Are you a loyal democrat or republican

[INFINTEBAJAN2]

which party do you back regardless or their nominees and why?

[warri0r45]

Let me be the first to say that voting based on the name of a party and not it's policies/what it has to offer is STUPID.

 

 

 

I can't believe people even participate in such nonsensical mind-rape.

[Giordano]

Let me be the first to say that voting based on the name of a party and not it's policies/what it has to offer is STUPID.

 

 

 

I can't believe people even participate in such nonsensical mind-rape.

 

 

 

[BlueLancer]

Hoped I would be first to post what Warrior just said.

 

 

 

Really, in the year 2008 as an educated person, if you have loyalties for a BUNCH OF CROOKS, you must be a really sheepish person. Sorry.

 

 

 

I vote for whoever is the best candidate in any election regardless of "party" affiliation which is a ridiculous standard to go by.

 

 

 

If you believe "republicans are evil war mongerers" and "democrats are tree hugging liberals"... Well, don't blame North Korea for brainwashing; It's just happened to you as well.

 

 

 

Understandably a lot of people aged 14-18 have those "simplistic" views on american politics, but it's scary how even some older people think the world is so black-and-white.

[dsavi]

I'm quite centrist, (A bit to the left) but have not yet seen a republican that I like. I do have some conservative values.

 

So this year, if I could vote, I would vote democratic. I don't really consider myself a complete liberal though.

[hohto]

Neither one. Why?

 

 

 

- I don't see much of a difference between a one and two party systems. The opinions are far too limited and different social sections are just ruled out. Get a proper multiparty program before you preach about democracy.

 

- When the political raid is money vs money with different marionetts every few years I don't see the point in supporting either one.

 

- I want my political leaders to be able to change during the changes. Currently the parties are too tied to the places where they are.

 

- I wouldn't see a real reason to support a foreign party in the meaning you probably were looking for.

 

 

 

Before replying please think this: do you blindly follow one party even when it's against your own opinions just because you've always followed it? Would you rather be a loyal suffering tax payer or a person who actually sees improvements in the society?

[Nom]

This reminds me of going to a private middle school.

 

 

 

Random 4th-grader: What party are you?

 

 

 

Me: Um, IDK . . . I think my dad is a democrat . . .

 

 

 

Random 4th-grader: Democrat! You stoopid! They support abortion!

[warri0r45]

This reminds me of going to a private middle school.

 

 

 

Random 4th-grader: What party are you?

 

 

 

Me: Um, IDK . . . I think my dad is a democrat . . .

 

 

 

Random 4th-grader: Democrat! You stoopid! They support abortion!

 

 

 

Wow. Sounds incredibly similar to grown-ups playing politics.

[BlueLancer]

Neither one. Why?

 

 

 

- I don't see much of a difference between a one and two party systems. The opinions are far too limited and different social sections are just ruled out. Get a proper multiparty program before you preach about democracy.

 

- When the political raid is money vs money with different marionetts every few years I don't see the point in supporting either one.

 

- I want my political leaders to be able to change during the changes. Currently the parties are too tied to the places where they are.

 

- I wouldn't see a real reason to support a foreign party in the meaning you probably were looking for.

 

 

 

Before replying please think this: do you blindly follow one party even when it's against your own opinions just because you've always followed it? Would you rather be a loyal suffering tax payer or a person who actually sees improvements in the society?

 

 

 

Well, Finland's system is much better in some aspects, given the 3 main parties have pretty much equal support around 20-25%, with greens at some 10% and the rest at less.

 

 

 

The presidential election will never be fair though; It's skewed towards the Coalition/Center party. The smaller parties will probably never supply a leader in the coming decades. In fact I can't even imagine anyone else becoming the next president in 2012 than Sauli Niinisto.

 

 

 

He is almost a de-facto King judging by his popularity amongst normal people (and he gathers about 15x more votes than an average parliament candidate) Just about everyone else is a colorless, mass-politician who doesn't stand any proper chance of being elected.

 

 

 

Even nordic countries aren't perfect: Rule of mass applies everywhere... Even if your view is a minority but would support the nation the best, you wont be heard unless more people start having your view.

[dsavi]

Neither one. Why?

 

 

 

- I don't see much of a difference between a one and two party systems. The opinions are far too limited and different social sections are just ruled out. Get a proper multiparty program before you preach about democracy.

 

Finland is one country that does that part right, with around 14 mainstream parties. (3 of which are the main mainstream parties :P, as Bluelancer said).

 

But in the case of Finland, I can say that I continuously support the SFP, because it's the only party which really supports schools/support/other in the only official Finnish language I know, Swedish. If I can't get education in a language I know, I don't see the point of fighting for other ideas.

[Lightshayde]

I lean to the left, but only slightly. My views on some topics are much more conservative.

 

If I could vote, though, I would vote for the Democrats. >.< Just because the Democratic candidate is cool.

[deloriagod]

I'm registered as a democrat, but if they have a bad candidate then I'd vote for the other guy (supposing that one wasn't terrible too). This year I'm voting democrat for sure. I can't stand McCain.

[Lenticular_J]

I hate them both, even though I have more conservative views. Full of greedy old men (and women). Doubt that you could get a dozen good people if you put the sides together.

 

 

 

By the way, am I the only one who, at the beginning of the election, thought Ron Paul was the Pope? I was thinking "Hold on a second. Zombie Pope for President? Awesome."

 

 

 

We do need more parties, like Finland. Its just that those two are so wealthy they'd be able to beat any new party that tries to spring into the mainstream.

 

 

 

(And voting for the "cool" candidate is stupid :? Unless he's a zombie-Pope.)

[hohto]

Well, view.

 

 

 

The point isn't that there would be X (being more than 2) amount of parties that can fight equally for the biggest number of votes. What I'm concerned is that in one or two party systems people with certain wishes aren't heard at all. Currently in USA for example the greens can't really get into the political game and get the "real" amount of people into power who represent them.

 

 

 

Iraq war is a great example. With the limited amount of choices people who are against the war might need to choose do they say "no" to it when it might be against the other beliefs on subjects like immigration policy, education, health care, etc. This leads into a situaton where you most likely will vote against things you believe that are right just because you give more value to other things.

 

 

 

You mentioned the presidential elections of Finland as one example. It's not a miracle that the president can be said to come from the 3 main parties, but that's not the whole case. The more votes the "leftovers" get, the more clearly it shows the opinion of the larger scale of people. Dsavi for example took Swedish as one example. Having a succesfull party that campaings in Swedish and for the swedish speaking minority gives a clear sign that when doing the decicions they can't be ruled out. For example in USA that would mean the same as spanish speaking people having people with proper power. Who represents them now in the congress for example? Basically no proper organization, yet they are stronger than zero for by pure numbers.

[mmmcannibalism]

I lean to the left, but only slightly. My views on some topics are much more conservative.

 

If I could vote, though, I would vote for the Democrats. >.< Just because the Democratic candidate is cool.

 

 

 

that is definetely the best reason to vote for someone :roll:

 

 

 

personally I wouldnt say I am loyal to either party, I agree more commonly with the republican party but have disagreements on issues they try to use as their platform(fighting gay marriage at every possible level and trying to say guns should have no restrictions, nothing wrong with gun rights but Id rather not allow fifty calibur machine guns). The democratic party annoys me quite a bit as i hate socialism with a passion, and a good bit of their policies lean towards socialism(universal health care, higher taxes and such). I just really hate the idea of giving the government more money and saying that it will set up programs to fix problems, considering the national debt the government is slowly increasing.

 

 

 

I agree with the hemp party that marijuana should be legalized though so it can be taxed for more revenue while corporation could undercut dealers and reduce crime. Unless the hemp party has another goal then wanting marijuana legal I have to say im loyal to them to a point

[Ginger_Warrior]

I am a loyal supporter of the Labour Party in the UK. Yes, voting for a party like Respect would suit my ideologies more, but that would be STUPID and naive. But the Labour Party are the party of the workers, and as a socialist, that is where my loyalties lie.

 

 

 

Of course if you want to vote by principle and let the opposition in through the back door, be my guest. There's a saying - "vote Liberal, get Tory".

 

 

 

Obviously this is different in the US which only has a two-party system (effectively). In which case, I cannot understand why anyone would vote someone other than Democrat or Republican. No other party will get anywhere in US politics - it's a vote for nothing.

[hohto]

Obviously this is different in the US which only has a two-party system (effectively). In which case, I cannot understand why anyone would vote someone other than Democrat or Republican. No other party will get anywhere in US politics - it's a vote for nothing.

 

 

 

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections.

[mmmcannibalism]

Obviously this is different in the US which only has a two-party system (effectively). In which case, I cannot understand why anyone would vote someone other than Democrat or Republican. No other party will get anywhere in US politics - it's a vote for nothing.

 

 

 

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections.

 

 

 

so sadly true, It is quite a shame that the two main parties collect almost all the money and donations.

 

 

 

btw very inspiring message hohto

[Ginger_Warrior]

Obviously this is different in the US which only has a two-party system (effectively). In which case, I cannot understand why anyone would vote someone other than Democrat or Republican. No other party will get anywhere in US politics - it's a vote for nothing.

 

 

 

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections.

 

So your solution to party loyalty is to become loyal to another party that exists outside of the main contenders instead?

 

 

 

OK...

 

 

 

Personally, I'm of the belief there should be three parties. One on the left, one on the right, and one in the middle to provide a sort of buffer to keep people involved in the political process while they're disillusioned. Then people will actually vote on what they believe in, not whoever's promised to lower their taxes most.

 

 

 

All that Respect and the SNP have done in this country is destroy Labour's reputation. They've weakened the left wing, and the Tories are profiting. That doesn't strike me as voting for a better future - it actually strikes me as voting for the exact opposite future you want.

[magekillr]

Obviously this is different in the US which only has a two-party system (effectively). In which case, I cannot understand why anyone would vote someone other than Democrat or Republican. No other party will get anywhere in US politics - it's a vote for nothing.

 

 

 

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections.

 

 

 

Wrong. You know how you accomplish a revitalization of more parties and get rid of the 2 party system? You work from the ground up. Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and their like just don't get it. Ironically, the Green Party advocated what I advocate, and Nader wanted no part of it. He has all these great ideas for the US, and he's going about it in an ego-maniacal manner that will change nothing, and accomplish nothing.

 

 

 

Don't you wonder why geographically Republicans control more of the United States? It's because they're smart: they go for the ground for support. They're joining school boards, they're running for City Councils, they're running for Mayor, they're running for DA...they're running for all these little intricate parts of the system, and building up a base. This is how Obama was successful, and able to defeat the Clinton machine: his grassroots organization was impeccable.

 

 

 

You accomplish nothing without a foundation, and until you take the time to build that foundation, there will be no other successful parties in the US.

[Hedgehog]

America needs a communistic party, I think it would be cool to have a communistic dictator, not some Bush jr or a democrat.

[Lenticular_J]

America needs a communistic party, I think it would be cool to have a communistic dictator, not some Bush jr or a democrat.

 

We have one somewhere. They just don't get enough votes to even be slightly mainstream. And why would you want a dictator? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. :?

[hohto]

So your solution to party loyalty is to become loyal to another party that exists outside of the main contenders instead?

 

 

 

You pretty much gave the answer in your second chapter. If you want a change, you have to get a ground where it can grow. A new party/parties don't just come out by the decicion of the currently dominant parties, the seed of new one(s) must be planted if you want a change. That won't happen by supporting the dominant parties and without a properly arranged movement/organization/party/whatever you wanna call it.

 

 

 

Every vote you give to republicans or democrats is away from the other choice(s) and it benefits the wrong people if you want to get the 3rd party you talked about. Things don't change at the political field by dreams or wishes, they change due actions. If you hope to get a 3rd big party but vote for the two main ones, your hope won't be anything else than just a hope.

 

 

 

Wrong. You know how you accomplish a revitalization of more parties and get rid of the 2 party system? You work from the ground up.

 

 

 

You accomplish nothing without a foundation, and until you take the time to build that foundation, there will be no other successful parties in the US.

 

 

 

Voting is the first step to get some recognisation to the other parties. Without that no proper fundings are realistic. People who fund politicians are looking to benefit from it in form or another and if there is no power behing a party, there's no real reason to put a lot of money into it.

 

 

 

For Arnold Average even one vote to the right party is more than can be asked. The active people are the ones who do the ground work but that really wasn't my point. My point was that Arnold Average should do even the most minimal thing he can (aka vote) if he wants the change.

 

 

 

If we look places where a real change has happened, it always has followed the same kind of path. People have realised things are wrong or not working as well as they could, the active workers have organized the movement and people have shown their support through small things: votings, demonstrations and so on. That's how Poland got their democracy, that's how Estonia got their freedom and that's how many others got what they wanted.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

party affiliation is one of the reason the United States is in the crap state it's in.

[Da Pirates]

Heavy Republican, I hate democrats. Unfortunately America is becoming a country that can be pushed around by little countries like Iraq because the unpatriotic liberals want to end the war, seriously all the unpatriotic Bush haters should move to Canada.