Poll: Where do you disagree with your party and agree with another

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

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm neither a republican nor a democrat, I'm a small government, fiscally conservative, social progressive. Apparently there is no party for that combination of thinking.....

Agree with republicans on immigration and taxes, disagree with them on the war, government powers (fisa etc).

Agree with dems on healthcare reform, disagree on opposition to personal responsibility and socialist wealth redistribution mentality.

that pretty much is my view too.

ill add the religious aspect that the republicans like to do. I am voting democrat for my district to get musgrave out of office. I can not stand that woman. she needs to check her anti-gay. anti- abortion at the door and work on issues that truly matter. she was elected as a congressperson not to a pulpit.

 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Disagree:

Immigration - as an immigrant myself who has been naturalized, I find it really disheartening that there is even talk of 'amnesty' .... I just want illegals to start paying taxes, when they do, they can stay.

A part of making that work is making it easier for our current illegal immigrants to become legal citizens so that they can stop being paid under the table everywhere they go. I don't want to lower the bar for all of them to the point of nothing and I don't want criminals whose crimes go well beyond illegal immigration, but I think at this point we are so deep in over our heads that it would just be best to make the process easier and "grandfather" a lot of them in based on something more simple while raising the bar a lot on all new immigrants who have yet to come here.

I realize that many of these immigrants who get grandfathered in are not the most productive of people, but the fact of the matter is we are already paying for them anyways and we will never be hunting them down and sending them home. It is also true that many of their kids have shown to have a much better shot an exceeding their parents as it stands with our current system. However, that doesn't do us much good if we keep letting new illegals into our states. We need to put an end to that part and raise the bar on our standards for the new ones.

From there, time should heal the wounds.


I agree, we can't just kick them all out, thats not practical. What we do need to do first, is secure the border. If we want to control immigration we HAVE some control of who comes into the country. Then offer some kind of conversion program from legal to illegal. Also, all immigrants should have to learn basic english within 5 years of coming here, its ridiculous.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
R

I agree with Obama about making Iraq pay for the war, I doubt he could or would try to do it.




I hate the bailout package (both parties) and McCain's bail out of home owners.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I am a democrat. I disagree with the dems stance on...

1. Drilling for Oil - just do it now as a bridge to get us over the next decade until the next thing becomes a viable alternative (as long as we are heavily investing in the next thing)
2. Welfare (if you are able you should work - cant find job? Do govt work for your welfare check).
3. Nancy Pelosi - WTF?


Are you sure you are a democrat?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: HomerJS
What is your party affiliation?

One issue where you disagree with your party.

One issue where you agree with another party.

I'll go first

Democrat

Disagree: Immigration. I want the borders locked down first and stop the benefits for illegals.

Agree: Parental notification on underage child getting an abortion


Great thread!
 

MagicConch

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2005
1,239
1
0
This election I am voting Democrat

Disagree w/ Obama - Obama's anti-free trade stance

Agree w/ McCain - spending freeze

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
i'm pretty left of center and am much more closely aligned to the D's that any other party i've come across.


I am pro school voucher, the democratic party generally isn't.

I am pro-trade, although i don't think republicans agree with that anymore, but they used to. I also think nacy pelosi needs to go as speaker, which i'm sure most republicans woudl agree with.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I have no party affiliation because parties inherently inhibit democracy. They are unnecessary, dangerous, and moreover incapable of actually representing someone completely anyway as no two persons are likely to ever agree on everything.

But to continue your game, I will list a number of parties and where they fall short in my mind, including a comment on one theory/aspect of the party which they claim to adhere to, but in practice do not:

Democrats:
Agree - The military should be GREATLY reduced. I'm being gracious on this one, since we haven't seen any active movement on this policy issue in at least 8 years. However, over the course of several decades it's one of the issues that Democrats have generally stayed strong on. Military spending is out of control, and a military focus is largely corrupting/defeating.
Disagree - Gun control is good, right, and effective. In point of fact, it is largely ineffective, an abuse of our rights, and generally a bad thing for all involved. Rational regulation isn't inherently bad, but control/abolishment is.
Lie - They stand against the practices of other political ideologies like those of Republicans. In point of fact they almost consistently vote in FAVOR of Republican policies including the Patriot Act, authorization of broad military powers, expanding executive power, corporate bailouts, etc. At least enough do that there is no meaningful opposition or counter to conservative policies.

Republicans:
Agree - Capital Punishment is necessary, strict punishment for committing crimes. Although it has been shown to not actually reduce the overall amount of crime, it does remove the worst offenders (at least in theory), thus preventing things from getting worse. Unless the government turns it's support to empowering individual citizens to remove dangerous criminals permanently, it has to step up as the agent of action and work to protect its citizens.
Disagree - Opposition of labor unions. While it's true that such organizations often become corrupted, the goal of unions is completely laudable and vitally important. Unless government takes an active role against wealth as power, and against corporate corruption and exploitive business practices someone else has to. The ONLY group which has been a successful counter to business abuses is unions.
Lie - Less government is what they work towards. An absolute core ideology of the party, it has been eroded over the years until the party is now FAR more expansionist than even Democrats. Republicans expand the physical size of government, government spending, and government power.

Libertarian:
Agree - Victimless crimes, or crimes purely of morality/ideology, should not be regulated by the government. While there are health concerns concerning prostitution and drugs, they can be addressed through rational regulation instead of criminalization.
Disagree - Taxation is bad. Taxation is not only good, it's an absolute necessity. The level of taxation is questionable, the manner of taxation is debatable, the best agents of collection and distribution are perhaps unknowable - but some taxation is an absolute requirement for a nation to exist.
Lie - Laissez-faire capitalism taken to the extreme supports individual rights. While it's true that government interference in anything runs in opposition to the less is better philosophy, in business and economic matters it is a necessary evil in order to combat greed and the power of wealth. Because those without wealth are wholly at the mercy of those with wealth, and those with wealth generally act in ways harmful to those without, some more powerful balancing force must stand for the poor unless they are otherwise empowered to do so themselves.

Constitution:
Agree - The United States rights and role ends at our border. Noninterventionism is a far preferable international policy.
Disagree - Opposition of pornography . This stances immediately prove that they do not support our founding ideas and documents. Opposition is an abuse of our rights to free speech, and personal pursuit of happiness.
Lie - They defend the principles of our founding documents and forefathers. In point of fact, the rampant zealotry of the party is in direct opposition to our origins. America was not founded as a Christian nation, and was absolutely established with safeguards to prevent the mixing of religious and political powers.

Green:
Agree - The environment/ecology is of central importance to our existence, and the government MUST step up as the agent of action in it's protection.
Disagree - Non-violence doesn't work, however beautiful of a dream it may be. Violence is sometimes necessary and preparation to do violence is required to make it effective.
Lie - I was in a hurry and didn't come up with a good example for this, i'll get back to it later.

Dude, awesome post. Normally I wouldn't quote something so long but this deserves repeating in case anyone missed it. I'm totally with you. Only area where I don't agree is capital punishment; I think life imprisonment without parole is better because:

1. It's cheaper.
2. It prevents the innocent from being wrongly killed.
3. It's no worse of a deterrent.

I'm not shedding a tear for killers who are executed for their crimes, but I know for a fact that several people have been wrongly executed. It's one thing to live in a cell the rest of your life, at least knowing that you're an innocent man and you can devote your life to reading or studying or something, but it's entirely another to be killed for something you didn't do.

I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I have no party affiliation because parties inherently inhibit democracy. They are unnecessary, dangerous, and moreover incapable of actually representing someone completely anyway as no two persons are likely to ever agree on everything.

But to continue your game, I will list a number of parties and where they fall short in my mind, including a comment on one theory/aspect of the party which they claim to adhere to, but in practice do not:

Democrats:
Agree - The military should be GREATLY reduced. I'm being gracious on this one, since we haven't seen any active movement on this policy issue in at least 8 years. However, over the course of several decades it's one of the issues that Democrats have generally stayed strong on. Military spending is out of control, and a military focus is largely corrupting/defeating.
Disagree - Gun control is good, right, and effective. In point of fact, it is largely ineffective, an abuse of our rights, and generally a bad thing for all involved. Rational regulation isn't inherently bad, but control/abolishment is.
Lie - They stand against the practices of other political ideologies like those of Republicans. In point of fact they almost consistently vote in FAVOR of Republican policies including the Patriot Act, authorization of broad military powers, expanding executive power, corporate bailouts, etc. At least enough do that there is no meaningful opposition or counter to conservative policies.

Republicans:
Agree - Capital Punishment is necessary, strict punishment for committing crimes. Although it has been shown to not actually reduce the overall amount of crime, it does remove the worst offenders (at least in theory), thus preventing things from getting worse. Unless the government turns it's support to empowering individual citizens to remove dangerous criminals permanently, it has to step up as the agent of action and work to protect its citizens.
Disagree - Opposition of labor unions. While it's true that such organizations often become corrupted, the goal of unions is completely laudable and vitally important. Unless government takes an active role against wealth as power, and against corporate corruption and exploitive business practices someone else has to. The ONLY group which has been a successful counter to business abuses is unions.
Lie - Less government is what they work towards. An absolute core ideology of the party, it has been eroded over the years until the party is now FAR more expansionist than even Democrats. Republicans expand the physical size of government, government spending, and government power.

Libertarian:
Agree - Victimless crimes, or crimes purely of morality/ideology, should not be regulated by the government. While there are health concerns concerning prostitution and drugs, they can be addressed through rational regulation instead of criminalization.
Disagree - Taxation is bad. Taxation is not only good, it's an absolute necessity. The level of taxation is questionable, the manner of taxation is debatable, the best agents of collection and distribution are perhaps unknowable - but some taxation is an absolute requirement for a nation to exist.
Lie - Laissez-faire capitalism taken to the extreme supports individual rights. While it's true that government interference in anything runs in opposition to the less is better philosophy, in business and economic matters it is a necessary evil in order to combat greed and the power of wealth. Because those without wealth are wholly at the mercy of those with wealth, and those with wealth generally act in ways harmful to those without, some more powerful balancing force must stand for the poor unless they are otherwise empowered to do so themselves.

Constitution:
Agree - The United States rights and role ends at our border. Noninterventionism is a far preferable international policy.
Disagree - Opposition of pornography . This stances immediately prove that they do not support our founding ideas and documents. Opposition is an abuse of our rights to free speech, and personal pursuit of happiness.
Lie - They defend the principles of our founding documents and forefathers. In point of fact, the rampant zealotry of the party is in direct opposition to our origins. America was not founded as a Christian nation, and was absolutely established with safeguards to prevent the mixing of religious and political powers.

Green:
Agree - The environment/ecology is of central importance to our existence, and the government MUST step up as the agent of action in it's protection.
Disagree - Non-violence doesn't work, however beautiful of a dream it may be. Violence is sometimes necessary and preparation to do violence is required to make it effective.
Lie - I was in a hurry and didn't come up with a good example for this, i'll get back to it later.

Dude, awesome post. Normally I wouldn't quote something so long but this deserves repeating in case anyone missed it. I'm totally with you. Only area where I don't agree is capital punishment; I think life imprisonment without parole is better because:

1. It's cheaper.
2. It prevents the innocent from being wrongly killed.
3. It's no worse of a deterrent.

I'm not shedding a tear for killers who are executed for their crimes, but I know for a fact that several people have been wrongly executed. It's one thing to live in a cell the rest of your life, at least knowing that you're an innocent man and you can devote your life to reading or studying or something, but it's entirely another to be killed for something you didn't do.

I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.

I would agree with what you say about capital punishment...I want to see stricter safeguards. I just also want it used more once those safeguards are in place. I've known multiple victims of crimes horrendous enough that I wish daily it was used more.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I'm a Democrat

I disagree with government hand outs, Welfare, etc.... I think that anybody who is capable of working, should work. They should work minimum wage if they can't get a good job.

Now, people who make minimum wage, but can't afford to support their families should be entitled to safe/secure housing, and food enough to keep their families from going hungry. So I don't want to totally cut off government hand outs, I just want people to at least try to earn their keep.

Even if I were single with no dependents, I would not be able to afford to live even in the lowest of housing in my area on a minimum wage job. Far from it in fact. In regards to single people, I would agree with you if we fixed the wage problems, but if I am not mistaken the vast majority of those on welfare are not single. If the greater majority of them were single the problem would be 10 times easier.

I guess my entire point is that the welfare money should go to people who DO work but don't make enough to make ends meet. People who don't work shouldn't get benefits unless they are disabled to a point where they can not work.

You have my vote on that.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
I suppose I am a Democrat, but many are too Conservative for me. Our country needs to shift hard to the left. Hillary Clinton should be our fringe right wing.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
I agree with the Republicans that government spending should be drastically reduced

I disagree with their belief that McCain will reduce spending. That's fantasy.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Democrat

I disagree with the party on FISA.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: ScottyB
I suppose I am a Democrat, but many are too Conservative for me. Our country needs to shift hard to the left. Hillary Clinton should be our fringe right wing.

<- China is that way
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.

Even DNA evidence can be called into question, because it's ultimately tested and interpreted by humans. Example Ultimately, I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds - the state should not be in the business of killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary and no other option exists (justified war in self-defense of the state). Capital punishment is barbaric and accomplishs nothing.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.

Even DNA evidence can be called into question, because it's ultimately tested and interpreted by humans. Example Ultimately, I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds - the state should not be in the business of killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary and no other option exists (justified war in self-defense of the state). Capital punishment is barbaric and accomplishs nothing.

So how about this scenario:

A call to the police about a brutal rape and stabbing, when police show up they find a man with the mutilated bodies. He admits to attacking them, tells in graphic detail about what he made them do. There's ample DNA evidence. One of the victims pulls through and identifies the man, confirming everything that he confessed. He has a criminal history, though nothing quite this bad. He has a history of mental illness, and consistently goes off his meds.

Not too much chance that he isn't absolutely guilty is there?

I understand your feeling about the state killing people...however no one else can do it without facing charges. Right now things aren't good. If you kill him it costs more than imprisoning him for life, would take decades and a huge portion of judicial time. This is obviously not good. However, in cases such as this his execution could very easily be carried out for $.50 in 72 hours. I'd be happy to take him out back and put 2 in his pan if no one else has the balls, just sign a waiver and let me at him.

Imprisoning him for life is no better. It's at LEAST as easy to question the cruelty of imprisonment versus execution. It's incredibly expensive. It leaves the friends/family of the victim wanting. It takes space, time, and so on. Most importantly, people consistently manage to get released, even after such brutal crimes. That means that there's a very real chance that by NOT killing him, he will get out and do it again (since we know that an overwhelming number of criminals do commit crimes again).

So, what's the answer? To keep people safe you MUST ensure that criminals are never able to do those terrible things again. It's wrong to force others to pay for those people. It's wrong to deny justice to those directly impacted by their actions. What's the answer?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.

Even DNA evidence can be called into question, because it's ultimately tested and interpreted by humans. Example Ultimately, I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds - the state should not be in the business of killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary and no other option exists (justified war in self-defense of the state). Capital punishment is barbaric and accomplishs nothing.

So how about this scenario:

A call to the police about a brutal rape and stabbing, when police show up they find a man with the mutilated bodies. He admits to attacking them, tells in graphic detail about what he made them do. There's ample DNA evidence. One of the victims pulls through and identifies the man, confirming everything that he confessed. He has a criminal history, though nothing quite this bad. He has a history of mental illness, and consistently goes off his meds.

Not too much chance that he isn't absolutely guilty is there?

I understand your feeling about the state killing people...however no one else can do it without facing charges. Right now things aren't good. If you kill him it costs more than imprisoning him for life, would take decades and a huge portion of judicial time. This is obviously not good. However, in cases such as this his execution could very easily be carried out for $.50 in 72 hours. I'd be happy to take him out back and put 2 in his pan if no one else has the balls, just sign a waiver and let me at him.

Imprisoning him for life is no better. It's at LEAST as easy to question the cruelty of imprisonment versus execution. It's incredibly expensive. It leaves the friends/family of the victim wanting. It takes space, time, and so on. Most importantly, people consistently manage to get released, even after such brutal crimes. That means that there's a very real chance that by NOT killing him, he will get out and do it again (since we know that an overwhelming number of criminals do commit crimes again).

So, what's the answer? To keep people safe you MUST ensure that criminals are never able to do those terrible things again. It's wrong to force others to pay for those people. It's wrong to deny justice to those directly impacted by their actions. What's the answer?

I see no flaws with imprisoning the worst offenders for life, without parole. If someone has demonstrated they are unfit to live in normal society, society has a right to defend itself by removing the criminal from society, until he/she dies, if necessary. And by no parole, I mean NO PAROLE.

And it's not that I think capital punishment is cruel - it can be conducted in a very humane manner - I think it's wrong, which is different. I could kill you in a very humane manner; perhaps very quickly, in your sleep, with no pain whatsoever. You wouldn't suffer (except for being dead), and if you didn't even know it was coming, you wouldn't even suffer mental anquish. But that action would still be wrong.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Republican-

We are too strict on moral issues as a party.
We can be pro-life, but allow others to be a part of the party.
We can be against gay marriage, but still for gay rights.

I think we lose a lot of votes with our moralizing.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Republican

Four significant disagreements with my party:

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

-- The inability to allow medicare to negotiate for prescription drug discounts. Again, effing stupid. Also some other miscellaneous healthcare cost reduction measures we could be doing that we're not doing really bother me.

-- Not controlling the border nor cracking down hard enough on employers that hire illegals. Process has been way too slow and not vigorous enough (actually, this is a complaint I have about both parties).

-- Undisciplined spending and borrowing by Bush and Reagan before him.

Other than that, I am a free-market, low tax/regulation, pro-gun, on your own, personal responsibility type that largely agrees with the other aspects of the party platform.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I'm a Democrat

I disagree with government hand outs, Welfare, etc.... I think that anybody who is capable of working, should work. They should work minimum wage if they can't get a good job.

Now, people who make minimum wage, but can't afford to support their families should be entitled to safe/secure housing, and food enough to keep their families from going hungry. So I don't want to totally cut off government hand outs, I just want people to at least try to earn their keep.

Even if I were single with no dependents, I would not be able to afford to live even in the lowest of housing in my area on a minimum wage job. Far from it in fact. In regards to single people, I would agree with you if we fixed the wage problems, but if I am not mistaken the vast majority of those on welfare are not single. If the greater majority of them were single the problem would be 10 times easier.

I guess my entire point is that the welfare money should go to people who DO work but don't make enough to make ends meet. People who don't work shouldn't get benefits unless they are disabled to a point where they can not work.

You have my vote on that.

I would agree with that as well if it were not for the fact that many of these people have kids and it is not the fault of their children that mommy and daddy are lazy douche bags. Pulling the plug on them like that doesn't help us.