Party loyalty

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps I'm old school, despite my youthful age, but I am mostly a party loyalist. This year I've already made my decision to support the presumptive nominee. S/he was not my first, or even my 2nd choice. Nevertheless, I can agree with the nominee-2-B much more than not, and I do see a passion and an independence that the country hungers for. Additionally, while my 2 favorites didn't make it, this individual that will lead my party does, by far, represent my values and those of my party better than whichever opponent on the other side ends the contender.

But wait! You tell me the selection process is not complete...idealism can still be in play. Not for me. I am a party man. I'd rather get behind the one who is clearly going to win--knowing that s/he needs support to win in November.

Sometimes, for the sake of the party, and the overarching values, your willing to take the candidate that you'd score a B, over the one you would give the A+.

Color me old school and a compromiser. But for me, being a party loyalist, baring an absolute abdication of the party platform--is a form of idealism. Yeah...I'm a party loyalist.

[the_jason]

I'm the opposite. I support candidates who meet my standards the closest. PC, are you telling me that if a member of your party believed everything contrary to what you believe, and that a member of another party agreed with your beliefs entirely, you'd still vote for your party member? How is that democracy? I'm tempted to vote for a candidate in the opposite party or not vote at all. The candidates in my own party do not measure up.

[Canuck Mormon]

Up here in Alberta, we are having a Provincial Election next month. I have been a Conservative supporter ever since I could vote. This year however, I am having doubt's. I work in the Oil & Gas Industry that is booming here. The province is well off with surpluses every year and everything is paid for. Yes, there are glitches like Health Care and getting enough workers, but on the whole things are well. The party has a new leader that decided to put a council together to judge whether the oil companies were paying their "fair share" of royalties. No oil company representatives were allowed on the council. This council decided that the taxpayers were being "robbed" of oil royalties to the tune of $1.4b every year. They recommended to raise the royalty rate an additional 20% to a grand total of 50%. This is the highest in Canada, and most of the world. This could result in lost jobs and economic hardship for those of us in the Oil & Gas Industry. I am torn because this is a party that I've supported for many years both Provincially and Nationally. I've got some serious deciding to do.

[teacherdani]

This is one reason that I love the LDS church. There is no prescribed political party that you have to be. I was tired in the churches I grew up in being encouraged to vote one way or hell awaits thee. I'm really glad that I have the ability and opportunity to vote who I feel is the most qualified. I'm not a party gal, I'm a use my brain and think things out girl. Truthfully, I think both Republicans and Democrats are immoral and that we need honesty in our country- so therefore being a "party gal" would tie me down to one of those parties. We need honesty, loyalty, and love in our political system again. So, I don't know if you are old school or not, I just totally disagree with your stance. Let's agree to disagree.

The days of churches telling parishioners how to vote is long gone. In fact, churches run into IRS issues if they endorse candidates.

That said, both of the U.S. major parties should be held accountable by their supporters. I would not be a party guy if my party did not cast a vision I supported. I may disagree with certain details, but so long as my party moves in a direction on most issues that I agree with, I'd rather support the big ship, then pick and choose which life boat suits my fancy today.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm the opposite. I support candidates who meet my standards the closest. PC, are you telling me that if a member of your party believed everything contrary to what you believe, and that a member of another party agreed with your beliefs entirely, you'd still vote for your party member? How is that democracy? I'm tempted to vote for a candidate in the opposite party or not vote at all. The candidates in my own party do not measure up.

T_J, I said "barring an absolute abdication of party platform." Of course, if the opposition candidate better represents my values, I'd vote for him/her. However, that's almost never the case. Rather, sometimes my party candidate may sink to agreeing with me 70% of the time. Yet, my party still represents my values overall far better than the opposition. I can get my at that 30% disagreement, or I can get behind this 70%-er, and look forward to the day when the party regulars support my 100%-er, despite their misgivings.

At the national level, the other guy never represents me better than my party person. But, should that strike-of-lightening situation occur, I'd re-assess, of course.

[the_jason]

At the national level, the other guy never represents me better than my party person. But, should that strike-of-lightening situation occur, I'd re-assess, of course.

For me, this is happening this year, and will no doubt happen again in the future. This is why I'm not a fan of party politics. Too often, people vote for their party instead of the right candidate. They are too consumed in pride with regard to their own party that they fail to see what's really happening. If parties were abolished people would have to vote for the actual candidates, and I believe this will put the right people in office more often. More people will agree with and support the people in office, and more good will be done.

[Palerider]

Perhaps I'm old school, despite my youthful age, but I am mostly a party loyalist. This year I've already made my decision to support the presumptive nominee. S/he was not my first, or even my 2nd choice. Nevertheless, I can agree with the nominee-2-B much more than not, and I do see a passion and an independence that the country hungers for. Additionally, while my 2 favorites didn't make it, this individual that will lead my party does, by far, represent my values and those of my party better than whichever opponent on the other side ends the contender.

But wait! You tell me the selection process is not complete...idealism can still be in play. Not for me. I am a party man. I'd rather get behind the one who is clearly going to win--knowing that s/he needs support to win in November.

Sometimes, for the sake of the party, and the overarching values, your willing to take the candidate that you'd score a B, over the one you would give the A+.

Color me old school and a compromiser. But for me, being a party loyalist, baring an absolute abdication of the party platform--is a form of idealism. Yeah...I'm a party loyalist.

I agree with you PC......I will vote the party this time....and as I do....I will look the other way and cringe a bit.....:)

[a-train]

It is very difficult for me to say that any party actually stands for my values. Honesty, integrity, peace, justice, morality, good to all men, which party is that? Both of the major U.S. parties stand for everything opposite of my values. Filled to the brim with liars, thieves, warmongers, lawyers, adulterers, and those who stir up all manner of hate and envy, I can find very few in these parties that stand for what I believe in.

When finally one stands in his integrity among them, he is quickly scorned, ridiculed, and cast out by the scandalous men of abomination and the general public is quickly persuaded to follow this hazardous course to destruction through 'party affiliation'.

We have the GOP to thank for war, higher taxes, outrageous deficit spending, the Patriot Act, torture, secret prisons, extreme economic damages brought by unconstitutional entaglements with foreign nations including those who hold in contempt liberty and human rights, the impoverishment of the country through inflation taxation and damnable aid to foreign dictators and governments of horrible reputation, the overthrow of democracy in foreign lands in the efforts to secure deeper profits for western business, and countless more. Is the Democrat Party any better? Add to that list a bundle of socialist reforms and we have little difference.

If America would start voting for those men and women of integrity who will uphold the constitution and justice, and stop voting for these parties that stand for nothing more than their own self-interests, we would restore liberty and peace to this once great nation.

-a-train

[NateHowe]

I am quite disillusioned with the two-party system, but there is one party toward which I tend to lean as the lesser evil. Neither party represents my views in practice, although many among them enjoy talking about those things I see as necessary in a government.

[checkerboy]

To quote Pres. Washington from his Farewell Address, refering to political parties.

"They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

I have to say I agree.

[Elgama]

Personally I vote for people who have policies that I want to see implemented in my country and have yet to vote for the same party twice, the candidate for me is less important than the issues they raise.

-Charley

[miztrniceguy]

i'm not sure i'm even going to vote, as i don't like the front runner of my party, and i sure as heck dont like the 2 front runners of the other party. i will be watching til the end, but i would rather vote for someone not going to get the nom, than have to say i voted for the front runner. not voting is the same as voting for the one you dont want. "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" Freewill Rush

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, here's the math for U.S. politics.

Step 1: This is basically a two party system--so find the major party that you agree with 70% or more.

A. If there is no such party, find one of the more significant minor parties, and support it, hoping that it will help draw one of the majors on a few issues.

B. If there is no such party, simply find the candidates that meet the 70% plus rule.

2. Step 2: Within that party (if there is one), support the candidate that meets your 70% agreement rule.

A. If there is no such candidate, cross party lines to find one.

B. If there is no such candidate in any party, abstain.

[a-train]

What real difference is there left between the two parties?

The top two delegate holding Presidential candidates from both parties all:

Have raised taxes.

Have raised government spending.

Openly propose an increase in government spending.

Have supported unbalanced government budgets.

Support interventionist preemptive foreign policy.

Support sanctions on Iran.

Will not even commit to an end to the Iraqi occupation by the end of their 1st term.

Voted yes on the 'Patriot' Act (the governor supports it, although he couldn't vote).

Have supported amnesty for illegal workers.

Support government intervention rather than a free market solution to the energy issue.

Support Federal regulation of education (albeit some want to reform it).

Support NAFTA and other treaties like it (albeit some want to modify them).

Support either social security or Federal controls over funds withheld from the program.

Support background checks for gun purchasers.

All but one support some kind of government bailout for the housing bubble.

All but one support civil unions for gay/lesbian couples (more gov. regulation of people's lives). However none of them advocate the government staying out of the issue entirely.

All but one support Roe v. Wade.

All but one support Federal Internet regulation.

All but one support a minimum wage increase.

At least the parties have clear lines on the assault weapons ban and universal healthcare. But it is still questionable whether each candidate has remained true to their position on these issues throughout their career. Further, defining an assault weapon becomes a problem. And none of them are arguing that the Federal Government should have no control over healthcare or guns, they only disagree on how much.

There just isn't enough difference to matter.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

What real difference is there left between the two parties?

The top two delegate holding Presidential candidates from both parties all:

Have raised taxes.

Have raised government spending.

Openly propose an increase in government spending.

Have supported unbalanced government budgets.

Support interventionist preemptive foreign policy.

Support sanctions on Iran.

Will not even commit to an end to the Iraqi occupation by the end of their 1st term.

Voted yes on the 'Patriot' Act (the governor supports it, although he couldn't vote).

Have supported amnesty for illegal workers.

Support government intervention rather than a free market solution to the energy issue.

Support Federal regulation of education (albeit some want to reform it).

Support NAFTA and other treaties like it (albeit some want to modify them).

Support either social security or Federal controls over funds withheld from the program.

Support background checks for gun purchasers.

All but one support some kind of government bailout for the housing bubble.

All but one support civil unions for gay/lesbian couples (more gov. regulation of people's lives).

All but one support Roe v. Wade.

All but one support Federal Internet regulation.

All but one support a minimum wage increase.

At least the parties have clear lines on the assault weapons ban and universal healthcare. But it is still questionable whether each candidate has remained true to their position on these issues throughout their career. Further, defining an assault weapon becomes a problem. And none of them are arguing that the Federal Government should have no control over healthcare or guns, they only disagree on how much.

There just isn't enough difference to matter.

-a-train

Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a two-party system in America?

Unfortunately there is no real, substantial difference between the "two" parties, other than in how they are spelled.

[sgallan]

Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a two-party system in America?

Unfortunately there is no real, substantial difference between the "two" parties, other than in how they are spelled.

Uh oh.... time to start up my flying pig..... I am in agreement with a Bircher.

[prisonchaplain]

Let's see...how to do this with out naming candidate names...hmmmm...

Does anyone seriously believe there would be no difference between the two current front runners?

Nearly three decades difference in age

Vastly different experiences

Very different approaches to the current circumstances in Iraq

Different priorities in choosing judges for the Supreme Court

Of course, if one is on the far right, or the far left, the difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderately conservative Republican do not seem great. But, for most Americans, the two nominees will represent easily distinguishable paths.

And I come back to my original premise...my party is likely to select my 3rd choice for nominee. Nevertheless, the vision s/he casts is far different from the other side...and I'm willing to tolerate a few disagreements, to see this magnificent land move in a direction I believe is wiser.

[a-train]

Nearly three decades difference in age

Vastly different experiences

Very different approaches to the current circumstances in Iraq

Different priorities in choosing judges for the Supreme Court

Of course, if one is on the far right, or the far left, the difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderately conservative Republican do not seem great. But, for most Americans, the two nominees will represent easily distinguishable paths.

I can see the obvious differences in age, historical experience, skin color, sex, etc. But I see no difference at all in approaches to Iraq. They all buy into this phony 'war' where we are fighting 'terrorists' who seek the overthrow of democracy and peace in the world. They all do not wish to leave Iraq until the 'enemy' is overcome and a government established by Uncle Sam controls the area. They all buy into the idea that the U.S. should be involved in the internal affairs of middle eastern states. None of them will even commit to an end to the conflict by the end of their 1st term in 2013.

All the while that thousands of Americans are dying and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dying to 'further the cause of democracy, peace, and freedom' in the middle east, we continue to give billions of dollars to dictators as brutal as Saddam. Only one of the candidates even admits this is an inconsistancy and notable flaw in American foreign policy, but his/her position on the war seems to remain the same.

What none of them are willing to talk much about is the fact that the U.S. is building a 21 building embassy in Baghdad consting hundreds of millions of our tax dollars. This gigantic U.S. interest will need to be preserved and protected for eternity. We need not be fooled, there are NO PLANS to EVER leave.

Perhaps our great grandchildren will be reading news releases about the loss of life going on each day in Iraq where freedom fighters resist foreign imperialism. No matter what government springs up in Iraq, the U.S. intention is that it will be one which will operate with U.S. interests higher on its agenda than local interests. There are no forerunning Presidential Candidates who seem to care, they all buy into the idea that U.S. imperialism and control over internal affairs is constitutional and good.

Am I wrong? Is there one of these candidates who sees the issue differently?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

I can see the obvious differences in age, historical experience, skin color, sex, etc. But I see no difference at all in approaches to Iraq. They all buy into this phony 'war' where we are fighting 'terrorists' who seek the overthrow of democracy and peace in the world. They all do not wish to leave Iraq until the 'enemy' is overcome and a government established by Uncle Sam controls the area. They all buy into the idea that the U.S. should be involved in the internal affairs of middle eastern states. None of them will even commit to an end to the conflict by the end of their 1st term in 2013. ... Am I wrong? Is there one of these candidates who sees the issue differently?

-a-train

If your ideal is isolationism it would be difficult for you to find a like-minded candidate in the major parties. However, one of the two is definitely closer to you than the other.

[a-train]

There are and have been candidates in the major parties who think about the Iraq war in the manner I describe. None of the current frontrunners do, but there does remain a candidate(s) in even this very presidential election and in the major parties that think this way.

If wanting to purchase a product from a man rather than robbing him of it makes one an isolationist, then I guess I find myself in the camp of the isolationists.

But, last I checked, isolationism contains the notion that the people so engaged in it seek only their own advancement and they therefore refrain from foreign trade agreements. It is therefore difficult for me to imagine a policy less isolationist than the military destruction of a government to avoid further negotiations, treaties, or economic commitments to buy products so that they can be taken without compensation.

I can additionally see no reason why our plunder of Iraq is going to bring our federal government into any better position to establish good relations with the various states around the world. In fact, we are much more isolated as a result.

Still, I cannot see any of the frontrunners who have much difference of opinion at all on the Iraq war. Perhaps there are some that pay lip service to leaving, but like I said, they are not committed to even get us out by 2013. What real difference is there?

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

There are and have been candidates in the major parties who think about the Iraq war in the manner I describe. None of the current frontrunners do, but there does remain a candidate(s) in even this very presidential election and in the major parties that think this way.

If wanting to purchase a product from a man rather than robbing him of it makes one an isolationist, then I guess I find myself in the camp of the isolationists.

But, last I checked, isolationism contains the notion that the people so engaged in it seek only their own advancement and they therefore refrain from foreign trade agreements. It is therefore difficult for me to imagine a policy less isolationist than the military destruction of a government to avoid further negotiations, treaties, or economic commitments to buy products so that they can be taken without compensation.

I can additionally see no reason why our plunder of Iraq is going to bring our federal government into any better position to establish good relations with the various states around the world. In fact, we are much more isolated as a result.

Still, I cannot see any of the frontrunners who have much difference of opinion at all on the Iraq war. Perhaps there are some that pay lip service to leaving, but like I said, they are not committed to even get us out by 2013. What real difference is there?

-a-train

All I want is to follow the United States Constitution at the Federal Level. No exceptions.

If we just did that, the results would be a return to prosperity that the world has yet to see.

Imagine earning real money that doesn't depreciate in value over time.

Imagine no income tax.

Imagine no undeclared "wars".

Imagine no foreign aid.

Imagine no Social Security.

Imagine no Medicaid / Medical.

Imagine no welfare-state.

Imagine no EPA.

Imagine no gun-control.

Imagine no legal abortions.

Imagine no Judicial legislation.

Imagine a Congress that follows its' constitutional duties.

Imagine a President who doesn't ignore the constitution.

What a world it would be! And that's all I want.

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, and you've got my vote.

[miztrniceguy]

was that the first 2 yrs of this country? or did we make it 3?

[a-train]

No kidding.

As soon as this nation began, the wolves began to attack and they have never ceased.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

was that the first 2 yrs of this country? or did we make it 3?

For the most important issue we made is from 1776 until 1913, and partially 'til 1973.

What many do not know is one of the major tenets of the Constitution is real money. We had that until 1913 (except for a period during the Civil War).

Take away real money, and the people cease to be truly free.

[Guest Malcolm]

Property. It comes down to property. The ONLY reason for the existence of the law is to ensure the right and and the safety of property for ALL citizens. Everything else is an apendage of that principle.

Without such fundamental protection we are at the mercy of those that will not think twice before plundering from one to give it another or to enrich themselves.