Beyond the discussion; where do you stand politically?

Relative to your current party affiliation, where are you politically?

  • I align 100% with my party.

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • My party (party candidate) has partially left me or is slowing leaving me.

    Votes: 9 10.8%

  • My party (party candidate) has mostly left me or is quickly leaving me

    Votes: 11 13.3%

  • I don't agree with my party (or candidates) anymore (but the other sucks worse).

    Votes: 23 27.7%

  • I've changed parties (officially or unofficially).

    Votes: 8 9.6%

  • This poll is the worst in the history of VN.

    Votes: 41 49.4%
  • Total voters
    83
#157
#157
hog88 said:
What legislation have the Rs passed that is further right than times in the 80s-90s and controlled congress? What right wing legislation are the Rs pushing that is further right than 80-90s Rs?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily talking about passed legislation
 
#160
#160
McDad said:
The 'worst poll' option is the most popular for a reason.

Expound upon the areas where you agree and disagree philosophically with party (if you don't mind).
Click to expand...

I would have included the category: "I don't have a party, don't care much for either, but one generally manages to suck less than the other". I don't bother consider third parties these days like I did when I was younger and more optimistic and less jaded because unfortunately we are stuck with two parties, and third parties are simply vote drains - usually for the lesser of two evils.

Personally I often agree with libertarians being an old Ayn Rand fan. The libertarian concept is basically sound - the people associated with it are nutty as hell - fortunately we only hear from them on a four year cycle. Fiscally I'm a conservative. In other ways I'm somewhat liberal. I have a problem with saying government should stay out of my pocket, but it's OK for government to tell people how to live their lives. The contradiction is that I do believe that we have to have some laws to keep things sane - unfortunately those sometimes infringe upon an individual's freedoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#161
#161
USAFgolferVol said:
Not necessarily talking about passed legislation
Click to expand...
OHvol was doing the same, earlier. I think we need to differentiate between the rhetoric and the reality.

The view from my seat: The parties are more bombastic in their rhetoric than ever. There isn't much offered as centrist or moderate anymore. But the reality of what is passed and becomes law is so different from rhetoric it is almost unrecognizable.

When things lurch to the left (or right although I see none in that direction) i is usually capitalizing on popular fear, parties with an overwhelming mandate, or both.

Two examples:
ACA passage. All the D momentum with a hugely populist president. But it cost a lot of reps their seats.

TSA federalized due to fear of terrorism and "the government needed to protect us"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, AM64 and hog88
#162
#162
AM64 said:
I would have included the category: "I don't have a party, don't care much for either, but one generally manages to suck less than the other". I don't bother consider third parties these days like I did when I was younger and more optimistic and less jaded because unfortunately we are stuck with two parties, and third parties are simply vote drains - usually for the lesser of two evils.

Personally I often agree with libertarians being an old Ayn Rand fan. The libertarian concept is basically sound - the people associated with it are nutty as hell - fortunately we only hear from them on a four year cycle. Fiscally I'm a conservative. In other ways I'm somewhat liberal. I have a problem with saying government should stay out of my pocket, but it's OK for government to tell people how to live their lives. The contradiction is that I do believe that we have to have some laws to keep things sane - unfortunately those sometimes infringe upon an individual's freedoms.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with saying government should stay out of my pocket, but it's OK for government to tell people how to live their lives. The contradiction is that I do believe that we have to have some laws to keep things sane - unfortunately those sometimes infringe upon an individual's freedoms.

Is that typed as you intended? Maybe there should be a "no" instead of an 'a'.
Generally speaking, do you think we have too many, too few, or just about the right number of laws to "keep things sane"?
 
#163
#163
McDad said:
Yeah. I was only thinking of where each person is now relative to their party. I wasn't thinking of unaffiliated or independent voters.

Perhaps, that would be interesting to hear how those of you who were, and remain, independent see the movement of the parties (if any)?
Click to expand...
I think it’s a good thread McDad. Anything that attempts to have a serious discussion as opposed to the tit for tat gotchas that eventually break down in to name calling. I think the republican and Democratic Party are marketing entities that benefit a few people at the top and are largely made up of supporters that have no understanding of what government is and isn’t. Both parties are generally funded by the same corporate entities and that there is a difference is laughable.
Here are two books that offer a different perspective that you won’t see being discussed on cable news and you sure as hell won’t see in a public school library.
1) Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Hoppe
2) Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard




https://cdn.mises.org/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#164
#164
McDad said:
OHvol was doing the same, earlier. I think we need to differentiate between the rhetoric and the reality.

The view from my seat: The parties are more bombastic in their rhetoric than ever. There isn't much offered as centrist or moderate anymore. But the reality of what is passed and becomes law is so different from rhetoric it is almost unrecognizable.

When things lurch to the left (or right although I see none in that direction) i is usually capitalizing on popular fear, parties with an overwhelming mandate, or both.

Two examples:
ACA passage. All the D momentum with a hugely populist president. But it cost a lot of reps their seats.

TSA federalized due to fear of terrorism and "the government needed to protect us"
Click to expand...
Our country worked so much better when moderation was the compromise and legislation was "centered"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
#165
#165
USAFgolferVol said:
Our country worked so much better when moderation was the compromise and legislation was "centered"
Click to expand...
I would like to agree. But very few things are "one sided coins" which are either always good or always bad. I will unequivocally agree the politicians worked together better when moderation was sought. But to be fair, Ds ruled the house for 4 decades. Rs didn't know how to 'stand their ground' and fight for something. No evidence they know how to do it now beyond political point scoring, tbh.
One person's moderation is another person's slippery slope, so to speak. Apart from 2 brief years spending has grown every single year far outpacing cost of living and revenue. Political moderation which continues to increase spending is anathema to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#166
#166
Not sure about the poll selections, but I consider myself a moderately conservative christian on the GOP side. I did go with the homeboy Carter back in the day. It was a novel choosing at the time. great man. Really good Governor. So so Prez. The inflation of the late 70's derailed him quickly even before the fiasco in Iran. that would have been a bad term to be elected for most any politician.

I have my views, but at the same time I don't feel I can force my views on others personally or politically. Especially when it comes to policies for all. What a person chooses to believe is a personal choice. I do struggle with these ideals some, as it would pertain to politics. For example, abortion. Personally, I am as anti-abortion as they come. But, how do I make it illegal for someone who believes different than me? What happens to a woman's well being if they have to go on the black market to abort? I feel my obligation would be to reach out to a woman and share beliefs and hope the seed I plant takes root. But, the flip side is I have no say over a stranger. So, how do you approach that in legal policies? My only answer I can give to how I feel about it politically, is that policies such as abortion should not be taxpayer funded like planned parenthood. If it's to be legal, and a woman's choice, it should also be her expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#167
#167
McDad said:
I would like to agree. But very few things are "one sided coins" which are either always good or always bad. I will unequivocally agree the politicians worked together better when moderation was sought. But to be fair, Ds ruled the house for 4 decades. Rs didn't know how to 'stand their ground' and fight for something. No evidence they know how to do it now beyond political point scoring, tbh.
One person's moderation is another person's slippery slope, so to speak. Apart from 2 brief years spending has grown every single year far outpacing cost of living and revenue. Political moderation which continues to increase spending is anathema to me.
Click to expand...
I think a big issue with politicians and compromise is they no longer compromise on the issue. The compromise now is just various forms of pork spending that favors the "compromising" party. And it gets added on as a rider. While the heart of the bill stays the same despite the "compromise".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, hog88 and McDad
#168
#168
You guys are bringing some good insight.

Appreciate all the contributions and discussion.
 
#170
#170
hog88 said:
If you're not talking about passed or proposed legislation how can you claim the party has moved further right? The candidates they have run for the big office have been further left every cycle.
Click to expand...
It's my opinion based on policy positions and the influence of evangelicals. There's been plenty of proposed legislation from both sides that are further from center than ever before
 
#171
#171
USAFgolferVol said:
It's my opinion based on policy positions and the influence of evangelicals. There's been plenty of proposed legislation from both sides that are further from center than ever before
Click to expand...

Yes but when the party controls both chambers and the WH but doesn't pass this far right legislation then you really can't say the party has moved further right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and AM64
#173
#173
hog88 said:
Yes but when the party controls both chambers and the WH but doesn't pass this far right legislation then you really can't say the party has moved further right.
Click to expand...
The republican party in Tennessee tried to pass a bill making the Bible our state book...that's just a tip of what those idiots have TRIED to do...Thank God for Haslam during the dumbing down period our state has been entrenched in for awhile
 
#175
#175
USAFgolferVol said:
The republican party in Tennessee tried to pass a bill making the Bible our state book...that's just a tip of what those idiots have TRIED to do...Thank God for Haslam during the dumbing down period our state has been entrenched in for awhile
Click to expand...

Ok, so now we're talking about state level parties.

Yes, I will agree with you when it comes to the TN R party. For the most part it has moved further right on several stupid issues. Thankfully they have remained somewhat fiscally responsible.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top