Vote Republican, or GO TO HELL!

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Ya know the mixture of religion and politics annoys me.

I was talking to someone important to me (but I wont say who). Which happened to blow into some sort of argument. I was saying, "Ya know, maybe I'll vote Democrat this time. I'm tired of seeing the nation run this way." They looked at me like was insane.

This is the type of person who hates it when people make fun of Bush because this person believes, "It defames the office of the president". To which I said, "I believe he's done that himself." This person gets so angry whenever I mention Jon Stewart because he's an obvious liberal and makes fun of Bush and twists facts etc etc etc. It gets annoying really when they miss the point. The presidential office is an important office, but when you don't like the person in office you can make fun of them.

That DOESN'T make your country the most hated country if you don't stand by your president. That DOESN'T make your country seem weak if you say you'd rather be ran by a bean curd.

This person believes if you don't stand by your president that it makes your country seem weak. Sheesh. This person likes to claim they are Independent leaning towards the right, but if you listen to them talk they are obvious conservative. Not that there's anything too wrong with that, but I don't like to be defined on a line. I dislike both liberal and conservative.

SO anyway we got into an argument about the Iraq war like most people do. It got to the point where I was trying to say that what we are doing sucks. Sure, something had to be done about Saddam but we've had massive failures along the way that makes you wonder, "Should we've ever of gone."

Of course this persons said Bush has always stood by what he has said and always said stay the course. The media (notice this person doesn't say liberal media) ask if Bush is using this as a political tool. Fear tactics.

Of course he is. Unless you are living under a rock. It is pretty obvious. Bush has always mentioned the Iraq war, but he's kind of hammering it in as the election draws near.

Then the conversation draws to Stem Cell research and how this person is afraid what liberals will do if they get into office. For some reason this person wanted to mix religion in. Saying that its their fault that we don't have prayer in schools and all that jazz.

I wanted to point out that yes religion is important to me, but if this party manages to stand for ONE thing I stand for and it happens to be religious and the rest sucks and the other stands for others I can agree with, but doesn't even mention religion. Who am I going to vote for.

"You have to balance it out. You are going to have to vote for that person."

It was as if this person was making me feel that if I don't vote Republican I'm going to go to hell. POLITICS DO NOT HAVE IMPACT ON THE SPIRITIAL WORLD! Ok I woud be angry if lberals made laws against religion, but lets face it. We live in a nation where we have to accept that people actually believe in different things than you and maybe jump out of your little world to figure out what the hell reality is.

[UNREFINED SARCASM]

Huh too long to want to read, but interesting point.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Huh too long to want to read, but interesting point.

I'm going to forgo the obvious and just say...

If it was too long for you to read...

THEN WHY DID YOU POST!?

[Scott]

I'm curious about how he got the 'interesting point' if it it was too long to read.

In any case, I've never really abided by party lines. I registered independent and I simply vote for the person that seems the best for the office in question, whether they're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Martian.

[Roxie]

I align with Liberal about 90% of the time, so that's what I say.

But seriuously, your friend is in deep denial.

I mean look at Orli in my AV...Deep, deep denial..

[Josh]

I like being liberal, it's how I roll. Sometimes too liberal, crossing into slight libertarian. I would vote for who I saw best for the job though, that just seems like common sense, but common sense is, apparently, never common.

I figured I'd add this in. Marijuana should be legal, I mean, I don't smoke it but its not like the "War on Drugs" has had any impact on its use. Besides, we could tax that shit like crazy and make some mo'money.

[setrict]

The democratic and republican parties both have a bad case of power-envy. The issues they purport are little more than trite justifications made so the the people don't see them for what they really are.

I would love to see a debate, or discussion on various issues where referring to party was not allowed. You'd see a lot of twitching politicians I'd bet, because they are too weak to stand for something on their own. They are like two tired fighters leaning against each other so they can still keep swinging. The really sad part is that they weren't even supposed to be fighting in the first place.

[Scott]

One more thing -- I hate it when religion becomes a point of contention between politicians, because the United States is not a theocracy; religion and state should be completely separate entities. As it stands, the United States is probably the least secular of all the major nations.

[Roxie]

http://www.comedycentral.com/search/search_index.jhtml?searchtype=all&pagesize=3&sorttype=default&searchterm=Geoffrey+Nunberg
(http://www.comedycentral.com/search/search_index.jhtml?searchtype=all&pagesize=3&sorttype=default&searchterm=Geoffrey+Nunberg)
Stephen Colbert interviewing Geoffrey Nunberg, the author of Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show (http://www.comedycentral.com/search/search_index.jhtml?searchtype=all&pagesize=3&sorttype=default&searchterm=Geoffrey+Nunberg)

[Josh]

The really sad part is that they weren't even supposed to be fighting in the first place.

True enough, but it seems kinda obvious that right after Washington gave up the office some stuff was going to go down. And now we have political parties. And European Entanglements. Both of which he warned against in his last speech. :duh:

Edit: Sure, his warning against European Entanglements didnt foresee some of the events that would occur eventually, but its like, before his body was even cold, "Hey, lets get involved between France and England!"

[Kass]

Stuff was going down before Washington left office and he felt quite betrayed by Jefferson and a few others. The political machine was already working.

[Black Dog]

自由党万歳！！！

If you can't critizice the President, then what's the point of being a democracy.
gotta love the nuts that all "support your President".

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Stuff was going down before Washington left office and he felt quite betrayed by Jefferson and a few others. The political machine was already working.

Yeah, Washington was really against political paties too.

[King Kong]

Good post :watson:

[Angelyne]

The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Support a third party!

[Beowulf]

The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Support a third party!
I would if they had any sort of political power or pull. Any sort, hell I'd settle for the janitor who cleans the toilets in the senate building.

I like being liberal, it's how I roll. Sometimes too liberal, crossing into slight libertarian.
Wouldn't the liberal extreme be Socialism, and the right extreme (the actual one, no religion involved) be Libertarian?

[Jetsetlemming]

On most political tests, the socialism/libertarianism scale is placed seperate from liberal/conservative. You can be favor of either small government or large governent and still be liberal or conservative. More liberals are pro large governments, though.

[Beowulf]

On most political tests, the socialism/libertarianism scale is placed seperate from liberal/conservative. You can be favor of either small government or large governent and still be liberal or conservative. More liberals are pro large governments, though.
Yeah I know (go two years of Political Science courses), but I'm saying that through traditional Democrat/Republican definitions the extremes can be placed as Socialism/Libertarianism.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Support a third party!
Like what? The Libertarian Party? Or the US Constitution Party?

I don't see how either of those are much better than what we have now. There is never going to be the 'one party' that has all the best methods. Now if you were to endorse getting more than two parties in Congress, I'd see where you're coming from.

[h2orowe]

How easy is it to move to Canada and become a citizen? I've been reading through my US history book, and I have to say.. I don't like many of our past presidents. JFK and Clinton, yes, but not anyone else too much (by past I mean 1960's and up. That's all I've read about, on my own, so far.)

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

How easy is it to move to Canada and become a citizen? I've been reading through my US history book, and I have to say.. I don't like many of our past presidents. JFK and Clinton, yes, but not anyone else too much (by past I mean 1960's and up. That's all I've read about, on my own, so far.)
Yeah, because Canadians are inherently flawless? Moving out of the country because of what happened in the past? Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds?

[japanat]

If you're disgusted with the party process, then by all means, go independent. I've considered it myself. But I chose to register w/one of the major parties (doesn't matter which one), so that I can vote in the primaries, where I can at least be involved (an infinitesimal bit) in the process of choosing who will run in the major elections. Then in the major elections, I vote for the person I think is best, not the party.

Voting the party line is lazy! But not voting really gives up your right to complain about the winner - Sure, you didn't vote for them, but you didn't vote for the alternative either.

In the 2000 elections, the number of non-voting eligible voters was way larger than the vote difference between Bush and Gore in many states, not just Florida. If they had all voted, it might have gone differently, it might have gone the exact same way. But we'll never know, will we?

Oh, yeah, the point of this thread: The religious are welcome to their religion, but don't attempt to legislate it to me. After all, which one is right? Is yours the same as mine?

[Kannon]

From the little I remember from my few poli sci classes and my poli sci major friend, an independants vote doesn't count. I don't remember how this works exactly, but you're better off just picking republican or demecrat, and voting for who ever you want. (Again, I'm not well versed in the area, just throwing this tidbit out there to see if anyone knows what I'm talking about, or I'm off)

[Angelyne]

Like what? The Libertarian Party? Or the US Constitution Party?


Anything.

A vote for the Democrats shows that you're willing to support their crappy, lack of political platform, and their even crappier candidates. All they do is bitch and whine about Republican policy, yet never take the time to come up with any better solutions. Giving them a vote only reaffirms that they can continue this unacceptable behavior without much consequence. At least the third parties (any of them) attempt to come up with some sort of original solutions to problems rather than relying strictly on a platform of "at least we're not Republican!"

The only other options are to vote Republican (ugh) or just not vote at all (unacceptable).

[/|/@/|/@し]

Independent votes don't work well because you're not voting for the president, your voting for the selective few who actually vote for the state you are in. Which is why some states are looked at more than other states because they have more of these representitives per state (I've forgotten what they are called as I haven't taken political sci in two years).
And that's why in elections, they say if a certain three states (I know Florida being one of them...was texas another one?) vote for the same person at once, the chance of the other guy winning is extremely low.

And also, I think they also divide states by counties as the whole. So if more people vote republican in your county, they count the entire county as that political standpoint. Which is why actually voting is a good thing.

[Pierrot le Fou]

In many states you are allowed to vote in the primaries for either party you choose if you are a registered independent (as in actually independent, not Independent).

[Pierrot le Fou]

Libertarian is not an extreme Democrat (wahahaha), Libertarian isn't an extreme Republican either.

politicalcompass.org defines it well. Political stance is not a left-right continuum, but rather a graph with an x and y axis.

The x-axis covers economic beliefs. Left means belief in controlled economies (socialism), while right believes in free market economies (capitalism). The y-axis covers social beliefs, the further up you go the more you believe in restricting freedoms. Authoritarian is at the top, and Libertarian at the bottom.

If you check this link (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection) you will get an idea of where the 2004 candidates for the US presidential election lie on the scale.

Democrats are in the bottom left quadrant. Republicans in the upper right quadrant. The Green Party is the in the lower left as well. The libertarians sit by their lonesome in the bottom-right quadrant. It ain't easy being libertarian, eh?

To put in plain English, Democrats believe in social freedoms but more social programs and policies.

Republicans believe in fewer social freedoms, but fewer programs and policies.

Libertarians believe in more social freedoms, and fewer programs and policies.

The green party tends to be an exaggerated version of the Democrats. The various far right parties tend to be exaggerations of the Republicans. The Libertarian party is the fastest growing party in the country because it isn't an exaggeration of other parties, but a stance of its own which mixes the better parts of each other party (social and economic freedom).

As far as voting for third parties is concerned, I would strongly disagree with the statement that your vote 'doesn't count.' Someone like ruaidhri would disagree.

A candidate, even a losing candidate, who holds a platform unique to the other candidates, will show support for those issues in the populace even if he loses. The example I gave was Ross Perot, who ran on a platform of economics, economics, economics. He complained about federal deficit spending, blah blah blah, and tossed his hat in the ring.

He ended up with something like 12% of the vote, and 8 years later, Herr Clinton had created a budget surplus.

Yes, your vote won't count in deciding the president, but that doesn't mean your vote won't count. A presidential vote in Massachusetts doesn't count no matter WHO you vote for, because the Democratic candidate has won it for the past zillionth years. Even if you vote Democrat your vote doesn't count because the person you voted for would have won anyway.

My point being that looking at voting as 'counting' only if the candidate wins is short-sighted and the sort of drivel I'd hope not to hear from a poli sci major. Voting is a poll with a miniscule margin of error. Carla Howell didn't even break into double digits as the libertarian candidate for Massachusetts state governor, but the ballot initiative for eliminating state income tax which received 44% of the vote and was her pet project sure turned some heads.

Was my vote useless because I voted for a losing candidate and a losing policy?

No, because I expressed MY belief. And so did 44% of the voting population of Massachusetts. Win or lose, I fought for what I believed in, and there's no margin of error in that one.

[Scott]

very enlightening, PLF... hat's off to you.

[Jetsetlemming]

i need to find out the voting laws in my area. -_- I'm 18 now, I've gotta register.

[h2orowe]

Yeah, because Canadians are inherently flawless? Moving out of the country because of what happened in the past? Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds?
I realized right now that I only posted half of what I meant. I was just heading to my room to take a nap after I posted that.
I sorta meant, the republican party is usually in office. I tend to disagree with much of their.. stuffs. Whatever. I'm barely awake as it is and doing geometry homework.

[Josh]

Im fairly sure that just taught me something I didnt know before.

Thank you kindly PLF. I feel like a slighty better informed voter now. :D

[Pierrot le Fou]

Personally I think that low voter turnout isn't necessarily a bad thing -- better that people with no strong opinions stay home than vote for a candidate they don't care about, or even worse, a candidate they don't know about any more than party association.

Were I to reform election laws, I would make ballots list the position and the name of the candidates only -- no party affiliation -- forcing people to at least remember the names of the candidates they like.

[rameek]

You dont vote for the president in the US so whats the difference??? :sarcastic smile:

Voting For the House and Congress and local offices is where its at!

With that said political parties changed historically in their beliefs so in the past the demo's used to be repub's and vise versa...

Anyways to vote for larger government is dangerous and usually more taxes...
Clinton eliminated the deficit and we had a surpluss by carrying out a republican mantra of small government NO social programs coinciding with the tech economic boom did wonders... He could have been the best president in years if he had cooth... Reagan would probably be considered number one...

Religion should not be apart of the US government... Prayer in school or no prayer in school would not change any of the US social ills. Most countries have done a great majority of negative things in the name of its god so I say bullocks to it! Also, look at how much crap JFK took for being catholic now look how things have changed in 30 to 40 years...

Stem Cell research must be used and advanced but outcomes and sources of the stem cell must be regulated!

Lets go Republicans

[Ichisan]

Yeah I know (go two years of Political Science courses), but I'm saying that through traditional Democrat/Republican definitions the extremes can be placed as Socialism/Libertarianism.

I always thought the extremes were Communism on the left and Fascism on the right or does it work differently in America?

[Kass]

Ichisan, they are. You're right.
~~

Independents can vote in primaries and if you can't, then you should start screaming about your constitutional rights being violated. You just can't vote in BOTH the Republican and Democratic primaries. You have to pick one.

That would be what is called "my right to vote" and sorry, but lack of a political affiliation is not a disqualifier.

I was a registered Republican (for work--I worked for an elected Republican judge) and voted in the Democratic primary to vote against Bill Clinton the first time around.

Also, indpendent votes do count. Ask Ross Perot. Had he not dropped out, with the voting split the way it was, he had as much chances at winning as any of the candidates. As it is, he had a direct influence on the outcome of the election and he forced politicians to actually start listening to voters, if only for a few years.

EVERY vote counts except those not cast. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to bully you into casting a vote their way. I think straight-party ticket voting should be illegal. By God, if you're going to stand in a polling booth and put absolutely no thought into who you're casting a ballot for, the least you can do is mark each individual box.

People in El Paso voted straight Democratic ticket for YEARS (they still do) and we ended up with Ron Coleman, the single biggest check bouncer (hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hot checks) in Congress for a decade. He couldn't even bring home a decent pork barrel project and he was an idiot to boot. If he weren't a congressman, he'd have been in jail for felony theft by check. Instead, the dumb as rocks El Paso voters re-elected the buffoon--repeatedly. If he hadn't retired, he'd still be there because people don't freaking think. About the only good thing I can say about him is he gave my brother a Congressional appointment to the Naval Academy. didn't stop any of our family from voting against the crook though.

[Trump]

If you are going to register to vote, do it soon. I believe you have to register at least 30 days before an election to be able to participate and there is an election coming soon (it's either the first or second tuesday of november, I can't remember exactly).

All I can say about politics is that they are very frustrating right now.

[rameek]

Kass Presidents & Vice Presidents are voted in by the electoral college Ross did win some of the popular votes doesnt mean the electors would have given him votes ie. 2000 election bush and gore...
So in theory voting for the president is not up to the people but the senate and congress...

[Kass]

rameek, No shit? Really? :sarcasm:

The electoral college almost never votes against who carried their state. The key is winning the big states with the most votes. If Ross Perot carried enough of the big states, he'd have gotten those electoral votes.

That is also why the vote counting in Ohio and Florida was so hotly contested, when there were other states just as close. They just weren't important because they didn't have a large number of electoral votes.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Well of course I want to vote for a good canidate regaurdless of the political affiliation, but I can't condome the fact that one party is better than the other.

That to me is a load of crock.

[Trump]

Everyone has a different definition of "better"

To one person the party is better while to another it is worse. What is so hard to believe about that?

[Pierrot le Fou]

rameek, No shit? Really? :sarcasm:

The electoral college almost never votes against who carried their state. The key is winning the big states with the most votes. If Ross Perot carried enough of the big states, he'd have gotten those electoral votes.

That is also why the vote counting in Ohio and Florida was so hotly contested, when there were other states just as close. They just weren't important because they didn't have a large number of electoral votes.
No Kass, you don't understand: people don't vote for the president. As rameek here so clearly explained (and you got huffy about), the president is decided by the electoral college, apparently composed of Senate and Congress.

Okay, all snideness aside, the electoral college is NOT controlled by Congress. The number of electors (members of the electoral college) is equivalent to the number of senators and representatives they have in Congress, but they are not the same people. The manner of nominating electors is different in each state, but generally either goes according to a primary, or the parties elect them, or whatnot.

Most electors are required by state law to vote the way that they were told to by the constituents. This has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

So yes, I don't actually vote for president, I vote for an elector who is required by law (under threat of punishment or party censure) to vote for the candidate I selected, assuming that I am in the majority in the state, or live in Maine or Nebraska and am in a winning district with an elector.

Point being that Congress only gets involved in the whole process if there is a tie in the electoral college (or a candidate lacking a true majority) in regards to the presidential or vice-presidential nomination. Then they get to vote on it.

[Josh]

We were in AP Government today and the teacher, referring to the Electoral College, said that it doesnt have to vote the way of the state. He called it the Presidential Condom. Its there in case the voters decide to make a terrible mistake and the EC thinks that the other candidate would be better.

But that never happens and probably never will as the EC wont outlive me more than likely.

[Kass]

*Edited because my reading comprehension was seriously deficient this morning.*

Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Move along. These are not the droids you are looking for.

[CrazyAce86]

I agree with what Christopher Titus once said, that if Thomas Jefferson were still alive and saw the state of things, he'd apply to be Canadian.

Religion's fine, if you keep it personal. Don't try to force your religion on other people, and that means laws. Don't law against it, but make laws protecting the freedom of it.

For example: prayer in school. Don't outlaw it. Allow freedom of it. Let 'em pray-- what does it matter? If they're not causing any harm, then who cares if they're praying?

Religion and politics shouldn't mix. I don't have a problem with a politician who is influenced by his religion; I have a problem with a politician who rules based entirely on his religion and/or beliefs.

But what do I know? Personally, the government and the leaders of it can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. No matter what, it's never going to be right, because humans run it and humans aren't infallible.

For the record, because I know someone will have to know, I'm a liberal just this side of anarchy. Or so they tell me... I just wish people would keep their nose in their own business and stop trying to be the gods of others.

[Kyoushu]

I'd like to say that I'd like a politician who can have his religion but not base his decisions on it, but that's just stupid. The whole point of a religion is that it aligns with your belief system. So some guy who is against abortion because it's against his religion can't just be like "Oh, I'll just turn off the religion for a bit and then go back to being a good (Whatever.)" It doesn't work like that.

I'd say what I don't like, but I don't like a lot of things about politics. I guess my biggest peeve is that everyone wants to label you. My whole family is super Republican and proud of it, and everything on Earth is the fault of the liberals to them. Which is funny, because they call me a liberal and a Democrat and whatnot and say it's okay, that I just have different opinions. Family exception, I suppose.

It's funny when they bitch about liberals pointing fingers at conservatives.

You know, maybe I'm turning liberal just to rebel against my super biased family...

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I agree with what Christopher Titus once said, that if Thomas Jefferson were still alive and saw the state of things, he'd apply to be Canadian.


Jefferson would also complain because he can't own a slave.

[Roxie]

Jefferson would also complain because he can't own a slave.

He would be really, really dissapointed. Really, very.