Are you a democrat or a republican?

[TheGr33k]

Well?

[1715173128]

1715173128

[1715173128]

1715173128

[Razick]

I'm a Republican, but I am far more free-market, states-rights, pro-fiscal-restraint and pro-civil rights than the Republican party (for example I would repeal Social Security, at least in any thing close to its current form). I also don't agree with many Republicans on immigration and spying.

I'm basically a Libertarian except that I support a ban on abortion (although in my opinion that's compatible with Libertarian ideology since the baby, in my view, is a living person with a right to live),environmental regulation (ideally market-based), the FDIC, and a basic social safety net (to name a few less-Libertarian positions).

Today's political labels are far too simplistic. Almost no one I've ever met tows the party line on every issue.

-----

That said, I do tow the party line in one key way: On *almost* every issue, I prefer the GOP position to the Democratic position. Although on some I'm firmly in the middle and a few rare pet issues align me with Democrats. In any race except for local races I almost always vote for the GOP candidate or not at all.

[subSTRATA]

Today's political labels are far too simplistic. Almost no one I've ever met tows the party line on every issue.

this exactly. the two party system is flawed as is, and no one should feel compelled to associate themselves with one party because of a few political belifs / ideas that align with that particular party's ideas. i have my own opinions on varying issues, and those beliefs coincide with the beliefs / views of both parties. that aside, the candidates of both parties are shit to me.

[cameronpalte]

Financial views of a Republican
Social views of a Democrat

[bryant.coleman]

The Republicans are not an united block, unlike the case with the Democrats. They are mainly split in to three camps. The first group is the RINOs, who are basically Democrats in a republican coating (Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, Susan Collins.etc). The second group is the establishment Republicans (John Boner, Mitt Romney.etc). The third group consists of Libertarian Republicans (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.etc). I am not a resident of the United States. But if it was so, then I would have supported the Libertarian wing of the Republican party.

[thirdchance57]

You should have included an independent in this group.  I would not classify myself as neither.  They are all crooks to one point or another.

[xht]

I am a democrat because, democrats have feelings for the poor,
sick and unemployed. They are willing to help people in need.
Even many rich folks will come to the aid of those in trouble.

[Mike Christ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

OP: are you Korean or Hawaiian?  You can only choose one.

I am a democrat because, democrats have feelings for the poor,
sick and unemployed. They are willing to help people in need.
Even many rich folks will come to the aid of those in trouble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

naive

adjective
2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

Democrats have zero intention of helping the needy; their only purpose is to make more needy people, which increases their power.  Whether this is done by crippling the young from being able to function properly in the market, to importing needy people from 3rd world countries into the nation, to paying people off to do nothing with their lives and live off the well being of others (which makes it harder for others to survive), all that matters is that everyone is helpless so that democrats (well, more like progressives I guess) are necessary to care for them.  If you truly want to help the needy, you would reject them, and encourage an environment where the needy can help themselves, which would mean lifting all the expensive restrictions on the poor which stops them from forming their own businesses, thereby becoming self-reliant.

Please, don't support an institution which seeks to turn the nation into the pets of the ruling classes.

[BadBear]

The root of the problem is our election process. It inevitably leads to a 2 party system. The fact that neither party truly represents a majority, is a large part of the reason why so many people are disinterested in politics.

I don't support either party, they're both terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[justspare]

The root of the problem is our election process. It inevitably leads to a 2 party system. The fact that neither party truly represents a majority, is a large part of the reason why so many people are disinterested in politics.

I don't support either party, they're both terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

I agree. I would like to see more independent people who run for the elections.

[zivone]

It doesn't matter anyway. I get they have differences but they are actually just the same making the nation worse.

[joschua011]

I still think US politics is pretty ridiculous, or maybe i don't understand it enough.

Why does everything in the US has to be either or?
Often the right solution is somewhere in the middle but you cant get
there because....well..

http://extrafabulouscomics.com/comic/200/

because thats you.

You guys are so polarizing on your most important issues.

Nothing in this world is either black or white, then why of all things
should this apply to politics?

I am not a US citizen so maybe i am not qualified to comment on this,
but let me say that i live in a country that has much more than 2 parties
in parlament, in a country that values diversity of opinios.
And i would like to see some of this in the US too.

[HarHarHar9965]

Financial views of a Republican
Social views of a Democrat

I am republican But Still I like Democratic rule. Its completely go with every common people and little similar to communism too. In democratic countries President and other cabinet are select by voting system.thats also a good part.

[Pastafarian]

Libertarian

[Snail2]

I am a democrat because, democrats have feelings for the poor,
sick and unemployed. They are willing to help people in need.
Even many rich folks will come to the aid of those in trouble.

Thanks for the good laugh mate . I've almost wet myself when I read that "They are willing to help people in need". You could make a great carrier as a gagman .

[TheGr33k]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

OP: are you Korean or Hawaiian?  You can only choose one.

I am a democrat because, democrats have feelings for the poor,
sick and unemployed. They are willing to help people in need.
Even many rich folks will come to the aid of those in trouble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

naive

adjective
2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

Democrats have zero intention of helping the needy; their only purpose is to make more needy people, which increases their power.  Whether this is done by crippling the young from being able to function properly in the market, to importing needy people from 3rd world countries into the nation, to paying people off to do nothing with their lives and live off the well being of others (which makes it harder for others to survive), all that matters is that everyone is helpless so that democrats (well, more like progressives I guess) are necessary to care for them.  If you truly want to help the needy, you would reject them, and encourage an environment where the needy can help themselves, which would mean lifting all the expensive restrictions on the poor which stops them from forming their own businesses, thereby becoming self-reliant.

Please, don't support an institution which seeks to turn the nation into the pets of the ruling classes.

You didn't have to shame him by calling him naive.

Be more polite when it comes to your opinions and beliefs, please

[bryant.coleman]

The root of the problem is our election process. It inevitably leads to a 2 party system. The fact that neither party truly represents a majority, is a large part of the reason why so many people are disinterested in politics.

A two party system prevents the need for unstable alliances, thereby giving the government the luxury of ruling for the fixed term without bothering about the need for finding additional support every now and then. I agree that one of the disadvantages is the exclusion of the smaller parties, but then every system has its own merits and demerits.

[Razick]

I still think US politics is pretty ridiculous, or maybe i don't understand it enough.

Why does everything in the US has to be either or?
Often the right solution is somewhere in the middle but you cant get
there because....well..

http://extrafabulouscomics.com/comic/200/

because thats you.

You guys are so polarizing on your most important issues.

Nothing in this world is either black or white, then why of all things
should this apply to politics?

I am not a US citizen so maybe i am not qualified to comment on this,
but let me say that i live in a country that has much more than 2 parties
in parlament, in a country that values diversity of opinios.
And i would like to see some of this in the US too.

Well, let me ask you this:

I believe that the U.S. government spends *far* too much money (and that's basically a fact because our debt is out of control and our social programs heading towards bankruptcy despite record tax revenue). The Democrats want to waste even more money, and there is no chance of a third party candidate winning office.

How can I compromise?

----

The problem is that the two parties, although they do compromise, represent people with VERY different ways of living. One side wants freedom to live our own lives with minimal government interference, while the other side wants a MASSIVE, economy crushing, life-altering, irresponsibly out-of-control, government. The choice is between America being the land of the free as it was and being like Greece in 10-20 years. We likely will compromise and end up with something like France, but the reality is that to someone like me that sounds like a horrible outcome since everyone will be poorer and less free. Should I stand aside and compromise or fight for what is right? You say the middle is the best but is it really? On some issues, sure, but on others not only is the middle not the best place to be, but we're also far beyond it.

----

It's really a battle between the ideas that made the United States one of the best places on earth to live and the ideas that made Mexico, Cuba, North Korea and Syria countries that people want to leave for the US. We shouldn't even be debating this because the evidence (economic, statistical and historical) all points to freedom being the answer, and yet we are.

[Beliathon]

I'm a Nukeocrat

[bryant.coleman]

Well, let me ask you this:

I believe that the U.S. government spends *far* too much money (and that's basically a fact because our debt is out of control and our social programs heading towards bankruptcy despite record tax revenue). The Democrats want to waste even more money, and there is no chance of a third party candidate winning office.

Well.. that is the advantage you have, when your national currency is widely regarded as the reserve currency of the world. It is very easy to sell the 30-year or 20-year treasury bonds, at little or no interest. The Americans can accumulate as much debt as they want. There will always be people who are ready to purchase it. 

[subSTRATA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

OP: are you Korean or Hawaiian?  You can only choose one.

I am a democrat because, democrats have feelings for the poor,
sick and unemployed. They are willing to help people in need.
Even many rich folks will come to the aid of those in trouble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

naive

adjective
2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

Democrats have zero intention of helping the needy; their only purpose is to make more needy people, which increases their power.  Whether this is done by crippling the young from being able to function properly in the market, to importing needy people from 3rd world countries into the nation, to paying people off to do nothing with their lives and live off the well being of others (which makes it harder for others to survive), all that matters is that everyone is helpless so that democrats (well, more like progressives I guess) are necessary to care for them.  If you truly want to help the needy, you would reject them, and encourage an environment where the needy can help themselves, which would mean lifting all the expensive restrictions on the poor which stops them from forming their own businesses, thereby becoming self-reliant.

Please, don't support an institution which seeks to turn the nation into the pets of the ruling classes.

You didn't have to shame him by calling him naive.

Be more polite when it comes to your opinions and beliefs, please

the world isnt a safe space for any snowflake out there, especially when it comes to politics. that being said, i agree with what mike christ said. naive is what the politicians want you to be; they like it when the population is full of sheep thatll readily eat up whatever propaganda or bs theyre spoon fed.

Well, let me ask you this:

I believe that the U.S. government spends *far* too much money (and that's basically a fact because our debt is out of control and our social programs heading towards bankruptcy despite record tax revenue). The Democrats want to waste even more money, and there is no chance of a third party candidate winning office.

Well.. that is the advantage you have, when your national currency is widely regarded as the reserve currency of the world. It is very easy to sell the 30-year or 20-year treasury bonds, at little or no interest. The Americans can accumulate as much debt as they want. There will always be people who are ready to purchase it. 

some debt is okay, it lets nations maintain friendly international relations. however, the scale of the debt the US has accumulated is insane; the debt is not decreasing by any substantial amount anymore, and no matter what, that debt is going to catch up sooner or later.

[bryant.coleman]

some debt is okay, it lets nations maintain friendly international relations. however, the scale of the debt the US has accumulated is insane; the debt is not decreasing by any substantial amount anymore, and no matter what, that debt is going to catch up sooner or later.

As long as the debt repayments (principal amount + interest) stays within tolerable limits (lets say 20% or 30% of the government revenues), then it should be OK. Japan is still going strong, despite more than 60% of the annual government revenue being spent on debt repayment. And in the case of the United States, the exact amount of repayment is relatively small (when compared to the massive debt) since the bonds are issued for long term, and due to the low interest rates.

[Razick]

Well, let me ask you this:

I believe that the U.S. government spends *far* too much money (and that's basically a fact because our debt is out of control and our social programs heading towards bankruptcy despite record tax revenue). The Democrats want to waste even more money, and there is no chance of a third party candidate winning office.

Well.. that is the advantage you have, when your national currency is widely regarded as the reserve currency of the world. It is very easy to sell the 30-year or 20-year treasury bonds, at little or no interest. The Americans can accumulate as much debt as they want. There will always be people who are ready to purchase it. 

Not necessarily forever though. And our debt is no longer growing linearly, it's nearly quadrupled since 2000.

Even if it never causes a crisis, interest will consume a larger and larger portion of revenue. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes because at some point debt will become a problem at the very least (if it's not already). Also, since most U.S. debt is owned by the U.S. public, there is a negative economic effect called "crowding-out."

[bryant.coleman]

Not necessarily forever though. And our debt is no longer growing linearly, it's nearly quadrupled since 2000.

Even if it never causes a crisis, interest will consume a larger and larger portion of revenue. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes because at some point debt will become a problem at the very least (if it's not already). Also, since most U.S. debt is owned by the U.S. public, there is a negative economic effect called "crowding-out."

I hope that as the federal debt ballons out of control, then people would protest against wasteful government spending, such as the forced regime changes ($2 trillion in Iraq) and useless defense projects (such as the $1.3 trillion F-35 program). If Trump become the POTUS in 2016, then he might try to reduce the federal debt. But if Hillary become the president, then hell will break lose.

[Razick]

Not necessarily forever though. And our debt is no longer growing linearly, it's nearly quadrupled since 2000.

Even if it never causes a crisis, interest will consume a larger and larger portion of revenue. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes because at some point debt will become a problem at the very least (if it's not already). Also, since most U.S. debt is owned by the U.S. public, there is a negative economic effect called "crowding-out."

I hope that as the federal debt ballons out of control, then people would protest against wasteful government spending, such as the forced regime changes ($2 trillion in Iraq) and useless defense projects (such as the $1.3 trillion F-35 program). If Trump become the POTUS in 2016, then he might try to reduce the federal debt. But if Hillary become the president, then hell will break lose.

Well, it's been out of control for a long time. We had some momentum to reduce the deficit in 2010 but since then voters have shifted back towards voting themselves more free stuff. Just look at how well Sanders is doing. People are always happier with unlimited free stuff then with fiscal responsibility so we'll just keep kicking the can down the road and probably even making it much, much worse.

And that's why I'm Republican, but they probably won't fix it either. The GOP isn't the "party of no" wasteful government irresponsibility and waste, they are the party of "slightly less." Amazing what passes for "far right extremism" these days. You balance your own personal checkbook and the media practically lynches you for being a radical tea party extremist.

[designerusa]

as well as all americans who love their country, i am a republican.

[BADecker]

No. I'm an elector, not a voter.