Political Poll

[Hawks]

I put Republican (USA). I'm really more of a Libertarian, seeing as I'm left-leaning on most social issues and strictly right-leaning on economics, but the Libertarian Party has virtually no chance at winning because of the two party system. I would have no problem voting for a Democrat, depending on his/her views and ideas. With the way the current 2012 presidential election is going, there are only like 3 Republicans (none of whom are likely to win the Republican primary imo) that I would vote for over Obama.

 

IMO, Obama hasn't done a bad job at all so far and, contrary to Tea Party beliefs, actually extended the Bush tax cuts and then cut taxes by another 2% (granted, at the cost of an already bleeding social security system). I would have no problem voting for him if the Republicans put up Romney, Palin, Bachman, or anyone else from that crowd.

 

2012 for me:

Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) > Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) > Ron Paul (R-TX) > Randall Terry (D-NY) > Barack Obama (D-IL) > Anyone Else > Any Tea Party Candidate

 

So probably McCotter in the primary and Obama in the general election.

 

I thought McCotter was going to run as a Dem? (saw it on the news maybe?)

 

Libertarian all the way, small government is the best. 'A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.' - Gerald Ford

Actually same as Hamtaro, left-leaning on most social and right on economics and such.

 

I dunno who I'm going to vote for in 2012, but I will vote as I shall be 18...

[kamykazee]

I try to eschew myself from politics and enjoy my life in other ways, hence i don't have political views that i am aware of.

[sees_all1]

How many Tea Partiers have you seen in photos of their rallies who support an end to the wars in the Middle East? For me, that would be 0. How about you? Probably the same... Thus, I would by no means consider him a tea party candidate.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs.

 

Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party.

[Crocefisso]

How many Tea Partiers have you seen in photos of their rallies who support an end to the wars in the Middle East? For me, that would be 0. How about you? Probably the same... Thus, I would by no means consider him a tea party candidate.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs.

 

Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party.

 

Isn't one of the 15 Tea Party founding principles that "Gun ownership is sacred"? I think I read that somewhere and assumed that the Tea Party were a bunch of loons. Then I saw Ron Paul, and I thought maybe they weren't. Then Michele Bachmann came on the scene, and I realised that a majority of them must be. She is an utter turd, no two ways about it.

[obfuscator]

I'd rather have Bachmann than Palin.

[sees_all1]

How many Tea Partiers have you seen in photos of their rallies who support an end to the wars in the Middle East? For me, that would be 0. How about you? Probably the same... Thus, I would by no means consider him a tea party candidate.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs.

 

Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party.

 

Isn't one of the 15 Tea Party founding principles that "Gun ownership is sacred"? I think I read that somewhere and assumed that the Tea Party were a bunch of loons. Then I saw Ron Paul, and I thought maybe they weren't. Then Michele Bachmann came on the scene, and I realised that a majority of them must be. She is an utter turd, no two ways about it.

You know, because "gun ownership" has nothing to do with the Constitution, which includes our 2nd Amendment...

[Crocefisso]

How many Tea Partiers have you seen in photos of their rallies who support an end to the wars in the Middle East? For me, that would be 0. How about you? Probably the same... Thus, I would by no means consider him a tea party candidate.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs.

 

Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party.

 

Isn't one of the 15 Tea Party founding principles that "Gun ownership is sacred"? I think I read that somewhere and assumed that the Tea Party were a bunch of loons. Then I saw Ron Paul, and I thought maybe they weren't. Then Michele Bachmann came on the scene, and I realised that a majority of them must be. She is an utter turd, no two ways about it.

You know, because "gun ownership" has nothing to do with the Constitution, which includes our 2nd Amendment...

 

<_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane. I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go. That said, the only thing about the Tea Party that affects us in Europe is the foreign policy aspect, which is virtually non existent and therefore very pleasing - no more expensive wars that we have to pay for out of our asses.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I try to eschew myself from politics and enjoy my life in other ways, hence i don't have political views that i am aware of.

I don't want to sound harsh, given this is a survey thread but... that's silly. Politics has an impact on just about everything you do in life so to say "I don't care 'coz I care about other things" makes no sense whatsoever. If you care about other things, you care about politics.

 

If I told you that your country is about to accept two million economic migrants when your hypothetical country has an unemployment rate of 10%+ and youth unemployment around 50%, I reckon you'd "have political views". If I told you that your country is about to cut all funding from health and social care projects and direct the money towards defence and military spending during a sustained period of peace, I reckon you'd "have political views".

 

I can understand apathy about political parties and if no party really represents your viewpoint, then fine. But apathy about politics itself is nonsense and counterintuitive.

[Crocefisso]

I can understand apathy about political parties and if no party really represents your viewpoint, then fine. But apathy about politics itself is nonsense and counterintuitive.

 

Agreed. I believe it was Pericles who said something along the lines of "Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics won't take an interest in you".

[sees_all1]

<_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane.

If gun ownership wasn't protected by the constitution, you'd better believe that guns would have been outlawed by now. Forcing politicians to adhere to a constitution prevents them from changing laws all willy-nilly, especially in a political climate as chaotic as this one.

 

I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go.

The Constitution is a "living document," which means that it is meant to be modified through the ways it set up. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that the times change, so a constitution must change as well. The Constitution is meant to change. If the Constitution was set in stone, and one of the provisions was that slaves were to account as 3/5ths of a person, it would make sense that people would ignore that part, and it would make sense that they might ignore other parts as well. Since we're able to change the Constitution, it makes all the more sense that we must adhere to it.

[Hamtaro]

How many Tea Partiers have you seen in photos of their rallies who support an end to the wars in the Middle East? For me, that would be 0. How about you? Probably the same... Thus, I would by no means consider him a tea party candidate.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs.

 

Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party.

Alright, I can understand that. I was more so referring to the Palin, Bachman, etc. crowd with the people who show up with the racist and misspelled signs. I see them as the equivalent of hippies, but on the right instead of the left.

 

@hawkxs

I highly doubt he'll be running as a Democrat. I've met him twice before (ironically, not even in Michigan) and he's a relatively laid back guy even when politics are involved as seen

,

, and

. He has a clear (appropriate for a Republican congressman) distaste of the Democratic party, while at the same time isn't some extreme far-right kind of guy.

[OldJoe]

I voted right, but in some cases i'm centre and in a couple of social issues i perhaps would even be seen as left. My party is SD tho.

[Crocefisso]

I voted right, but in some cases i'm centre and in a couple of social issues i perhaps would even be seen as left. My party is SD tho.

 

And which party is SD? And in what country?

[Will H]

<_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane.

If gun ownership wasn't protected by the constitution, you'd better believe that guns would have been outlawed by now. Forcing politicians to adhere to a constitution prevents them from changing laws all willy-nilly, especially in a political climate as chaotic as this one.

 

I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go.

The Constitution is a "living document," which means that it is meant to be modified through the ways it set up. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that the times change, so a constitution must change as well. The Constitution is meant to change. If the Constitution was set in stone, and one of the provisions was that slaves were to account as 3/5ths of a person, it would make sense that people would ignore that part, and it would make sense that they might ignore other parts as well. Since we're able to change the Constitution, it makes all the more sense that we must adhere to it.

 

So what's stopping politicians from repealing the Second Amendment, then restricting gun ownership like they do over here in the UK? Surely they have the democratic authority to do that.

[Crocefisso]

<_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane.

If gun ownership wasn't protected by the constitution, you'd better believe that guns would have been outlawed by now. Forcing politicians to adhere to a constitution prevents them from changing laws all willy-nilly, especially in a political climate as chaotic as this one.

 

I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go.

The Constitution is a "living document," which means that it is meant to be modified through the ways it set up. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that the times change, so a constitution must change as well. The Constitution is meant to change. If the Constitution was set in stone, and one of the provisions was that slaves were to account as 3/5ths of a person, it would make sense that people would ignore that part, and it would make sense that they might ignore other parts as well. Since we're able to change the Constitution, it makes all the more sense that we must adhere to it.

 

So what's stopping politicians from repealing the Second Amendment, then restricting gun ownership like they do over here in the UK? Surely they have the democratic authority to do that.

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Range_This11]

In three years of having the ability, I have yet to vote. I can't bring myself to vote for a person that I do not completely agree with.

 

As much as Ron Paul seems to know what he's doing, the thought of him in office makes me a bit leery. I don't know if I trust his policies that much and I don't think that Congress will go along with a lot of them if any.

[obfuscator]

In three years of having the ability, I have yet to vote. I can't bring myself to vote for a person that I do not completely agree with.

 

As much as Ron Paul seems to know what he's doing, the thought of him in office makes me a bit leery. I don't know if I trust his policies that much and I don't think that Congress will go along with a lot of them if any.

You could always spoil your ballot to make a point.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Or run for election yourself (age permitting), since the only person on this whole planet who'll ever completely agree with you is you.

[Range_This11]

double post.

[Range_This11]

In three years of having the ability, I have yet to vote. I can't bring myself to vote for a person that I do not completely agree with.

 

As much as Ron Paul seems to know what he's doing, the thought of him in office makes me a bit leery. I don't know if I trust his policies that much and I don't think that Congress will go along with a lot of them if any.

You could always spoil your ballot to make a point.

I'd vote for a candidate that was relatively close, but I have yet to see one. If Russ Feingold runs for the WI Senate seat again, I'd vote for him.

 

Depending on who the Republican nominee is in 2012, I would vote against the Republican party. In order for it to make a difference though, it would have to be for Obama which sucks because I don't really trust him.

 

Or I could just write in Santa Claus heh.

[Hamtaro]

<_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane.

If gun ownership wasn't protected by the constitution, you'd better believe that guns would have been outlawed by now. Forcing politicians to adhere to a constitution prevents them from changing laws all willy-nilly, especially in a political climate as chaotic as this one.

 

I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go.

The Constitution is a "living document," which means that it is meant to be modified through the ways it set up. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that the times change, so a constitution must change as well. The Constitution is meant to change. If the Constitution was set in stone, and one of the provisions was that slaves were to account as 3/5ths of a person, it would make sense that people would ignore that part, and it would make sense that they might ignore other parts as well. Since we're able to change the Constitution, it makes all the more sense that we must adhere to it.

 

So what's stopping politicians from repealing the Second Amendment, then restricting gun ownership like they do over here in the UK? Surely they have the democratic authority to do that.

Before I write this, I would like to state that I do believe in much stricter gun control. The problem with gun control, as the UK has clearly demonstrated as the knife capitol of the planet, is that people will simply seek alternatives. Alright, guns and knives are banned, what's next? Baseball bats, crowbars, and silverware?

 

Plato sums up my thoughts on this: "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Criminals are always going to break the law. What's to stop them from obtaining illegal firearms? Former prison inmates (especially those involved in gangs) in the US do that all the time as it is.

 

Also, how would we go about banning guns? If my memory serves me correct, there are around 700 million guns in the US (twice our population). My family doesn't own any guns and no one I know owns any guns. This leads me to believe there are many people out there with stockpiles of weapons, and I can assure you some of them won't give them up without a fight. I would never want to be the guy that has to ring someone's doorbell and tell them they have an outstanding warrant for arrest for owning and not disposing of now-illegal fire arms... Would you?

 

I wholeheartedly agree that civilians should not own guns, but there's no safe or efficient way of dealing with it as it is now. I'm no accountant (yet), but appealing the second amendment would probably cost more than the Iraq War to fully and safely enforce it (and smuggling would probably be just as bad, if not worse than during Prohibition).

[Ginger_Warrior]

...as the UK has clearly demonstrated as the knife capitol of the planet, is that people will simply seek alternatives. Alright, guns and knives are banned, what's next? Baseball bats, crowbars, and silverware?

This is true, around one in three youths carry knives on them and Glasgow as well as some northern cities have some truly appaling figures for knife crime. However, the UK also has one of the lowest youth homicide rates in the world. Recently it's "tripled" as the Telegraph put it, but arguably that's because numbers were low to begin with. The homicide rate in the UK is relatively much smaller than the appropriate figures from the US; in 2009, just three out of 52 states had a lower homicide rate than England & Wales.

 

It's something of a red herring when people try to compare British gun control laws and apply them to the US anyway. British gun ownership was never as widespread as it is right now in the US, particularly amongst poorer social classes which, perhaps ironically, experience higher levels of crime. It's a totally different culture.

 

Anyway, this can be discussed in the upteen gun control threads OT has seen over the past few years. I'm just pointing out just because gun ownership is restricted in this country, it doesn't mean people go around stabbing people instead necessarily.

[obfuscator]

...as the UK has clearly demonstrated as the knife capitol of the planet, is that people will simply seek alternatives. Alright, guns and knives are banned, what's next? Baseball bats, crowbars, and silverware?

This is true, around one in three youths carry knives on them and Glasgow as well as some northern cities have some truly appaling figures for knife crime. However, the UK also has one of the lowest youth homicide rates in the world. Recently it's "tripled" as the Telegraph put it, but arguably that's because numbers were low to begin with. The homicide rate in the UK is relatively much smaller than the appropriate figures from the US; in 2009, just three out of 52 states had a lower homicide rate than England & Wales.

 

It's something of a red herring when people try to compare British gun control laws and apply them to the US anyway. British gun ownership was never as widespread as it is right now in the US, particularly amongst poorer social classes which, perhaps ironically, experience higher levels of crime. It's a totally different culture.

 

Anyway, this can be discussed in the upteen gun control threads OT has seen over the past few years. I'm just pointing out just because gun ownership is restricted in this country, it doesn't mean people go around stabbing people instead necessarily.

 

Yeah a couple things with this.

 

First - even if people resort to other weapons, they aren't nearly as deadly or effective as guns. Hence the lower homicide rates in england and Canada.

 

Second, if stricter gun laws were to be applied, the best way to do it would be to tighten the laws on sales, and let the people who have the guns already die off. Make it illegal to sell guns unless you're an authorized retailer (so prevent people from selling them on craigslist or w/e), and make it illegal to leave certain guns to heirs.

[Range_This11]

In three years of having the ability, I have yet to vote. I can't bring myself to vote for a person that I do not completely agree with.

 

As much as Ron Paul seems to know what he's doing, the thought of him in office makes me a bit leery. I don't know if I trust his policies that much and I don't think that Congress will go along with a lot of them if any.

You're missing the point bro. It's not about having someone who will meet your exact political beliefs, because the people that are currently running for office are at least 20 years older than you. None of them will have your identical beliefs because they were raised in a completely different time. What you should do is vote for the person who comes the closest. After all, someone is going to be elected whether or not you cast a vote, so you might as well do your best to make sure it's the person most tolerable from your point of view.

I don't believe that at all. And yes I do understand the point, bro.

 

What I should do is vote for the person with who I am comfortable holding office. If I am not comfortable with any of the candidates, I am not going to vote for someone who I think will do a bad job. Most elections I feel (like the creators of South Park) like my choices are between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Why should I choose a candidate that I don't agree with just to cast a vote? If I have a right to do something, I also have a right to not do it as well.

 

Edit: And you missed the part of my second post where I said I would vote for someone who was relatively close. I'm not looking for my political soulmate, just someone who doesn't completely suck.

[Will H]

As much as I'd love to have the debate elsewhere, the ethics of gun control isn't the point. Right or wrong, I'm suggesting a possible but hypothetical situation where the repealment of the Second Amendment the the enforcement of gun control has popular American public support, and the politicians reflect that sentiment.

 

Let me generalise, if the constitution explicitly banned the government from enacting a certain law, what is stopping the government from amending the constitution in a way that nullifies the offending amendment and then enacting that law?

 

EDIT: Also, huh. So tip.it is a bit left wing.