Republicans for Kerry?

So you registered as a moderate republican? :)

There are two types of people who became republicans. Those who are anti-authoritarian in both economic and social issues (e.g. moderate libertarians), and those who *ARE* authoritarian in in social issues, give lip service to fiscal responsibility, whils simultaneously extolling religious values (which are predominantly, anti-capitalistic, ironically)

The reason why many moderate republicans didn't become Democrats in the past is because prior to Clinton, the left wing of the party had a strangle hold on ideology like the republican right wing has a stranglehold on the moderates today.

I'd be alot more inclined to favor democrats if they stopped demonizing rich people and stand up more to their own special interests like the teachers unions, likewise, I'd be more inclined to vote Republican if they were able to stop dishing out pork and subsidies to welfare corporations.

And I'd definately be in favor of democrats if they could field a centrist *atheist*. It's about time we had a president who wasn't an avowed christian.

Alas, I feel that a woman, african american, even a MUSLIM, stands a better chance of becoming president than an atheist in the US.
 
Naw I'm a registered independent. Kerry and democrats like him are what's wrong with the democratic party today imo.

Though there are few republicans that I'd vote for if they were running. John McCain being one of them. I was actually going to vote republican in 2000 when I thought McCain was going to win. I would have DEFINITELY voted for McCain instead of Gore. But when Bush won and turned out to be nothing like McCain, I went with the lesser of two evils at the time. Though in 2004, lord knows I'm having a hard time with this one, because I dislike both candidates, and the third is on an ego trip trying to recreate his spoiler status. :LOL:
 
John Reynolds said:
No kidding. That line you quoted describes me to a T.
Click to expand...

Maybe we really do need a 3rd party. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Hmm. There's got to be a lot of us out there. :)
 
It already exists. The libertarian party. The only problem is, they themselves are too extreme on the Y-axis of politics. They're socially and economically liberal, but to an extreme that most Americans can't tolerate because their policies favor revolutionary change instead of evolutionary gradual change.

I've tried to convince my big 'L' Libertarian friends before that you can't run on a platform that demands a dismantling of the government overnight, and you can't run a party that is idealistic instead of pragmatic. Idealogy is the enemy of compromise.

A "centrist" party would be more like it. Suck away the moderate democrats and republicans, and leave the two major parties with the extremes.
 
I am one of them :) And we DO need a third party, or a new election system that allows a multiple party system to grow, another advantage is that campaigns would not have to waste as much money b/c it would not be all or nothing :).
 
DemoCoder said:
A "centrist" party would be more like it. Suck away the moderate democrats and republicans, and leave the two major parties with the extremes.
Click to expand...

They really are pretty centrist in their policies it is just in their bluster that they are not. Spouting rhetoric during the campaign and then doing nothing of the sort is usual
 
DemoCoder said:
special interests like the teachers unions, likewise, I'd be more inclined to vote Republican if they were able to stop dishing out pork and subsidies to welfare corporations.
Click to expand...

Teachers' unions? What are some of the problems with those? Curious as we're all aware of the problems with other more infamous unions (ala Teamsters) but teachers? I don't think they're strangling the government with their pay.
 
Ty said:
Teachers' unions? What are some of the problems with those? Curious as we're all aware of the problems with other more infamous unions (ala Teamsters) but teachers? I don't think they're strangling the government with their pay.
Click to expand...
A couple of problems with teacher's unions:
-quite hard to get rid of incompentent teachers
-against standardized testing (of teachers and students)
-against school choice

Teachers themselves are great, their unions are not.

later,
epic
 
That's what I consider myself.

However, that to me implies a more streamlined efficient government. Which implies lower tax burdens in principle, along with cutting unneccessary pork in government, and an almost balanced budget.

This runs foul of Democrats, since they will argue that you are

a) cutting parts of their favorite social program
b) disadvantaging health care, welfare, education, arts, etc etc in favor of the rich.

It runs afoul of right wing Republicans usually in the social arenas. Things such as the drug war and abortion.
 
Sxotty said:
I am one of them :) And we DO need a third party, or a new election system that allows a multiple party system to grow, another advantage is that campaigns would not have to waste as much money b/c it would not be all or nothing :).
Click to expand...
I started a new thread just on this particular topic:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11119

Ive always wondered what the big hoopla was over multi party (3+)govermenents. Lets continue the conversation over there. ;)

later,e
pci
 
epicstruggle said:
A couple of problems with teacher's unions:
-quite hard to get rid of incompentent teachers
-against standardized testing (of teachers and students)
-against school choice
Click to expand...

In order of your statements:

1> True of many government/state jobs, yes?
#2 & #3, really? I didn't know that.
 
Fred said:
That's what I consider myself.

However, that to me implies a more streamlined efficient government. Which implies lower tax burdens in principle, along with cutting unneccessary pork in government, and an almost balanced budget.

This runs foul of Democrats, since they will argue that you are

a) cutting parts of their favorite social program
b) disadvantaging health care, welfare, education, arts, etc etc in favor of the rich.

It runs afoul of right wing Republicans usually in the social arenas. Things such as the drug war and abortion.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Though I have a slightly different take on it. I'm of the opinion that "big government" in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It all depends on what "the people" want. If the people want big government, then fine, you'll get big government.. But be prepared to pay a lot of taxes in order to fund that big government.

If we want a lower tax burden, then we've got to cut out pork and eventually start cutting programs. Of course, everyone wants "their" programs, which means it's a catch-22 as you pointed out.

Quite annoying frankly. Everyone wants the best of both worlds but no one wants to pay for it. The epitome of fiscal irresponsibility imo.
 
DemoCoder said:
It already exists. The libertarian party. The only problem is, they themselves are too extreme on the Y-axis of politics. They're socially and economically liberal, but to an extreme that most Americans can't tolerate because their policies favor revolutionary change instead of evolutionary gradual change.

I've tried to convince my big 'L' Libertarian friends before that you can't run on a platform that demands a dismantling of the government overnight, and you can't run a party that is idealistic instead of pragmatic. Idealogy is the enemy of compromise.

A "centrist" party would be more like it. Suck away the moderate democrats and republicans, and leave the two major parties with the extremes.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not too well read on libertarianism. Got any good links? :)
 
Natoma said:
Meh. :p
Click to expand...

If you get hold of the observer or the record from the last election you will see i'm the only person in my town to vote nader.

Damn bloody old people
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Sign the Academic Bill of Rights
Replies
18
Views
3K
OpenGL guy
O
Back
Top