What's an issue on which you disagree with your preferred party?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Roderick Usher, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. Roderick Usher macrumors regular

    Dec 9, 2006
    I'm one of the bluest of the blue, leftest of the left, bleeding-heart liberal Democrat peace-loving pot-smoking Jefferson Airplane-looping hippies that you'll ever find - but, like (I hope) most people, my allegiance isn't blind and there are a few of my preferred party's platforms with which I take strong exception. (Oh, and in case you've already looked over at my location info, I was actually born and raised in Iowa.) ;)

    For me, one of these is affirmative action, and I say this as someone that's previously taken advantage of it. I understand the desire to create diversity in workplaces and educational environments -and I think that artificially-engineered diversity is absolutely beneficial - but I just can't stomach ethnicity being any kind of factor in someone's chances of getting a job or gaining school admittance, except in cases of personal safety (like undercover operations or sending journalists into hazardous areas or, uh, stuff like that).

    What's one of your key issues like that?

    Side topic: is artificially-engineered diversity even really artificial? Aren't the management decisions that initiate such things themselves products of an organic sea-change in attitude?
  2. VulchR, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014

    VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    I cannot believe a Democrat in charge of the executive branch has allowed the NSA to violate the law and the Constitution wholesale by bulk surveillance of phone meta-data. I wish there were a party that favoured pro-social reforms, such as providing for education and a social safety net and kept the government out of snooping into the private business of its citizens.
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Once again we get the Affirmative Action myth.


    But back on topic ...

    I have a problem with the vision and communication of the Democratic Party.

    I would like to see a greater public push for initiatives that deal with election and campaign reform, Climate Change, reducing military spending, improving infrastructure, reducing the debt & deficit, entitlements, spying, etc.

    These big themes should be woven into an narrative that the leaders are constantly putting before the people—as well as bringing legislation before congress—so it's clear what the priorities are, how they're interconnected and how the Democrats seek to solve them.
  4. Technarchy, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2014

    Technarchy macrumors 604


    May 21, 2012
    I don't have a preferred party.

    Political parts are ripe for corruption and political collusion against the people.

    I'm an independent, and observe that Republicans on a whole are far more willing to buck their party, while democrats lean more toward drone status loyalist that would tolerate anything and justify any action for the sake of the party. The GOP has had numerous deep schisms through it's history, with plenty in the last 50 years. The last time the DNC had a deep schism was over civil rights in the 60's.

    I'll put it this way, if Pol Pot were president and had killing fields, your typical democrat party hack would say it's Bush's fault and necessary for "equality and fairness". Hillary Clinton and Sean Penn would be giving him hugs and kisses on John Stewart.

    If Thomas Jefferson were president today, he'd be at war with Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John Mccain, Paul Ryan and all the other plutocrat, establishment puppets that take after Alexander Hamilton. To the point that the GOP would probably fall apart completely.
  5. Shrink macrumors G3


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA
    As a Communist-Socialist-Libertarian-Anarchist-Misanthropic-Curmudgeon...I don't agree with anything anybody says!

  6. SoAnyway macrumors 6502

    May 10, 2011
    Who or what am I supposed to disagree with if I'm an independent?
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010

    I really don't trust people who claim they're "independent".

    I think of them as people who usually vote for one party, but like to believe they're above it all.

    It's a pretty transparent ploy.
  8. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    I disagree with you about affirmative action, but, more than that, I disagree with a hidden assumption -- that there is a statistically accurate and precise way to estimate the success of people in a college program. It turns out that it is devilishly difficult to predict using existing metrics (class standing, test scores, etc) who will make the grade and graduate. I know it is difficult to accept, but, Google-Scholar research papers on this and you will realize what I mean.

    Immigration. I am all for allowing all the PhDs into the country who have job offers to move to the US. I am not in favor of allowing large-scale immigration of poor unskilled people. There are way too many unemployed unskilled laborers in the US already. The US healthcare system can't correctly handle the poor people there are now, let alone possibly handle a large influx of poor people. Healthcare for the poor is a huge problem in the US, and increased immigration of poor people makes it worse.

    Unfortunately, neither the Republicans nor Democrats are equipped to deal with this as an economic and healthcare problem. Because of the history of racism and economic exploitation of racial and ethnic minorities in the US, and the blatant racism of many right-wing extremists in the Republican Party today, the whole immigration discussion always goes off the rails immediately.

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but, I have happened to have spent most of my working life in a more racially and ethnically diverse environment than most people in the US. When the environment is already diverse, people think about other things, like, how to get the job done better. So, diversity does have advantages of its own from the management standpoint.
  9. jondunford macrumors 6502


    Oct 22, 2013
    Going for a poo Moderator
    They are all the same

    As comedian Frankie Boyle put it, whenever a new party is trying to get themselves elected, they should just advertise themselves like this: "I'm a slightly different type of ****."
  10. SoAnyway macrumors 6502

    May 10, 2011

    I would vote for a Republican if they had progressive ideas but they don't so I don't vote for them. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with having to vote for the more progressive of the two which end up being Democrats.

    Personally, I would prefer if we had proportional representation and not a two party system in the US. That way, we would get a more accurate representation of the people.

    In the 2012 primary, my votes went to progressive candidates and I didn't bother with Democrats of Republicans. In the general election, I ended up having to vote for Democrats for my senate and house representative because the only choice on the ballot was Democratic or Republican. In the same election, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney and voted for a progressive candidate.

    Is that transparent enough for you?
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    If Republicans had more progressive ideas that would make them Democrats, which you are apparently voting for. Why you insist upon calling yourself "independent" despite voting for Democrats is my point: you're a Democrat, but wish to portray yourself as somehow being above the designation.

    If you're consistently voting for one party, then just drop the pretense of being "independent".

    I agree. Then I could vote Green Party—to which I am registered—instead of casting my vote for Democrats because they're the party closest to my values with the best chance of winning.
  12. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Mar 10, 2005
    I'm neither a registered Republican nor a Democrat. More often vote for left candidates, but I have also voted for right leaning candidates. Depends on the person.

    On the left, I disagree with affirmative action, unions (typically), inheritance tax, Obamacare (it's just mandated payments to private healthcare providers, not single payer), and for an overall tone, the general self-righteous smugness

    On the right, I disagree with gay marriage bans, religious influence, the push against abortion but the lack of commitment to the living, the drug war (although the left maintains it, too), and for an overall tone, the general oppositional stances against people who do not personally effect them at all
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Dang. There's that myth again.

    It keeps popping up.

    Please source an incidence of affirmative action that you believes justifies your mentioning it as an important issue.
  14. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    holy crap but that was hilarious
  15. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Mar 10, 2005
    It's not a myth when you literally witness the occurrences.
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    I repeat, please source an incidence of affirmative action that you believes justifies your mentioning it as an important issue.
  17. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2004
    hmmm, what you describe sounds just like people who say they're registered as some minor party, but always vote for one of the two major parties.............I suppose that allows them to feel like they're above it all :p
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010

    I've voted for Republicans [or Democrats] the last 20 elections, but I'm an Independent!

    You are what your voting record says you are.
  19. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Mar 10, 2005
    I already told you.

    But feel free to continue trolling elsewhere.
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    You've said you've "seen it".

    Yet you haven't provided any evidence—preferably something that could be corroborated.

    Please provide evidence beyond, "I've seen it."
  21. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2004
    or "I've voted for Democrats the last 20 elections, but I'm a Green......"

    hmmm, what's the correct term for Green Party members? Greenies? :p Is it the same for registered green party members who actually always vote for democrats? or republicans? What the heck, those people should just be honest with themselves (and people they encounter at parties) and register for the party they actually vote for
  22. Roderick Usher thread starter macrumors regular

    Dec 9, 2006
    Just because I'm curious - what exactly are you after? A news article that happens to be about the same incident he witnessed? Another person to come onto the MacRumors forums and post about it?

    Generally when someone says they've personally seen something, I believe them...
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    I've stated many times, and will state again, that while I am registered Green I vote [virtually] straight Democrat for any office above County Supervisor.

    I am not "independent". I am pragmatic.

    I vote for the most liberal candidate who has the best chance to get elected into office. And I will continue with that strategy until the day they institute proportional representation.
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2004
    right......and you really think that makes you substantially different than somebody who's not registered as a party member of any party and does just what you do? If you do, I'd say you're only fooling yourself
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    He hasn't even described what he'd witnessed. So I wouldn't be too quick to believe it.

    The issue of Affirmative Action has been discussed in PRSI many times and I've both experienced it in practice and looked up the California State and Federal laws. I work for the State of California, have been on numerous hiring committees and have been instructed and trained on what Affirmative Action is and how to apply it.

    Affirmative action is not the same program it was decades ago, yet people still cling to the belief that the government has quotas and forces people to hire based on race and gender. Except in a few specific circumstances (which I can go over later) Affirmative Action simply says that you can't exclude someone from being hired simply because of their race, sex, religion, etc.

    Affirmative Action has in the past been used to increase minority enrollment in universities, however it's changed significantly after a number of court cases ruled against the practice. Government does not take an active role in setting quotas. If there is any initiative to increase minority enrollment, that comes from the institution setting its own goals and does not derive from government mandate.

    Despite these changes in the policy, which have been in place for years, people still cling to the bygone notion that Affirmative Action is about government quotas and forcing people to hire less qualified candidates just because they belong to a traditionally under-represented class. This simply isn't true

    That's why I've asked for evidence.


    How have I claimed I'm "substantially different" from anybody?

    Please explain.

Share This Page