NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote on my new poll. In case you were curious, I'm a democrat.

The one where Bill Clinton breaks out his little black book and hollers "Booty call!":D

Peace and Freedom. I also like the Socialist Party, the Socialist Equality Party, and, somewhat, the Green Party.

What's the Peace and Freedom Party stand for?

damn, socialist or democrat? can't choose.

What's the Peace and Freedom Party stand for?

I think it's pretty self-explanitory. However, if one is curious, one might use such wonderful inventions as the marvellous 'Search Engine.'

What's the Peace and Freedom Party stand for?

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/Platform.htm

I think it's pretty self-explanitory. However, if one is curious, one might use such wonderful inventions as the marvellous 'Search Engine.'

Ahh...your wisdom is infinite...

I'm sorry, but I hate Libertarians. They slowly poach Liberals over to the Conservatives and it shits me. So, Democrats

I hover somewhere between Green and Libertarian. The Green's claims to decentralization and grassroots/local/community based initiatives seem like a good thing, but the leftist/socialist infestation scares me. The Libertarian's claims to decentralization, individualism, and free enterprise seem like a good thing, but the government-is-pure-evil and business-can-do-no-wrong sorts of attitudes scare me.

Basically, rid the Greens of all the pinko commies, and rid of the Libertarians of all the "anarcho"-capitalists. I guess I mean Liberalism, before the socialists and capitalists deflowered it. Someone point out a party like that.

I hover somewhere between Green and Libertarian. The Green's claims to decentralization and grassroots/local/community based initiatives seem like a good thing, but the leftist/socialist infestation scares me. The Libertarian's claims to decentralization, individualism, and free enterprise seem like a good thing, but the government-is-pure-evil and business-can-do-no-wrong sorts of attitudes scare me.

Basically, rid the Greens of all the pinko commies, and rid of the Libertarians of all the "anarcho"-capitalists. I guess I mean Liberalism, before the socialists and capitalists deflowered it. Someone point out a party like that.
Well, you could always join the Libertarian Reformation - http://www.reformthelp.org/ - I did.

Much more sensible folks.

None of them represent me. Of all of them, the one I dislike least is probably the Dems (At least the ones who haven't sold out), but I don't like them either.

Are my politics really so crazy that no one has a party that represnts them?

I tend towards the republican party. Even though I hate the anti-science attitude they often display and I hate the spend and spend attitude that currently fills the white house and I hate all of the short sighted things that they do, I still support the idea of a party that supports a largely deregulated economy, that has good support for the armed forces, and that believes in some form of rugged individualism without complete minarchism.

Well, you could always join the Libertarian Reformation - http://www.reformthelp.org/ - I did.

Much more sensible folks.

Unfortunately, the single member district plurality electoral system employed in the United States guarantees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) that the Libertarian Party would have to "reform" its platform to such a radical extent that it would be a whole lot easier to simply make a photocopy of the Republican or Democratic platform. This is another reason why I have trouble picking a party. Short of a complete collapse of either the Republican or Democratic parties (nationally or locally) or a radical reformation of Constitutional government and the installation of an electoral method that doesn't create a two party system, none of them stand a chance of actually getting any office beyond the local sewer board.

Stand on principle and enjoy essentially zero political representation, or sell my soul and actually win occasionally.

Unfortunately, the single member district plurality electoral system employed in the United States guarantees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) that the Libertarian Party would have to "reform" its platform to such a radical extent that it would be a whole lot easier to simply make a photocopy of the Republican or Democratic platform. This is another reason why I have trouble picking a party. Short of a complete collapse of either the Republican or Democratic parties (nationally or locally) or a radical reformation of Constitutional government and the installation of an electoral method that doesn't create a two party system, none of them stand a chance of actually getting any office beyond the local sewer board.

Stand on principle and enjoy essentially zero political representation, or sell my soul and actually win occasionally.
The sad truth of politics. Although, were I in the USA I would most certainly support the LP.

Really, there's only 2 parties that will actually form government

Out of democrat and republican, I would go for republican. simply because elephants are cute. they can do all those tricks in the circus and everything. ive never seen a donkey balance himself on a ball!

plus im not american, so I don't really care(and Ronald Reagan is my fave pres, so why not)

The sad truth of politics.

It's the sad truth regarding the injustice of the first-past-the-post single member system, anyway. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were ahead of their time in trying to construct a federal system based on the seperation of powers and limited government. Today, unfortunately, the plan is way, way, way behind.

It's the sad truth regarding the injustice of the first-past-the-post single member system, anyway. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were ahead of their time in trying to construct a federal system based on the seperation of powers and limited government. Today, unfortunately, the plan is way, way, way behind.
And system being sacrosanct, no one is willing to reform it.

And system being sacrosanct, no one is willing to reform it.

The Republicans and Democrats have no reason to change it. They'd be fools if they did.

There's no party representing my views.

But since the US is a two party system, my vote would have to be cast on the lesser of two evils.

And that would have to be the Dem's.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/Platform.htm

I read that and I agree with pretty much everything. Peace and Freedom for me.

The Republicans and Democrats have no reason to change it. They'd be fools if they did.
Hmm too bad. Vested interests I guess.

Being a Libertarian or Green is rather High School no? Its a tad precocious 15 year old. Then you grow up and realize the world is about compromise and become a Dem or Rep.


The US needs a Respect Party. :mp5:

:D



----
http://www.royalsreview.com

Being a Libertarian or Green is rather High School no? Its a tad precocious 15 year old. Then you grow up and realize the world is about compromise and become a Dem or Rep.


The US needs a Respect Party. :mp5:

:D



----
http://www.royalsreview.com
Whereas using shotgun smilies in one's post is very much an adult thing, right? :)

Being a Libertarian or Green is rather High School no? Its a tad precocious 15 year old.


Actually, it was the generally collectivist, conformist and herd-like behavior displayed by my high school peers that served to shape my libertarian-like political orientation. So, I'd say no, being a Libertarian or Green is rather unlike high school.


Then you grow up and realize the world is about compromise and become a Dem or Rep.


This "compromise" has essentially nothing to do with having to "grow up," but rather is caused by the fact that first-past-the-post single member electoral systems, like the one instituted in the United States, tend to generate two party systems. It's not about maturity; short of the institution of an electoral system based on proportional representation, there is simply no effective choice besides "Republican" or "Democrat."

I especially fail to see how actively taking advantage of, and ensuring the continued use of, an electoral system that negates my political and electoral representation qualifies as "compromise."

The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.

Make no mistake boys and girls, the only party is the rich. All that politics are, all that politics have ever been in any land... is a fight amonst a couple of privledged cliques that don't get along.

Actually, it was the generally collectivist, conformist and herd-like behavior displayed by my high school peers that served to shape my libertarian-like political orientation. So, I'd say no, being a Libertarian or Green is rather unlike high school.
Pretty much the same here.

All the parties are horrible.

The Libertarian Party.

Generally I go with the conservative choice of politicians but hopefully in 20 years the Libertarian party will be big enough that I can actually root, and vote for, my own candidate.

The Libertarian Party.

Generally I go with the conservative choice of politicians but hopefully in 20 years the Libertarian party will be big enough that I can actually root, and vote for, my own candidate.
One can hope...

[QUOTE=Markreich]The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.QUOTE]

Excuse me? I find that statement to be false.

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness
DEM=pro-abortion; REP=anti-abortion
DEM=Equality; REP=Order
DEM=pro-environment; REP=anti-environment

This is just a small sample of the differences of the Democrats and Republicans.

I don't know the platforms of all the listed parties and for the purposes of this poll I am far too lazy to read their undoubtably countless webpages so out of the ones I know I'd say Green Party. Environmentalism + socialism = my support

Thanks...but no thanks. All this socialist support is a little scary. I'd prefer to work for a living, and not have to overwork myself to support 3 un-working burecrats. I'd prefer to minimilize the goverment involvment in America, and leave the people, to govern the people.

leave the people, to govern the people.

That's socialism. Capitalism is the governance of the economic lives of the people by the ruling capitalist class; socialism is the control of the economy by the masses.

That's socialism. Capitalism is the governance of the economic lives of the people by the ruling capitalist class; socialism is the control of the economy by the masses.
Yes, that was quite a blunder on his part.

damn, socialist or democrat? can't choose.
Well, since the Democrats have nothing to do with socialism and you do, I suggest the former.

I still support the idea of a party that supports a largely deregulated economy, that has good support for the armed forces, and that believes in some form of rugged individualism without complete minarchism.
That's not what the Republicans are about, in reality.

The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.

Make no mistake boys and girls, the only party is the rich. All that politics are, all that politics have ever been in any land... is a fight amonst a couple of privledged cliques that don't get along.
Nice post, I didn't expect this to come from you!

The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.

Excuse me? I find that statement to be false.

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness

In image the parties are different, but if you look at policies and voting records, they agree much more than you would imagine.

For no particular reason.. Democratic Party.

Socialist sounds best to me.
Too bad that no party besides Democrats and Republicans (which both suck) has even the slightest chance of ever getting anywhere... :rolleyes:

Peace and Freedom seems all nice from what I read, but I didn't know about it before this poll.

Maybe Socialists or Socialist Workers could be good too, but I don't know them either.

Between the ones I knew before (Green, Dem, Rep and Libertarian), I would vote Green, or maybe Dem if in a swing state.

But well, on this poll I voted for Peace and Freedom.

(Btw, I'm outside US)

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness
DEM=pro-abortion; REP=anti-abortion
DEM=Equality; REP=Order
DEM=pro-environment; REP=anti-environment

This is just a small sample of the differences of the Democrats and Republicans.

Saddly, that's one paper, but in reality, the difference isn't that great... Clinton didn't do much against the immense power of big business, he didn't do much for equality (still no universal health care, still no minimal income, still no public housing program, still no money for public education, ...), he continued the "war on drugs", he bombed Irak weekly and continued US imperialism, he didn't suppress the death penalty or other harsh penalties, he didn't do much for the environement (sure, he wanted to sign the Kyoto protocol, that's better than nothing, but Kyoto is far, far, from being enough).

So well, on the paper, democrats are better. In the reality, they are just slightly less worse...

Nice post, I didn't expect this to come from you!

Thanks! But why? I've been saying it for years...

The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.

Excuse me? I find that statement to be false.

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness
DEM=pro-abortion; REP=anti-abortion
DEM=Equality; REP=Order
DEM=pro-environment; REP=anti-environment

This is just a small sample of the differences of the Democrats and Republicans.

And you can also list gun control, too. But it's not like (say) Italy, where you can have two parties totally opposite each other in the political spectrum.

Even with the ones you mention:
The business option is questionable -- do you consider GOP tax breaks for the people that actually pay taxes to be "pro business"? Can you show me where any DEM has stifled big business, or indeed even aided small businesses? If anything, the GOP plays both sides of the fence -- ever go to your town's GOP or DEM meetings? Both are usually pro anything that benefits the local economy. Granted, the DEMs are down on gun ranges and the GOPs are down on smut shops, but hey...

Abortion: no, not really. In both parties you find people on both sides of the fence. What we do have are the shrillers (GOP evengelists and DEM feministas) screaming very, very loudly.

Equality/Order: Police spending increased under Clinton, as did the war on drugs and the tightening up of the welfare laws. Bush(43) has refuesed to strengthen the border and is for naturalizing illegals.

Environment: This one I can't debate -- it's pretty sewn up.

Thanks! But why? I've been saying it for years...
From most of your posts, I had an idea of you as a solid Republican supporter.

Abortion: no, not really. In both parties you find people on both sides of the fence. What we do have are the shrillers (GOP evengelists and DEM feministas) screaming very, very loudly.
I don't think that Republicans want to outlaw abortion. It would just remove many peoples' main reason for voting for them.

The Republican Party is my favorite :)

It's the sad truth regarding the injustice of the first-past-the-post single member system, anyway. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were ahead of their time in trying to construct a federal system based on the seperation of powers and limited government. Today, unfortunately, the plan is way, way, way behind.

Actually the Puritans had a semi form of Seperation of Church and State.

From most of your posts, I had an idea of you as a solid Republican supporter.

That's the trouble with the left these days... if you're slightly to the right on anything, you're a flaming conservative. :D

I'm pro liberty. I consider all of the Amendments equal and that a limitation on one is going to lead to a limitation on them all.

Likewise, when any one party gets too powerful bad things happen. For a long time, it was the Democrats, now it's the GOP.

The DEMs and the GOP are 90% the same anyway.

Excuse me? I find that statement to be false.

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness
DEM=pro-abortion; REP=anti-abortion
DEM=Equality; REP=Order
DEM=pro-environment; REP=anti-environment

This is just a small sample of the differences of the Democrats and Republicans.

Excuse me but these are sweeping Generalizations.

I don't think that Republicans want to outlaw abortion. It would just remove many peoples' main reason for voting for them.

Exactly, but that's what the Christian Fundies want, and that's what the feministas paint all conservatives as. It's a shouting match ala "Crossfire".

Excuse me but these are sweeping Generalizations.

Dude, this is the forums! :D

I don't think that Republicans want to outlaw abortion. It would just remove many peoples' main reason for voting for them.

Didn't they say the samething about Slavery?

Vote on my new poll. In case you were curious, I'm a democrat.
I honestly don't like any of them. :(

Dude, this is the forums! :D

Actually its Dudette and I forgot what it was like to be here :D

Actually its Dudette and I forgot what it was like to be here :D
Ut oh! U in a heap o' trubble now! Heh!

Ut oh! U in a heap o' trubble now! Heh!

Hiyas Eutruusca :)

And just how am I in trouble?

*places her halo on her head*

Hiyas Eutruusca :)

And just how am I in trouble?

*places her halo on her head*
She who forgets the strange ways of General is doomed! :D

Well, given America's status I would only vote for the Republican party and, although I do back Bush I dont agree with him 100% of the time. I would rather have another Ronald Reagan back in the house than Bush, but you dont always get what you want, so I will stay backing Bush.

In my own mind, I think the perfect political party would be something like they have over in Switzerland called the SVP, but I dont think this kind of party would work in America, simply because, well, America doesnt have the luxurey of being Swizterland. :p

Anyway, for the first time in my life I will be able to vote in 2 years and, needless to say, I will be voting for the Republicans, unless they give up a total dooch, and the democrats throw up a moderate, but we will see. Come to think of it, I think I would rather vote for any Republican over Hillary...:eek:

She who forgets the strange ways of General is doomed! :D

Hey give me a break. Its only been a couple of months and I've been dealing with alot of crap.

Hey give me a break. Its only been a couple of months and I've been dealing with alot of crap.
[ hands FD a break ] :fluffle:

Actually the Puritans had a semi form of Seperation of Church and State.

Although, the seperation of church and states, especially for the US, was initially instated to protect the church from government rule and now it's the other way around.

[ hands FD a break ] :fluffle:

While you're at it...

http://www.39elle.com/img/kitkat.jpg



...we now return you to your reguarly scheduled pontifications...

While you're at it...

http://www.39elle.com/img/kitkat.jpg



...we now return you to your reguarly scheduled pontifications...

CHOCOLATE!!!!

*gobbles them up* :D

Keep America Safe, Vote Republican :D

CHOCOLATE!!!!

*gobbles them up* :D

Keep America Safe, Vote Republican :D

Democrats were elected to Congress and the Presidency all the time during the Cold War, and the last time I checked, we're not Communist.

Democrats were elected to Congress and the Presidency all the time during the Cold War, and the last time I checked, we're not Communist.

Nah they just got us into places like Vietnam and micromanaged things to a point that it was impossible for the military to do their jobs.

And besides that, if an election comes down to National Security, the Republicans have the advantage according to the polls.

DEM=small busisness; REP =big busisness.

No, the Democrats that are in favor of "small business" are in favor of shielding failing businesses from competition, but only when those businesses support their party. These people would rather punish consumers with higher prices and inhibit new business investment to retain their voting bloc's (namely, the unions) support.

Whenever you hear them talk about "protecting small businesses" they are really talking about restricting freedom of choice. The same is true of the Republicans who preach the same thing.

Nah they just got us into places like Vietnam and micromanaged things to a point that it was impossible for the military to do their jobs.

And besides that, if an election comes down to National Security, the Republicans have the advantage according to the polls.

And if Barry Goldwater was the president, he wouldn't have gone into Vietnam? The only reason why LBJ made war on nam was because he was afraid the Reps would say that he's weak on communism. Also, JFK did a wonderful job during the Cuban missile crisis, and FDR, who was a democrat, got us through WW2.

Bush, on the other hand, got us into a war that his administration completely screwed up, and he wants to sell six major American ports to an Arabian company. How's that for national security?

Socialist Party USA, the descendent of the Socialist Party of America on whose ticket Eugene Debs ran for President.

The Democrats and the Republicans are both parties of big business, as they are controlled by large donors and are both capitalist parties.

and he wants to sell six major American ports to an Arabian company. How's that for national security?

Probably pretty good; you don't become the third biggest shipping company in the world by allowing terrorists to attack your assets.

Probably pretty good; you don't become the third biggest shipping company in the world by allowing terrorists to attack your assets.

I agree that the company itself is trustworthy, but I don't know about the Average Joe, or in this case, the average Muhammad. See, two of the hijackers on 9/11 were from the UAE, which owns Dubai shipping co.

In New Jersey we have a lot of oil refineries and oil silos. All you need is three guys who can handle a grenade launcher, and half of Newark would be obliterated. That would cause many more deaths than 9/11. So, no, I don't think this port sale is a good idea.

And if Barry Goldwater was the president, he wouldn't have gone into Vietnam? The only reason why LBJ made war on nam was because he was afraid the Reps would say that he's weak on communism. Also, JFK did a wonderful job during the Cuban missile crisis, and FDR, who was a democrat, got us through WW2.

I don't know who Barry Goldwater is so I will not comment on that.

As for JFK, yes he did and I give him kudos for what he did. He challenged the USSR and they backed down. Didn't go so well for their premier after that but that is what happens in that society.

As for FDR, *points to interment of Japanese citizens*

Bush, on the other hand, got us into a war that his administration completely screwed up, and he wants to sell six major American ports to an Arabian company. How's that for national security?

For the port deal, you really need to stay ontop of current events. Did you know that they are WILLING TO DELAY it to satisfy all parties? As for the War in Iraq, it was still the right decision. Guess what? Nothing goes according to plan when you are fighting a war.

In New Jersey we have a lot of oil refineries and oil silos. All you need is three guys who can handle a grenade launcher, and half of Newark would be obliterated. That would cause many more deaths than 9/11. So, no, I don't think this port sale is a good idea.

They could attack anyway; the security condition of our ports is so poor that it would be easy to attack those sites if a terrorist wanted to. It's also important to note that the security for these ports is provided by the American owners of them, which proves that American ownership does absolutely nothing to make them more secure.

Purchases of strategic assets include contractual security obligations that might not be levied against domestic firms; selling them to foreign companies enables us to impose more security and investment guarantees that normally would not be required of American firms. If anything, foreign ownership is even more attractive in light of the additional requirements the government levies on them.

I don't know who Barry Goldwater is so I will not comment on that.

As for JFK, yes he did and I give him kudos for what he did. He challenged the USSR and they backed down. Didn't go so well for their premier after that but that is what happens in that society.

As for FDR, *points to interment of Japanese citizens*



For the port deal, you really need to stay ontop of current events. Did you know that they are WILLING TO DELAY it to satisfy all parties? As for the War in Iraq, it was still the right decision. Guess what? Nothing goes according to plan when you are fighting a war.

Goldwater was the guy who ran against LBJ in 1964, as a conservative Republican. The interment of Japanese citizens was a henious act, but he still got us through WW2. By the way, if the Japanese weren't placed in interment camps, what do you think would've happened? Here's what: a bunch of redneck vigilantes would decide that they are going to kill those "yellow slit-eyed bastards" and this would have resulted in the deaths of many innocent and loyal Americans (and by Americans I mean the Japanese, because they were American first and foremost).

As for the port deal, I'm not comfortable with it unless there is no more terrorism against the United States. Any buffoon can see that's not the case right now.

They could attack anyway; the security condition of our ports is so poor that it would be easy to attack those sites if a terrorist wanted to. It's also important to note that the security for these ports is provided by the American owners of them, which proves that American ownership does absolutely nothing to make them more secure.

Purchases of strategic assets include contractual security obligations that might not be levied against domestic firms; selling them to foreign companies enables us to impose more security and investment guarantees that normally would not be required of American firms. If anything, foreign ownership is even more attractive in light of the additional requirements the government levies on them.

hmm...if you can name some specifics, you will have me convinced. ;)

Closest is the green party, then socialists.

Goldwater was the guy who ran against LBJ in 1964, as a conservative Republican. The interment of Japanese citizens was a henious act, but he still got us through WW2. By the way, if the Japanese weren't placed in interment camps, what do you think would've happened?

Nothing would happen. I firmly believe that. Also, there were many japanese americans fighting against.... THE JAPANESE in the pacific. Serving mostly as translators but they were fighting them. Mmmmmmm. I wonder why they would be fighting if their loyalty was in question.

Here's what: a bunch of redneck vigilantes would decide that they are going to kill those "yellow slit-eyed bastards" and this would have resulted in the deaths of many innocent and loyal Americans (and by Americans I mean the Japanese, because they were American first and foremost).

Oh? That happened to the blacks you know. They were killed and lynched for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. So where's the difference? What makes the Japanese Americans any different than African-Americans?

As for the port deal, I'm not comfortable with it unless there is no more terrorism against the United States. Any buffoon can see that's not the case right now.

I see that someone is actually blinded.

What's the Peace and Freedom Party stand for?
The complete elimination of the USA as a nation.

We call for open borders.
We demand an end to deportations of immigrants.
We demand full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

Nothing would happen. I firmly believe that. Also, there were many japanese americans fighting against.... THE JAPANESE in the pacific. Serving mostly as translators but they were fighting them. Mmmmmmm. I wonder why they would be fighting if their loyalty was in question.



Oh? That happened to the blacks you know. They were killed and lynched for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. So where's the difference? What makes the Japanese Americans any different than African-Americans?



I see that someone is actually blinded.

Yes, there were many Japanese Americans fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific. In fact, I believe that one predominantly Japanese brigade was the most heavily decorated brigade in the entire armed forces of the US, but I forgot what it's called...just read it somewhere:cool: . Nowhere did I call into question the loyalty of the Japanese.

The difference between the blacks and the Japanese during WW2? Here it is:

Black: *looks at a white woman the wrong way, and gets lynched.*

Japanese: *gets lynched simply because the country his parents came from attacked the United States*

I hope that explains it.

hmm...if you can name some specifics, you will have me convinced. ;)

The 9/11 comission rated:

-- Checked bag and cargo screening -- D
-- Private sector preparedness -- C
-- Critical infrastructure assessment -- D
-- Comprehensive screening system -- C

Now, these are only four of the guidelines that apply directly to port security. So, four years after 9/11 and security is barely passable in any of these four vital sectors, and this is before the Dubai Ports world deal. The bulk of port ownership in the US is US owned, and security remains deplorable.

wow, all 12 people that voted green party last election also voted on this poll;)

The 9/11 comission rated:

-- Checked bag and cargo screening -- D
-- Private sector preparedness -- C
-- Critical infrastructure assessment -- D
-- Comprehensive screening system -- C

Now, these are only four of the guidelines that apply directly to port security. So, four years after 9/11 and security is barely passable in any of these four vital sectors, and this is before the Dubai Ports world deal. The bulk of port ownership in the US is US owned, and security remains deplorable.

Ok, but how will Dubai co. owning it make the port any safer? :confused:

wow, all 12 people that voted green party last election also voted on this poll;)

No, my friend, I believe it was 13. The last one is still in bed, and hasn't yet voted on this poll. ;)

Ok, but how will Dubai co. owning it make the port any safer? :confused:

They are required by law and contract to make defined improvements in security and to invest a certain amount in improving the infrastructure; unlike domestic deals foreign purchases of assets give the government considerably more power to dictate what improvements have to be made, the precise amount of money invested in upgrades, and the speed at which they are implemented.

Also, they give the government more oversight in to the security process and more involvement in hiring and security policy.

Unfortunately, the single member district plurality electoral system employed in the United States guarantees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) that the Libertarian Party would have to "reform" its platform to such a radical extent that it would be a whole lot easier to simply make a photocopy of the Republican or Democratic platform. This is another reason why I have trouble picking a party. Short of a complete collapse of either the Republican or Democratic parties (nationally or locally) or a radical reformation of Constitutional government and the installation of an electoral method that doesn't create a two party system, none of them stand a chance of actually getting any office beyond the local sewer board.

Stand on principle and enjoy essentially zero political representation, or sell my soul and actually win occasionally.
The Lbretarian Reform Caucus attempts to avoid selling the Libertarian soul while (hopefully) killing off either the Rs or Ds, which are essentially mirror copies of each other.

Frankly, I don't care if there is "only" a breif interlude of a 3 party system. We need it anyway.

Peace and Freedom Party wants socialism

which is anti-freedom in terms of property and money.

If they wanted to be true to their name, they'd call themselves the Peace and Equality Party.

They probably don't count as American, but I've always been a fan of the Raving Loony Sociey. Vote for T-Tan!

I've considered joining the Libertarian party. In any case, I'll go with them.

Actually, the state can make up whatever rules it wants. Big states like Texas and California could, theoretically, select a porportional system without too much trouble (the only constitutional requirement is selection "by the people"). California I think is the most likely to do it, but it hasn't done it, so there you go.

...California could, theoretically, select a porportional system without too much trouble (the only constitutional requirement is selection "by the people"). California I think is the most likely to do it, but it hasn't done it, so there you go.


Unfortunately, the two party system places the Republicans and Democrats in the best position to create electoral mobilization and influence. The Republicans and Democrats also have the most to lose from a switch to a proportional system: the loss of the two party system that centralizes and magnifies their influence. Since large states like California represent a large share of the voting population, as well as majority shares of electoral college votes, the Republicans and Democrats would concentrate anti-proportional representation efforts there. Ultimately, no large state (or any other state) is going to give up its electoral power willingly. This is why, if proportional representation is going to occur to any meaningful degree, huge Constitutional reform is probably required.

The electoral college would have to go first. Again, not likely to happen considering that the states with the most power over the electoral college also happen to possess the largest numbers of the voting population.

I'm sorry, but I hate Libertarians. They slowly poach Liberals over to the Conservatives and it shits me. So, Democrats
I'm conservative turned liberal through the grace of libertarianism. I used to be uber conservative until I discovered libertarianism, and it converted me to "dem crazy demmacrats."

Peace and Freedom Party wants socialism

which is anti-freedom in terms of property and money.

Socialism does indeed oppose the freedom of the master to oppress and exploit. The master probably does view this as an unacceptable violation of his freedom, and opposes it as such.

For the oppressed and the exploited, however, matters are different.

I hate both the Republicans and Democrats (who have the same far right policies) and none of the small parties stand much of a chance although if I lived in Vermont I would certainly support the Progressives. Anywhere else it would be whichever leftist party was standing - Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Greens or Peace and Freedom.

I hate both the Republicans and Democrats (who have the same far right policies)
You have a very interesting definition of "far right".

I'm conservative turned liberal through the grace of libertarianism. I used to be uber conservative until I discovered libertarianism, and it converted me to "dem crazy demmacrats."
Thus we have proof that Libertarianisim (at least the non-anarcho variety) makes Reasonable people out of Reasoning people.

Thanks for evolving. :)

That's the trouble with the left these days... if you're slightly to the right on anything, you're a flaming conservative. :D
People like that can be found in all political factions. I've never been called a conservative just because I support the Iraq War. How did I manage this? By continuing to endorse democratic socialist policies, environmentalism and by breathing a steady stream of fire on right-wingers of all kinds. ;)

That last part was a joke, but no I never thought you were ultra-Republican... just your comments are noticeably more sympathetic to them than to liberals.

PS> "I'm pro-liberty" is the most stereotypical political position for Americans ever. All sides claim it because all people have different ideas about what liberty is.

even american "left" parties are still actually right wing compared to european ones, and i dont agree or need to vote with any.

So none really

Peace and Freedom Party wants socialism

which is anti-freedom in terms of property and money.

If they wanted to be true to their name, they'd call themselves the Peace and Equality Party.
That is circular logic because your definition of freedom depends on the statement that private property = freedom.

Exactly, but that's what the Christian Fundies want, and that's what the feministas paint all conservatives as. It's a shouting match ala "Crossfire".
Yes, it is funny enough. Still, I'm fully behind feminism. (see signature)

Didn't they say the samething about Slavery?
I don't remember.

FDR, who was a democrat, got us through WW2.

It's a pity that there are no FDRs left in US politics.

Ok, but how will Dubai co. owning it make the port any safer? :confused:
Bush wants to sell ports to foreign companies? How very Clinton-esque of him. Seriously, this sounds like exactly the sort of thing Clinton would have done.

even american "left" parties are still actually right wing compared to european ones, and i dont agree or need to vote with any.

So none really

Have you considered choosing the one that you dislike the least?

In other words, if it was a life and death choice, which party would you most likely vote for?

They are required by law and contract to make defined improvements in security and to invest a certain amount in improving the infrastructure; unlike domestic deals foreign purchases of assets give the government considerably more power to dictate what improvements have to be made, the precise amount of money invested in upgrades, and the speed at which they are implemented.

Also, they give the government more oversight in to the security process and more involvement in hiring and security policy.

You will have me convinced that the port deal should go through if you can prove that the above info is true. A link would go a long way in doing that. :cool:

even american "left" parties are still actually right wing compared to european ones, and i dont agree or need to vote with any.

So none really
But there are some socialist parties, and they are probably quite far to the left?

I really like socialism, so I voted Socialist Party on the poll.

You will have me convinced that the port deal should go through if you can prove that the above info is true. A link would go a long way in doing that. :cool:


This is a big one:

UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition

DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.


The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction.
This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.
DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.

P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including:
o The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
o The Container Security Initiative (CSI);
o The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and,
o The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy.


All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.

Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.

Here's some more sources:
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=127985
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1013474.php

I hate both the Republicans and Democrats (who have the same far right policies)You have a very interesting definition of "far right".I would not think it's very novel.
I agree wholeheartedly with Europaland on his assertion.

Have you considered choosing the one that you dislike the least?

In other words, if it was a life and death choice, which party would you most likely vote for?
When choosing the lesser of two evils, it's important to remember that it's still evil.
That's a butchered paraphrase of some quote, don't remember who said it.

Here's some more sources:
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=127985
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1013474.php

Ok, thanks. You have managed to convince me that this port deal is actually a good idea. Nice job.

When choosing the lesser of two evils, it's important to remember that it's still evil.
That's a butchered paraphrase of some quote, don't remember who said it.

So which evil would you choose? And in this poll, it's the lesser of ten evils;)

Where's the option for the fascist party? I stumbled across their website once. lol.

But there are some socialist parties, and they are probably quite far to the left?

They vary.

Both Peace and Freedom and the Socialist Party USA call for some variant of social/popular/democratic control of the means of production, making them actually socialist parties instead of merely social democratic ones, but aren't very explicit as to how this is going to come about, essentially meaning that if they are elected (yeah, right) they intend to "work toward" this goal without actually fulfilling it (pure speculation, clearly, but I think it justified.) The social reforms they advocate within the framework of capitalism, however, are decent, and while the side of me influenced by the libertarian right questions how much they would work in conjunction with capitalist economics, they seem the sort of people to move more towards socialism than away from it if such problems are encountered.

The Socialist Equality Party is clearer, explicitly calling for the nationalization of all corporations worth more than $10 billion, and considering the sort of people they are, if they were (impossibly, and in direct contradiction of a major tenet of their ideology) actually elected, they would probably do exactly that. My problem with them (that is, the reason I mention the other two at all) is threefold:
1. They are highly sectarian Trotskyists who savagely attack every other leftist party on the planet (even the Trotskyist ones) for not living up to their puritanical standards;
2. They fail to consider a more decentralized model of socialism, one more influenced by libertarian Marxist and anarchist currents, as the other parties do;
3. They fail to support (or understand) non-class based liberation struggles and affirmative action, holding the obsolete concept of color/gender/sexuality-blind unity in the class struggle. All the parties influenced by the "New Left" - like Peace and Freedom and the SPUSA, both practically created by the Vietnam War and the associative political trends - have a superior stance on this question.

Those are the only three socialist parties I have enough knowledge of to speak on, though there are probably more than a dozen others - the Socialist Worker's Party (Trotskyist), the Freedom Road Socialist Party (influenced by Maoism), the Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoist), and the Worker's World Party, to name a few.

For what it's worth I do not think it's true that the parties of the "American left" are in fact all that right-wing. The Democratic Party is not a party of the "American left," it is far too diverse to be called that, spanning from center-right politicians to very left-wing ones (Cynthia McKinney, for those who deny their existence). The Green Party would be center-left in the European political structure, not right-wing, and that is the only mainstream US party that can really be considered part of the "American left."

For those interested, the platforms of the SPUSA:

http://www.sp-usa.org/platform/

and the SEP (not on this poll):

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/elec-j12.shtml

Peace and Freedom:

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/Platform.htm