Your Political Affiliation (Not Necessarily Ideology)

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see rderp has infested this thread with his racial rantings.

 

[Avatar4321]

Conservative Republican though Im not a big fan of the corruption among the party leadership.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans have slandered the Democrat Party for years insisting they are the party of "spend". And yet, where did the deficits come from? Not the Democrats. In fact, Clinton left a surplus.
How do Republicans get away with the slander? Think about it. Every good business man in the world says it "take money to make money". There is money being spent on nothing, like the 9 billion in cash Republicans sent to Iraq that simply vanished. Think what you could buy with 9 billion in cash. Then the tax cuts that gave business the capital to move jobs to China. See a pattern?
And when were Republicans considered the "Party of Ideas"? When they spent money building the interstate highway system, at the time, the envy of the world. And NASA, behind unknown billions in patents and licenses. And it was Republicans behind the investments in science and technology in schools and colleges.
So what happened?
In the middle 60's, the conservatives fled the Democratic Party because of the blacks, and the conservatives joined and swelled the ranks of the Republican Party which is why it's 90% white today. Now, they insist tax cuts for the wealthy, being anti education, against women's right, hating minorities, anti science and anti investment are all "conservative". No, they are not. They are the cobblestones paving the road to disaster. We saw that for 6 years under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses and the courts leaving no one but the voters to stop them. Because of Gerrymandering, the voters haven't been completely successful.

Woah. Okay, first of all, Clinton had a technology boom and a Republican controlled Congress that had to back him into a corner in order to get vital spending cuts ... both of those were the reason for the surplus. Period. They definitely were not Clinton's policies. And while Bush incurred defecits, they were mostly because of the wars. You can argue against the wars, fine, and I DO think he should not have cut taxes while trying to fund a war ... but his policies, had it been peacetime, would have reduced the debt. That's not an excuse, as he DIDN'T reduce the debt and deserves fault for making it bigger, but make no mistake that this was the war's doing. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the interstates) was all for internal spending, but he also cut TONS of spending and was a fiscally conservative President. In his fairwell address, he warned of entitlement programs and simply putting off the debt for future generations to pay.

On that note, I'm not going to let you get away with the age old lie that the racist, dumb, rural, uneducated Southern Democrats became Republicans at the flip of a switch ... it just didn't happen. Period. Of all the Southern Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, ONE became a Republican. Republicans voted for the bill in BOTH houses of Congress in significantly higher percentages. They did the same for the Voting Rights Act one year later (which right there shatters the fantasy lie that the Civil Rights Act simply delivered the South to the GOP). Also, Southern Democrats were dumb but they weren't THAT dumb: after the Democrats finally (100 years late, I might add) evolved on civil rights issues and stopped being blatantly racist, why would angry Southern Whites then move to a party that had supported the same cause a full century before?! Why didn't all these Republicans of the '50s and '60s that Democrats always try to say were "the liberals back then" EVER switch parties when this supposed "switch" happened? The story has holes all over it. People always point to the electoral results after that, but in the elections that the South supported the Republicans after that (with the exclusion of '64, when most REPUBLICANS didn't support Goldwater ... he won a tiny plurality at the convention), almost every other state did, too: 1972 (Nixon won every state but one), 1980 (Reagan landslide #1), 1984 (Reagan landslide #2), 1988 (Bush landslide). Look at 1968 (voted for a third party candidate, a former Democrat), 1976 (Carter swept the entire South), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton split the South with Bush and Dole).

This myth that the South switched is just flat out absurd. Republicans didn't gain control of Southern Congressional seats until nearly three decades later, and they didn't control state legislatures until LITERALLY two years ago. It's fantasy history made up by Democrats who are (rightfully) ashamed of their horrible history of racism. The 4 S's aren't exactly a good legacy: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism. Do Republicans enjoy success in the South now? Of course ... but make no mistake, there is a DIRECT correlation between the South becoming less racist and the GOP gaining ground there. That's not debatable. Also, the main emergence of GOP power there correlated with the Democratic Party taking newly liberal stances on gun control and abortion, two issues very important to many Southerners.

Nice try, though.

Sadly, the thread has now devolved into the usual partisanship.

 

[Avatar4321]

Republicans have slandered the Democrat Party for years insisting they are the party of "spend". And yet, where did the deficits come from? Not the Democrats. In fact, Clinton left a surplus.
How do Republicans get away with the slander? Think about it. Every good business man in the world says it "take money to make money". There is money being spent on nothing, like the 9 billion in cash Republicans sent to Iraq that simply vanished. Think what you could buy with 9 billion in cash. Then the tax cuts that gave business the capital to move jobs to China. See a pattern?
And when were Republicans considered the "Party of Ideas"? When they spent money building the interstate highway system, at the time, the envy of the world. And NASA, behind unknown billions in patents and licenses. And it was Republicans behind the investments in science and technology in schools and colleges.
So what happened?
In the middle 60's, the conservatives fled the Democratic Party because of the blacks, and the conservatives joined and swelled the ranks of the Republican Party which is why it's 90% white today. Now, they insist tax cuts for the wealthy, being anti education, against women's right, hating minorities, anti science and anti investment are all "conservative". No, they are not. They are the cobblestones paving the road to disaster. We saw that for 6 years under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses and the courts leaving no one but the voters to stop them. Because of Gerrymandering, the voters haven't been completely successful.

Woah. Okay, first of all, Clinton had a technology boom and a Republican controlled Congress that had to back him into a corner in order to get vital spending cuts ... both of those were the reason for the surplus. Period. They definitely were not Clinton's policies. And while Bush incurred defecits, they were mostly because of the wars. You can argue against the wars, fine, and I DO think he should not have cut taxes while trying to fund a war ... but his policies, had it been peacetime, would have reduced the debt. That's not an excuse, as he DIDN'T reduce the debt and deserves fault for making it bigger, but make no mistake that this was the war's doing. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the interstates) was all for internal spending, but he also cut TONS of spending and was a fiscally conservative President. In his fairwell address, he warned of entitlement programs and simply putting off the debt for future generations to pay.

On that note, I'm not going to let you get away with the age old lie that the racist, dumb, rural, uneducated Southern Democrats became Republicans at the flip of a switch ... it just didn't happen. Period. Of all the Southern Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, ONE became a Republican. Republicans voted for the bill in BOTH houses of Congress in significantly higher percentages. They did the same for the Voting Rights Act one year later (which right there shatters the fantasy lie that the Civil Rights Act simply delivered the South to the GOP). Also, Southern Democrats were dumb but they weren't THAT dumb: after the Democrats finally (100 years late, I might add) evolved on civil rights issues and stopped being blatantly racist, why would angry Southern Whites then move to a party that had supported the same cause a full century before?! Why didn't all these Republicans of the '50s and '60s that Democrats always try to say were "the liberals back then" EVER switch parties when this supposed "switch" happened? The story has holes all over it. People always point to the electoral results after that, but in the elections that the South supported the Republicans after that (with the exclusion of '64, when most REPUBLICANS didn't support Goldwater ... he won a tiny plurality at the convention), almost every other state did, too: 1972 (Nixon won every state but one), 1980 (Reagan landslide #1), 1984 (Reagan landslide #2), 1988 (Bush landslide). Look at 1968 (voted for a third party candidate, a former Democrat), 1976 (Carter swept the entire South), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton split the South with Bush and Dole).

This myth that the South switched is just flat out absurd. Republicans didn't gain control of Southern Congressional seats until nearly three decades later, and they didn't control state legislatures until LITERALLY two years ago. It's fantasy history made up by Democrats who are (rightfully) ashamed of their horrible history of racism. The 4 S's aren't exactly a good legacy: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism. Do Republicans enjoy success in the South now? Of course ... but make no mistake, there is a DIRECT correlation between the South becoming less racist and the GOP gaining ground there. That's not debatable. Also, the main emergence of GOP power there correlated with the Democratic Party taking newly liberal stances on gun control and abortion, two issues very important to many Southerners.

Nice try, though.

Sadly, the thread has now devolved into the usual partisanship.

It's inevitable when rdean posts

 

[Claudette]

Registered Independent.

I'm a fiscal conservative.

I could give a fuck what people do in the privacy of the home.

I could give a fuck about gays or abortion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I am a registered republican because I like to vote against the bank breaking liberals every chance I get. Plus I like to make your skin crawl

The notion that either party has championed fiscally responsible policy is the product of talking points - not reality.

As a registered republican I can vote against EVERY liberal. Dont you get it?

Against big spending gopers in the primaries and against libs in generals.

I appreciate the clarification of your previous post. But the right to vote for whoever you want doesn't reconcile your misguided statement suggesting one party or one ideology has spent less money. The sad truth is that the only difference between conservatives Republicans and Democrats is who they right the checks to.

Now I can appreciate your clarification to include "big-spending gopers" and "bank-breaking liberals" under the same umbrella.

In that we agree.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I would rather not be a member of any party, because neither one make me happy.

Unfortunately, in order to vote in the primaries, I be registered with a party affiliation.

Therefore I have chosen the Republican Party.

Decades ago, I would have described myself as a middle of the road Conservative Republican. But as the years have passed, the Republican Party has become more and more liberal, taking people like me for granted as they have tried to become Democrat Lite in order be liked by the Media.

 

[Borillar]

Hello, all. I'm new to the board, and I'd like to start out with a poll. As for your answer, I'm more interested in what you register as (not necessarily how you vote). For example, I have a friend from Oklahoma who is a proud Democrat but hasn't voted for a Democrat for President in years, and I also know people in Maine who have been Republicans since birth yet haven't voted for a Republican since Bush 41. Thanks for any and all responses!

I register as a Democrat. I am a left leaning libertarian or maybe a libertarian leaning liberal. I want government in that I want to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe foods, work in a safe workplace, drive on paved roads, send my kids to good public schools, be able to call the police or fire department in case of emergency, have a military to protect the country, and have a social safety net.

I don't want government to tell me what I can eat, drink, smoke, fuck, marry, read, hear, worship, say, see, and feel. I don't want to give up my freedom for security. I don't want the NSA reading my email and listening to my phone conversations. I don't want the TSA feeling me up in order to fly on a plane.

I try to vote for the persons who come closest to my beliefs. Doesn't always work out. Lately it has been more about voting against somebody rather than voting for someone who would be even worse.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The notion that either party has championed fiscally responsible policy is the product of talking points - not reality.

As a registered republican I can vote against EVERY liberal. Dont you get it?

Against big spending gopers in the primaries and against libs in generals.

I appreciate the clarification of your previous post. But the right to vote for whoever you want doesn't reconcile your misguided statement suggesting one party or one ideology has spent less money. The sad truth is that the only difference between conservatives Republicans and Democrats is who they right the checks to.

Now I can appreciate your clarification to include "big-spending gopers" and "bank-breaking liberals" under the same umbrella.

In that we agree.

I never made such a suggestion, you assumed it

 

[Contumacious]

Hello, all. I'm new to the board, and I'd like to start out with a poll. As for your answer, I'm more interested in what you register as (not necessarily how you vote). For example, I have a friend from Oklahoma who is a proud Democrat but hasn't voted for a Democrat for President in years, and I also know people in Maine who have been Republicans since birth yet haven't voted for a Republican since Bush 41. Thanks for any and all responses!

In the future place LIBERTARIANS in category by themselves.

And don't forget to add communists for Comrade Starkiev.

Thanks

.

 

[National Socialist]

AnarchoCapitalist. I am a registered republican just so I can vote for Liberty Republicans. I usually vote 3rd party in general elections unless there is a Liberty candidate running.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

1 progressive dem my ass

 

[Harry Dresden]

When you look at the current Republican Party and their positions on economics, the poor, civil rights, health care, American helping American, disaster relief, women's rights, immigration, science, technology, jobs, business, education and the environment, I don't believe you can be a moderate and vote for that party. Every current position the Republican Party has is extreme and very far outside of what is considered the "norm". This is the most radical party in my lifetime if you go by their Party Platform, where they are on the issues, the fact they are 90% white and what they did to this country under former President Bush. Then you add in the unearned hatred for the current president. Their talk of secession and support for domestic terrorism. Where does "moderate" fit in? Perhaps in the next generation. But not for at least the next 10 years.

Where do you get your delusions? Just wondering.

Eagle meet Dean.....you aint seen nothing yet.....you will see his "90%" Mantra in 8 out of 10 posts.....Republicans will be mentioned in just about everyone.....even if you are talking about Solar Flares......

 

[Harry Dresden]

When you look at the current Republican Party and their positions on economics, the poor, civil rights, health care, American helping American, disaster relief, women's rights, immigration, science, technology, jobs, business, education and the environment, I don't believe you can be a moderate and vote for that party. Every current position the Republican Party has is extreme and very far outside of what is considered the "norm". This is the most radical party in my lifetime if you go by their Party Platform, where they are on the issues, the fact they are 90% white and what they did to this country under former President Bush. Then you add in the unearned hatred for the current president. Their talk of secession and support for domestic terrorism. Where does "moderate" fit in? Perhaps in the next generation. But not for at least the next 10 years.

That's the thing: any intelligent person knows that he or she can disagree with any one or multiple element(s) of a party's platform. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, moderate on gun control, in favor of a path to citizenship ... yet fiscally conservative. I believe in tax breaks for everyone, including ALL businesses, cuts in wasteful spending and a flat tax code. I do not vote for President based on those social issues, because they won't be the ones deciding them. What Republican President is actually going to have an impact on overturning Roe v. Wade?! They've tried for forty years now... Gay marriage? That will be a courts and legislature debate. Period. Obama's "support" of it had no effect on the issue, IMO. The President will have a decent effect on immigration reform, but there are multiple rising Republicans who are just as "enlightened" on immigration reform as many Democrats are, so no contrast there. Gun control? Maybe ... but like I said, I'm pretty moderate on that anyway.

What does that leave me with? A stark divide between the fiscal policies of the Democrats and those of the Republicans. Sure, I probably have more in common with a Moderate Democrat than a Right Wing Republican, and I absolutely hate that those nutjobs have a presence in the GOP right now, but I care enough about the fiscal issues (on which I think the Democrats are just awful) to vote Republican. And I'm still a moderate.

EDIT: If a Democrat came out in support of all those fiscal policies I just mentioned, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat ... but they're too dependent on some of their largest voting blocs (working class, those who benefit from government redistribution of wealth, those on government programs, etc.) to ever do that. Hence, I will not be supporting any Democrat any time soon, no matter how crazy some Republicans are.

Republicans have slandered the Democrat Party for years insisting they are the party of "spend". And yet, where did the deficits come from? Not the Democrats. In fact, Clinton left a surplus.
How do Republicans get away with the slander? Think about it. Every good business man in the world says it "take money to make money". There is money being spent on nothing, like the 9 billion in cash Republicans sent to Iraq that simply vanished. Think what you could buy with 9 billion in cash. Then the tax cuts that gave business the capital to move jobs to China. See a pattern?
And when were Republicans considered the "Party of Ideas"? When they spent money building the interstate highway system, at the time, the envy of the world. And NASA, behind unknown billions in patents and licenses. And it was Republicans behind the investments in science and technology in schools and colleges.
So what happened?
In the middle 60's, the conservatives fled the Democratic Party because of the blacks, and the conservatives joined and swelled the ranks of the Republican Party which is why it's 90% white today. Now, they insist tax cuts for the wealthy, being anti education, against women's right, hating minorities, anti science and anti investment are all "conservative". No, they are not. They are the cobblestones paving the road to disaster. We saw that for 6 years under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses and the courts leaving no one but the voters to stop them. Because of Gerrymandering, the voters haven't been completely successful.

.......unbelievable.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Woah. Okay, first of all, Clinton had a technology boom and a Republican controlled Congress that had to back him into a corner in order to get vital spending cuts ... both of those were the reason for the surplus. Period. They definitely were not Clinton's policies. And while Bush incurred defecits, they were mostly because of the wars. You can argue against the wars, fine, and I DO think he should not have cut taxes while trying to fund a war ... but his policies, had it been peacetime, would have reduced the debt. That's not an excuse, as he DIDN'T reduce the debt and deserves fault for making it bigger, but make no mistake that this was the war's doing. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the interstates) was all for internal spending, but he also cut TONS of spending and was a fiscally conservative President. In his fairwell address, he warned of entitlement programs and simply putting off the debt for future generations to pay.

On that note, I'm not going to let you get away with the age old lie that the racist, dumb, rural, uneducated Southern Democrats became Republicans at the flip of a switch ... it just didn't happen. Period. Of all the Southern Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, ONE became a Republican. Republicans voted for the bill in BOTH houses of Congress in significantly higher percentages. They did the same for the Voting Rights Act one year later (which right there shatters the fantasy lie that the Civil Rights Act simply delivered the South to the GOP). Also, Southern Democrats were dumb but they weren't THAT dumb: after the Democrats finally (100 years late, I might add) evolved on civil rights issues and stopped being blatantly racist, why would angry Southern Whites then move to a party that had supported the same cause a full century before?! Why didn't all these Republicans of the '50s and '60s that Democrats always try to say were "the liberals back then" EVER switch parties when this supposed "switch" happened? The story has holes all over it. People always point to the electoral results after that, but in the elections that the South supported the Republicans after that (with the exclusion of '64, when most REPUBLICANS didn't support Goldwater ... he won a tiny plurality at the convention), almost every other state did, too: 1972 (Nixon won every state but one), 1980 (Reagan landslide #1), 1984 (Reagan landslide #2), 1988 (Bush landslide). Look at 1968 (voted for a third party candidate, a former Democrat), 1976 (Carter swept the entire South), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton split the South with Bush and Dole).

This myth that the South switched is just flat out absurd. Republicans didn't gain control of Southern Congressional seats until nearly three decades later, and they didn't control state legislatures until LITERALLY two years ago. It's fantasy history made up by Democrats who are (rightfully) ashamed of their horrible history of racism. The 4 S's aren't exactly a good legacy: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism. Do Republicans enjoy success in the South now? Of course ... but make no mistake, there is a DIRECT correlation between the South becoming less racist and the GOP gaining ground there. That's not debatable. Also, the main emergence of GOP power there correlated with the Democratic Party taking newly liberal stances on gun control and abortion, two issues very important to many Southerners.

Nice try, though.

Sadly, the thread has now devolved into the usual partisanship.

It's inevitable when rdean posts

thank you.....you notice who had the first post that deviated from the topic or was not at least replying to someone here.....good old Dean....the Obsessed one.....Wry the "MODERATE" Democrat would never say that about Dean.....

 

[PaulieGirl]

Pretty much a Barry Goldwater Republican, but there's no one decent to vote for in the Republican party anymore. What to do, what to do...

 

[PredFan]

You mixed Libertarian, Green and Socialist together?

You have a lot to learn young padwan learner.

 

[ModerateGOP]

You mixed Libertarian, Green and Socialist together?

You have a lot to learn young padwan learner.

I'm not suggesting they're all the same at all. I only had 10 poll options to fill and I wanted to get into the specific factions of the Democrats and Republicans ... when you're a rather insignificant third party that never cracks more than 2% of the national vote, you all get lumped together. Sorry.

 

[Mac1958]

1 progressive dem my ass

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Libertarian (Classical Liberal type)