, that is exactly the point of the Nader voters... they may only account for a few percentage points, but the Democrats have to try to win their hearts. Not an easy sell for the Democrats, but anyway this is the closest Americans can come to coalition politics.


I believe the best course of action is an incremental approach, at the local/regional level (as you also suggested), although there would be a period where the power would be concentrated into an ever-decreasing amount of Republicans and Democrats until Independents had enough membership to effectively change the rules of the game. This is assuming that (a) the independents are able to work together, and have some sense of solidarity or common purpose/vision, and (b) that they do not get voted out for perceived ineffectualness before acheiving critical mass in total numbers. There is also the issue of whether they can compete financially with the established party candidates...The odds are really stacked against the outsiders. The parties are thoroughly entrenched, and control the very system that keeps them in power. It seems like an unbreakable trap.

But votes are only cast by individual human beings (as long as we have paper ballots... I don't trust paperless electronic voting machines at all). If enough individuals wanted a change bad enough, it would be simplicity itself to effect. Assuming there were anyone good to vote for. I mean really. Nader? Perot? Buchanan? Sheeze.

Sayhey
Jul 2, 2004, 11:52 PM
As to individual ideas, I'd have to disagree with some of Sayhey's ideas about Nixon and Vietnam; LBJ got us in and Nixon got us out. As to Star Wars, that's pretty much what put the bankruptcy straw in the USSR milkshake. That it never really went anywhere was irrelevant...

:), 'Rat

'Rat,

you and I will just have to disagree. This is not the thread for a discussion of these topics. If you want to thrash them out, feel free to start a new thread and I'll contribute my thoughts.

Desertrat
Jul 3, 2004, 12:24 AM
:) Nah, Sayhey, just a comment in passing.

I'm loaded with company, and the Big Bend Birthday Bash is tomorrow. A bunch of us have birthdays near July 4th, so I'm not doing much Inet time.

Happy Fourth, guys!

'Rat

Sayhey
Jul 3, 2004, 12:27 AM
:) Nah, Sayhey, just a comment in passing.

I'm loaded with company, and the Big Bend Birthday Bash is tomorrow. A bunch of us have birthdays near July 4th, so I'm not doing much Inet time.

Happy Fourth, guys!

'Rat

Same to you, 'Rat! Enjoy.

skunk
Jul 3, 2004, 02:44 AM
Happy Fourth, guys!

'Rat
Happy Sixth, 'Rat :)

You take it easy, y'hear?

jackfrost
Jul 6, 2004, 07:34 PM
My father always told me the Democrats were for the working man, so when it was time I registered and voted for Democrats. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a big lie. As the years went on the Democrats kept raising my taxes over and over again.

I then registered Republican about the time Reagan started running for President. Reagan was truly a man of vision. Unfortunately many people seem to forget just how bad things were BEFORE Reagan was elected. If you wanted to buy a house interest rates were upwards of 14%. Inflation 10% and unemployment near 10% (even the unions did not endorse Carter).

Then Bush was elected and he seemed to go in a different direction. Then Clinton (need I say more?), then Republicans took control of Congress, which led Clinton to champion Republican ideas, but Republicans seem to imitate Democrats toward the end of the 90's.

This led me to become an Independent voter. In the 2000 election I do not remember who I voted for, maybe that isolationist guy. Definately not Democrat or Republican. By the way, the Florida law (at the time) says a LEGAL VOTE was one which was punched COMPLETELY through with NO hanging chads or dimples (just for the record).

This past year with all the hatred spewed by the Democrats, they just may force me to vote for Bush while holding my nose!! Something I just do not want to do at all !!

I'll vote for various Independents for everything else on the ballot.

Neserk
Jul 6, 2004, 08:28 PM
This past year with all the hatred spewed by the Democrats, they just may force me to vote for Bush while holding my nose!! Something I just do not want to do at all !!
.


It is BUSH who is spewing the hatred, in the form of an illegal war and lying to the entire world. Not to mention all the attacks that are complete jokes against Kerry and others who disagree with him.

jefhatfield
Jul 6, 2004, 08:39 PM
My father always told me the Democrats were for the working man, so when it was time I registered and voted for Democrats. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a big lie. As the years went on the Democrats kept raising my taxes over and over again.

I then registered Republican about the time Reagan started running for President. Reagan was truly a man of vision. Unfortunately many people seem to forget just how bad things were BEFORE Reagan was elected. If you wanted to buy a house interest rates were upwards of 14%. Inflation 10% and unemployment near 10% (even the unions did not endorse Carter).

Then Bush was elected and he seemed to go in a different direction. Then Clinton (need I say more?), then Republicans took control of Congress, which led Clinton to champion Republican ideas, but Republicans seem to imitate Democrats toward the end of the 90's.

This led me to become an Independent voter. In the 2000 election I do not remember who I voted for, maybe that isolationist guy. Definately not Democrat or Republican. By the way, the Florida law (at the time) says a LEGAL VOTE was one which was punched COMPLETELY through with NO hanging chads or dimples (just for the record).

This past year with all the hatred spewed by the Democrats, they just may force me to vote for Bush while holding my nose!! Something I just do not want to do at all !!

I'll vote for various Independents for everything else on the ballot.

some counterpoints to think about...not all my opinion though

...the gop gives breaks to the idle, non working, rich who collect dividends

...reagan doubled carter's defecit

...bush called it right with the "voodoo economics" comment re: reagan and bush got blamed for reagan's doubling of carter's defecit

...clinton oversaw the longest economic expansion in us history

...if you hold you nose voting for bush, then why not reform, libertarian, american independent, peace and freedom, green party? they are not the standard two party fare

zimv20
Jul 6, 2004, 08:57 PM
As the years went on the Democrats kept raising my taxes over and over again.
both reagan and bush I raised taxes

Neserk
Jul 6, 2004, 09:56 PM
both reagan and bush I raised taxes


Careful. People hate it when you confuse them with the facts :p

jefhatfield
Jul 7, 2004, 10:09 AM
Careful. People hate it when you confuse them with the facts :p


i like to debate with republicans who have at least some facts right or who have at least some education in history

but in four years here, i have never seen a republican, or democrat, that has been less informed than this gentleman

but i do agree that reagan was a visionary...but he did not do it on the cheap

listening to reagan's eloquent style, he made a lot of us believe, me included, that he would balance the budget...that was his key goal, but he did not succeed

that being said, reagan, the former california governor was able to mobilize the then solid democratic south to eventually become republican...with leftover bad feelings from the civil war and shortly after, it would not seem likely that the gop would get any sympathy from the south for two hundred years...or forever

reagan was the first gop president in modern times who was able to work with the democrats and still get what he wanted, through fair compromise, and be fairly liked by a lot of moderate democrats...thus helping him land in office again

i can't think of any republican who had the guts to work with the opposition in such a positive way...clinton actually used reagan's tactics of compromise and teamwork to work well with the republicans...presidents working with the opposing party is a breath of fresh air compared to the deadlock years of the 70s and suspicion brought on by watergate

but again, one thing reagan was not was a budget balancer

jackfrost
Jul 9, 2004, 12:08 PM
i like to debate with republicans who have at least some facts right or who have at least some education in history

but in four years here, i have never seen a republican, or democrat, that has been less informed than this gentleman

but i do agree that reagan was a visionary...but he did not do it on the cheap

listening to reagan's eloquent style, he made a lot of us believe, me included, that he would balance the budget...that was his key goal, but he did not succeed

that being said, reagan, the former california governor was able to mobilize the then solid democratic south to eventually become republican...with leftover bad feelings from the civil war and shortly after, it would not seem likely that the gop would get any sympathy from the south for two hundred years...or forever

reagan was the first gop president in modern times who was able to work with the democrats and still get what he wanted, through fair compromise, and be fairly liked by a lot of moderate democrats...thus helping him land in office again

i can't think of any republican who had the guts to work with the opposition in such a positive way...clinton actually used reagan's tactics of compromise and teamwork to work well with the republicans...presidents working with the opposing party is a breath of fresh air compared to the deadlock years of the 70s and suspicion brought on by watergate

but again, one thing reagan was not was a budget balancer


Thanks to Neserk and Zimv20 for proving my point, thanks for the encouragement.

Many people do not, or prefer not to remember the year 1980. I am amused at how many people think Reagan was president in 1980, of course he was sworn in January 1981.

Jimmy Carters economy caused me to be unemployed for the first and only time in my life. Thanks Jimmy.

Yes 1980 was seared into my mind for that reason, so the numbers I quoted earlier are actually low. I was getting 14% interest on my certificate of deposit, so the interest rate for loans had to be much higher. Unemployment and inflation around 10% was actually low.

Since Reagan, the economy has (thank goodness) not returned to those numbers. Yes the deficit increased, but remember Reagan had to work with a predominately Democrat congress. He wanted to increase the military, they, the rest of government.

One could argue that the nineties were the decade of greed. Many of the dot coms were built on expectations and not substance. Come March 2000 and the bubble burst for them, helping to create the current economic problems.
Their creators were the only ones to make money, and big money at that (my meager IRA went in the toilet).
Meanwhile the Enrons and others were cooking their books in the late nineties, while government regulators were sleeping.

Yes, Bush clearly spent like the proverbial drunken sailor, and courted special interests as do the Democrats.
Kerry is clearly not a leader, if we want someone to follow the polls then we should elect a pollster for president.

If it looks like Kerry I'll vote Bush, if it looks like Bush I'll vote Libertarian or other Independent candidate. Maybe even Ralph Nader.

jefhatfield
Jul 9, 2004, 12:23 PM
Thanks to Neserk and Zimv20 for proving my point, thanks for the encouragement.

Many people do not, or prefer not to remember the year 1980. I am amused at how many people think Reagan was president in 1980, of course he was sworn in January 1981.

Jimmy Carters economy caused me to be unemployed for the first and only time in my life. Thanks Jimmy.

Yes 1980 was seared into my mind for that reason, so the numbers I quoted earlier are actually low. I was getting 14% interest on my certificate of deposit, so the interest rate for loans had to be much higher. Unemployment and inflation around 10% was actually low.

Since Reagan, the economy has (thank goodness) not returned to those numbers. Yes the deficit increased, but remember Reagan had to work with a predominately Democrat congress. He wanted to increase the military, they, the rest of government.

One could argue that the nineties were the decade of greed. Many of the dot coms were built on expectations and not substance. Come March 2000 and the bubble burst for them, helping to create the current economic problems.
Their creators were the only ones to make money, and big money at that (my meager IRA went in the toilet).
Meanwhile the Enrons and others were cooking their books in the late nineties, while government regulators were sleeping.

Yes, Bush clearly spent like the proverbial drunken sailor, and courted special interests as do the Democrats.
Kerry is clearly not a leader, if we want someone to follow the polls then we should elect a pollster for president.

If it looks like Kerry I'll vote Bush, if it looks like Bush I'll vote Libertarian or other Independent candidate. Maybe even Ralph Nader.

you can't only go on what only your life was like in the waning days of carter...reagan left us with a defecit much larger than carter...anybody who thinks carter outspent reagan is just rehashing gop spin...reagan did not balance the budget like so many republicans believe...he took carter's huge defecit and doubled it...yet some people call reagan a "conservative"...what was he conserving? it wasn't money ;)

i do agree with you that the 90s was the decade of greed...there was so much money that the defecit got paid off and we had a surplus...that at least was good

i was a victim of the dot.com fall...i was vp of internet hollywood.com in san jose and all the hype and speculation, and an industry (the dot.com) built on very little research, led to its fall just as much as greed

dot.com is not dead and will come back, piece by piece, until it is again near the top of industry...but nobody will get rich overnight and it will resemble a more stable, slow growing industry which is mostly immune from big sudden falls

jackfrost
Jul 9, 2004, 01:17 PM
you can't only go on what only your life was like in the waning days of carter...reagan left us with a defecit much larger than carter...anybody who thinks carter outspent reagan is just rehashing gop spin...reagan did not balance the budget like so many republicans believe...he took carter's huge defecit and doubled it...yet some people call reagan a "conservative"...what was he conserving? it wasn't money ;)

i do agree with you that the 90s was the decade of greed...there was so much money that the defecit got paid off and we had a surplus...that at least was good

i was a victim of the dot.com fall...i was vp of internet hollywood.com in san jose and all the hype and speculation, and an industry (the dot.com) built on very little research, led to its fall just as much as greed

dot.com is not dead and will come back, piece by piece, until it is again near the top of industry...but nobody will get rich overnight and it will resemble a more stable, slow growing industry which is mostly immune from big sudden falls

I do acknowledge the deficit increase.

Reagan did put into place some legislation that reformed to some extent the tax system, for instance indexing, which was to help prevent "bracket creep", that is to say, as your salary increased by small amounts you would not get pushed into the next higher tax bracket.

Unfortunately as time went on, this like other measures to harness government spending, was eroded by new congresses. To this day I am not sure how much of Reagans "reforms" survive the constant legislation rehash.

Frohickey
Jul 9, 2004, 01:47 PM
you can't only go on what only your life was like in the waning days of carter...reagan left us with a defecit much larger than carter...anybody who thinks carter outspent reagan is just rehashing gop spin...reagan did not balance the budget like so many republicans believe...he took carter's huge defecit and doubled it...yet some people call reagan a "conservative"...what was he conserving? it wasn't money ;)

i was a victim of the dot.com fall...i was vp of internet hollywood.com in san jose and all the hype and speculation, and an industry (the dot.com) built on very little research, led to its fall just as much as greed


Reagan had a Democrat Congress. He wanted tax cuts and increased military spending, but he couldn't get the military spending without the pork barrel Democrat social programs, so he compromised and got both. Increasing the military spending led to decreased military spending after the Soviet threat had passed.

Bush had a Republican Congress. He wanted tax cuts and increased military and homeland defense spending, but he couldn't get the military spending without the pork barrel Republican social programs, so he compromised and got both. If we get some more spectacular terrorist attacks here in the United States with lots of civilian lives lost, I think you will agree that the money we are spending doesn't seem as painful.

And you allowed yourself to be a victim of the dot.com bust??? What person would allow themselves to be hit by an oncoming train that they see looming in the horizon? Odocoileus Virginianus, I can understand. But not Homo Sapien. :p :eek: :D

skunk
Jul 9, 2004, 02:42 PM
If we get some more spectacular terrorist attacks here in the United States with lots of civilian lives lost, I think you will agree that the money we are spending doesn't seem as painful.
Does this make any sense? :confused:

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 9, 2004, 02:57 PM
Does this make any sense? :confused:

It didn't to me. Sounded like "lunatic right" ramblings, much like some of us are accused of "lunatic left" ramblings. :)

Frohickey
Jul 9, 2004, 04:09 PM
Does this make any sense? :confused:

What doesn't make sense?

Large defense budget, and the pork barrel spending projects give you large budget deficits.
Lets say defense budget is not increased, and no additional federal funding for anti-terrorism efforts. That could lead to increased terrorist attacks here in the United States. How many Sept 11-style attacks can we sustain before the economy just goes down the dumpster?

Backtothemac
Jul 9, 2004, 04:33 PM
Well, I don't blindly follow a Party, and here is something that I have never told anyone. I voted for Clinton in 96. Wow, that felt good to get off my chest. I vote based on issues. How they effect me, and how they make me feel as a voter, and a citizen. I cannot blindly follow any party, and I will say now that I think Bush has made many mistakes (to be highlighted in another thread), however, it comes down to about 5 issues that determine how I vote. I was praying that the democrats would give us someone that I could vote for, but they did not. I wanted someone as an alternative. Kerry just isn't it for me though.

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 9, 2004, 04:36 PM
What doesn't make sense?

Large defense budget, and the pork barrel spending projects give you large budget deficits.
Lets say defense budget is not increased, and no additional federal funding for anti-terrorism efforts. That could lead to increased terrorist attacks here in the United States. How many Sept 11-style attacks can we sustain before the economy just goes down the dumpster?

the quote attributed to you was:

Originally Posted by Frohickey

If we get some more spectacular terrorist attacks here in the United States with lots of civilian lives lost, I think you will agree that the money we are spending doesn't seem as painful.


What skunk and I got from this was if we have a spectacular attack that results in major loss of life that we will be happy that we spent all this money on Homeland Security.

I guess skunk and I would think that with the money being spent that we would not have a spectacular attack, or that a terrorist attack may be more limited in the scope of loss of life.

I am being realistic here. As much as I would like to see no further terrorist attacks on US soil, I realize that is impossible. Unless we allow for a further move to a totalitarian society (that seems to be happening).

Maybe it is my religious upbringing, but I was taught that when God calls us home, we go. Now to take from Bruce Almighty, God does not reward stupid. All we can do is to take reasonable steps to assure our safety. Reasonable will mean something different for you and I.

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 9, 2004, 04:40 PM
Well, I don't blindly follow a Party, and here is something that I have never told anyone. I voted for Clinton in 96. Wow, that felt good to get off my chest. I vote based on issues. How they effect me, and how they make me feel as a voter, and a citizen. I cannot blindly follow any party, and I will say now that I think Bush has made many mistakes (to be highlighted in another thread), however, it comes down to about 5 issues that determine how I vote. I was praying that the democrats would give us someone that I could vote for, but they did not. I wanted someone as an alternative. Kerry just isn't it for me though.

This is one of the reasons that I feel that a National Primary to be followed up by a run off Presidential election is the way to go. Hopefully in a situation like what some see in local elections, I might have seen McCain running against the incumbent Bush. And depending on the overall issues, i may have found myself in McCains camp verses some of the Democrats.

Neserk
Jul 9, 2004, 08:31 PM
Does this make any sense? :confused:

nope.

zimv20
Jul 9, 2004, 08:59 PM
I voted for Clinton in 96.
why?

Backtothemac
Jul 10, 2004, 12:21 AM
why?

Because even though I disagreed with him on some policy issues, I agreed with the basis of his platform. He did what I thought at the time was right. i still think he was right. I do think there was a right wing consipracy. As I think there is one from the left now.

It is the degradation of American politics since Reagan. Sad.

zimv20
Jul 10, 2004, 12:28 AM
As I think there is one from the left now.

that one seems pretty out in the open ;-)