Why are you a [insert political party here]?

[bfdd]

I don't register for a party, I don't vote based on party and nothing "evil" will ever get my vote.

 

[randomrogue]

I almost feel like this thread is more powerful if you don't post a rebuttal to people's posts. I for one read the responses and simply think "we're fucked"

 

[werepossum]

Saying there is an argument doesn't mean there is one. Let's hear it. Let's start with the fact that one of the evils is going to win, now justify how having the greater evil win is better.

Morally, just because something is going to happen doesn't justify helping it happen. As to greater and lesser evils, both parties need large numbers of the unaffiliated to win. To the extent that voters vote for third parties (with the obvious exception of far left or far right third parties), those are votes lost to them. Votes lost to them are votes they want, doubly so in the case of losers who with a high enough proportion of third party votes could have been winners. Desire for these votes, and the fear that the other side may get them if you don't, encourages both sides to moderate those policies that drive away moderates and adopt or enforce policies those policies that attract moderates.

You can't see this because you see a greater evil and a lesser good. To those of us who see a greater evil and a lesser evil, it's more readily apparent than to those who see one evil party and one good party that is unfortunately weak in fighting the evil.

 

[werepossum]

I almost feel like this thread is more powerful if you don't post a rebuttal to people's posts. I for one read the responses and simply think "we're fucked"

Democracy is the worst political system in the world except for all the others. It's the only system that ensures you get the leaders you deserve, if not always the leaders you want and need.

 

[Moonbeam]

werepossum: Morally, just because something is going to happen doesn't justify helping it happen.

M: Of course it does. If what is going to happen by you and one other person voting for a third party candidate is that a greater evil wins by one vote you and that other person have committed a moral evil by not voting for the lesser evil person that lost by that one vote.

w: As to greater and lesser evils, both parties need large numbers of the unaffiliated to win. To the extent that voters vote for third parties (with the obvious exception of far left or far right third parties), those are votes lost to them. Votes lost to them are votes they want, doubly so in the case of losers who with a high enough proportion of third party votes could have been winners. Desire for these votes, and the fear that the other side may get them if you don't, encourages both sides to moderate those policies that drive away moderates and adopt or enforce policies those policies that attract moderates.

M: This is what creates a lesser of two evils, the one who most moderates to be the lesser of two evils.

w: You can't see this because you see a greater evil and a lesser good. To those of us who see a greater evil and a lesser evil, it's more readily apparent than to those who see one evil party and one good party that is unfortunately weak in fighting the evil.

M: This is only semantics. It is always a matter of opinion as to who is the lesser evil or good. The issue is that if you are not voting for whom you think is the lesser evil that can win and not the best good that won't, you are morally corrupt. You will not do what logic dictates because you are driven by emotion. You are an perfectionist and an idealist, an ivory tower won't get your hands dirty coward. Nothing personal of course. We are having a discussion. People who vote third party are frustrated and just don't care about the moral issues. They are peevish children throwing a tantrum, full of too much pride and vanity to vote for one of the two disgusting parties. Such folk fancy themselves above all that so the greater evil wins. Brilliant way to stab yourself in the back, almost as if one hated oneself. Hehe.

 

[bfdd]

moonbeam, voting for evil is still voting for evil. not voting for any evil and allowing others to vote evil in abolishes me of any responsibility for said evil. you are OK voting for evil because there's other evil you think is worse, that's fucking retarded. I'm giving you a choice, I can put a bullet in your head or I can put 50 bullets in your head.

 

[senseamp]

moonbeam, voting for evil is still voting for evil. not voting for any evil and allowing others to vote evil in abolishes me of any responsibility for said evil.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

 

[child of wonder]

I belong to the NPPP (No Political Party Party) because I think dogmatically categorizing one's self under a specific label is insane.

No single party aligns with my beliefs but even if one did, I still wouldn't join.

 

[Moonbeam]

bfdd: moonbeam, voting for evil is still voting for evil.

M: Naturally, but if your morality is right it's the lesser evil which makes it morally superior to voting for a worse evil if you do not vote or vote for some third thing that can't possibly win in the real world.

b: not voting for any evil and allowing others to vote evil in abolishes me of any responsibility for said evil.

M: No it doesn't because you didn't do what might have prevented that evil from being elected.

b: you are OK voting for evil because there's other evil you think is worse, that's fucking retarded. I'm giving you a choice, I can put a bullet in your head or I can put 50 bullets in your head.

M: Again you show an incapacity to think logically. One or fifty bullets to the head is the same thing. Neither is a lesser evil.

 

[Moonbeam]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Except that good men don't do nothing.

 

[Craig234]

I belong to the NPPP (No Political Party Party) because I think dogmatically categorizing one's self under a specific label is insane.

No single party aligns with my beliefs but even if one did, I still wouldn't join.

Organizing brings power, to those who don't otherwise have it (such as dictators or billionares or corporations, and even they do better with organization, see ALEC).

Mafia turns street thugs into an organization that was able to terrorize millions, until fought be another organization. Unions turn 'workers who can be pressured to have sustinence wages' into a middle class. Gays who organized to fight for gay marriage turned the issue from an outrageous, freakish abomination into an important issue of justice, for people who aren't bigots. Organization turned women who wanted the right to vote, blacks who wanted the right to end legal discrimination, into laws.

It's simply naive not to want to organize to counter those who are. You can not organize, and watch as some 'radical faction' does and you suffer for it.

That's the case whether you're opposing the 'tea party' or 'oil companies'.

For the past 30 years, the ultra rich have shifted the US economy so that they have skyrocketed their wealth and share of income. Guess which side has a party?

Ever think that some people pushing 'no political party' might have the motive of trying to destroy the average person's power to help THEIR organized agenda?

Why would different groups who have opposing agendas - gay marriage and banning it, higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the rich, union rights and anti-union rights, corporate personhood rights and anti-corporate personhood rights, pro-environment protection and 'destroy the EPA', and so on, suddenly find that just saying 'hey, no parties' would result is good policies? What would those good policies be?

What is effective, unfortunately, is 'divide and conquer', for wealthy interests to find 'wedge issues' so the American people aren't using their democratic power to demand a strong middle class, and instead are split into two main groups canceling each other over 'red and blue' divides, allowing powerful interests to influence who is elected by sponsoring the candidates from both sides, largely, who battle for the 'undecided' vote in the 'middle'.

The American middle class was practically created by one party's super-majority policies when the people weren't so split. It's being destroyed by this mess.

So when women come knocking asking you to 'join a side' for voting rights, blacks and gays for civil rights, labor for economic rights, anti-corporate excess groups for restrictions on corporations, whatever, you say 'not interested, let the other side get away with their policy. Parties are icky.'

You call it 'dogmatic' to join a party - that's wrong. It CAN be so - Republicans prove that - but you don't need to be. Join as long as you agree with them.

I'd leave the Democratic Party in a second if it had policies I think are worse than any other party that can get elected. I do oppose a lt of Democrats who are 'corporatists'. But I recognize that the well-funded Republicans are not a better alternative much. Fact is, party matters to the policies that get implemented. It's not just about 'better candidate'. Candidates don't come to office as members of parties without party agendas, despite their having some room for different policies.

If you really have no opinion to pick a party based on the list above and a lot more issues, then what are you for? Good looks? People you want to have a beer with?

Save234

 

[nick1985]

^

save234

 

[senseamp]

The main problem is that there is only one political party capable of governing. The other party is only capable of criticizing. So as much as the criticizing party is often right in its criticism, electing it to govern is like hiring Roger Ebert to direct a movie.

 

[nick1985]

The main problem is that there is only one political party capable of governing.

No, there are zero parties capable of governing.

 

[randomrogue]

No, there are zero parties capable of governing.

QFT

 

[brencat]

I vote mostly Republican in the fleeting hope that I will one day elect one that actually acts like a true conservative. But the fact is, neither side fits my belief system. For example, I am mostly socially liberal, life member of the NRA, want more states rights and smaller Fed govt, and want higher cap gains taxes and higher marginal tax rates on very high levels of income. Also, I am for lower Corp taxes and less deductions, and for maintaining the inheritance tax to prevent dynastic wealth.

So who do I vote for again?

 

[Arkaign]

I vote mostly Republican in the fleeting hope that I will one day elect one that actually acts like a true conservative. But the fact is, neither side fits my belief system. For example, I am mostly socially liberal, life member of the NRA, want more states rights and smaller Fed govt, and want higher cap gains taxes and higher marginal tax rates on very high levels of income. Also, I am for lower Corp taxes and less deductions, and for maintaining the inheritance tax to prevent dynastic wealth.

So who do I vote for again?

This sounds incredibly close to my views as well. Unfortunately we don't have a party that follows any kind of common sense, no matter what their soundbites and hype would have you believe.

I posted this in another thread, but it seems cogent to just post here as my basic stance on political parties :

This is the hype that the Republican party wants you to believe, but they're FOS at the party level. I don't doubt that millions of well-meaning Republican voters believe they're supporting 'smaller' gov't, but it's a flat-out lie.

Republican party and the Democratic party both want a corporatist state, which at it's more aggressive levels I would indeed call fascist. Mussollini style.

Just look at the actions of the last two administrations though. Republicans can't just turn around and dismiss GWB, they overwhelmingly supported him. During his era was when I permanently cut ties with the GOP, despite being a lifelong conservative. Why? Because Republicans are about as conservative as the Democrats, they're the samn god-damned thing because they're bought by the same interests.

Do you wonder why we keep seeing the exact same cadre of wall street types as financial advisors and men of high appointment from Reagan to Bush Sr. to Clinton to GWB to Obama?

The last Republican administration, with 6 of the 8 years having control of congress as well, grew the goverment and bureaucracy more than any previous administration, even FDR. Wanton foreign spending, often for no clear goal other than constantly moving goalposts, wanton creation of new federal agencies, just a terrible mess.

Obama is the exact clone of the GWB admin, and that should send an eerie message to everyone, but people are slow to wake up.

I think a lot of people also realize that the ~6T spent so far in the two pointless wars has contributed massively to the national debt. The subsidiary costs are even higher when you start calculating the damage to our economy in indirect means.

It may well prove to be a hole that's insurmountable, because both parties are absolutely and completely corrupt to the core. They will only pursue their self-interest, and the more people they can fool into games of team (R) vs. team (D) the longer they can get away with their bullshit.

It really is the deckchairs on the titanic though.

RIP USA ...... 1776-2018

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm Democrat because it seems that the three groups I really, really hate, the Religious Right, the ultra-financially conservative, and the stupid, seem to flock to the Republicans in droves.

 

[nick1985]

I'm Democrat because it seems that the three groups I really, really hate, the Religious Right, the ultra-financially conservative, and the stupid, seem to flock to the Republicans in droves.

OK, but who flocks to the Democrats in droves?

 

[child of wonder]

Organizing brings power, to those who don't otherwise have it (such as dictators or billionares or corporations, and even they do better with organization, see ALEC).

<snip>

This is the language that turns me off from political parties.

Each side is so convinced that the other is destroying the country and some members are so indoctrinated into the group think mentality that they'll defend any action their party takes and ignore any fallacy it commits.

I'm not interested in that. The beauty of our country is that I don't need to be a member of a party to make my opinion count. I walk into a polling booth and cast my vote depending on the candidate I find most closely aligns with my beliefs.

In my opinion BOTH parties are destroying the country because we've silo-ed off particular political beliefs and agendas into these two major parties and neither is willing to compromise their beliefs or do what's ultimately right for the country in the interest of making the other party look bad. It's damaging, destructive, and only serves to divide the country into an "us vs. them" mindset.

If we had a wide array of serious contenders every voting year (such as a Condorcet or Kemeny-Young style of voting) then I'd consider joining a party. However, outside of the two major parties, none have any serious chance of winning anything.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

OK, but who flocks to the Democrats in droves?

The incompetent, the liars, and the left.

Having less stupid and nutty religious people tips it for me.

 

[Arkaign]

OK, but who flocks to the Democrats in droves?

The stupid, apparently. Go ahead and vote for Democrats, they'll just act like all the other corrupt little sychophants in the system. Republicans and Democrats at the national level are absolutely identical in their complete uselessness. I'm always shocked when I hear that congress has a 14% approval rating or whatever. It should be closer to 0%. Same with approval ratings for Bush and Obama.

 

[nick1985]

The incompetent, the liars, and the left.

Having less stupid and nutty religious people tips it for me.

I was going to go with the have-nots, union thugs, and hippies. But your list works too.

 

[child of wonder]

It really is the deckchairs on the titanic though.

RIP USA ...... 1776-2018

I have serious concerns about this as well. If things keep going the way they have for the last 30 years, I don't think this country will be a super power anymore.

 

[spittledip]

I am registered independent, but did not vote on the last 2 presidential elections b/c both parties presented candidates that espoused evils I would not associate my vote with. I don't think "politics" will save this country anyway, but I do think if we get a man of good moral fiber and full of integrity in the White House we will stand a chance- I think our country's problems stem from lack of moral sense more than anything else. Give me that candidate that is full of integrity and he will get my vote even if I disagree with some of his positions. (Ron Paul was closest to this but his views were a bit too crazy for me to support).