• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are you a democrat or a repuclican or other?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Democrat, Republican, Other?

  • Democrat

  • Republican

  • Other

Results are only viewable after voting.
Amused said:
That's not "ruling the roost." That is giving others the same CHOICE you have. What you want is to force others to do things, so you may have a choice. You give them no choice, so you may have a choice.

That is inequality. That is YOU ruling the roost.
Click to expand...

That's a typical progressive opinion, actually. He wants the world ordered to his liking by using the armed force of government, while retaining the right to discard that which he wants government to force others to provide.

I voted other because I consider myself more libertarian at heart, but I probably should have voted Republican. I have voted for Libertarians about equally with Republicans, I'm registered as a Republican, and I don't think I've voted Democrat for a national position (or for governor) in the last two decades. However my votes are almost always for the lesser evil rather than for a particular candidate or platform. If I don't find one candidate or party to be significantly more threatening than the other, then screw them both, I'm voting Libertarian.
 
Amused said:
That is inequality. That is YOU ruling the roost.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is my belief. The consumer should rule the roost. There should be no equality between consumer and corporations. That is like calling an apple equal to a turnip.

I'll give another example.

I'll never vote for anyone who wants to pass a law forcing the people to wear motorcycle helmets. People should have the personal freedom to choose. Of course, since not wearing a helmet may harm another person's pocketbook in a crash, that freedom should come with the liability that other's won't have to pay for your head injuries if you choose not to wear one. The innocent's right trumps the person who chose not to wear one.

As for the helmet manufacturers, they should be free to make whatever they want (within reason). The manufacturer can choose the shape, the size, the fit, the look, etc of the helmet. Corporate liberty trumps consumers liberty on these minor issues. But there is that "within reason" part that I put in parenthesis. The helmet should provide a reasonable level of head protection given the technology of today. I will support politicians that pass laws for a base line of protection. Manufacturers have the liberty to make a more protective helmet, but it must at least provide reasonable protection in a crash. I am not saying perfect protection with no deaths. I'm not saying a helmet that costs $100,000. Those are unreasonable.

My liberty to choose to wear a helmet that protects me trumps the manufactuer's liberty to make a useless helmet. It shouldn't be equal. I (and you and all other potential users) should trump the manufacturer in that case.
 
dullard said:
Exactly. That is my belief. The consumer should rule the roost. There should be no equality between consumer and corporations. That is like calling an apple equal to a turnip.

I'll give another example.

I'll never vote for anyone who wants to pass a law forcing the people to wear motorcycle helmets. People should have the personal freedom to choose. Of course, since not wearing a helmet may harm another person's pocketbook in a crash, that freedom should come with the liability that other's won't have to pay for your head injuries if you choose not to wear one. The innocent's right trumps the person who chose not to wear one.

As for the helmet manufacturers, they should be free to make whatever they want (within reason). The manufacturer can choose the shape, the size, the fit, the look, etc of the helmet. Corporate liberty trumps consumers liberty on these minor issues. But there is that "within reason" part that I put in parenthesis. The helmet should provide a reasonable level of head protection given the technology of today. I will support politicians that pass laws for a base line of protection. Manufacturers have the liberty to make a more protective helmet, but it must at least provide reasonable protection in a crash. I am not saying perfect protection with no deaths. I'm not saying a helmet that costs $100,000. Those are unreasonable.

My liberty to choose to wear a helmet that protects me trumps the manufactuer's liberty to make a useless helmet. It shouldn't be equal. I (and you and all other potential users) should trump the manufacturer in that case.
Click to expand...

What if *I* want a useless helmet and a car without seatbelts?

Your logic is anything but.
 
Amused said:
What if *I* want a useless helmet and a car without seatbelts?

Your logic is anything but.
Click to expand...
You are certainly free to make it and wear it. You are certainly free to buy a bowl and put it on your head. Manufacturers are free to make useless ones as long as they aren't even remotely displayed as being a regular safe helmet.

You still haven't made any argument against me. We are both free in this case. None of what I said would put my liberties above yours or yours above mine. We'd both always get what we want (if it is reasonable and available). But, we'd both get to trump manufacturers.
 
dullard said:
You are certainly free to make it and wear it. You are certainly free to buy a bowl and put it on your head. Manufacturers are free to make useless ones as long as they aren't even remotely displayed as being a regular safe helmet.

You still haven't made any argument against me. We are both free in this case. None of what I said would put my liberties above yours or yours above mine. We'd both always get what we want (if it is reasonable and available). But, we'd both get to trump manufacturers.
Click to expand...

What if I build cars or make helmets?

Again, one man's rights CANNOT trump another's. If it can, it can go both ways and against you.

That you fail to see the logic behind this is amazing to me.
 
i'm a republican. i would WANT to be an other, but i can never find electable candidates pushing a platform that i would want to support.
 
Amused said:
What if I build cars or make helmets?

Again, one man's rights CANNOT trump another's. If it can, it can go both ways and against you.

That you fail to see the logic behind this is amazing to me.
Click to expand...
I keep saying that one man doesn't trump another man. But men can trump corporations. What is it that you aren't understanding about that. I don't trump you. You don't trump me. We can trump corporations if it is reasonable and available.

For example, you can build halloween helmets. It would be unreasonable to expect them to have protection on a motorcycle (far too costly). You are free to sell them that way. You are free to wear it on a motorcycle. I would also be free to wear it on a motorcycle. The only exception is that a helmet for motorcycles is NOT free to be false protection.
 
Last edited:
bamacre said:
"personal libertarian" = "I'm free but no one else is."
Click to expand...
If you don't understand it either, then please tell me how to help you figure it out. Everyone is free, but corporations in what I am discussing. What part of reasonable don't you understand? If it pits one person against another in equal ways, no one person trumps the other.

I get what I want. You get what you want. If we as customers mostly agree on a major, reasonable, available option, then there should be regulations as to minimum standards. If there is no reasonable agreement between customers, then it is unreasonable to force corporations to do all options. In that case, corporations get the liberty.
 
Last edited:
dullard said:
If you don't understand it either, then please tell me how to help you figure it out. Everyone is free, but corporations in what I am discussing. What part of reasonable don't you understand? If it pits one person against another in equal ways, no one person trumps the other.

I get what I want. You get what you want. If we as customers mostly agree on a major, reasonable, available option, then there should be regulations as to minimum standards. If there is no reasonable agreement between customers, then it is unreasonable to force corporations to do all options. In that case, corporations get the liberty.
Click to expand...

If I am not free to do the business I want, I am not free.

Why on earth would you think you have a right to force a business to cater to your will? You do that with your dollars, not the law.
 
dullard said:
If you don't understand it either, then please tell me how to help you figure it out. Everyone is free, but corporations in what I am discussing. What part of reasonable don't you understand? If it pits one person against another in equal ways, no one person trumps the other.

I get what I want. You get what you want. If we as customers mostly agree on a major, reasonable, available option, then there should be regulations as to minimum standards. If there is no reasonable agreement between customers, then it is unreasonable to force corporations to do all options. In that case, corporations get the liberty.
Click to expand...

So everyone is "free" except corporations? How about small businesses? Privately owned big businesses?
 
bamacre said:
So everyone is "free" except corporations? How about small businesses? Privately owned big businesses?
Click to expand...
All fall in the same category. If businesses (small, privately owned big businesses, corporations, etc) are not providing reasonable consumer protections, then they are not fully free. I just used the word corporation for simplicity rather than typing out the whole list each and every time.

In my view, the only fully free entity should be a person. As soon as that person starts a business where others may be significantly affected, I'm okay with reasonable standards. If there isn't a major conflict between the business and the consumer, then the business is free to make the choices. If there is a conflict, then some people think the business's rights trump, I feel the consumer's rights trump.
 
Amused said:
If I am not free to do the business I want, I am not free.

Why on earth would you think you have a right to force a business to cater to your will? You do that with your dollars, not the law.
Click to expand...
You keep saying, MY will. Remember, it would be your will too and your right too. Capitalism fails in some cases. I perfer full capitalism except those cases. In those cases, we need reasonable standards. A business does not have the right to dope milk with dangerous chemicals simply to make it cheaper, killing several people, and THEN we decide not to buy their product. Sorry. Too late.
 
Last edited:
dullard said:
In my view, the only fully free entity should be a person. As soon as that person starts a business where others may be significantly affected, I'm okay with reasonable standards.
Click to expand...

So a person loses freedoms when they start their own business?

Hell, I don't know, believe what you want I suppose. Honestly, IMO, this is the dumbest flavor of "libertarianism" I've seen.
 
Drako said:
I'm a registered Democrat, but very rarely vote for Democrats 🙂.
Click to expand...
This.

My votes today...
Gov. Bob Ehrilich (R)
Comptroller Peter Franchot (D)
County Executive Kenneth Holt (R)
Senator "write-in: None of the above"
House of Rep Lorenzo Gaztanaga (Lib)

I'm a paleoconservative Democrat. Most MD Democrats running for political offices are too liberal for me.
 
lothar said:
What are the dues? 😵
Click to expand...
This is my point. Most people identifying themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans" aren't actually Democrats or Republicans. They register party preference for the purpose of voting in the primaries. Political parties have actual memberships that usually require dues or time commitments. I went hunting for party membership numbers this evening but haven't found any yet. Back in the 80s real live party members (Dem and Rep combined) made up only 6% of the population. I'm curious as to what the numbers are today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top