So what party do you represent?

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

You do realize there are racists and homophobes rampant in all political parties, right?

Hi there, Sabine,

I'm going to offer you the benefit of the doubt since I'm hoping that you didn't mean to imply that I was a dim bulb with your emoticon.

I'm open to hearing your intent on that. Thank you.

And, just so we are clear, I know there are all types in all parties, but the party I choose to follow doesn't make blatantly racist and homophobic remarks in their ad hominem attacks. Nor do they threaten an elected official with murder.

Of course, I'm sure you know that about the Tea Party, right?

By the way, I'm fond of the Longfellow quote "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all." as well.

Now then, about that dim bulb remark? I'm all ears.

[Mrs. Strutt]

I am a registered Democrat, although I never vote a straight party ticket. The backgrounds and platforms of the individual candidates themselves are what interest me, not their party affiliation.

Anyone wants to start the "Keep Your Fucking Politics Out Of My Uterus and My Bedroom" party, I'm in.

[Apocalipstic]

I am a registered Democrat, but I lean wayyy farther to the Left than main line Democrats.

No War. Period.

[key]

And my opinion is that if someone does not see the differences between today's Democratic Party and today's Republican party then you have blinders on. The Democrats have the same ideals as I do (read the party platforms people!) but they must operate within a corrupted political system. The Republicans (and now Tea baggers) created and vigorously maintain that very corrupted political system.

Fun fact: Every US Senator must raise the equivalent of $2000 a day in campaign donations for the 6 years they are in office, in order to afford to run for their next election. That, my friends is the problem. Where do you think they get those donations? From my little $25 every couple of months? Uh, no. They get it from the thousands of lobbyists crawling throughout DC like roaches.

Another fun fact: When Ronald Reagan took office there were about 350 total lobbyists in Washington. Now there are over 30,000. How many of those lobbyists do you think represent your interests? (Hint: A lobbyist's starting salary is over 300K)

Without campaign finance reform, paper ballets and instant run off voting this will never change. These are the three legs that can stand our democracy back up and put We, the People, back in charge.

For $6/year from every voter we can fund every federal election in the US. Is it worth $6/year to you to "really" take our country back. Check out www.youstreet.org

Do you believe that "We the People" should own the actual votes we cast, not a private, for profit corporation that the courts have ruled actually "own" your vote once it has been cast on their machines? Check out www.blackboxvoting.org


And if you think we should have representation from more than two parties? Check out www.instantrunoff.com

Good Day and Good Luck!

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Arwen

.. the party I choose to follow doesn't make blatantly racist and homophobic remarks in their ad hominem attacks. Nor do they threaten an elected official with murder.

I don't have a dog in this race, but this statement is patently false, and easily disproved by googling 'george bush death threats' and 'racist comments by democrats' or similar.

Also, I fail to see how just because a party doesn't make 'blatantly racist/homophobic remarks' (although that isn't true, but if it were) would make it somehow superior.

I've often thought that the sole difference between the south and other parts of the country in terms of blatant remarks is that in the south, you know who doesn't like you up front. Elsewhere, you find out when you wake up with a knife in your back.

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself." -Sun Tzu

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Bob

I don't have a dog in this race, but this statement is patently false, and easily disproved by googling 'george bush death threats' and 'racist comments by democrats' or similar.

Also, I fail to see how just because a party doesn't make 'blatantly racist/homophobic remarks' (although that isn't true, but if it were) would make it somehow superior.

I've often thought that the sole difference between the south and other parts of the country in terms of blatant remarks is that in the south, you know who doesn't like you up front. Elsewhere, you find out when you wake up with a knife in your back.

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself." -Sun Tzu

Thank you for your response, Bob. I appreciate the time you took to post your opinion.

Can you point out to me where I said my party was superior? I have reread what I wrote and I do not see that I said that at all. I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it.

Plus, are you assuming my party choice? I did not state that either so I am unsure of your meaning there as well.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "patently false" which seems to imply that I'm lying intentionally.

Thanks.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Thank you for your response, Bob. I appreciate the time you took to post your opinion.

Can you point out to me where I said my party was superior? I have reread what I wrote and I do not see that I said that at all. I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it.

Plus, are you assuming my party choice? I did not state that either so I am unsure of your meaning there as well.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "patently false" which seems to imply that I'm lying intentionally.

Thanks.

Arwen, if you're going to make patronzing replies in an attempt to have an actual conversation, try it with someone else.

I simply pointed out that your statement, which I quoted verbatim, was demonstrably false. Nowhere did I claim you were a liar. Perhaps you INFERRED that? It would appear so. That being the case, perhaps you'd like to reconsider chastising others who make reasonable inferences such as 'my party is superior because it doesn't make homophobic or racist remarks'.

Nowhere did I make any statement, real or implied, about your party affiliation. Again, an incorrect inference on your part.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it." In addition, it might further behoove you to actually address what was written, rather than attempting a weak rhetorical diversion from the substance of the comments made.

Thanks.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I have always been a democrat. I am just like Apocalipstic in that I lean to far far far left. No war.

Andrew

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Of course, I'm sure you know that about the Tea Party, right?

MAYBE it's a fan of TeaPartyTart?

[dreadgeek]

I am a pragmatic liberal which means that, on the whole, I end up voting for Democrats or, sometimes, Greens. However, there is not a party in the United States that represents my *actual* political views nor do I think any such party is viable in this country over the course of my lifetime.

I am too pragmatic to take the typical liberal stance of "no war, ever" because there are circumstances--someone is about to invade your country--where I think that war is just unavoidable. So I want our military well-equipped, well-trained and ready to be deployed but I want us to have a foreign policy stance that is "seek peace first and then, when all else fails, send in the military".

The party I would *like* to see is pro-national interest without jingoistic nationalism (I think it's possible to be patriotic without being nationalistic or believing that America is some kind of god-ordained exceptional country). It would recognize that while religion is important to people as individuals, it is NOT a matter for the state to endorse any religion or favor the truth claims of one religion over another.

The party I want is pro-education, pro-science, makes policy decisions based upon evidence and is capable of discarding or reforming non-working programs.

The party I want is on the side of labor instead of management, favors the consumer over the corporation, favors the small business over the monopoly. The party I want favors public transportation and a strong safety net.

There's quite a bit more, of course, but as you can see the political party I want is simply not viable in this country.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

You do realize there are racists and homophobes rampant in all political parties, right?

Yes, there are racists in all political parties. There are homophobes in all political parties. However, increasingly, even at the grassroots I believe that talking about parties doesn't *necessarily* reveal much--talking about political orientation (liberal or conservative) does reveal much.

The racism and nativism may come from both Democrats and Republicans but, for a particular strain of racism, it is a safe bet that the person is going to be *conservative* and not liberal. For example, a statement about how 'whites are being outbred and we need to do something about it' is far more likely to come from a conservative than a liberal. Statements regarding how America, in its glory days, was run by whites with a sizeable but still overwhelmed minority population of blacks with a smattering of other racial groups thrown in for good measure are more likely to come from a conservative than a liberal. (And yes, both of these statements are paraphrases of comments of a very prominent conservative.)

It is simply true that, to take another for instance, conservatives from William F. Buckley to Ayn Rand to George Wallace opposed civil rights laws. Buckley opposed them because, to quote him, "for the time being whites are the superior race and provided that they are not brutal to blacks, it is reasonable for whites to prevent blacks from voting". Rand opposed the civil rights laws because, while she did not think that blacks were inherently inferior, she thought that we should just be patient and eventually the magic of the market would resolve any racial problems. Wallace, of course, was simply an honest segregationist. Conservatives opposed the ERA, liberals supported it. Conservatives, on the whole, oppose gay rights in any form while liberals, largely support it*.

I understand the myth that the Tea Party wants to tell about itself that in all of the inchoate rage and talk of "lying Africans" and such that there's nothing racist going on and that if, for instance, our president were named Shamus McPherson they would *still* be calling him a lying African. But it's a *myth*. Is the Tea Party fully aware of just how racially charged their rhetoric is? No, I don't think they do. However, you can hear it in the "we want our country back". Over the years, I have asked numerous conservatives what they meant by "want our country back" and, as far as I can tell, the ideal period would be some point in the early 1950's. Now, what's really interesting about this is that when pressed one gets the feeling NOT that they want the country to go back to Jim Crow and segregation but that, from their perspective, that might be regrettable but worth the price of admission to go back to an America where blacks had a place and stayed in it. So it's not that they *want* Jim Crow, it's just that they wouldn't be exercised about it either way--if we could go back to the 50's without it, fine, but if we have to have it in order to go back to that more 'innocent' age then so be it, small price to pay and all that.

As far as homphobia--are there homophobes in all parties? Yes. However, if you tell me you are a conservative and, unless I know you're gay, I'm going to presume that you are opposed to gay marriage in the name of 'family values' and in almost all instances I am going to be correct. Democratic politicians are, I suspect, largely in favor of same-sex marriage however they are too cowardly to actually stand up and say that so they hem and haw until the subject changes. Republican politicians, I suspect, don't care as much about it as they say they do--but it *wins* for them. If they thought they could win on being against interracial marriage they would do that, using almost exactly the same language and would issue almost precisely the same denials that this isn't motivated by racism but by a sincere desire to "protect the children".

[Chancie]

I am a fairly-left-leaning, pretty-close-to-Socialist, not-very-close-to-Democratic registered Independent.

[FR]

--u know if there were actual dogs running i might be pursuaded to vote for them. at least if they pissed on me i might know it sooner...

[ButterflyKisses]

I'm registered as a Dem but don't always vote a straight pary line.
A lot of my friends, whatever their political affiliation, cannot give a clear answer as to why they are with this party or that party. They vote the way they do because that's the way their friends or families vote. It's comfortable and safe.

To me that is far more disturbing than a person who is a complete opposite from what I believe. No one should be a blind sheep.

[dreadgeek]

Here are some of the more interesting planks of the Texas GOP's 2010 platform, specifically those parts of it relating to queer people:

Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

Family Values – We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include well- funded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.

Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Child Support and Visitation – We support equity between responsible parents in child support, custody, and visitation rights and costs, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

Adoption – We support reducing the time, bureaucratic interference and cost of adoption. The law should assure mothers of a choice in selecting a traditional home for their children at the time of terminating their rights for adoption. We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption by homosexuals.

So, I am supposed to treat the Republican party (and modern American conservatism in its current Tea Party incarnation) as being friendly or at least non-hostile to my interests why? Say what you want about the Democratic party, but at least their platform doesn't include things like the above. Any illusion that the two parties are identical should be well and truly debunked by the text above. And if you're thinking, "hey Aj, they don't really *mean* it" I say "it is the height of folly to presume that those opposed to your existence don't actually mean it when they say they want to make society hostile to your presence".

Cheers
Aj

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Here are some of the more interesting planks of the Texas GOP's 2010 platform, specifically those parts of it relating to queer people:

Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

Family Values – We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include well- funded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.

Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Child Support and Visitation – We support equity between responsible parents in child support, custody, and visitation rights and costs, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

Adoption – We support reducing the time, bureaucratic interference and cost of adoption. The law should assure mothers of a choice in selecting a traditional home for their children at the time of terminating their rights for adoption. We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption by homosexuals.

So, I am supposed to treat the Republican party (and modern American conservatism in its current Tea Party incarnation) as being friendly or at least non-hostile to my interests why? Say what you want about the Democratic party, but at least their platform doesn't include things like the above. Any illusion that the two parties are identical should be well and truly debunked by the text above. And if you're thinking, "hey Aj, they don't really *mean* it" I say "it is the height of folly to presume that those opposed to your existence don't actually mean it when they say they want to make society hostile to your presence".
Cheers
Aj

Well said!

My moral compass always takes precedence over fiscal responsibility. And who are we kidding? The last 8 years proved that fiscal responsibility, just like WMD, was just another illusion.

Like I said in another thread where this was posted, each party has a platform and an ideology. It is our responsibility as voters to read it and then decide what is really important to us, and how can we reconcile how we live and who we are with said platform.

To me, the party whose platform most aligns with my moral compass is the Democratic party. No party is perfect, but I refuse to align with a party that blatantly states and believes the above.

[Melissa]

I've always voted Democrat but purely because they are the lesser evil. Although I question this, too. I'm getting to the point where I think I am just going to vote in local elections as it is these elections that have the most material effects on my life.

Melissa

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Melissa

I've always voted Democrat but purely because they are the lesser evil. Although I question this, too. I'm getting to the point where I think I am just going to vote in local elections as it is these elections that have the most material effects on my life.

Melissa

Can I urge you, plead with you, to continue to vote in national elections? I understand your point and there's validity to it--right up until the point where they pass a Constitutional amendment or pass some Federal law that passes Constitutional muster. However, the numbers are really, really desperate and I hope that after walking you through them, you'll see why I am so passionate to have people vote in national elections.

At present only about 30% of the American populace that is eligible to vote actually does so. There's roughly 300 million people in the country. With our current demographic distribution, about 75% of them are of voting age (225,000,000). Of those shave about a million currently incarcerated and let's say another million or so ineligible to vote because they are ex-felons. That's 223 million eligible voters. Say there's another 5 million people in the U.S. who are ineligible because of citizenship status (they are non-citizens of one stripe or another). That leaves us with about 218 million eligible voters in the country. Of those, only approximately 65 million of us actually vote.

If THAT doesn't keep you up at night worry for the health of our republic, consider this: during primaries, it is almost always the activists, the *most* dedicated members of either political party that bother to vote. That's about 10% of each party. If you split the 60 million right about down the middle that means that about 3 million people *nationally* are choosing the standard bearers for the respective two major political parties. So roughly 2% of the population is making the choice of who the other 22% of the population is going to choose come election day.

I understand the disgust with national politics. There is much to be disgusted with. However, too many of us have already withdrawn from the political process to, as far as I can tell, no good effect. We--myself included--like to blame the politicians and they carry a great deal of the stain but this isn't THEIR democracy! It isn't Wall Street's democracy. It isn't BP's democracy. it is OUR democracy and if we have national politics that are disgusting perhaps we have the national political leaders we deserve.

If you are a patriotic bent I'm going to try one last desperate attempt with that lever to get you to reconsider--in America we actually ask surprisingly little of our citizens. Outside of the requisite obedience to the law (not murdering, etc.) the only thing I can think of that we actually *require* are that you pay your taxes and serve on juries--and the latter of those is avoidable if you know how to get yourself excluded from the jury pool quickly. (Hint: mention ANY activism you've done in the past) We have no compulsory military service or any other form of national service. We ask that you vote but no one is compelled to do so. Isn't voting the very least we can do to try to have a nation worthy of the name America?

So I'm going to close where I began--you will, of course, do as you wish as is your right but I plead with you to reconsider and continue voting in national elections, as frustrating and seemingly pointless as it might seem.

Cheers
Aj

[Mitmo01]

Im of the mindset that all politicians are reptilian and thats why we never see them sweat........


but technically im a registered Democrat but i have several views that are hardcore Libertarian that will always trump my Democratic leanings

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Well said!

My moral compass always takes precedence over fiscal responsibility. And who are we kidding? The last 8 years proved that fiscal responsibility, just like WMD, was just another illusion.

Like I said in another thread where this was posted, each party has a platform and an ideology. It is our responsibility as voters to read it and then decide what is really important to us, and how can we reconcile how we live and who we are with said platform.

To me, the party whose platform most aligns with my moral compass is the Democratic party. No party is perfect, but I refuse to align with a party that blatantly states and believes the above.

Increasingly, I find myself trying to avoid ideology (while not being able to do so completely) and just go with my moral compass and what is empirically justifiable. I wonder if the national GOP realizes what they have done in embracing the most right-wing of their elements. This agenda is GOING to wind up on the 2012 platform, mark my words, and if the Democrats don't make every single Republican running for anything beyond student-body-President famous for what is an obviously bigoted stance then those Dems don't *deserve* to be elected and should be sued for gross political malpractice.

Now, there are parts of the country that this platform is a winning strategy, that is regrettably true but as a *national* platform it can't win. What's more, the national GOP can't repudiate those planks when they are adopted in the national platform in 2012. They can't risk alienating their Tea Party base and the bits I quoted, as well as several other bits that are just as disturbing but which I won't belabor the point with here, are perfectly inline with the goals of and desires of the Tea Party folks I have seen interviewed.

Cheers
Aj