| hurmm as a curiosity - argon_boy [26.04.06::01:12]|| |
how many people do you know that are republicans.
of my group of frineds i am the only republican the rest are a mix between democrats, comunists , libritarians, and nilists (aka lazy and blind).
i'm totaly hanging with the college crowd here but i was wondering how the rest of the nation is.
| Re: hurmm as a curiosity - tyrven [26.04.06::01:18]|| |
The vast majority of people I know are not only not Republican but are either intolerant of or try specifically to distance themselves from the Republic party. My personal beliefs are somewhere between moderate and libertarian but with enough disinterest included that I might quality as a nihilist; as such, I'm often seen as the most "Republican" person in my circle of friends - even though I generally don't support the Republican party because (like the Democrats) they are too authoratative (and Federalist) for my tastes.
| Re: hurmm as a curiosity - tyrven [26.04.06::01:23]|| |
As an aside, as someone who has at times related to nihilist philosophies, I'd argue that nihilism does not necessarily relate to either laziness or blindness. It is true that this is often the case, although the same can be said about most people's beliefs (e.g., Democrats because they were raised that way or because they aren't aware of how similar the Democratic candidates are to Republican candidates).
Personally, my apathy comes from the view that a democracy reflects the culture. I have my own ideals regarding how the system "should" work but I think that the system represents exactly what people want and my ideals would require changing the culture not casting a vote. I believe that cultures, like the people that make them up, are products of their experience and progress/regress in waves over time that are beyond the impact of any individual.
I am not blind nor am I lazy but I am indifferent.
well you have to narrow it down to pro life/pro choice...
i dont think i would have an abortion but i think everyone
should have the choice
I intentionally left the term undefined because, well, I didn't want to put words in Dean's mouth and as we might expect of a politician he was vague. I think generally that most people would consider you pro-choice, though.
This reminds me of a discussion that made me fairly agitated some time ago. A girl I knew was pregnant and thinking about an abortion. She had been a very firm pro-choice activist. She was concerned that having the baby would be hypocritical. I thought that was ironic since it's pro-choice - not pro-death.
Semi-related: as a libertarian-leaning individual I tend to think that such controversial moral judgments shouldn't be left up to the state - and thus I'm inherently pro-choice. Like you, though, I'd have trouble personally getting an abortion.
* Although that's only because I don't have the equipment to get pregnant in the first place. Otherwise I'd have abortions for breakfast as a quarterly celebration of my values.
pretty much the only reason i vote democrat is because they are pro choice and not controlled by the religious right.
I have a feeling that is how most people are. Which is unfortunate because it means that a lot of other issues (which don't impact us as directly but are important to the roles - such as foreign policy) don't get as much public attention. I think making these political issues was a fantastic move to polarize the masses into thinking they had a decision.
Unfortunately, though, it's not a non-issue (even if I'd like to think that it ought to be) and so people (and, to a degree, political candidates) don't have a choice. I like how the Democrats constantly try to walk the line; sometimes it's to make it a non-issues, othertimes it's to win over swing voters. Ultimately, though, it's impossible to ignore it.
I feel that both major parties (which I think is also wrong, to have just two major parties to ultimately choose a president from...) choose a hot topic matter, and make it such a fiery debate that other issues, mainly issues that don't deal with morals, go under the radar, and don't get researched by potential voters. Voters then vote based on one maybe two hot button issues, ie abortion.. or gay marriage (like that has a place in politics??). So taxes, imigration policies, welfare reform, social security, prescription drug programs.. all get slated under "not important now.. will get to or not get to later..."
i would be happy to make a selection if you weren't acting like the washington state primaries and forcing me to pick a party.
in general, i have nothing against pro-lifers and feel they are as entitled to their beliefs as i, a pro-choicer. i'm not making them have an abortion, and they shouldn't be keeping me from doing so.
Well, this was Howard Dean speaking on behalf of the Democratic party - it wasn't Howard Dean speaking on behalf of all liberals. I considered adding more options based on "liberal" and "conservative" and "Republican" variations but decided it lost the point. On hindsight, though, I wish I added an option "Maybe: It depends on their other views".
I personally agree with you - but as you know that's as much my libertarian leanings coming out than any particular moral view. This ties in well with my other post, however, re: understanding views: I think the inability for pro-lifers to understand that this is a choice and not a government decision accounts for much of the debate. If it had been kept as a matter of political principle instead of moral values I think the line would be drawn different.
Unless, of course, they are genuine Neo-Conservatives (as opposed to part of the neocon electorate) - and thus believe that people need structure or religion to keep satisfied. But that's another issue altogether.
How does one embrace a pro-life democrat? I'm not sure what that entitles.
Isn't it just a thought that has no particular substance behind it? Or do we have to promise something?
I'm all for lying and making up promises, but I'm not willing to give any ground.
I'm pretty sure democratic ideals are in the shitter so I'm not really worried about that.
| Yeah, totally. - tyrven [26.04.06::02:51]|| |
lauralBaby: seriously though, do you mean work to overturn RvW, or just tell prolife Democrats "we like you too!"
Ithael Arlet: He was vague on what he meant by it. Of course.
lauralBaby: probably the latter considering Dean
Ithael Arlet: It'd be like the Republicans saying they're opening their doors to fags (but not legalizing gay marriage).
| Re: Yeah, totally. - tyrven [26.04.06::02:54]|| |
And on that note, I'd think it was really, really awesome if some politician actually used the word "fag" in a supportive/positive statement. I love how gay and lesbian were both once considered politically incorrect (in preference of "homosexual") but that's fallen by the wayside.
Personally, I agree with what's becoming a more popular view in the African American community: disarm by disempowering not by censoring.
I say you gotta pull every breathing bastard in possible.
Of course my grand plan to save the world usually involves a big barbeque, plenty to drink and getting everyone to agree on the following: Tom Cruise has gone off the deep-end, not talking loudly on your cell phone in public should be encouraged and everyone needs a little help now and then so don't act like a prickly bastard because some poor person needs a leg up.
my personal feelings on it aren't really political, so its kind of moot. i'm not ready to embrace anyone who is gonna tell other people what they can and cant do with their bodies. If people dont want to have abortions I'm totally fine with that, and I understand. and hey, lets embrace those people.
the thing about abortion is its not really a polar issue, but its made out to be one. like you said, whether you decide to have a baby or not doesn't make you anti-choice, but lobbying against abortion sure does.
I looked at and considered all choices carefully.
I decided not to vote, as nothing fit my views on stuff.
Personally, I don't think the Demos really know exactly what their political ideals are.
I don't want to vote for a straight Democratic ticket, but the dumb election laws that the dumb voters in this state makes me do so. Choice is not really choice any longer.
I want to go live in a cave with a family of Sasquatch...*sigh*
Yeah - and well, ultimately, I don't think any party (or their ideology) should be able to address the needs of every office. This is the problem with Canada - you don't vote for individual positions, you vote for the party. The benefit is that it simplifies voting, but sometimes you may want a conservative in one position and a liberal in another - or maybe you really want a liberal in one, but the option is simply unacceptable and you'd prefer the alternate candidate. But that's all a bit off topic.
And I agree that the Dems are a bit scattered in their ideology.
Heh....I can't ever remember voting a straight ticket in my life, before the election rules were revamped here.
I do my research, read my voters pamphlet, try to make an informed choice. I've voted for a lot of GOP candidates, Demos, Green Party, Independents, et cetera.
I'm waiting for my cats to start the Feline party...I'll vote fer them!
I usually just try to make appealing patterns in the voter card. Or, if I'm feeling ambitious, encode messages or funny ASCII-style art in them - and then entertain fantasies of the volunteer laborers who count the votes noticing them and getting a big laugh out of it. This is why I'm opposed to electronic voting!