As a new immigrant, what made you realize which political party in the USA you belonged to?

[DEDixon 39]

the reasons that had me going at Republicans were the needless wars

i agree that the iraq war was a bad idea, but at the time, many people supported that war. americans often want instant gratification so the minute something appears it will be lasting, they back off. one thing about saddam, i kind of felt sorry for him because he couldn't tell the world his military was a disgrace without letting iran know that iran could easily defeat iraq in another war. saddam was scared to death of iran. people say the US wanted to crush iraq for the oil... iran would have loved to have crushed iraq for the oil as well.

obama has a needless war going on now too. afghanistan is just a lost cause to me, the country of rock and rubble where 95% of the population has very little education is doomed to failure starting the minute we leave. if they aren't fighting an outside force, they are fighting each other... kind of like the mentality in a bar in small town USA... they take it outside.... disputes are settled with violence due to limited education.

the US will never ever defeat the taliban. even if it appears we've defeated them, my thinking is that the minute we are gone, they will rise up again. it is a total waste of money at this point.

[scandal 951]

nope, i can't and i wouldn't even try looking for one. it comes from a gut feeling based on what i've read and witnessed. i don't need a quote to know it is true.

Well that's a very persuasive argument. I think I'll change my entire political value system because DEDixon has a "gut feeling".

Um, yeah.

by the way, i'm repub, but as i have said on here a few times (you might have missed it), i would not want 50 years of repub rule or 50 years of dem rule. putting all your eggs in one basket is plain stupid to me. which ever party is in power eventually goes too far to the right or left out of arrogance so the american people usually has to act to counter the arrogance and bring us back to center. to bring us back to center, it takes electing the other party, the problem is that eventually that party will sway too far away from center.

I'm fine with that. I think it's a healthy instinct as a voter to want to vote out the incumbent party on a regular basis. To quote Acton "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's good to give them a good swift kick in the rump every so often, no matter who "they" are.

if you can't find something that the repub party does that you think is good for america, i feel sorry for you. i value some of the things the dems do (civil rights, supporting gay people) so i hope you can find something you like about the other side. for example, i can't imagine a dem not appreciating repubs for their stance on taxes for if it were not for the repubs, the dems would go way too far.

When have you heard me say say that I can't find things to admire about the GOP, or Republicans?!

Geez, did you read this in my original response to the OP in this very thread?

Inevitably, you won't agree with 100% of the issues espoused by either party, or by any candidate. That's the nature of the political system. The idea is to find a party that most generally aligns with your perspective on the issues. Also, by all means feel free to vote against a candidate of your party in a general election regardless of how you register. I'm a registered Democrat but have voted Republican in races where I felt the GOP was running the better person.

In the most recent Republican administration, that of GWB, I fault him for many things but I do give him credit for policies I felt he was right on. For example, I think he had an enlightened approach to Immigration reform despite opposition from many in Congress in his own party. I think his ideas on faith based initiatives also showed promise and were worthwhile. My list of praise is short and faint, because I really don't think his Administration was a good one for America, on the whole I think we're much better off with him out of office.

the dems surely are known for throwing money social ills while ignoring root cause. for example, kids in the inner city doing poorly in school, the problem is at home, not in the classroom so throwing money at the classroom won't fix anything. teachers are not meant to be parents either. that is just one example of many where dems think throwing taxpayer money at it will improve results. trouble is dems don't want to offend their base so they ignore root cause instead of telling parents that their lifestyle is hurting their kids and unless they change, their kids will suffer. dems are the kings and queens of PC. repubs are more likely to tell someone or a group to shape up or you'll fall behind. i like that, because in some ways, i shaped up so i feel others can do it too.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I disagree with you. You are tossing around generalizations like "dems surely are known for throwing money social ills while ignoring root cause". This is perhaps "known" to you, but not to me. "Dems" are not monolithic, for one thing. There is a range of views within the party. Even at it's most left-leaning fringes I don't think you'll find anyone (at least no one in serious consequential office) in favor of just tossing cash around without regard to accountability and results. Saying such things in my view undermines your argument, especially since (as you've already noted) you can't cite any evidence other than your own "gut feel". You may feel as you choose, but you're not going to persuade me with such arguments.

Democrats in general do want to see progressive change, and do want to fund such things with public funds. If you have a moral objection to such programs than by all means don't be a Democrat. But to say that Democrats WANT and perpetuate intentionally a cycle of dependency, and have no interest in breaking these cycles, I think is way off the mark.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I'm not an American (yet), but I've always voted according to what I think the country NEEDS at a particular time. I don't believe one political shoe can fit all situations. I believe there are times when a government needs to place fiscal responsibility at the top of its priority list. But I also believe there are times where social programs / humanitarianism needs to be at the top.

In Canada I've voted for Liberals AND Conservatives in different elections, just based on what I believe the country needs, and how the incumbent party is governing at the time of the election.

In other words: policies over parties.

[Niels Bohr 72]

That is a concept in which - you know who they are - cannot comprehend.

[DEDixon 39]

When have you heard me say say that I can't find things to admire about the GOP, or Republicans?!

Geez, did you read this in my original response to the OP in this very thread?

i didn't and just saying, in case you couldn't.

Democrats in general do want to see progressive change, and do want to fund such things with public funds. If you have a moral objection to such programs than by all means don't be a Democrat. But to say that Democrats WANT and perpetuate intentionally a cycle of dependency, and have no interest in breaking these cycles, I think is way off the mark.

i think a lot of repubs would say this is right smack on the mark.

------------------

geez...... gut feeling is just an expression.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Interpretations is different.

You can't really accuse everyone to be dependent and want more. But, what it is essentially doing is that those who really need it will atleast have comfort.

On the other hand, those who think more and more will be dependent hold the attitude, "who cares about those who really need it since I want to punish the bad guys more sor than saving the good guys - lets remove this dependency"

Heck, this is morally as saying punishing the good guys too, not such a bad idea for selfishness.

There will be holes in every policies. Whether the Republican does it or the Democrats. If there are no holes, there will be corrupted officials and we will definitely be communists.

i didn't and just saying, in case you couldn't.

i think a lot of repubs would say this is right smack on the mark.

------------------

geez...... gut feeling is just an expression.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The problem with feeding stray animals and welfare beneficiaries is not that they breed, it's that they keep coming back for more.

Although breeding is also a problem.

You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Do the math.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Socio-economic subjects are not scientific subjects. Learned that way back in college that human culture is a dynamic bunch. You can make predicitions, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Not like science. If we can use math to predict human behavior than all our economic crisis would've been avoided since day one human set foot on earth. That is the conjecture.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[JimandChristy 1,689]

I'm not an American (yet), but I've always voted according to what I think the country NEEDS at a particular time. I don't believe one political shoe can fit all situations. I believe there are times when a government needs to place fiscal responsibility at the top of its priority list. But I also believe there are times where social programs / humanitarianism needs to be at the top.

In Canada I've voted for Liberals AND Conservatives in different elections, just based on what I believe the country needs, and how the incumbent party is governing at the time of the election.

In other words: policies over parties.

Fully agree with this, its how I voted while back in the UK, also it seems to me over here in the USA the candidates personality is far more important than their policies. With the USA having a two party majority for such a long time, elements of support from either party can become really polarised so it doesn't matter how bad/good they think their party is they will vote for them anyway. I think what this country needs is a strong third party to knock the other two into shape.

It would just be interesting to see how our regular US citizens have voted for their President over the past few years...

1992 Clinton/GHW Bush

1996 Clinton/Dole

2000 Gore/Bush

2004 Kerry/Bush

2008 Obama/McCain

[Pooky 3,876]

In the UK, there is a genuine protest party, the Monster Raving Loony Party, and I voted for them on 3 occasions, because none of the UK's "mainstream" political parties represented what I believed in.

On this forum, I have been called labeled left-wing, right-wing and most things in-between, mainly because the vast majority of people here cannot see past their own political leanings to see a counterpoint as anything but from the opposing party. It's primarily down to the two party system here in the USA and clichés like "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I refuse to be defined by a political party and I refuse to back down from a long-held opinion that the difference between weasels and politicians is that all politicians are weasels, but not all weasels are politicians. I've worked with politicians. They exist somewhere between architects and realtors on the lowlife meter, just a little below lawyers. They are less trustworthy than a used-car salesman. But we're stuck with them when it comes to government.

In the end, however, an unused vote is a wasted opportunity. Choose who you vote for not by their party, but by the policies they support. Don't be blinded by what a candidate shows you for free, spend some of your own time to find out what they are not showing you in their ads on TV. Don't be dazzled by who they can call on to endorse them, see the light in the eyes of the ordinary men and women who are on the ground canvassing for them.

Make up your own mind, don't let others do it for you.

[FortLaudy 10]

In the UK, there is a genuine protest party, the Monster Raving Loony Party, and I voted for them on 3 occasions, because none of the UK's "mainstream" political parties represented what I believed in.

On this forum, I have been called labeled left-wing, right-wing and most things in-between, mainly because the vast majority of people here cannot see past their own political leanings to see a counterpoint as anything but from the opposing party. It's primarily down to the two party system here in the USA and clichés like "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I refuse to be defined by a political party and I refuse to back down from a long-held opinion that the difference between weasels and politicians is that all politicians are weasels, but not all weasels are politicians. I've worked with politicians. They exist somewhere between architects and realtors on the lowlife meter, just a little below lawyers. They are less trustworthy than a used-car salesman. But we're stuck with them when it comes to government.

In the end, however, an unused vote is a wasted opportunity. Choose who you vote for not by their party, but by the policies they support. Don't be blinded by what a candidate shows you for free, spend some of your own time to find out what they are not showing you in their ads on TV. Don't be dazzled by who they can call on to endorse them, see the light in the eyes of the ordinary men and women who are on the ground canvassing for them.

Make up your own mind, don't let others do it for you.

Very good reply thanks! Definetely agree about the labelling on VJ, wow!

[scandal 951]

I refuse to be defined by a political party and I refuse to back down from a long-held opinion that the difference between weasels and politicians is that all politicians are weasels, but not all weasels are politicians. I've worked with politicians. They exist somewhere between architects and realtors on the lowlife meter, just a little below lawyers. They are less trustworthy than a used-car salesman. But we're stuck with them when it comes to government.

I generally would agree with the rest of what you wrote, but not this bit about weasels.

Sure, we all like to deride our politicians, it's great sport. But there's another name for them - public servants. Those who we have hired to do our bidding on our behalf. Many of them enter politics out of nothing other than personal greed and ambition, I'm not blind to that. And many who enter for noble causes become nothing but greedy and self serving. But that doesn't change the fact that many enter public service to do good, and remain in public service continuing to do good throughout their careers. This is true for members of both parties.

Part of what I personally find so disheartening in VJ discussions of politics is this view that ALL government is bad, ALL politicians are vile and corrupt. There is precious little advocacy for the view that government can be a force for good, and that many of our elected officials really do want to improve things and fight on behalf of their constituents.

[FortLaudy 10]

obama has a needless war going on now too.

yeah, when are the troops going to be pulled out, I really thought Obama would put an end to this stupidity of spending billions on stupid wars that benefit no one, this is just my opinion, since I lived in the middle east for 4 years, but what I heard over and over again, the Arabs have but one thing against Americans: interference

[Pooky 3,876]

Part of what I personally find so disheartening in VJ discussions of politics is this view that ALL government is bad, ALL politicians are vile and corrupt.

I never said they were vile and corrupt, I said they were weasels. There is always an element of self-serving smugness to any politician - if there weren't, they'd never seek office. Of course, some push it way too far - Tony Blair is an extreme case, whereas some believe whole-heartedly that they will do good. Thing is, every politician falls down somewhere.

What you fail to see is that in most cases, it is the flaws in a politician that drive them to greatness (Tony Blair excepted). There are a number of politicians that I would label as great (but I won't here as I don't have the time), but I'd still call them weasels.

[Texanadian 10]

So you would also remove all federal involvement in the financial industry, yes?

You'd get rid of the Federal Reserve system, the SEC, the FDIC.

No FDIC - Deposit bank accounts would no longer be insured - a bank collapse would trigger instant forfeiture of deposits, and nervous depositors would run on their banks.

No SEC - there would be no mandatory reporting requirements for publicly traded companies. No 10-Q or 10-K filings, no requirment to adhere to accounting standards and have audited balance sheets.

No Federal Reserve - no independent monetary authority to be the lender of last resort and promote stable non-inflationary economic growth, sensitive to the business cycle but un-beholden to the electoral cycle.

Me? I'm rather fond of having those institutions. I'm rather glad that the Washington bigwigs see the wisdom in having them as well. They may need reform, they may need modernization in the current age of OTC derivatives trading. That strengthens the argument for government involvement, not weaken it.

FDIC....Banks are already protected from risky behavior as has already been mentioned. They were giving out mortgages to people with 0% down, an oral report of their income (no verification), and bad credit. If the person defaults, the person lost nothing (no money lost due to nothing down and the monthly mortgage up to that point would have been "rent")

SEC....I could live with them staying. Reason being that it's hard for the common person to actually research and verify that the balance sheets are indeed correct on companies.

Federal Reserve.....One of the worst things to ever happen to the USA. They are the creators of huge inflation.

Personally, I go for the Libertarian party. I don't like either of the Dems or Repubs. Democrats promise the moon and overspend. Republicans promise low taxes, but never cut a dime of spending. So with either party you're stuck with deficits and wasted money. More regulation. And more annoying laws.

I like the Libertarians because they're fair to all people of all income levels. Repubs want to cut taxes for the wealthy. Democrats want to extend welfare and cut bottom taxes. But regardless, they'll just raise the sales tax instead or add fees to services that used to be cheaper. Libertarians are the only party that actively eliminates or reduces taxes while at the same time cuts spending and gets rid of government waste. They don't want sin taxes or registration etc. They prefer local control of laws, schools, taxation. All of which I support. Because it's easier to make a fuss and be heard locally in your city or state than it is at the federal level.

A perfect example would be gas tax. Why do we have a federal gas tax? The interstate system has been built. Gas taxes should be collected by the individual states and spent on their own state roads. A higher percentage of the money would be spent on roads this way, rather than dolling it out to states with the most influence in congress. There is no need for the Federal government to be giving gas tax money to cities. It should have never left the state to begin with. Montana used to have no daytime speed limit. But back in the 1990's, the Federal government threatened to not give them any federal highway money if they didn't institute a speed limit. So now it's 70 mph there. The accident rate went up after the new limit was approved. Libertarians would simply eliminate the federal gas tax and allow the states to collect that money instead. The states may collect it. They may collect more or less. But it's always going to be more efficient to do things as local as possible.

Look at the 700 billion dollar "stimulus" that passed last year. Rather than all the bloated pork in it, we could have simply eliminated Federal income tax for everybody for 1 year. Would have cost 1 trillion dollars. But none of it would have been wasted. Want to know how our stimulus was spent here in Houston TX? They used the money to change an HOV lane on the highway into a toll road. Real stimulating. I'd have much preferred to have no state or federal taxes taken out of my cheque. Especially with the amount of overtime I put in. It would stimulate everybody to work harder. Save more. Get ahead. No group would be favored this way. No lobbying needed. Libertarians believe that special interest groups and lobbyists wouldn't exist under an LP party because there would be nothing to give away under their government.