i am democrat

*sigh*

Is this just the week for dumb politics threads?


Your question is just hopelessly vague and pointless, and makes two major mistakes:

1) Not everyone on this forum is from the US, so the question is way too narrow. And even ignoring the differences in parties, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. In many places, the US democratic party would be considered a conservative party.

2) There are more than just two options. Not everyone blindly follows one of the major parties you know.




As for myself, none of the above. I absolutely hate both major parties in the US, and wish painful fates for most of their members. There really isn't much difference between them... the democrats want to vastly expand the government's power and budget to enforce equality, the republicans want to vastly expand the government's power and budget to enforce morality. There isn't a socially liberal, economically conservative party in this country, unfortunately. The libertarians are the closest thing, but they take it to absurd extremes and wouldn't be a much better alternative even if they could win an election.

A democrat in theory is a supporter of democracy - one person, one vote with equal opportunity for all. Realisitically this is both impractical and unenforceable in any country but it is especially true in the USA when you need huge financial resources to run as a political candidate. This reduces the available choices to one of the plutocracy who have a specific agenda whether they pretend to be democratic or republican.

In my opinion (and it is only an OPINION) a true capitalist is a repulsive exploiter with a total absence of humanity, a true communist is a fool with no concept of reality. There has to be a way to allow those who can develop society to do so even if it gives then an edge (financial or otherwise) while protecting from destitution those who from no fault of their own cannot be productive members of society.

The tragedy is that because a few of those who claim to be in the latter group are frauds, layabouts and cheats everyone in that category is treated the same way. Equally only a few in the first category do not give millions to charity but it is those who do not who are used as stereotypes.

In truth there is no easy or straightforward solution.

As far as the USA is concerned I find it difficult to see any truly left wing policy in either party. As such the choice is a chimera.

This is a stupid, narrow-minded thread, but to me, the US Republicans are much like the Conservative Party of Canada, Progressive Conservatives as they used to be called, or simply PCs. Our British forum members would call this party the Tories, if I'm not mistaken, as we also call our Canadian Conservative party by that name too. The US Democrats are much like the Canadian Liberal Party, or simply Liberals. In Canada, we also have the New Democratic Party, or NDP, which is a socialist party, not the same as the US Democrats. I also can't forget to mention the Bloc Quebecois, cuz you have to remember in Canada we're a bilingual nation (English and French are our official languages). (For those of you that don't speak Canadian French, Bloc Quebecois is pronounced [BLOCK KAY-BECK-wah].)

Anyway, in Canada, these are the four major political parties we vote for in every election. Because our political system is very different from that in ths US, we have the sole freedom of expressing our political views more so than Americans. But generally speaking, in Canada, the two major opponents are the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP (or socialists) support whoever will get them what they want, tho generally they'll support the Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois is keen on Quebec interests, meaning they'll support whoever supports the interests of the province of Quebec. (Keep in mind that Quebec has separate interests than the rest of Canada, which is why anyone coming into Canada will notice that Quebec has separate income tax returns, and everything is different than the rest of Canada.)

I'm a strict Conservative, and will support only the Conservatives. So, if was an American instead of a Canadian, I'd vote for the Republicans. Of course, I wouldn't blindly vote for stupidity, so with the current Bush admin, I wouldn't vote for anyone.

Since you're Canadian, I can understand the mistake --- but the United States Republican party isn't conservative. Since they assumed control in 2001, government spending and subsidies have skyrocketed, and government power plays an increasingly large role in everyday life.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no strictly conservative political group in the United States that has even the least bit of a chance to hold any political sway for the next twenty years. Both major political parties want to spend the citizenry's money for them; they only differ in what rhetoric they use to justify this act.

Republicans are closer to the right than the Canadian Conservatives, but now that I see it, they're more capitalists than actual social conservatives. Pro-corporation, anti-citizen, basically. "Democrat" is just another way of saying "social liberal", upholders of social equality and not social morality. So, I wouldn't vote for anyone, period. I never cared much for American politcs to begin with anyway.

I'm only 16 right now so I have a few years to worry about it, but I am very conservative with few liberal ideas. I don't support ANY US polotical party. period.
I typically prefer Republicans because they at least make an attempt at being honest. The Democrats are flagrantly baised in their news and rarely if ever tell the truth. I'm not saying the Republicans never lie or are never baised, just not as much as the Democrats.
As for the Independant parties, I'm not too familiar with them. I would tend to like the Libertarians better, but again, I don't know much about them. I know that Penn & Teller are Libertarians and I tend to agree with most, if not all, of their views on their...not so popular show (at least around here) BS.

Edit: BTW, rob_b, your post is clearly thread necromancy as the previous post (#4) is dated June 14 2006.

The only thing more troubling, from a strictly conservative standpoint, than a government that can't keep its hands out of your pockets is one that can't keep its hands out of your pants.


If they were pro-capitalism, then that would imply they are pro-competition. How does this hypothesis explain all of the Halliburton no-bid contracts?

I suppose I shouldn't have bothered looking at this thread in the first place. I honestly don't care about American politics, and not to sound like I'm bashing you yankees, but your gov't seems to be lacking in very basic fundamental ethical principles. Not that I'm saying the Canadian gov't doesn't have its faults (believe me, our gov't has had its share of public mishaps and misuse of tax-payer $), but really, you guys can only vote for two different parties, neither of which seems morally or ethically capable of running your, uh, "fine" country.

BTW, I NEVER, not once EVER, checked the dates at which the last post was dated. I never realized I had commited threadromancy, and Switch had already brought this to my attention. I had committed threadromancy THREE times that day, but Switch kept this and another dead post just barely open as I added something to them. I apologize for my inconsiderate, oblivious, and foolish actions, which clearly shows everyone what a complete stupid and moronic @$$HAT I am. I clearly have no brains whatsoever, to even realize that a post is dead, so if ANY of you feel the need to flame me, by all means go right ahead.

No, if I flame you the I'll be in the wrong. Besides, it happens to everyone every now and then.

I do agree, the US government is very corrupt. Our founding fathers are probably crying themselves to sleep every night...
I think the only way to end this corruption, is if all the countries in the world would bow down to my supreme rule and realise that I am the only one who can save them. Mwahahahaha
Seriously though, nothing we would do would change anything. Humans are greedy and selfish by nature, but that's best lift to a different thread.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say humans are inherently greedy, since I believe sometimes man can become greedy and selfish as a result of his surroundings. More specifically from the people he comes into contact with as he's growing up. It's becoming more and more prevalent today for someone to spend more time alone than with friends or family. For someone like me who physically needs to be around people, that truly is a disheartening and stark reality ...

That may be your opinion, but I disagree. I'm cynical by nature and I rarely, if ever, see the good side.
I know that I won't convince you that man is bad by nature and you can't convince me man is not bad by nature. So let us act mature and agree to disagree on this topic.

To get back on topic, There's not much else I can say: I think governments and political parties everywhere are corrupt and I won't support any of them.

Our entire understanding of human behavior disagrees with you. Millions of years of evolution have given us an inherent selfishness and desire to protect ourselves and our family. Social pressure and circumstances can do a bit to change the degree of selfishness or make a person put something else at a higher priority, but there's no way to eliminate it completely.

More importantly, there's no way to eliminate it from all of society. And that's the important factor in dealing with governments (communism, anarchy, etc, as the usual examples), it's not enough to get a few good people, you have to make everyone idealistic and selfless. Otherwise you just get the selfless and amoral people in power, and the idealistic masses just get screwed. So sure, remove all that corrupt and evil government and trust in human nature. Your enlightened anarchy won't last a week before you're right back where you started. Except instead of a paying taxes to the government, you'll just be paying them to the guy with the biggest gun.

The only way to change human nature is through absurdly advanced technology (see the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks) making scarcity obsolete. You won't really change human nature, but there won't be much reason to take something from another person when you can effortlessly have another one for yourself.

Man in inherently selfish. All the stuff we do is for our benefit. But like genes, sometimes the best way to help yourself is to help others... and sometimes the best way to to stab them in the back.

Wow. Democrat or Republican?

What about the Green Party?

Thats what I am part of.

It doesn't matter if people were Democrats or Republicans, the corporations would still run the country.

I used to be a Republican, before I was enlightened by the teachings of Ralph Nader. I realize now that corporations to run the country, and its the people's country. The corporations are supposed to serve the people, not suck the blood from them.

His policies are the best, and he would win the election if people actually knew what they were.

www.votenader.org

Get rid of the corporate Two-Party system. Let the people have a voice.

I'm not from usa, but i take the occasion to make this thread mine as well.

Italy is under elections right now, what will happen? Will this tired country choose for the "less worst" by voting for the democratic party, trying to keep the chance to fight corruption and condemned politicians through the civil actions of non-political movements and people like Beppe Grillo (take a look at his blog, there's an english version), or are we digging our grave right now by voting for Silvio "psiconano" Berlusconi again? (psiconano=psychodwarf)

Some good american journalists made a very explanatory service about Berlusconi. this service is called "Who is Silvio Berlusconi" take a look at it in youtube. Here in italy this service has been censored: Why? because journalists and tv are totally "sold" to the politicians, and there is NO freedom of press. in addition, we have more than 25 CONDEMNED (mostly for corruption, criminal associations and so on) politicians walking in our parliament freely.

Just to spread some informations about my beloved country,

I'm moving to Canada... Clinton and Obama hate America and McCain is the Republican equivalent of Al Gore, dry and boring with no personality whatsoever.

-T-

Neither Democrat or Republican. *I* want to run the country and straighten some things out.

I'm a Juris Naturalist. Or Libertarian, if you prefer.

I am registered an independent at present. I often vote democrat but will often vote against the encumbant regardless of the challenger's party.

I personally believe that the party system is basically a flawed system. However I believe that the greatest "fix" for our current political system would be to revamp the allowed donations money for those running for office. I believe that (and I KNOW this will upset some people) each runner should be allowed X amount of tax dollars or time on TV and newpapers for advertising the campaign. THis would allow those with good experience and abilities, but without funds to run equally for office. It would also begin to get the cantidates out of the lobbiest pockets.

I undeestand that this concept has been practiced in some European countries. It isn't a complete fix but would help those with better qualifications but no money have a more equal chance to run for office.

Why do we keep digging up an old thread. Can't we all just agree to join the "Not Hillary" party and be done with it? Even people outside the US can be a part. Not suggesting that McCain has anything really going for him, or that Obama would be able get anything done when the country seems to be more concerned about what his pastor has to say. But Hillary has done little more than turn this election into an endless series of sound bites, and has chosen to remain in the race despite the fact that there aren't enough states left to give her the party's support, even if she manages to win by more than 10%. I can't even imagine what she is hoping to achieve by continuing. Oh, and her policies will only lead to further economic collapse, and increased hardships, if she ever decides to put them into place. Forcing people to pay for insurance as a means of improving the lives of people who can't afford it... What was she smoking?

Apparently she was smoking with Billy-Bob in college. And I hereby announce my joining of the "Not Hillary" Party.

First poast, love politics this realy gets the juces flowing so here we go.

On the isue of political funding back home in england an mp (member of parliment) may spend not more than £10,000 (apox $20,000) on his entire electoral campain. each candidate is elected simultaniusly (sort of) and although they may or may not have a partie behind them they efectivly must fight thier own campain in thier own constituancy alown. even the priminister is just an mp and if they are found to ecede their limit then they would be put under invesigation and posibly face prosicution (as the priminister is not the head of state and is not imune from prosicution, indead one of the first: Simon de Monford was exicuted.

as for the candidates and the outgoing president:

Mcain i know absulutly nothing about. until the race most peaple in england had never heard of him.

Hillary, although i personaly have no objection to her, over here she comes across as a very sore loser.

Obarma. whislt he may "Hate america" this dose not seem as such an impediment to office to us, afterall hating america is virtualy a national pastime in England.

Bush. I dont like him not because of coruption or argression but because he made an absolute balls up of iraq. just what the volitile middle east needed; another vietnam.

I have always said that if you dont like they way the country is run then their is nothing stopping you from replacing the politicians yourself, whilst this may be true in the UK if i said it of the USA i would be lying. as long as this remains the cas democracy in america is nothing but a fiction. the american way apears shockingly undemocratic from our point of veiw.

so in answer to the question "republican or democrate" the answer in short is it dosnt matter, i will be able to deal with any president, no matter his colours.

Haha... I'll join the "Not Hillary" party on the condition I can lead a fringe "Boo Hillary, Yay Ron Paul!" campaign...

OK..

I willplay devil's advocate here...

I am seeing alot of "Not this person" but if not them then who?

Ron Paul.

Or, Ron Paul.

Of course there's always Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul......

Or......




























Ron Paul.

NOOOOOOOO!!! He can still win! I believe in miracles!!!!!!



Ah, who am I kidding. Next time, I guess.

Isn't he the one that wanted to abolish the IRS?

Correct-a-mundo. Taxes suck.

Mc Cain has his whole "Bush's third term" vibe going, so really, once you look past the backing of Michael Moore, Obama seems to be the lesser of two evils with any chance in hell at the moment. I actually see any sort of "dislike for america" arguments actually working in his favor as far as being someone who may actually accomplish something benefitial to tne rest of us who are also sick of how poorly run the country is.

Yes, but I can't get past the "I hate America" sentimentality of Obama.

-T-

Edit: Hooray, 100 posts. A day that will not be remembered or live in infamy.

But it isn't a "I hate America" sentimentality really. That's just his pastor, and aparently nobody seems to get the idea that the two don't necessary agree on those issues. He isn't even part of the campaign. Chances are that Obama wasn't even in attendance durring that one particular speech.

But see, it wasn't one particular speech. Wright preached his "die whitey" messages many times. Even if he hadn't, Obama claimed to have been close friends with him and attend his church for 20 years. You'd think he'd know Wright's personal beliefs.

Black Liberation Theology is being misrepresented here, Wright isn't suggesting or inciting any violence against whites. He's not saying that blacks should kill whitey, he's saying that they should fight against white oppressors.

I'm not attacking Black Liberation Theology, I'm attacking Wright specifically. Though I do have my problems with BLT, Wright is the focus now. Wright once said, "Whites are potential humans, they have not evolved yet". That seems fairly racist to me.

Freddy, you're quoting Farrakhan. As nuts as Farrakhan may be, it isn't fair to dismiss Wright as a racist just because the two are associated.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry about that, I get Farrakhan and Wright confused......

Eh, I guess Wright really isn't too bad. I do think the press has focused on this issue waaaaaay more than necessary, anyways.

EDIT: You know what? Nevermind. Wright is a bit extreme. Apparently Oprah left his church in the late 80's because his sermons made her uncomfortable....

EDIT EDIT: I dunno.... Nevermind. It's not a big deal, in any case.

Neither --

The Democratic party has a long History of Mistakes-- Starting with ensuring the long life of Slavery and Racism in the US

The Republican Party has turned from the Party to defend the soul of the Republic, to the Party to defend the Pocket book of the Wealthy Elite.

... Not much to choose from.


... as for Wright ... what bugs me the most is how so FEW have actually listened to the entire sermon .... and certainly none have PUblished it...


For example, he gets accused of racism by Schnitt and others .... well, what is racist about that one snippet they publish, "God Damn America" ... is America only a reference to the White people?

Do people think that Rev. Wright isnt including himself in that Damnation? of course he is, he lives here. He's talking about that downward spiral that many of us see happening in our society ... It sure feels that our country is God-forsaken. I see the new crop of kids growing up ...and more and more of them have no interest what so ever in anything but their own happiness ... many of them even engage in social service ..for how it makaes them feel ...

now, i'm not saying this is EVERYONE ... but its a general malaise that I see spreading with each grade that graduates .... maybe I should teach in colleges and see if its the same there or maybe its just that these kids are young ... don't know ... How did I get on this tangent?