Which Party Do You Associate Yourself With?

[bobbylien]

Who do you like the most?

[sbannon]

You asked 2 questions with one poll. Which party I associate myself with (Democrats) is not necessarily the party I like the most.

The honest fact in America is that only 2 of the available parties has an ability to gain majority on the national level. Even if one of the others more closely aligns with your beliefs it's not going to be able to advance them on a national scale at this time.

And just out of curiosity, do you really think of Independents as a party? I'm not being facetious here, I just kind of see that as an oxymoron.

[Alonzo]

Whatever I find the most beneficial to my political goals. In the u.s. it's the democrats. I don't have any actual allegiance to any particular party.

[lily]

sbannon



And just out of curiosity, do you really think of Independents as a party? I'm not being facetious here, I just kind of see that as an oxymoron.

How so? I voted Independent. I don't consider the party, when I vote. I consider the candidate and the issues.

I was considering voting for McCain, until he had his nose so far up Bush's ass, after Bush's fake signing of the torture bill. I highly doubt I'd vote for Hillary, other than to tell my grandaughter that I did vote for the first woman to be nominated......which isn't good enough reason to vote for her.

I voted for the first Bush and I voted for Carter. I voted for Anderson.

I vote both Democrat and Republican in local elections.

[sbannon]

lily, I didn't mean there was anything wrong with being independent by any means, just that the notion of an independent party is sort of a contradiction in terms.

By definition a political party is a group of like minded individuals who've agreed on a platform. Once this happens, they're no longer truly independent, they're just a different party from the others.

[mdickinson]

In the US, Independents are politicians (or voters) that aren't affiliated with an official party, not to be confused with the American Indepedent Party which is a registered party in CA or NY or something, I believe.

In this context, it is synonymous with None or Not Applicable, I assume.

[lily]

lily, I didn't mean there was anything wrong with being independent by any means, just that the notion of an independent party is sort of a contradiction in terms.

By definition a political party is a group of like minded individuals who've agreed on a platform. Once this happens, they're no longer truly independent, they're just a different party from the others.


My mistake.........I took it the wrong way.

[bobbylien]

In this context, it is synonymous with None or Not Applicable, I assume.

Exactly. Maybe I should have titled it I'm independent or something :D.
Understand that a vote for a political party doesn't nessicarily mean you support everyone in that party. This is just a poll to judge which party your beliefs are MOST aligned with, not which party you vote for. I for instance, side with many different parties on different issues. I'm libertarian as far as economics go, Green when it comes to environmental issues, republican when it comes to government spending and affirmative action, and tend to lean more democratic when it comes to the war and foreign policy.

[Mayberry]

The honest fact in America is that only 2 of the available parties has an ability to gain majority on the national level I would look for that to change in the not so distant future. Libertarians are ever so slowly gaining ground, and the way things are going nowadays I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of Reds and Blues jumping ship. (one can only hope) The two party system is broken. A third party from somewhere in the middle needs to get a foothold.

[kanyon40]

The problem that will keep libertarians from becoming a true third party alternative, is that there is no real definition of libertarian. For example, Howard Stern and Bill Maher are both libertarians, and are just varying degrees of liberals. At the same time, Neil Bortz and Larry Elder are libertarian, and aside from one or two issues tops, they are clearly right wing conservatives. What this leads to is that libertarian becomes a "blanket" party for people to lump themselves into because they are disenchanted with their party. While this, in itself, isn't such a bad thing; I would probably vote for Larry Elder, despite our differing views on legalization of drugs. But I could never vote for Bill Maher who is definitely too far out in left field. But by saying, "I am a libertarian," it gives someone like Bill Maher a (false) air of objectivity regarding the two main parties. Come election time, Maher will be voting for the most liberal candidate and Elder will be voting for the most conservative.

As for the party I associate most with... it would be the republican party. I am ultra conservative. But I am a Christian before I am a republican, and because of this, there are issues that I can't agree with republicans on. For example, while I am not convinced that we are causing global warming at near the rate scientists say, I firmly believe in good stewardship of God's earth. In that regard, we have a responsibility to care for the planet by not dumping sewage into rivers and doing other things that cause severe pollution (as an example). I would like to see alternative fuels that are truly clean and efficient. Though I think that forcing them upon us through high taxes on oil is inappropriate and beyond the scope of the government's constitutional rights.

[Mayberry]

For example, while I am not convinced that we are causing global warming at near the rate scientists say, I firmly believe in good stewardship of God's earth. That's called common sense, regardless of party affilation.

[kanyon40]

Thank you mayberry for your thoughts. However, while you say it is common sense, can you give me some evidence that the republican party is working towards it? Otherwise, your statement just sounds like a condescending insult. Big Business doesn't make the environment a priority either. I am all for big business, and I am definitely a capitalist. But I am saying that I would like to see these things happen (environemental responsibility) regardless of if the republicans make it a priority. That said, I am not an environmentalist, and I am not for letting humans die so we can save a spotted owl. I am just for exercising more responsibility.

[Mayberry]

What I meant was it should be common sense to anyone, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. No insults intended. I don't really think either side is working toward anything besides destroying each other. There are a few exceptions of course, but the majority of politics today is all about making the other guy look bad, and blocking each other's goals. If they would concentrate all that energy on working together instead of against each other, America would be a much better place. One of today's corporate mantras is "teamwork". Our government should follow suit.

[kanyon40]

Mayberry,

Sorry to have misunderstood your post. I agree that it should be common sense. My only point is that while, yes, it should be a common (and common sense) goal across parties, and while I don't believe that it truly is a priority for dems anyway, I am simply saying that it isn't a stated priority of the republican party. In that regard, I see myself as something beyond just a republican. Now surely there are other republicans who believe that our job is to do more than pillage and plunder the land, the party platform has been to turn a blind eye to it because of big business. But, yes, it is sad that this should be a point that isn't in the republican platform since it is an ethical issue as much as anything else, and the republicans try to paint themselves as being the party of ethics and morals.

[dogetahi]

dogetahi is libertarian--that's with a lowercase l

I have no affiliation with the Libertarian Party, but generally share their beliefs.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am not a partisan, but usually I vote with the Libertarians, as they are the only ones I can usually vote for in good conscience.

The two major parties are corrupt from the top down, but the party leaders are always guaranteed to be corrupt to the core.

Some proof of this, with our current flock of presidential canidates:

On Judicial Watch's TOP TEN most corrupt politicians of 2007, the FOUR LEADING MAJOR PARTY CANIDATES PLACE IN THE TOP 10, yet the media speaks almost no mention of this.......

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007


This is why I can ONLY vote for Ron Paul in 2008 out of the major parties candidates..... he is the only one ALL OF THE MAJOR PARTIES HATE, which means his voting record and voting history is the best by far.

Don't believe me? Check it out. :thumbsup:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?member=TX14&site=congressmerge&votes_congnum_session=108_1

[ViolaLee]

I associate myself with the Democratic party.

I like the Green party best.

[AmericanDreamer]

Full on Republican! Wake up and smell the coffee. The world is in a decline and you should want to be on the winning side.

[preservanation]

Funny,
everything under "Republican"" is the same effin thing.
Bastards!

[DANG]

I am more aligned with the Green Party... but they will never have a representative in the White House until all the bees are dead and the days of mankind are numbered in days rather than years. Even then, the Greens would have trouble at the polls because our election system is rife with fraudsters.

I will be voting Democratic because they are less blood thirsty.

We need to kick the oil barons and defense contractors out of DC.

Not all Dems are able to do that. Hillary has yet to admit her War votes were a mistake. Obama is an amateur, just not qualified (and he helped bush steal 2004 election) Edwards is the savior for our times.

ANY of the Republicans (Is Paul a Rep?) will only give us more of the same ooga booga terrorization, war mongering and DEBT.

It has been ages since Republicans were conservative.
Today they conserve the wealth of the few as they transfer it from the hands of the middle and lower classes.
They steal from the poor and give to the rich.
May they die a horrible and disfiguring death.

IMPEACH TODAY![hr]You Libertarians are Republicons in disguise.

[dogetahi]

I have no affiliation with the Libertarian Party, but generally share their beliefs.


Just to correct this statement (even though dogetahi is sure no one cares), dogetahi is now officially affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Illinois.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Dogetahi stole Mark L Hamburger's avatar...

[lily]

Yeah..........but yours is bigger........that's all that counts, right?:lmao:

[Mark L Hamburger]

Yeah..........but yours is bigger........that's all that counts, right?:lmao:


I've always been told that size doesn't matter, but I guess I know the truth now! :lmao:

[HumanBeast]

Mine would be Other. Did you know there is an organization called The Centrist Coalition? SOURCE (http://www.centristcoalition.com/html/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=4&meid=-1)

[dogetahi]

Dogetahi stole Mark L Hamburger's avatar...


Happy now?

[Yarp]

Democrat, but that's only recent now. Before bush I was republican, but now I am a democrat.

[ViolaLee]

I thought this was a totally left leaning board. That's what all the righties say.

But according to this poll....

This board leans way right.

[Pookie]

I'm a little annoyed at all the parties. I'm going to start my own party called the Common Sense Party and straighten this whole mess out.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Muser]

LOL! Pookie for President! rrrrrrrrOOOOWWWWWrrrrrrr!

[Pookie]

LOL -- the feline agenda is here to save the world.
I wish!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Tharagor]

And just out of curiosity, do you really think of Independents as a party? I'm not being facetious here, I just kind of see that as an oxymoron.


While I cannot speak for bobbylien, one could consider independent as "other".[hr]
Who do you like the most?


I selected independent because there is no major party with which I can truly identify.

Neo-Republicans appear too dangerous to the continued health of our country.

Democrats appear to lack the back-bone to truly challenge the neo-Republican agenda because they're too busy being politicians.

Libertarians appear too firmly welded to outmoded 18th century economic and legislative concepts.

The Green Party appears to focus on the environment at the expense of other, equally important, issues.

Unfortunately, our country is maddeningly welded to the artificial two-party system. Given that, I dislike the Democratic Party the least.

[preservanation]

You are right VL. It was not a commentary on AD. Though I don't really mind him taking it that way.

My point is that I am a conservative first and a Republican second. I feel that the GOP is the most representative of my ideology, and is the most effective vessel for it. As you know I think Bush and the GOP in general has shifted left and I am very upset about it.

So..that being said;
Republican = Conservatives

Democrat ....
Libertarian ...
Green...........
Socialist.......
Communist....
Independent......= Liberals
(with the possible exception of Libertarians)

It's not that the poll is flawed but that it is just the hard reality of what conservatives face and the cards we are dealt.

[dogetahi]

Actually, dogetahi looks at libertarians as being hyper-conservative.

[AnnEsthesia]

The libertarians on this forum do not seem at all like the liberals. Why do you lump them with the dems and "liberals"?

[preservanation]

You have beat me to my edit, dogetahi.
I do belive that some in the Libertarian party are either true conservatives or true liberals...depending on how you slice it.
Thanks.

[AnnEsthesia]

The libertarians we have here, preserva, are hardly liberals.

[preservanation]

The libertarians on this forum do not seem at all like the liberals. Why do you lump them with the dems and "liberals"?
Man you guys are eager to jump on the poor presrva today.
My edit was slow and now I'm paying the price!

[AnnEsthesia]

I like to jump on you, pres. It is fun, lol.

[preservanation]

I like to jump on you, pres. It is fun, lol.
That's just great AE...as long as you don't give me a pink-belly.

[ViolaLee]

Actually, dogetahi looks at libertarians as being hyper-conservative.

ViolaLee agrees.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Partisanship loyalty for any party is foolish in my opinion.

When you let party loyalty over-step individuals who may be better for the job in question, its just another type of discrimination.

Is there a trophy for being the biggest bigot elitist?

When people let partisanship define them, they are either ignorant, fools or masochists, as its doomed to fail regardless of the original goals as party pride and real politik take precedent over THE JOB they are being formed to fill.

Republicans and Democrats have held power in the U.S. for 157 years, and over that time they have done all they can to ensure and secure their parties a lock on power, as they have won over the hearts and minds of the sheeple, while ignoring the people, those that become informed. (a relatively small percentage, when you understand the time it takes to be truly informed in todays information jungle.)

There are over 60 political parties recognized in the United States, and I would bet over 50% can't tell a name of a single non-major party. A large portion of Americans simply don't have much free time, and many use that as a total cop-out to stay uniformed until something drastic awakens their political apathy. There is also a large portion who believe that "religion and politics" shouldn't be discussed among friends and family as it causes strains on a friendship, or family relationship. What better cop-out for total political apathy?

The major media has been almost entirely consolidated by regulation monopoly, so being politically informed only extends to the intrests of the corporate lobbyists who pummell Washington with money for influence and lets face it, the citizens don't have their own lobbyists.

In my honest opinion, I am amazed it has taken this long for the major parties to do what they have, regarding their dismantling and systematic weakening of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

How anyone can cheerlead the major parties however, is beyond me. How people tolerate two parties to represent 300,000,000 people is even further beyond rational. Many people today don't even understand the value in having 50 independent state governments all working individually to best meet the needs of their citizens, and instead, push for further "federalization" because they have been taught in public schools that authority is good, government is good, regardless of what they ask or force you to do.

Ack... I am ranting.

back on topic....sorry.

[Keith Hamburger]

There are over 60 political parties recognized in the United States, and I would bet over 50% can't tell a name of a single non-major party.

Well, I know you and I rarely disagree, but I would imagine that virtually everyone on this forum woudl be able to com up with either Green or Libertarian.

You might be correct with 50% of the population, however.

Keith

[Muser]

Very nicely written, Osborn. :clapper: Would you mind if I quote this for use on a private mailing list I'm on (giving you full credit, of course - not that they will have a clue who you are, though)? One of those "this quote sums up how I think" thingies.

[Nostalgic Euphoria]

Quoted from an outside source -
The last five Democratic Presidents, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman all reduced the debt, and one has to go back sixty years to find a Democratic President who, facing the Great Depression and World War 2, allowed the debt to increase. On the other hand, the last four Republican Presidents, GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. It has been more than thirty years since a Republican President left office (albeit in a scandal) having reduced the National Debt. In the last few decades, somewhere along the way, the Republican Party has become the Party of fiscal irresponsibility.


That alone justifies my reason for aligning myself with the democrat party. Although I only do so because the Democratic candidates are usualy the better choice, if someone, like Ron Paul got the GOP nomination, I would vote for the right wing for once.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks Keith, and Muser, feel free to quote any of my posts.

Nostalgic Euphoria said:
Although I only do so because the Democratic candidates are usualy the better choice, if someone, like Ron Paul got the GOP nomination, I would vote for the right wing for once.

Thanks for the honesty. I rarely vote for the major parties, but Ron Paul was my exception.

[preservanation]

I'm a fierce partisan when it comes to my ideology...not to the GOP necessarily, especially as of late.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I hear that Preserva! Hell, I would die before sacrificing my principles, my integrity or my personal ideology, but all those things are individual things, which can't be "collectivized" as "party" can.

I personally agree with what George Washington said about partisanship.....

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

I have a lot of respect for the often overlooked prophecy of George Washington.

[preservanation]

Wow! what a great quote...That's a keeper!