104 replies to this topic

[Michelle]

I don't think I've ever talked to anyone that agreed with their party 100%.

[Professor Buzzkill]

questionmark, on 01 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Yes, but first it would be useful to define what libertarian actually means, because as I see it,in US politics it is a very stretchable term, reaching the whole spectrum from the conservative bible thumper to the progressive liberal and passing over the reactionary who wants to return to 1860.

If you are voting for the libertarian party you should be familiar with what they stand for. Their policies and philosophies are on their website. I believe a link has already been posted in this thread

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Yes, but first it would be useful to define what libertarian actually means, because as I see it,in US politics it is a very stretchable term, reaching the whole spectrum from the conservative bible thumper to the progressive liberal and passing over the reactionary who wants to return to 1860.

Call me a Constitutional Libertarian then

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 01 February 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Call me a Constitutional Libertarian then

Where all have to be very careful not to end up as a libertine because the rules are "flexible'.

Edited by questionmark, 01 February 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[AsteroidX]

I see that in the definition. Its broad enough to include just about any political view. But in principle I believe in the definition of Libertarian. By now you know me well enough that Im likel closer to the Constitutional party. Al;though I have not actively read there platform it just made my short list of things to look into.

One thing I know for sure is I will never again vote Dem/Rep

[bacca]

Michelle, on 01 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

I don't think I've ever talked to anyone that agreed with their party 100%.

Me either, I am a registered independent, basically because I don't agree with either side 100%, Both sides need to bend and compromise, although I guess if you are in government you don't really care what happens in the real world

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Me either, I am a registered independent, basically because I don't agree with either side 100%, Both sides need to bend and compromise, although I guess if you are in government you don't really care what happens in the real world

I too would never register as anything but Independent because regardless Im going to vote for the candidate I believe in or abstain because there is no good choice. (funny how the 2 party system is such a huge failure). We really need to get a 3rd party with some backbone in Washington to help balance the power.

[F3SS]

How about we drop the labels on ourselves and especially on the hill. Set reasonable and short congressional term limits and have candidates run on their views and not their party label. When its time to vote you vote based on merit, character and the actions they took. Period. Get rid of parties and you get rid a party bias when casting votes. Without labels even the most disenchanted about politics will actually have to pay attention to the candidates before they cast a vote. There won't be any other way to know or think you know who you're voting for.
It would either result in far less votes since people won't know who to vote for or far more votes due to a renewed interest and a kick in the ass to pay attention.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 01 February 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 01 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

How about we drop the labels on ourselves and especially on the hill. Set reasonable and short congressional term limits and have candidates run on their views and not their party label. When its time to vote you vote based on merit, character and the actions they took. Period. Get rid of parties and you get rid a party bias when casting votes. Without labels even the most disenchanted about politics will actually have to pay attention to the candidates before they cast a vote. There won't be any other way to know or think you know who you're voting for,

Would work, but think of all those poor lobbyists that suddenly would become homeless

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 01 February 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Would work, but think of all those poor lobbyists that suddenly would become homeless

Oh yea. That too. Thing is, won't happen.

[bacca]

No it won't happen but it is a good idea. I know I would rather choose a person based on what they believe rather then what their party tells them to believe

[AsteroidX]

Balancing the power is the only best logical first step. Thats minus a civil war. So yeah we as voters hold our own future in our votes. Unfortunately the campaign to marginalize third party candidates is heavy handed.

[Professor Buzzkill]

bacca, on 01 February 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

No it won't happen but it is a good idea. I know I would rather choose a person based on what they believe rather then what their party tells them to believe

In the absence of an ideal world we should do the next best thing. And that would be more than just two options when voting.

[RavenHawk]

Why is being Liberal bad?  Liberalism (Progressivism) says that the government must spend other people’s money to take care of the rest.  At first that doesn’t sound that bad but it is short sighted as it is unsustainable and creates dependency.  In an attempt to make it sustainable, the government must gain more and more control over the population eventually dictating to them what is good for them and how much.  This is basically Socialism, sacrificing for the benefit of the collective.  But this always leads to the hive mentality which becomes easily controlled by a few.  This is not what humans were made for.  We are all individuals with free will.  We are not bees or ants.  This is what is bad about being a Liberal.

Although, this is the way humans lived in the past.  It should stay in the past.  Man should evolve to bigger and better things.  We were made as individuals that live in a community.  The social aspects are controlled by the interactions of individuals, not dictated by government.  By doing what the individual does best, which is taking care of himself and his family (his own self interest), that benefits the whole in a sustainable manner.  Our Founding Fathers saw the evils of the hive mentality and created the Constitution to prevent the government from being in such a position of power over the people.  We have been losing that separation because people are asleep.  A people that have been given freedom, take it for granted and really do not understand the price for which it was bought.  Is it going to take another revolution to return to the original concept of the Constitution?

[RavenHawk]

green_dude777, on 31 January 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

At the minimum, there should at least be 4 differently labeled groups, at least in the U.S.

1) Fiscally liberal, socially liberal    
2) Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
3) Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
4) Fiscally conservative, socially liberal

That’s a good division.  This country is in its 5th political party system and this current one is failing.  It just doesn’t meet our needs.  So is it time for a new two-party system?  I think one can be developed from the above categories.  #4 would be what I would call Libertarian, which I think I fall under.  That would be one party.  #3 is obviously the Conservative party.  This nation desperately needs to return to conservative values – PERIOD!  Now, I don’t believe that #2 really exists.  It defeats the purpose of one or the other.  And #1 is Socialism or Totalitarianism or Oligarchy or what ever term you want to use.  At this stage, it really doesn’t matter which one is used.  This one should never be allowed to gain control because it natural deteriorates the nation in which it is in control of.  So you’re left with #3 & #4.  They would be equivalent to what we know as Republican and Democrat (before Progressivism took over the Democrat party).