Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yochillout

Republican or Democrat?

224 posts in this topic


I'm Independent! Like the elf that wanted to be a dentist in the old claymation Rudolph movie. He was independent too, lol....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok yochillout, I'm ready for a debate. What exactly is your justification for the War in Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm libertarian . . . so I tend to vote Republican but their environmental, corporate welfare, healthcare, and reliance on petroleum (b/c of corporate interests), as well as the view by some of them that they can legislate the bedroom, makes me a GOP voter under protest. Where did Harry Truman, or Supply-side JFK go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone proclaiming unconditional support for a political party is not doing his/her duty to understand the issues and where individual politicians stand on these issues. Selling out to a party is one of the worst things you can do as an individual.

Personally I think that both of the major parties, no longer support the interests of the common person. And the reason they get away with it is because of what I said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ When you say "turn right" is it the Harry Reid etc. post-election reaction? My view of the Democrats is that they have to keep some distance between them and the far left activists. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind in a free country but winning the White House etc. is a process of moderation. I was really hoping Kerry could be a strong leader for the party . . . I think his Vietnam experience makes him a much better man and a better patriot then Bush, and I believe that his realizations of the mistakes made in that war would have made him a strong President. I think what did him in IMHO was the Whoopis and Michael Moores etc. that he would not distance himself from. I am not comfortable with the big oil interests and some of the religious connections on the right, but the Republicans will keep a distance from those issues (look at Trent Lott)--or appear to. Just my two cents, interested in hearing yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I was a Whig in my heyday......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:lol: heh, good job :)

Anyone proclaiming unconditional support for a political party is not doing his/her duty to understand the issues and where individual politicians stand on these issues.  Selling out to a party is one of the worst things you can do as an individual.

Personally I think that both of the major parties, no longer support the interests of the common person.  And the reason they get away with it is because of what I said above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a good point. I am a conservative with libertairian tendancies. However, I obviously don't completely identify with the agenda of the Republican party, or I wouldn't be here. I will vote democrat if he is the better candidate (i did in the past election, but for a local guy).

but the Republicans will keep a distance from those issues (look at Trent Lott)--or appear to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Trent Lott got screwed over. He didn't do anything wrong per se. It's the over-analytical PC bullcrap for which the Beltway is famous that did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


My only point with Trent Lott was to point out that the Dems don't seem to draw a line between the radicals in their party (Whoopi, Michael Moore) the way the White House and fellow GOPers let Lott know he had to do something tangible to make amends. Lose the position or lose national elections . . . the GOP makes them lose the position, the Dems don't see anything wrong with accepting left talk so they get an image problem in the red states. As far as Lott personally I feel sorry for the guy everyone knows he isn't a racist but by the same token you don't say things like that to garner the trust of the American people. If your a football player you don't keep missing tackles and if your a politician you don't insult a good chunk of American voters like that. I didn't like the witch hunt and I do believe there is a double standard sometimes, but then again the GOP wins votes by desciplining their members. Interested in hearing others opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... everyone knows he isn't a racist

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you better repoll everyone in america. because I know my position and that means everyone minus one "knows he isn't a racist".

Any iraq war supporters here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only point with Trent Lott was to point out that the Dems don't seem to draw a line between the radicals in their party (Whoopi, Michael Moore) the way the White House and fellow GOPers let Lott know he had to do something tangible to make amends.  Lose the position or lose national elections . . . the GOP makes them lose the position, the Dems don't see anything wrong with accepting left talk so they get an image problem in the red states.  As far as Lott personally I feel sorry for the guy everyone knows he isn't a racist but by the same token you don't say things like that to garner the trust of the American people.  If your a football player you don't keep missing tackles and if your a politician you don't insult a good chunk of American voters like that.  I didn't like the witch hunt and I do believe there is a double standard sometimes, but then again the GOP wins votes by desciplining their members.  Interested in hearing others opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet that if it hadn't been announced that most people in America (even in SC) woudn't have known about Strom's past. I thought he was just being nice to the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you better repoll everyone in america. because I know my position and that means everyone minus one "knows he isn't a racist".

Any iraq war supporters here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Outside of policy stands (which brings in multiple angles) I can't find any history of Lott making personal decisions based on race. If you find any or know of any let me know. Maybe I'm wrong but I view being a racist as being pregnant either you are or aren't, and if you are people kinda get the hint after awhile. I am very sure if he had incidents of racist actions they would be hell to pay for them. Personally I view racisim as a lack of intelligence and a lack of tolerance, in that same mold judging a woman or a youth or a jewish person on something they are and not as King said the "content of their character" is as bad as being a racisit. I think both parties are guilty of doing exactly that to the others state strongholds. Stereotyping a race is no different then stereotyping a "NY liberal" or a "redstater". I think the less we look at how different we are and the more we look at the common interests of the nation the more we have fulfilled America's promise. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally a republican and will stand by that forever.  I just want to see who is who.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as metro's and a few others comments on being blinding by party loyalty I do agree 100% you need to think critically about the issues. I think once that is done though there are people out there that agree pretty much down the line with either party. Nothing wrong with that. One word of advice though the party has been known to "leave you" instead of you leaving the party. The Democratic party changed radically in 1972 as did the GOP in 1980 and then again in 1992-1994ish. Having a core belief system but remaining open minded and flexible is the best way to go, but after that if you agree with one party down the line, more power to you :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of policy stands (which brings in multiple angles) I can't find any history of Lott making personal decisions based on race.  If you find any or know of any let me know.  Maybe I'm wrong but I view being a racist as being pregnant either you are or aren't, and if you are people kinda get the hint after awhile.  I am very sure if he had incidents of racist actions they would be hell to pay for them.  Personally I view racisim as a lack of intelligence and a lack of tolerance, in that same mold judging a woman or a youth or a jewish person on something they are and not as King said the "content of their character" is as bad as being a racisit.  I think both parties are guilty of doing exactly that to the others state strongholds.  Stereotyping a race is no different then stereotyping a "NY liberal" or a "redstater".  I think the less we look at how different we are and the more we look at the common interests of the nation the more we have fulfilled America's promise.  Just my two cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At Sen. Strom Thurmond's (R-SC) 100th birthday party, Trent Lott said something to the effect of "The world would be a better place if Strom had been president." This was referring to when Strom made a bid for president under the extremely segregationist Dixiecrat party. Now, most of you probably didn't know that Strom made a bid for president, that he was a Dixiecrat, or what that party stood for!! Now, Strom changed alot over the years, but he isn't the subject here. Trent Lott was called for his mistake of trying to compliment Strom, and accused of being a racist by people such as Tom Daschle and that lot of hard line Dems. Now I can see how they pull the "racist" label out of that, but its just not right, because it was taken totally out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Trent Lott has ties to the KKK and is a member of some confederate-sympathizing groups that aren't that far removed from KKK like behavior.

That's what the media conveniently forgot to report during the entire Lott fiasco. I don't think being overly PC was the issue at all, that was just the front page story. There was a lot behind the scenes that people don't seem to understand about the man. The PC issue was just used as the way to remove him, and it worked.

Besides, openly stating that a segregationist presidential candidate should have won in 1948, and that we "wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" being the most powerful Senator in the most powerful nation in the world, I'm sorry but that is not being politically correct. The reaction was justified.

He wasn't getting his c0ck sucked by an intern in his private life. It was a serious public issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that's the case then theres much more to learn about Senator Lott, would love to see some unbiased links though. I am amazed there was no national coverage on that, there's national coverage on "sheets" Byrd from West Virgina, though he hasn't had those leanings in decades and from what I've heard has made amends for it.

My point exactly on why he had to be demoted, although I sympathize with those posters who recognize some double standards, you are a leader entrusted with great power, to just say things like that either on or off camera is not taking your leadership role seriously. I think too many politicos get away with similar insults to classes of Americans, and for that reason I felt it was harsh the piling on. That though is the standard that we must demand from our leaders. You can't slight voters in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trent Lott is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a southern Mississippi group with segregationist roots and sympathies. Does that change anyone's opinion?

Forget about his statement in December 2002 at the birthday bash for good ole' Strom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. His statement about Strom is what brought about his resignation, it can't be ignored here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trent Lott could honestly have said something like that tongue-in-cheek, just to be nice to an old man who, at the time, was obviously not going to be around much longer.

In that respect, yes, it was way overboard and way too politically correct in that they removed him from the post.

BUT, the unreported story of Trent Lott's connections to pro-KKK, pro-segregationist groups is why I don't feel that he's been wrongfully treated. He's still a Senator, he just isn't majority leader.

I think if he is going to be the most powerful member of the entire Legislative branch - effectively having as much power as George W. Bush in our system - then why would the Republican party even allow him to be majority leader in the first place under those circumstances?

The answer is simple: the modern Republican party's base is the old south's Dixiecrats turned Republicans.

The sooner people realize this, the better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not trying to say Trent Lott isn't racist. I'm just saying he was forced to resign for the wrong reasons. I know he's still a senator, but I felt like he was doing a good job as minority leader.

The Republican Party's base is not the Dixiecrats. That was a short-lived party full of the old timers who had parents or grandparents that fought in the war. I think that most of that is history now. But like I said, I'm not trying to defend Trent Lott, or what he is connected to. But for the sake of arguement, define "ties." Is he tied by PACs or is he acutally a member or is it a family member? Im curious to know.

I admit that I am not a big fan of Bill Frist, but he's who is there. I can't change that :)

Staunch Republican's don't like McCain because he votes democrat alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really hope our Govt. does not have people that proliferate and act on stereotypes in ANY leadership position. If there is evidence of a leader doing that in public life and it is not being reported by the media or being demanded by the voters in their district then we have lots more wrong in this nation then I ever feared. To have "ties" to an organization in my mind is a stereotype in itself . . . as long as the leader is held accountable and renounces that history I don't see a problem. Byrd, Lott, even Kerry were connected to organizations that had little if anything to do with the way they governed. They must renounce those organizations and their beliefs in them. As long as we have to elect humans skeletons in the closet will always be--wether or not they recognize the error of there ways and are held to account determines if they are worthy of leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm off to bed guys, g'nite.

Before I go to bed though, I have one thing to say. I keep hearing small government fans say "I don't like Bush, but..."

Then a million different statements of varying degrees.

At the end of the day, you guys still voted Bush. He's got your vote, and that's what has led him to be back in office.

Republicans now have no grounds to gripe at Democrats. There is a clear majority of Republicans in congress, on the Supreme Court bench, and in the White House. There is no room for "I don't like Bush, but..."

Either his plans work and are a good idea, or you are ashamed of the vote as far as i'm concerned.

I don't want to hear any of this wishy-washy "I don't like Bush... BUT" Especially when we had a business class liberal Bostonian capitalist like Kerry who detests universal healthcare, believes in free trade, and was clearly an intellectual in every respect of the word.

I don't want to hear limited government afficianados say anything related to Bush.. BUT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

was gonna do a write in for Daffy Duck, but I saw "bush" and it was early and well Freud had this theory . . . :rofl:

Gotta pick one Heckles, this goes back to what Metro was saying about thinking critically about the issues. If people vote for a candidate without any "buts" then democracy has been let down big time. Part of keeping an open mind is the "but". This is why I like these discussions so much, there are things that don't get the play and the press and there are things all of us are undecided on. No party is perfect, and to not vote is undemocratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The base of the Republican party, and its core electoral votes in Presidential elections IS the old south Spartan. And a lot of that traces back to Dixiecrat conservative roots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see that trying to pin a racist tag on republicans as a low blow. You assume all Southerners are based in this "core." I can't say this "core" doesn't exist, but it is certainly a very small one. I think that Dems could easily be pinned as "racist" too. But I try not to look at politics that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that trying to pin a racist tag on republicans as a low blow. You assume all Southerners are based in this "core." I can't say this "core" doesn't exist, but it is certainly a very small one. I think that Dems could easily be pinned as "racist" too. But I try not to look at politics that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If southerners had never been slave owners and slavery had never existed in America then there would be no party with a similar platform to the Republicans. At its base is pure and simple racism, and not just in the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If southerners had never been slave owners and slavery had never existed in America then there would be no party with a similar platform to the Republicans. At its base is pure and simple racism, and not just in the South.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will point out that at the time of school desegration (which Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott protested against) the biggest protests and riots came from the NE and Boston was at the center of it.

Second, call it what you like, prior to 1965 a segregated America was the norm in the USA and was generally accepted by almost all Whites no matter where they lived in the USA. Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond reflected this attitude and later renounced this position like most of the rest of white America. To be fair, the storm that came from Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond should have never happened and reflect American's short memory of their own history. Don't take that to mean that I support either politican as Lott & Thurmond got to where they are by appealing to the worst in people.

By letting yourselves get lost in these Democrate vs GOP debates, you simply fall into the trap that both parties want you to fall into. You get so inflamed by their national platforms that crappy politicians get elected and government fails in its most basic purpose, to serve the people. If we didn't have this problem then why:

  • Are we using our military to topple other governments? How does this serve the people?

  • Is our health care industry so screwed up that 40 million Americans can't afford any insurance?

  • Are we letting tens millions of jobs be outsourced to 3rd world countries? And I don't buy this crap this is good for America.

  • Is nothing being done about the tens of millions of illegals coming into the USA? Just this week the Mexican Govt. "demanded" the USA provide benefits, voting rights, and public assistance to all illegals in the country. Our response- OK.

  • Isn't the government encouraging conservation, developing alternative fuels, funding mass transit, putting limits on ugly sprawl, etc.

And I won't even bother with issues about the debt, taxes, and social issues as they are simply a lost cause.

The answer to "why" is simply that both parties have sold out to the big interests and corporations who benefit from keeping things as they are. And like I said before, anyone falling into the trap "my party is better than yours" is simply falling for their game.

The only thing worse than the parties fighting each other, is when they agree. American's were duped into the war with Iraq because it became a "lets bash France" affair. Remember Freedom Fries, dumping wine in the streets, etc? Both parties jumped on that bandwagon, now neither one will take responsibility for what has happened. Why doesn't anyone care? Well that's because they are still lost in the my party vs yours fights.

America is fu cked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will point out that at the time of school desegration (which Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott protested against) the biggest protests and riots came from the NE and Boston was at the center of it.

Second, call it what you like, prior to 1965 a segregated America was the norm in the USA and was generally accepted by almost all Whites no matter where they lived in the USA. Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond reflected this attitude and later renounced this position like most of the rest of white America. To be fair, the storm that came from Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond should have never happened and reflect American's short memory of their own history. Don't take that to mean that I support either politican as Lott & Thurmond got to where they are by appealing to the worst in people.

By letting yourselves get lost in these Democrate vs GOP debates, you simply fall into the trap that both parties want you to fall into. You get so inflamed by their national platforms that crappy politicians get elected and government fails in its most basic purpose, to serve the people. If we didn't have this problem then why:

    * Are we using our military to topple other governments? How does this serve the people?

    * Is our health care industry so screwed up that 40 million Americans can't afford any insurance?

    * Are we letting tens millions of jobs be outsourced to 3rd world countries? And I don't buy this crap this is good for America.

    * Is nothing being done about the tens of millions of illegals coming into the USA? Just this week the Mexican Govt. "demanded" the USA provide benefits, voting rights, and public assistance to all illegals in the country. Our response- OK.

    * Isn't the government encouraging conservation, developing alternative fuels, funding mass transit, putting limits on ugly sprawl, etc.

And I won't even bother with issues about the debt, taxes, and social issues as they are simply a lost cause.

The answer to "why" is simply that both parties have sold out to the big interests and corporations who benefit from keeping things as they are. And like I said before, anyone falling into the trap "my party is better than yours" is simply falling for their game.

The only thing worse than the parties fighting each other, is when they agree. American's were duped into the war with Iraq because it became a "lets bash France" affair. Remember Freedom Fries, dumping wine in the streets, etc? Both parties jumped on that bandwagon, now neither one will take responsibility for what has happened. Why doesn't anyone care? Well that's because they are still lost in the my party vs yours fights.

America is fu cked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is exactly how I feel metro. We are completely screwed. Our government has failed us and it's the average apathetic, complacent american that is truley to blame. People need to stop and think about not only what is going on in their lives, but also what is going on in the lives of others, then do something to make a difference. Of course it would be a giant step forward for people to just think. One baby step at a time I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will point out that at the time of school desegration  (which Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott protested against) the biggest protests and riots came from the NE and Boston was at the center of it.   

Second, call it what you like, prior to 1965 a segregated America was the norm in the USA and was generally accepted by almost all Whites no matter where they lived in the USA.  Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond reflected this attitude and later renounced this position like most of the rest of white America.  To be fair, the storm that came from Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond should have never happened and reflect American's short memory of their own history.  Don't take that to mean that I support either politican as Lott & Thurmond got to where they are by appealing to the worst in people. 

By letting yourselves get lost in these Democrate vs GOP debates, you simply fall into the trap that both parties want you to fall into.  You get so inflamed by their national platforms that crappy politicians get elected and government fails in its most basic purpose,  to serve the people.    If we didn't have this problem then why:

  • Are we using our military to topple other governments?  How does this serve the people?

  • Is our health care industry so screwed up that 40 million Americans can't afford any insurance?

  • Are we letting tens millions of jobs be outsourced to 3rd world countries?  And I don't buy this crap this is good for America. 

  • Is nothing being done about the tens of millions of illegals coming into the USA?  Just this week the Mexican Govt. "demanded" the USA provide benefits, voting rights, and public assistance to all illegals in the country.  Our response- OK. 

  • Isn't the government encouraging conservation, developing alternative fuels, funding mass transit, putting limits on ugly sprawl, etc.

And I won't even bother with issues about the debt, taxes, and social issues as they are simply a lost cause. 

The answer to "why" is simply that both parties have sold out to the big interests and corporations who benefit from keeping things as they are.    And like I said before, anyone falling into the trap "my party is better than yours" is simply falling for their game. 

The only thing worse than the parties fighting each other, is when they agree.  American's were duped into the war with Iraq because it became a "lets bash France" affair.  Remember Freedom Fries, dumping wine in the streets, etc?  Both parties jumped on that bandwagon, now neither one will take responsibility for what has happened.  Why doesn't anyone care?  Well that's because they are still lost in the my party vs yours fights. 

America is fu cked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with all your points, and I agree with your conclusion. I am a big Jon Stewart fan. I'm not a party hack, if Reilly gets nominated for the Democratic candidate for governor I will probably go for Romney as much as I think he's a dickhead.

Politicians are all about getting re-elected, not about helping the people.

My question is, how exactly can anyone support killing innocent people by the tens of thousands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.