Are all republicans?

[Noleader]

Only vote if you consider yourself a democrat. The way you vote will be public so do not vote if you do not want your vote known.

I am making it public to insure no board republicans vote on it (You know who you are).

[Ivyrielle]

I don't consider myself a democrat, nor do I consider myself a republican.

I guess libertarians should abstain if we don't consider ourselves democrats?

[Swifty_Johnson]

I decided to Switch parties.

Swifty

[Grundy]

I am not voting since I am not a Democrat but if I were I would still be unable to characterize "all Republicans" with such a generalization.

I might be able to offer an opion if the question were narrowed down to Republican leadership, their policies or the special interests controlling them.

I also think you can be both fair and religious/moral. I do not see these as exclusive since I consider myself both fair and spiritual/moral but I am not entirely sure what you mean by fair?

[Noleader]

Grundy when I say all republicans I mean the leadership/people who create the platform.

Had I explored all the options the poll would have 100 options to pick and I am not one to expel an hour for a joke :)

[Noleader]

Being the board republicans voted already the poll is open for everyone :/

[Jammer]

Most of the Republicans I know are athiest as hell, but among the most moral people I've ever met, so I wouldn't know how to vote even if you wanted me to.

But I wouldn't claim to be an expert on sweeping generalization-oriented polls, so I'll bow out gracefully. :)

Jammer

[Murrie]

are independant libertarian minded folks allowed to vote?

[Allison]

Lol, where's the option for "Can't follow directions."? ;)

I can't vote in this poll, it's way too generalized.

But, I will say that the Republican party seems to be moving farther to the right. There are only a few moderate Republicans left in the Senate; and after watching the RNC's platform committee debating their 2004 platform, I can honestly say that some of them really are right-wing nutjobs who would be very happy if God gave them the authority to severely punish all sinners.

But, that's not to say that all of them are like that, or that the Democratic party doesn't also have its fair share of whackos ... just that they seem more prevalent this year than in past years. Only time will tell if this really is a trend in the Republican party toward ultra-conservatism. I hope it isn't, because I think those idealogically stubborn few make reasonable discourse impossible, and they give Republicans a bad name, just like the nutjobs on the left give Democrats a bad name, too.

[Boom]

I'm kind of with Ailia on this one. None of the options in the poll work for me so I really can't vote.

I think there are elements in the republican party that are right wing wackos and religious nuts. And I think one of the problems with the republican party is that these elements have way too much influence. But I don't think republicans in general are wackos or anything. I think republicans in general are middle of the road average Americans (exactly like most democrats in general). I just think that republicans in general are misled into believing that it is a sin to vote for a democrat because democrats are communists and traitors and sinners. I also think that republicans in general are misled into believing that corporate welfare is somehow going to help them and our leaders should continue to bend over backwards for corporations because this is a country by the corporations, of the corporations and for the corporations. As an aside, I don't think we should be trying to destroy the corporations or anything, corporations can be good things, I just think republicans (and many democrats) are too quick to sell out to corporate interests.

[Ivyrielle]

Ah, well, since this was a joke poll and not intended to serious gage thoughts and opinions, I'll make my personal choice to abstain (as a small "l" libertarian).

[Boom]

What's the difference between a small l libertarian and a big L Libertarian?

I hope that question doesn't come off as obnoxious. I don't mean for it to be read that way. I honestly don't know much about the big L Libertarian party and I am unclear on how it differs from small l libertarian beliefs and values and stuff.

[Jolaren]

I'm still very bitter about the election- Gotta be Right Wing Wackjobs. Not even a week after the awful day, and there's already talk on the news about Bush trying to overturn Roe v. Wade with new Supreme Court appointments in the next coupla years. Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-woman's choice, Pro-Pledge of Allegiance in schools, ignoring global warming, the new Alaskan Oil pipeline, Pro-war, anti-gun control... about the only Republican Rplatform I can even remotely comprehend with some logic is anti-terrorism, even though they're botching that up rather nicely, and using it as an excuse to go after Iraq, screw up the North Korean situation, and alienate the majority of our European allies (note I said majority, the Poles still like us, and the English are with us until their next election...). Total wackjobs.

[Post]

Yep, too generalized. Fair/unfair have nothing to do with the party and everything to do with the person.

[Grundy]

Ohhhh that was a joke poll. Im like the clown who laughs only on the inside.

[Noleader]

HAHAHAH

I think Jolaren sums up how I feel most of the time about the current state of the country :)

This poll is intended as a joke with the hopes of getting some lively discuession. I been asking a lot of people as of late why they voted for whoever. Most of the time not even asking who they did vote for.

[Noleader]

Yep, too generalized. Fair/unfair have nothing to do with the party and everything to do with the person.
Well when the person you do not want to win does... You gage their actions based on a different set of rules. You do not view their policy has in your best interest (or else you would have voted for them), but the question comes into play if you consider their policy to be fair or excluding those those that do not agree with them.

[Murrie]

But, I will say that the Republican party seems to be moving farther to the right.

And they are able to because the Democratic party is not mounting an effective counter. The people are holding their noses and voting for the Repubs becuase they feel that even given the faults of the Republican Party they are the better match to their beliefs. You could say that at the same time the Democrats are moving further to the left which the american people seem to be rejecting.


I honestly don't know much about the big L Libertarian party and I am unclear on how it differs from small l libertarian beliefs and values and stuff.
for info on the Libertarian Party go here:
lp.org

A Libertarian would be a Libertarian party member, while a liberatarian would be one that believes that the libertarian message, and many of its platform planks are good ones with worthy goals, but not strongly enough to be a party member. I have many problems with a pure Libertarian form of government, way to close to total anarchy for my tastes. And the party itself seems very happy to maintain its little corner of the world and be relegated to the history books. They maintain and push for radically unpopular beliefs with no serious chance for normal folks to find something to agree with.

Take the drug thing:
The Libertarian Party wants all drugs legalized, they go as far as pushing their pot heads to the front of the party and has these hippy look alikes promoting the party. This turns off a large number of voters.

As a libertarian:
I see that the war on drugs is a huge drain on our society and is even less effective and much much more costly than the first go at prohibition. Drugs should be legalized with restraint. Pot i would be fine with being like alcohol, just dont drive or whatever and your free to use as you choose. Heroin on the other hand should be more like a percribed drug, if your adicted go to the doctor and tell them, they give you some heroin, as long as you agree to getting treatment for your addiction.


What iver been waiting and hopeing for is for the Democratic Party to drop the nutty Nader crowd and try to pull in the nutty libertarian crowd. Most of the libertarian ideals are also liberal ideals where the government is out of your life, but the libertarian ideal of personal responsibilty is directly against the Democratic handout ideals. I doubt the Repubs will embrace the libertarians simply because they dont match very well at all, the fiscal responsibility use to be a conservative idea but not anymore.

Until the Libertarians become more mainstream and tone their crazier ideas down to make for more gradual changes towards their ideals, or one party or the other embrace their ideals and "mainstream" them then the Libertarian party is more doomed than the Green party, and the Green party is going no where fast.

[Murrie]

Bush trying to overturn Roe v. Wade with new Supreme Court appointments in the next coupla years.

Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-woman's choice, Pro-Pledge of Allegiance in schools, ignoring global warming, the new Alaskan Oil pipeline, Pro-war, anti-gun control... about the only Republican Rplatform

First off, roe vs wade is not going to go away, and if it does, you only have the Democratic Party to blame for not mounting an actual challenge to the president or congress critters over the past decade.

Secondly you can use all the excuses you want and call those that voted for Bush all the names you want, but thats not going to change anything. Thinking that way in 2 and 4 years will only result in a repeat of the past several election cycles, IE the Democratic/liberal philosophy being rejected by the american people allowing the Right Wing Wackos to get a greater foothold and push for more "right wing" . I know that attitude that I hear from my Liberal friends and Liberal web sites is not winning any points with me.

A better idea would be to realize that a majority of americans favor some variation of that list in one way or another and find a way to meet americans halfway.
Simply being for complete gun control, total elimination of war, the destruction of industry for the sake of the environment, and a total fear of anything 'god' related is not going to win many elections outside those blue counties.

Realizing that Americans; want their Guns, understand that War is sometimes necessary, and that the environment should be protected but not at the cost of peoples livelihood, dont care about gay folks but dont want a couple judges and mayors forcing Gay Marriage down the rest of the countries throats, and believe in god, would do wonders for the Democratic parties chances.

Simply being dumb founded that "stupid" americans voted for the Chimp because they are bigoted, gun loving, gay haters is going to keep Democrats out of power.

[Allison]

You could say that at the same time the Democrats are moving further to the left which the american people seem to be rejecting.
Hmmm ... I don't see that. If anything, I think the Democratic Party is moving to the right, at least in the marketing of their party. And let's face it, when we're talking about how people vote, we're talking more about their perceptions of a person or a party based on marketing, and less about actual issues or positions. Democrats have been trying to market themselves as "just as moral as Republicans" by straddling the fence on a number of social issues and by quoting scripture or invoking the name of God whenever they get the chance. Personally, I think Democrats would be better off in the long run if they did just stop pussy-footing around and go ahead with a bold step to the left.

[Murrie]

Hmmm ... I don't see that. If anything, I think the Democratic Party is moving to the right, at least in the marketing of their party.

That is a fatal flaw. Your missing the biggest problem your party is having alli. They are moving left, the country is not following, allowing more Republicans to get elected and the push to the right to continue. Say what you will but the power base of the Democratic party is getting smaller and smaller in size every election cycle, it is consolidating into small but very heavily populated city areas.
As we have seen that power base is not enough to get elected by, and in several key areas is eroding (more blacks, jews and gays voted republican than ever before)

Maybe the country is moving more to the right, either way the democratic party needs to change to get back in line with the average american especially in the south or the party will be delt loss after loss outside those few city areas and will not be back in power for awhile, to the determent of us all.

[Allison]

A better idea would be to realize that a majority of americans favor some variation of that list in one way or another and find a way to meet americans halfway.
Simply being for complete gun control, total elimination of war, the destruction of industry for the sake of the environment, and a total fear of anything 'god' related is not going to win many elections outside those blue counties.


I think this sums up a lot of what is wrong with the Democratic party: too many people believe that these far-left philosophies represent the core beliefs of most Democrats, and Democrats aren't doing anything to change that perception.

Each party has tried to create a charicature of the other: Republicans are supposed to be money-worshipping, intolerant, hate-mongers, and Democrats are supposed to be God-hating, tree-hugging, baby-killers. I don't know if Republicans have done a better job of defining Democrats in these terms or if Democrats have just failed in countering it ... either way, Republicans have the upper hand. But the truth is that most people fall in the middle of those two extremes. Most people, Republican or Democrat, favor some gun control, but not too much; they favor protecting the environment, but balancing that with the needs of industry; they favor a person's right to express their faith, but don't want to live in a theocracy; they want a military powerful enough to protect us, but not so powerful that it becomes excessive; they want a strong economy, but not at the expense of Joe CommonMan.

Of course, there are exceptions. There are people in each party who fit the extreme. But I think we need to be careful to not apply that extreme to everyone.

[Murrie]

But the truth is that most people fall in the middle of those two extremes. Most people, Republican or Democrat, favor some gun control, but not too much; they favor protecting the environment, but balancing that with the needs of industry; they favor a person's right to express their faith, but don't want to live in a theocracy; they want a military powerful enough to protect us, but not so powerful that it becomes excessive; they want a strong economy, but not at the expense of Joe CommonMan.

Absolutely. The Democrats just need to come slightly back in line with some of these ideals, drop the whole class warfair game (and the screaching of the george soros and michael moores) and then they would be right back on top.

EDIT: one more thing: being anti war while in the middle of a war isnt the big winner with the american people that it was in the late 60s

[Allison]

That is a fatal flaw. Your missing the biggest problem your party is having alli. They are moving left, the country is not following, allowing more Republicans to get elected and the push to the right to continue. Say what you will but the power base of the Democratic party is getting smaller and smaller in size every election cycle, it is consolidating into small but very heavily populated city areas.
First, it's not my party. :)

Second, I agree that the power base of the Democratic party is getting smaller.

Third, I don't see how the Democratic party has moved left. What positions do they hold now that are more leftist than they were 10 years ago? What I see is trend among voters to align themselves with the right. I think there are many factors involved in this trend, but the fact that the Democratic Party is falling behind doesn't mean that the party itself has changed in any fundamental way.

[Murrie]

Sorry if i slurred you there alli :p

And how has the Right moved more to the Right? What positions are the Right holding now that they didnt 10 years ago?

The more I think about it, the more i think that neither party has changed that much other than blending together more. It is the population that moving more to the Right. Thats not unusual, and history shows that the attitudes do swing back and forth throughout history.

Its still the Democratic parties problem, and amounts to the same thing as a shift to the left. They can either wait for the cycle to swing the population back to the left again (will take decades) or they can follow the population and move to the right themselves.

[Allison]

And how has the Right moved more to the Right? What positions are the Right holding now that they didnt 10 years ago?
Uh ... calling my bluff there, eh? Oh wait, did I actually say that? I think I said they seem to be going more right. :p Haha! Seriously, though, my perception is that Republicans seem to be embracing and including their far-right fringes moreso than in previous years ... that the people I consider to be rihgt-wing extremists have much more prominence within the party than ever before. That's not to say that there has been any actual change in stated party positions, just that the scary bad people have more power than before.

But, maybe my perceptions are just the result of Republicans rising to power and so they're just more visible than before.

The more I think about it, the more i think that neither party has changed that much other than blending together more. It is the population that moving more to the Right. Thats not unusual, and history shows that the attitudes do swing back and forth throughout history.
My thoughts exactly. The nation swings liberal for a while, then conservative, and then back to liberal again. Ideally, it doesn't swing too far or for too long in either direction, so that in the context of 20 or 50 years, there is a balance.

[Noleader]

First off, roe vs wade is not going to go away, and if it does, you only have the Democratic Party to blame for not mounting an actual challenge to the president or congress critters over the past decade.

I would like to correct you. Blame falls on the people that elected the officals. If Roe vs. Wade goes away I will be happy in knowing my state did not support it.

[Murrie]

blame who you want, but its the Democratic parties fault for not presenting a challenger that could beat a chimp. The Democrats have been loosing seats in congress since 94, and have just lost 2 presidential elections. Unless they figure out why the party is not in touch enough with the people of the country to win a majority of votes then blame lies with them.

I personally would rather have voted for someone that is more Pro-choice. I didnt have a viable pro choice choice though. Thats not my fault. Its the Democratic Parties fault.

[Rooster]

Only vote if you consider yourself a democrat. The way you vote will be public so do not vote if you do not want your vote known.

I am making it public to insure no board republicans vote on it (You know who you are).Oops, I voted... lol

But 500 points if you can guess what I voted!

[Boom]

Wait a minute here... If the repubs do anything bad now, its not their fault, but its the democrats' fault for not winning the election?

I am usually with you here Murrie, even though I am a whiney liberal hippie and you are a conservative poopypants. But are you saying that if George Bush does something bad, its not George Bush's fault for doing it, or the republican party's fault for doing it, but its the democrat party's fault for not beating Bush in the election? That seems like a bit of shifting the blame. I mean, would you say that WWII wasn't Hitler's fault or the Nazi's fault but its the German Communist Party of 1930's fault for not gaining control of Germany instead of Hitler? I mean technically its their fault, but isn't the blame more appropriately placed upon the guy who actually did the bad stuff?

Technically what you are saying is true, but there is technical truth and there are reasonable limits for blame. In law school we discussed this at length while learning limitations of liability. There is proximate cause, and there is actual cause. Actual cause is anything that passes the "but-for" test (but for him doing whatever, the accident wouldn't have happened). Actual cause can be very far removed from the accident. If whatshisface had never invented the combustion engine, no car accidents would ever happen. He is an actual cause of all car accidents. But we don't sue that guy's estate every time there is a car accident because he isn't really to blame. He isn't the proximate cause of the accidents. Proximate cause is an action that is closer to the issue and really should bear the blame.

For example, if you get hit by a car, you sue the guy driving the car because it was his fault. Maybe you also sue the owner of the car for letting an unlicenced driver use his car. But you don't sue the guy's mother for giving birth to him. Athough technically her giving birth to that jerk is an actual cause of your accident. And you don't sue the math club guy who went to high school with the guy's mother but never asked her out because he was too shy. Technically, your accident is that math club guy's fault. If he had asked out the mother in high school, he could have married her or whatever and she never would have gotten knocked up by the quarterback and given birth to the asshole who ran you over. That math club guy is an "actual cause" of your accident because of the "but-for" test. But for him not asking the mom out, the kid never would have been born and you never would have been run over. But he isn't a proximate cause of the accident because it is just too far removed.

So while Kerry's lack of charisma, and failure to defend himself against the more hostile and retarded attacks might be an "actual cause" of anything Bush does bad in the next four years, it isn't really fair to blame him because Bush himself is the more proximate cause of what he does.