Political Parties: Support or Defend Your Political Affiliations

[Matt308]

Umm Ok.

Would you have an objection if I quoted the relevant parts here then?

It seemed to be moving totally off topic for "Global Warming", but I for one would be interested to have the discussion continue, here if appropriate.

As long as you abide by the rules freebird you can cut and paste until your heart is content.

 

[Njaco]

I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.

I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.

 

[JugBR]

I think firstly, there must be an explanation of the way Americans and Europeans see socialism and capitalism. I believe there are two different definitions among the cultures from what I gather.

I am in total agreement with TO. I base my voting rights on my ideals - not a party. Just because the Republicans closely resemble what I believe doesn't mean I haven't voted for a democrat in the past. But the 2 parties here in the US are going to such extremes, its scary.

americans dont see socialism. the american democracy is just more ancient than that. i think is not cultural, but the age of each democracy and its parties.

democrats are union-friendly but it dont means they are socialist

as i read, democrats wants to upper the taxes to fix the public health system and create more jobs. the republicans think to create more jobes, lower the taxes is needed.

im not american, but a good thing that a great american president(fdr) did was the "new deal". should be the time now for a "new new deal" ?

 

[Matt308]

Actually some of those programs have been utter disasters if you look at the cost vs benefit amortized over time.

 

[renrich]

My compliments to the moderators for this thread. Thanks also to FB for the cutting and pasting. Wish I knew how to do it. I can never remember a time when political opinion was more polarised than it is now. Perhaps it just seems that way because of the 24/7 "news" outlets and because of the influence of the internet. Personally I don't really want the aggravation in my life that this information, misinformation and disinformation overload causes. Both sides in the debate play fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to "win" the argument. This behavior is not limited to one side or just to the internet. Some instances are that the dimocrats claim that opening up drilling offshore won't result in any new energy supply for ten years. Anyone who has any knowledge of the oil patch knows that is patently untrue and the timeline would be a year to perhaps six years. Ultra conservatives constantly talk about the "ten to twenty million" illegals in our country. Where do those numbers come from and why the huge spread? They also talk constantly about the illegals who get paid in cash and pay no taxes. Are they saying that those 10M or 20M illegals are out there mowing lawns and only accepting cash from a homeowner. If they are working, for instance as a stone mason as many are, how does the contractor expense his labor. Paying no taxes? If the illegal buys anything, cigarettes, beer, beans or tortillas, he pays sales tax. If he lives in any permanent structure he pays real estate taxes either directly or through his landlord. When talking about paying federal income tax, the facts are that an illegal with a family would probably not have income enough to even qualify for paying income tax. These deliberate falsehoods on the part of the advocates or opponents on both sides do not mean that good arguments may not exist on both sides of both questions but the credibility of the people making the statements is severely damaged as far as I am concerned. It is interesting to read some of the comments and opinions expressed.

 

[Danielmellbin]

Back from holiday - been a while.

I have already made many posts regarding politics on the forum - but might as well set the record straight:

I am a social democrat (anybody here calls me a socialist again I'll f'ing explode).

General political beliefs:
I believe in a free market with the neccesary restrictions. By neccesary restriction I mean: Breaking of monopolies, product quality control, environmental control, avertion of corporatism.... etc

I believe that certain areas of society should remain under statecontrol (transportation, schools, police, hospitals, correctional facilities etc...).

I believe in high taxes to cover education, health- and socialcare. I believe so not only out of humanitarian reasons but also for financial reasons. A broken uneducated person will strain society more than high taxes in the long run.

I believe in the right to abortion and in the complete banning of firearms.

I am split on the legalization of soft drugs

Views on age limits: Drinking: 15 years, Smoking: 18 years, driving: 18 years, voting: 18 years, 1st grade in school: 6 years

I believe in armed intervention only as a last resort. But when it is neccesary it better damn well happen. The US/UK (and others - including my own country) invasion of Iraq and the EU's lack of an initial response in Yugoslavia epotomize what I believe is completely "wrong" choices regarding armed intervention.

I believe in completely uninhibited free speach and expression - if someone wants to shreik "Heil!", to draw a cartoon of a religious profet, to burn a flag, or to make fun of the holocaust - thats fine - but don't expect me to sit idly by if something happens that I disagree with!

The society in which I live have almost all of the above qualities and views and as such I'm very content and happy. It's not a problemfree system ofcourse - but the record speaks for itself.


Voting record past, present and future:

I will probably never vote to the right of the centre - but deep inside i think that taking turns in 2*4 years to each side of the spectrum works the best. This keeps things in balance and removes the risk of stagnation.
If I lived in the US i would vote democratric - not for love of all the democratic views - simply for the lack of a better alternative.


Political Parties I have voted for in my 3 elections and why:

Social-democratic party: The largest of the centre/left parties here. Has a very moderate "try to please all" view on things. This has however mired them over the past years where their own views have dissapered under a smokescreen of trying to fit into what they think the voters want. If they ever regain their original views i might rejoin their "flock".

Radikale Venstre: A very academic (as in highly educated voters&leaders) party. It generally has a very centrist view slightly to the right of the above. But its views are never set and change as fast as reality does. Somehow they manage doing this without loosing any credibililty - why? Because everybody knows that they do this. They decide on every issue only after accessing all the points of view and facts. Considered an elitist party they only get some 10% of the votes. But this doesn't matter much as their biggest influence lies in the fact that they usually decide which wing wins an election as they hold the critcal 10% of the votes who swings the election one way or the other. I left them because they had a huge divide where half the party broke of into a smaller more rightwing oriented version. This removed the power of the party in the big decissions and has effectively marginalised them.

Socialistic Party: They got my latest vote. Do not let the name fool you. They are not socialistic in the words original sense. They are very similar to the first party i voted for but have an effective leadership and only change views when realities and NOT public opinion demand it.

What I hate most about politics:

1. Namecalling and idiotic historical comparrisons

IE.
Calling someone from the left a communist or someone from the right a nazi.
Claiming that the situation in Iraq was comparable to WW2
Claiming that the Bush administration has done like Hitler
Calling Islamic fundamentalists - "islamo-fascists" - a cheap way to cinvince people that they are "bad" and that war is neccesary.

Looking forward to hear any disagreements or mutual beliefs you fine people might have.

 

[renrich]

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?

 

[JugBR]

nice post daniel !

i also believe in high taxes, but the rich should pay more than poors and middle class.

i also agree with you, about statecontrol, the strategic areas should be property of the people and administrated by state. but isnt that dangerous politics administrating enterprises sometimes ?

i defend the righ of abortion also, but first, the anti-conceprional methods to prevent pregnacy and aids.the soceiety should be a very informed and conscient about that. light drugs ? since alcohol and cigars are legalized, why dont allow people smoke pot ? the only restricyion is about the age.

 

[JugBR]

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?

i think is a matter of education. you can eat a happy-meal sometimes, but you have to always eat food with vitamins, proteins and fibers. i dont like mcdonalds or burger king, but i like things even more toxic and fat than that. is tasty ? yes its tasty sure, but if you eat that all day youll be lookin like a fat pig.

so the education starts at home, with parental advisors and parental examples. now if mom and daddy likes eat happymeals, coca colas and french fries always and are both fats as pigs... its hard to educate the children...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am a conservative and I typically vote Republican. I however have no problem voting for a Democrat, if I believe they are better for the job.

Like TO, I dont like the idea of parties, because I vote for the man (or woman) not the party.

Now having said that Obama is a fruit!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

i think is a matter of education. you can eat a happy-meal sometimes, but you have to always eat food with vitamins, proteins and fibers. i dont like mcdonalds or burger king, but i like things even more toxic and fat than that. is tasty ? yes its tasty sure, but if you eat that all day youll be lookin like a fat pig.

so the education starts at home, with parental advisors and parental examples. now if mom and daddy likes eat happymeals, coca colas and french fries always and are both fats as pigs... its hard to educate the children...

It should not be the job of the local government (or any form of government) to decide what you can eat and what you cant eat. That is the job of the parents.

 

[Freebird]

My compliments to the moderators for this thread. Thanks also to FB for the cutting and pasting. Wish I knew how to do it.

You're Welcome! Everything you need to know in life you learn in Kindergarten.

That's where I learned to "cut paste", but some kids just liked eating the glue... Sombody should make a law banning glue eating...

A town council in Los Angeles may ban fast food outlets in one of the poorer sections in town. The reason is that the fast food is making the inhabitants obese. Big Brother anyone? Since obesity and subsequent poor health are major problems(so we hear) in the US would it not make sense, when we get socialised medicine, to moniter the diets of the obese?

Ok Renrich, you opened up this can of worms!!


The Republicans dogma is "Personal Choice" and "Keep Government out of the preople's business", yet they try to tell people what they can and can't do? Hypocracy?

You can smoke Marlboro's to ruin your lungs, and drink Jack Daniels until you can't stand up - no problem. But if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home - they will come and bust down the door!

How can one be just fine and the other a horrendous crime? Please explain.

The Bush administration sued California in Federal Court to prevent them from allowing terminal cancer patients from eating or smoking Mary J {to alleviate nausea}, which was voted approved by the people in a referendum.

You want to bake hash brownies? Off to the slammer you go!

It should not be the job of the local government (or any form of government) to decide what you can eat and what you cant eat. That is the job of the parents.

Where is the respect for "States Rights"? Please point out to me where in the US constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to rgulate what people eat or smoke?

?erhaps they should just ban all "drugs" "intoxicants"? Caffeine, Pot, Alcohol, Nicotine, ban 'em all!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Where is the respect for "States Rights"? Please point out to me where in the US constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to rgulate what people eat or smoke?

?erhaps they should just ban all "drugs" "intoxicants"? Caffeine, Pot, Alcohol, Nicotine, ban 'em all!

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[ToughOmbre]

Back from holiday - been a while.

Welcome back Dan

I believe in a free market with the neccesary restrictions. By neccesary restriction I mean: Breaking of monopolies, product quality control, environmental control, avertion of corporatism.... etc

Pretty much with you there.

I believe that certain areas of society should remain under statecontrol (transportation, schools, police, hospitals, correctional facilities etc...).

OK

I believe in high taxes to cover education, health- and socialcare. I believe so not only out of humanitarian reasons but also for financial reasons. A broken uneducated person will strain society more than high taxes in the long run.

Living in New Jersey, I know what high taxes are. More money to spend, waste, steal. Can't agree on this one, not even close.

I believe in the right to abortion and in the complete banning of firearms.

I was pro choice right up to the minute I saw an ultrasound of my oldest son at 12 weeks after conception; been pro life ever since. To save the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, I can see abortion.

Partial birth abortion, minors having abortions WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent.....NO WAY in my value system.

In general, abortion cheapens life. I can't prove this but IMO when a girl/woman gives birth to a healthy baby and then throws it into a dumpster, I can't help but feel that the abortion mentality comes into play.

Complete banning of firearms? Deal breaker for me. One of our basic rights in America, the 2nd Amendment. Make guns illegal and guess who will still have guns....that's right, the bad guys.

I am split on the legalization of soft drugs

What do you consider soft drugs?

Views on age limits: Drinking: 15 years, Smoking: 18 years, driving: 18 years, voting: 18 years, 1st grade in school: 6 years

Agree with your age limits except for drinking. I know many 15 year olds drink but let's not make it easy for them.

I believe in armed intervention only as a last resort. But when it is neccesary it better damn well happen. The US/UK (and others - including my own country) invasion of Iraq and the EU's lack of an initial response in Yugoslavia epotomize what I believe is completely "wrong" choices regarding armed intervention.

I believe in the "last resort" option as well.

I believe in completely uninhibited free speach and expression - if someone wants to shreik "Heil!", to draw a cartoon of a religious profet, to burn a flag, or to make fun of the holocaust - thats fine - but don't expect me to sit idly by if something happens that I disagree with!

Free speech must be RESPONSIBLE speech. The old cliche still applies. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater.

TO

 

[Freebird]

You are preaching to the choir.

Personally, I don't smoke {allergic to any smoke}, but I couldn't in any event, in my job we have to pee in a cup every few months.

Is there anybody that can defend Bush's position on this?


Because it is often quoted as one of the crowning folly's of decadant European Socialism, eg. the "open" attitudes of the Dutch.

 

[Freebird]

I believe in the right to abortion

Yes Indeed! But why only up to 9 months? Why not round it up to a year?

Better yet, the mother should have the right to abort the child at any time up until the child is able to support itself.

About 14 years old for boys. Perhaps 12 years for the resourceful ones. Less for girls.

{In case it isn't blatently obvious, this post is just dripping with sarcasm}


Abortion is bad almost every way you look at it, people should be reponsible for their own actions, you can't just throw your kid in the trash if you get tired of it.

That being said, I thought that the "Roe" was a reasonable compromise by a court that was forced to act by the total abandonment of duty by Congress.

I would be totally against the Supreme overturning Roe v Wade, or deciding this in any way. What would be the point if New Jersey banned all abortions, yet you could walk across the river to New York where they had no restriction?

The only proper resolution for this question is for Congress to step up and decide the issue, not to try to dump it on the court.

Congress should make laws, Courts interpret them.

{I think thats a good idea, someone should write it into the Constitution}

 

[Learstang]

DerAdlerIstGelandet, would you please explain "Obama is a fruit."?

Learstang

 

[Marcel]

Welcome back Dan
Pretty much with you there. ..

Not quoted the whole post. Seems like we have more in common than I thought TO. As you seem to consider yourself a right wing thinker, I'm still a little uncertain of what the US considers right an left wing.


I'm usually reluctant expressing my political believes thus I won't discus this in depth, but I consider myself a centre-left wing voter. Usually my ideas are about the same as our social-democratic party. But I see no problem in voting right wing parties if I think my country will benefit from that. We usually have a coalition as government (different than in the US) and I sometimes believe, depending on circumstances, a coalition containing both right and left can be healthy for our country..

What I really hate are the more extreme parties (left and right), I believe they shout more than they accomplish and populist parties, last category seems to be very popular here nowadays. I firmly believe a party should have a well founded program and long-term views and should not have a "go with the flow" program.

 

[Marcel]

Because it is often quoted as one of the crowning folly's of decadant European Socialism, eg. the "open" attitudes of the Dutch.

Yes it is, but usually by people who never really lived here.

 

[Freebird]

We usually have a coalition as government (different than in the US) and I sometimes believe, depending on circumstances, a coalition containing both right and left can be healthy for our country..

What I really hate are the more extreme parties (left and right), I believe they shout more than they accomplish and populist parties, last category seems to be very popular here nowadays. I firmly believe a party should have a well founded program and long-term views and should not have a "go with the flow" program.

Great Post Marcel, I am much in agreement, the extremes are not healthy.


What is your opinion on the legalization of soft drugs prostitution? Holland has both, so it would be nice to hear your thoughts.