• 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
The analogy doesn't hold water. The Mafia doesn't pass laws and policy that affect all of us. You may view our current government or two party system as a gang of ruthless thugs infringing on our liberties, but libertarians becoming a part of government remains our best option for making things better. I never could understand why radical libertarians reject moderation if it could translate into electoral success.

Unless of course you believe things are too far gone and its timed to exercise our right to an armed revolution, but I haven't met many if any libertarians that advocate that plan of attack.

If you're not willing to rise up and overthrow the system (I'm not anywhere close to that) then you should be prepared to work within it.

Valid point. This is why I support the Libertarian party and the concept of Minarchism, even though I would prefer Anarcho-Capitalism(which, in my opinion, is idealistic).
 
I'm a registered Republican but I detest what the Republican party has become. There simply are not political parties in the United States that represent my views, therefore it doesn't really matter what I'm registered as, I disagree with pretty much all of them on some issue or another.
 
Here's a few things I believe in:


1. We are not the world's policemen.
2. I am against "Nation Building"....except for rebuilding our own.
3. I am for the Death Penalty as the only realistic punishment to protect ourselves from vicious sociopaths, for instance
4. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion but would rather she choose adoption.
5. Favor an individual's right to own & carry firearms but believe the state has a legitimate right to regulate them, based on their inherent danger.
6. Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege & should be a shared expense...just like we share the expense of protecting each other from fire, criminals & foreign invaders.
7. Favor capitalism but don't worship it like a religion. (Not everything should be done for profit)
8. Think "Campaign Contributions" are simply bribes & shoukld be totally outlawed.
9. Believe in strict term limits for all elected positions


That's just a start, off the top of my head...


WHAT AM I? (you pick a label/party for me)
 
Here's a few things I believe in:


1. We are not the world's policemen.
2. I am against "Nation Building"....except for rebuilding our own.
3. I am for the Death Penalty as the only realistic punishment to protect ourselves from vicious sociopaths, for instance
4. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion but would rather she choose adoption.
5. Favor an individual's right to own & carry firearms but believe the state has a legitimate right to regulate them, based on their inherent danger.
6. Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege & should be a shared expense...just like we share the expense of protecting each other from fire, criminals & foreign invaders.
7. Favor capitalism but don't worship it like a religion. (Not everything should be done for profit)
8. Think "Campaign Contributions" are simply bribes & shoukld be totally outlawed.
9. Believe in strict term limits for all elected positions


That's just a start, off the top of my head...


WHAT AM I? (you pick a label/party for me)

Seems like good positions, but what would be the qualifications to get money from the goverment? Or are you saying only the well off should run? I mean without contributions of some kind how will a person be able to get started?
 
Seems like good positions, but what would be the qualifications to get money from the goverment? Or are you saying only the well off should run? I mean without contributions of some kind how will a person be able to get started?
Campaign funding is a complicated issue but that doesn't mean the present system of accepting bribes & "Owning" Congressmen is the only or best system we could ever devise.
Details could be worked out. As I said....Term Limits is the place for all this to start. No one's CAREER should be elected office...That's just begging for chicanery, imo.
 
Last edited:
Campaign funding is a complicated issue but that doesn't mean the present system of accepting bribes & "Owning" Congressmen is the only or best system we could ever devise.
Details could be worked out. As I said....Term Limits is the place for all this to start. No one's CAREER should be elected office...That's just begging for chicanery, imo.

I agree, professional politicians are something we should not want. As far as bribing your 100% right, the Congress people and others are owned by big contributors, but where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and contributions? I mean if I have a company who will stop me from making advertisements on the politicians behalf or organizing meetings etc. Its tough to weed out this corruption it grows deep in our foundation.
 
Here's a few things I believe in:


1. We are not the world's policemen.
2. I am against "Nation Building"....except for rebuilding our own.
3. I am for the Death Penalty as the only realistic punishment to protect ourselves from vicious sociopaths, for instance
4. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion but would rather she choose adoption.
5. Favor an individual's right to own & carry firearms but believe the state has a legitimate right to regulate them, based on their inherent danger.
6. Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege & should be a shared expense...just like we share the expense of protecting each other from fire, criminals & foreign invaders.
7. Favor capitalism but don't worship it like a religion. (Not everything should be done for profit)
8. Think "Campaign Contributions" are simply bribes & shoukld be totally outlawed.
9. Believe in strict term limits for all elected positions


That's just a start, off the top of my head...


WHAT AM I? (you pick a label/party for me)

Populist.

....
 
I agree, professional politicians are something we should not want. As far as bribing your 100% right, the Congress people and others are owned by big contributors, but where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and contributions? I mean if I have a company who will stop me from making advertisements on the politicians behalf or organizing meetings etc. Its tough to weed out this corruption it grows deep in our foundation.
I agree it's a problem & the only way I see around it is to disallow ANY contributions (bribes) from any source. Pay for election campaigns through taxes...period. I never bought the "Freedom of Speech" argument either. Let corporations & individuals SAY anything they want. Just no bribes would be allowed.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's a problem & the only way I see around it is to disallow ANY contributions (bribes) from any source. Pay for election campaigns through taxes...period. I never bought the "Freedom of Speech" argument either. Let corporations & individuals SAY anything they want. Just no bribes would be allowed.

And the reason why nobody supports this proposal is because it's incredibly simplistic.

Imagine that I want to support Candidate X. Normally, I would donate $2,300 to his campaign to allow him to produce an ad talking about his policies. Now, in a world where your law is passed, what would happen? I would simply donate $2,300 (or $5k, or $200k) to a group that would be created to advocate for Candidate X's election through the use of campaign ads.

Nothing would change, except for the fact that donations would become more secretive and ads would become less attributable to the campaigns.

Look at what happened with the limits on donations and 527s - they were originally pitched as ways to get money away from the campaigns and cut back on negative campaigning. Instead, they became ways for rich people to funnel money to groups that were free to produce all the ragingly negative ads they want.

Every time government touches this stuff, it makes it worse.
 
Not quite either. At the moment, a large portion of my beliefs side with the Democratic Party, but portions of me also pull towards the Republicans. I was more in-line with McCain and Lieberman.
 
And the reason why nobody supports this proposal is because it's incredibly simplistic.

Imagine that I want to support Candidate X. Normally, I would donate $2,300 to his campaign to allow him to produce an ad talking about his policies. Now, in a world where your law is passed, what would happen? I would simply donate $2,300 (or $5k, or $200k) to a group that would be created to advocate for Candidate X's election through the use of campaign ads.

Nothing would change, except for the fact that donations would become more secretive and ads would become less attributable to the campaigns.

Look at what happened with the limits on donations and 527s - they were originally pitched as ways to get money away from the campaigns and cut back on negative campaigning. Instead, they became ways for rich people to funnel money to groups that were free to produce all the ragingly negative ads they want.

Every time government touches this stuff, it makes it worse.

I understand what I'm proposing would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in the real world.
First, we would be expecting the "bribees" to voluntarily forgo money from the "Bribers.":lol:
Second..there will probably always be ways of circumventing the system.

My position is stated more as a moral "goal" than an actual proposal .......but I just think there has to be a better way than what we presently endure & I think strict term limits is where we must start. (we only started limiting Presidents to a limit of 2 terms with the passage of the 22nd amendment in 1947. If we can limit President why can't we limit all elected officials?)
I'm wide open to suggestions though!
 
Last edited:
I understand what I'm proposing would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in the real world.
First, we would be expecting the "bribees" to voluntarily forgo money from the "Bribers.":lol:
Second..there will probably always be ways of circumventing the system.

Exactly, which is why I look forward to a rolling back of many of the ridiculous provisions of McCain-Feingold.

My position is stated more as a moral "goal" than an actual proposal .......but I just think there has to be a better way than what we presently endure & I think strict term limits is where we must start. (we only started limiting Presidents to a limit of 2 terms with the passage of the 22nd amendment in 1947. If we can limit President why can't we limit all elected officials?)
I'm wide open to suggestions though!

Because term limits are anti-democratic and counter-productive. If I believe that my Congressman has done a great job, I should be able to continue voting for him to represent me.

It takes a long time to learn how to do things in Congress, so by forcing people out after 2 terms, we would lose out on a lot of experience.
 
Because term limits are anti-democratic and counter-productive. If I believe that my Congressman has done a great job, I should be able to continue voting for him to represent me.

It takes a long time to learn how to do things in Congress, so by forcing people out after 2 terms, we would lose out on a lot of experience.

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?
 
Last edited:
I voted other. I really don't give a damn about ideologies.
 
The Ted Nugent party.

:gunsmilie:2party::july_4th:
 
So far.....out of 36 poll respondents, only 5 are identifying themselves as Republicans, & I don't think DP is a bastion of liberal voters.
While this is not a scientific study by any means, I do think it's a decent indication of the trouble today's GOP has in trying to win future national elections.

The only thing it represents is the makeup of what people think they are.

The GOP unfortunately will win again. Obama and the Democrats is making certain this will happen.
 
Devil505 said:
1. We are not the world's policemen.

Never have been, never will be. We do it because we like to swing our dick around in world politics and everyone else likes it because they don't have to pay for it. We need to knock it off.

2. I am against "Nation Building"....except for rebuilding our own.

Considering what a sorry state ours is in right now, we ought to stop sending billions of dollars a year to other nations and start using it to rebuild our infrastructure.

3. I am for the Death Penalty as the only realistic punishment to protect ourselves from vicious sociopaths, for instance

Quoted for truth.

4. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion but would rather she choose adoption.

You can only make that decision for yourself, no one else has to listen to your opinions, but you don't have to listen to theirs either. Personally, I'd rather they didn't get pregnant in the first place, there are far too many kids in foster care today who will *NEVER* be adopted. Let's give them a shot instead of clogging the system.

5. Favor an individual's right to own & carry firearms but believe the state has a legitimate right to regulate them, based on their inherent danger.

Absolutely true.

6. Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege & should be a shared expense...just like we share the expense of protecting each other from fire, criminals & foreign invaders.

Basic health care, perhaps, you should be able to go into a hospital and have them stop you from dying, but beyond that, you need to be able to pay for it, either out of pocket or through insurance. Anyone in this country illegally should be treated and given a fast trip back across the border, no exceptions.

7. Favor capitalism but don't worship it like a religion. (Not everything should be done for profit)

Far too many people do worship it, unfortunately. It's a fine system but it's not perfect and unregulated capitalism just doesn't work, never has, never will. When greed is the only motivator, as it is in most corporations, the law becomes little more than an obstacle to be overcome. We need to strenuously enforce regulations on all of the most important industries.

8. Think "Campaign Contributions" are simply bribes & shoukld be totally outlawed.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I think anyone who wants to donate should be barred from supporting an individual candidate. You can donate to the political process and at a certain date, everyone who is legally signed up to run for that office gets an equal cut of the pie. It stops people from buying influence, which is exactly what you're talking about and I agree, but it gets people the funds they need. I'd also like to stop anyone from being able to use any of their own money, except money that they likewise want to donate to the political process. It stops people from buying offices because they're ridiculously wealthy.

9. Believe in strict term limits for all elected positions

At least for the moment, I think you're right. When most districts are gerrymandered so that the incumbent can almost rape, murder and steal and still get re-elected, something is seriously wrong. Everyone ought to have no more than 2 terms in office, then they must work outside of politics entirely for at least a term before they can run again. It keeps politicians in touch with reality, something most of them have no clue about today.
 
Because term limits are anti-democratic and counter-productive. If I believe that my Congressman has done a great job, I should be able to continue voting for him to represent me.

That works only if you have an informed electorate and we both know that's not the case. Most districts are drawn up so that the majority of voters are members of a particular party who vote straight party lines. Most politicians have no fear of ever being voted out no matter what they do. If districts were drawn based solely on population and not political ideology then you wouldn't have these problems. They'd actually have to EARN the votes of the public.

Imagine that, politicians actually having to represent their constituents!
 
I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, however I do disagree with the party platform on one key issue: abortion. I'm a staunch believer in the Lockean principle that the number one job of government is to protect life. A government that cannot protect life is inefficient and is not fulfilling it's contract with the people. I am aware however, that the abortion debate centers around when a life is actually created, but I digress. I feel the most sensible position to take is to ban abortion as part of birth control, but allow rape victims and mother's in danger of dying to have that option.

Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with the libertarian notions of personal liberty, freedom, sound economic policy, dramatic shift in foreign policy, gun rights, opposition to the death penalty, etc.

I stopped reading after page 6, but I find it odd that the majority of people who consider themselves to be "conservative" identify more with libertarian principles right now than those espoused by the GOP. Maybe the Libertarian Party will get a little more notice in 2012 and won't be dismissed by Beck and Olbermann as "radical crazies".
 
I stopped reading after page 6, but I find it odd that the majority of people who consider themselves to be "conservative" identify more with libertarian principles right now than those espoused by the GOP. Maybe the Libertarian Party will get a little more notice in 2012 and won't be dismissed by Beck and Olbermann as "radical crazies".

That's because most modern libertarians came out of the Republican party after the party abandoned conservatism. If the Libertarian Party and it's candidates were less extreme in their views, then they'd like get a lot more conservative support because the views aren't all that different, but you get a lot of extreme positions in the Libertarian Party that people like myself cannot support and therefore cannot support Libertarian candidates.
 
That's because most modern libertarians came out of the Republican party after the party abandoned conservatism. If the Libertarian Party and it's candidates were less extreme in their views, then they'd like get a lot more conservative support because the views aren't all that different, but you get a lot of extreme positions in the Libertarian Party that people like myself cannot support and therefore cannot support Libertarian candidates.


Interesting points. What positions would you consider to be extreme?
 
The analogy doesn't hold water. The Mafia doesn't pass laws and policy that affect all of us.

Not in America, but in some parts of the world gangsters have had tremendous influence, and as they grew in power they found it in their best interest to pass laws over their subjects, establish a bureaucracy, arbitrate conflicts amongst their subjects, build roads, schools, and so on. The only difference between mafia and government is size.


You may view our current government or two party system as a gang of ruthless thugs infringing on our liberties, but libertarians becoming a part of government remains our best option for making things better.

Quoting Ayn Rand: "in any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins". Principled individuals have nothing to gain by cooperating with an evil system (i.e. government). The government would gain a lot: a justification of its immoral system for manufacturing consent (the democracy circus).

The greatest hope comes from escaping government tyranny through secession, whether large (ex. focused civil disobedience in conjunction with the Free State Project) or small (thousands of independent seasteads).


I never could understand why radical libertarians reject moderation if it could translate into electoral success.

If you were a slave living on a plantation, and your massa offered to treat you a little bit better if you kiss his butt and tell other slaves to do the same, would you do that, or would you run away?


Unless of course you believe things are too far gone and its timed to exercise our right to an armed revolution, but I haven't met many if any libertarians that advocate that plan of attack.

Armed resistance may be justified, but it is clearly ineffective. We just don't have as many nukes and aircraft carriers as the government does. At least not yet.


If you're not willing to rise up and overthrow the system (I'm not anywhere close to that) then you should be prepared to work within it.

Civil disobedience works to a degree. Running away / gulching works better. Playing governments against each-other for our benefit (ex. tax competition) works best. Check out this blog: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom.
 
Registered as a republican at age 18 and continue strong these long 6 years later (joke). Yes, I am a young Republican. I must say though that I am the most frustrated at libertarians and other conservatives that don't vote republican. The two party system is amazingly awesome and will continue to be such for years on end. I am grateful to the democrats for keeping us Republicans in line, but disagree with you on almost everything.
 
I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, however I do disagree with the party platform on one key issue: abortion. I'm a staunch believer in the Lockean principle that the number one job of government is to protect life. A government that cannot protect life is inefficient and is not fulfilling it's contract with the people. I am aware however, that the abortion debate centers around when a life is actually created, but I digress. I feel the most sensible position to take is to ban abortion as part of birth control, but allow rape victims and mother's in danger of dying to have that option.

Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with the libertarian notions of personal liberty, freedom, sound economic policy, dramatic shift in foreign policy, gun rights, opposition to the death penalty, etc.

I stopped reading after page 6, but I find it odd that the majority of people who consider themselves to be "conservative" identify more with libertarian principles right now than those espoused by the GOP. Maybe the Libertarian Party will get a little more notice in 2012 and won't be dismissed by Beck and Olbermann as "radical crazies".

I agree with every single one of your positions except for the prediction of the Libertarian Party getting more notice.... well, they might get more notice, but if anything, they will be a detriment to conservative principles if they divide us enough to give democrats a chance. I invite you to vote republican along with me. Conservatives with tough conservative values and moderate tones (staying away from Obama is Hitler and trying to kill my grandma) are what win elections, since losing won't do either of us a lot of good.
 
Back
Top Bottom