• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Political Party Would You Consider Yourself Now A Member Of?

I consider myself a:

  • Republican

    Votes: 12 17.4%
  • Democrat

    Votes: 18 26.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 39 56.5%

  • Total voters
    69
Then how did Congress & the states agree to the "anti-democratic and counter-productive" 22nd amendment (in 1947) which limits a President to two terms?

Because Congress and the states are run by stupid people? I don't know what you expect me to say here.

Nobody wanted a repeat of FDR. This is a perfect example of the public overreacting.
 
Because Congress and the states are run by stupid people? I don't know what you expect me to say here.

Nobody wanted a repeat of FDR. This is a perfect example of the public overreacting.

No...Stupidity is not the answer, but reaction to FDR is. We collectively realized that, regardless of how you feel about FDR personaly, that there is an inherent danger in having any one person remain President for (what could be) life.
We are a nation of laws..... not people....... & a cult of personality is an RX for danger.
My thinking is that if we collectively agree that is true about our President, why does it not also apply to our other elected leaders?...I argue it does.
 
Although I have voted Republican, I associate myself more and more with the Constitution Party.
 
I'm a registered Democrat, and still consider myself a Democrat, but I'm a conservative Southern Democrat, which in comparison to a northern Democrat, looks more like a Republican. I'm in favor of a strong defense, pro law & order, pro limitations on abortion (making them illegal after the 2nd trimester in all instances), but extremely liberal or libertarian on most other issues.
 
I became a republican 8 years ago today. I had voted for Al Gore but wasn't crazy about either candidate.

I became horrified by the way the far left was behaving after 9/11 and realized I could stomach the far right much more easily than the far left.
 
Interesting points. What positions would you consider to be extreme?

Without going to look at every point in their platform, there are places where, as strange as it might sound, they take personal freedom too far. There needs to be a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and a responsibility toward the society in which you live. Therefore, elements like complete and utter freedom to own any firearm you want with no restrictions goes too far. I think legalizing all drugs, no matter what they are, also goes too far. There are a lot of libertarians who border on anarchists, who really would be happy with no government whatsoever and that's not something that I can ever agree with.
 
There are a lot of libertarians who border on anarchists, who really would be happy with no government whatsoever and that's not something that I can ever agree with.

I doubt it. The nature of the Libertarian Party is of course fundamentally capitalist, which would always create an incompatibility not only with anarchist principles, but an inability to effectively cooperate with anarchist political activists.

EDIT: There was collaboration between Murray Rothbard and Co. and genuine progressives in the "New Left" alliances of the 1960's, but that was prior to the 1971 formation of the "Libertarian" Party and the increasing misappropriation of the term "libertarian" that has angered anarchists worldwide, and sparked the probably ill-conceived "rebuttal" of "anarcho"-capitalism, which had been a rather obscure Internet philosophy up to that point.
 
Last edited:
Without going to look at every point in their platform, there are places where, as strange as it might sound, they take personal freedom too far. There needs to be a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and a responsibility toward the society in which you live. Therefore, elements like complete and utter freedom to own any firearm you want with no restrictions goes too far. I think legalizing all drugs, no matter what they are, also goes too far. There are a lot of libertarians who border on anarchists, who really would be happy with no government whatsoever and that's not something that I can ever agree with.


The notion of opening the border entirely; the way the LP stands on abortion (no gov't restrictions, officially); and I have some doubts about legalizing toxic things like meth... yeah I lean libertarian in many ways but have issues with the LP. Part of the problem is the unwillingness of the LP to compromise or moderate the tone much... but at the same time that is one of the things that is attractive about libertarianism, the "no compromise on principle" position.

In a sense, Libertarians could be viewed as a counterbalance to both Conservatives (of more extreme social-conservative type that is inclined to legislate morality) and Liberals (the more extreme economic liberals who essentially want flat out socialism). If the LP could win enough votes to become the pivot point, the "swing vote" in the Congress, it could be of great benefit to us all. A third perspective other than Rep/Dem would be a refreshing change... but I'm not positive I'd want the LP in full majority control of gov't any more than I want the Reps or Dems in full majority control....things just seem to go in the toilet whenever any party gets too much power.

Three-way gridlock would be much more amusing to watch than 2-way gridlock. :mrgreen:
 
Liberals (the more extreme economic liberals who essentially want flat out socialism).

Why do you keep mentioning this nonsense? Socialism is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." There is no conceivable relation between that and liberalism, or any other political ideology that economically misinformed rightists absurdly describe as "socialist." :roll:
 
I doubt it. The nature of the Libertarian Party is of course fundamentally capitalist, which would always create an incompatibility not only with anarchist principles, but an inability to effectively cooperate with anarchist political activists.

I've tried to ask you what you meant by this elsewhere and you didn't answer. So again: How do capitalism and anarchism contradict each other? I am actually very interested in how this could be possible.
 
Why do you keep mentioning this nonsense? Socialism is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." There is no conceivable relation between that and liberalism, or any other political ideology that economically misinformed rightists absurdly describe as "socialist." :roll:

So then what do you call people on the "far left" who want the government to control everything? Do they not have a name?
 
I've been a Democrat since I registered to vote.
 
The Scottish Socialist Party is the party I most consider myself a member of, but I'm a paid up member of the Scottish Nationalists, because I think they, as a major party, wll help break up the UK a hell of a lot quicker than a minor party like the Socialists could.
 
I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian, or maybe a libertarian-leaning conservative, when I'm not busy playing guitar or teaching armed and unarmed self-defense. :mrgreen:

I maintain my membership in the Republican party so I can vote in the primaries and attempt to influence who runs.

In the general elections, I vote for whoever most closely represents my intrests and positions. In some cases this means Republican; in other cases I've had to go with Libertarian or Constitution Party; I'd vote for a relatively conservative/libertarian Democrat rather than some Republicans like Lindsey Graham.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party holding the reins of government and fighting for their agendas... I think a synthesis of those two ideologies (with neither in full control, mind you) would benefit the USA. The problem is both of those parties can't seem to get their **** together and run viable candidates with a snowball's chance in Arizona.
I'll probably never live to see that happen, if it ever happens, so pragmatically I vote for whoever seems the least Statist.
 
I am not ashamed to be a Republican. I am amused by the implication that I should be.

I believe the GOP would hugely benefit by the incorporation of certain libertarian principles if the two groups could somehow be prevailed upon to merge.
 
I am not ashamed to be a Republican. I am amused by the implication that I should be.

I believe the GOP would hugely benefit by the incorporation of certain libertarian principles if the two groups could somehow be prevailed upon to merge.

As a Republican, can you honestly say you are happy with the direction & tone that your party leaders have taken the GOP in?
Knowing that any party needs moderates & minority groups (Black/Hispanic/etc) to win any future election, do you honestly feel the GOP is winning any over?
 
As a Republican, can you honestly say you are happy with the direction & tone that your party leaders have taken the GOP in?
Knowing that any party needs moderates & minority groups (Black/Hispanic/etc) to win any future election, do you honestly feel the GOP is winning any over?

Well, the GOP has a long way to go in expanding voting constituency by placing everyone in little identity-groups & then making a bunch of promises to members of those "group" the way the DNC has.
 
Well, the GOP has a long way to go in expanding voting constituency by placing everyone in little identity-groups & then making a bunch of promises to members of those "group" the way the DNC has.

If that's why you think the GOP has been getting it's head handed to it (in national elections since 2006) then I suggest you get better informed about politics.
(I don't consider myself a strict Democrat but I have not had a real choice in nat'l elections in many years now. To me, the GOP no longer represent conservatives, they represent elderly, white, rural evangelicals & are a dying regional party, at this point)
 
As a Republican, can you honestly say you are happy with the direction & tone that your party leaders have taken the GOP in?
Knowing that any party needs moderates & minority groups (Black/Hispanic/etc) to win any future election, do you honestly feel the GOP is winning any over?

The problem is, the Republicans have sold out their principles attempting to woo minority votes. Bush, not only trying to provide cheap labor to his corporate buddies, was also trying to attract Hispanic votes by flushing border control down the toilet.
 
The problem is, the Republicans have sold out their principles attempting to woo minority votes. Bush, not only trying to provide cheap labor to his corporate buddies, was also trying to attract Hispanic votes by flushing border control down the toilet.


& then came Justice Sonya Sotomayer & all that went out the window for the GOP.;)
(I honestly can't remember the last good tactical political move made by the GOP....They really are just to dumb to govern!)
 
Last edited:
As a Republican, can you honestly say you are happy with the direction & tone that your party leaders have taken the GOP in?
Knowing that any party needs moderates & minority groups (Black/Hispanic/etc) to win any future election, do you honestly feel the GOP is winning any over?

I consider the GOP the lesser of two evils. :) And yes, I do feel we will be winning back moderates as President Obama's term progresses.
 
I consider the GOP the lesser of two evils. :) And yes, I do feel we will be winning back moderates as President Obama's term progresses.

You are not alone in considering the 2 parties as evils but I think you have picked the wrong side. I don't think the GOP will be getting any moderates with their far right agenda & rhetoric & appeal to only elderly white rural male evangelicals..
I think Obama's Presidency will be very successful & you just have to look at our economy as an example. Last winter we were on the verge of total collapse & another great depression...but now...things are getting better. Recovery is slow but it's underway & even Fox News can't hide that little truth.

A few predictions within the next 4 years:

1. All our troops will be out of Iraq & all our combat troops. will be out of Afghanistan .
2. Universally available & affordable HC will be a reality & we will all be saving HC money.
3. Our country will again be respected in the world & we will be making friends instead of suicidal enemies.
4. Law & order will mean something again.
 
Last edited:
I consider the GOP the lesser of two evils. :) And yes, I do feel we will be winning back moderates as President Obama's term progresses.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
 
Back
Top Bottom