NationStates Jolt Archive

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party. The party that fought slavery. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move, Lincoln and the Republicans opposed it even before the Civil War, before he was elected. The party that tried to aid reconstruction. But that isn't the Republican party any more.

Maybe I just never thought about it. I just followed the party my parents followed, though I don't think they really consider it deeply either. It's just something they've grown accustomed to doing, I suppose. As people they don't embody the failings I've seen in the Right.

I wanted to be a Conservative, I wanted to be on the Right, but I just couldn't delude myself anymore. Whenever I would look at an online debate, sure there would be insults and name calling, and the exceptions to the rule were always there, but by and large it was the Liberals attacking ideas and the Conservatives attacking people. Even back then I always felt that an opponent should be respected, not ridiculed and demeaned in debate. Granted, I've shifted a little and I can end up pretty snippy sometimes, but even then it was never to the extent that I'd seen my fellow conservatives do it.

Then there was the matter of religion. I'm a WASP. Pretty basic stuff, nothing too shocking right there. But... the beliefs my parents raised me with... they match the Republican party's beliefs on paper, but not in practice. In terms of morality, I agree to quite some degree with what their view of Christian morality is... but I've never been able to force myself to agree that we should make that the law. As long as it doesn't cause any issues that should be punishable by law, Christian morality should only apply to Christians, or at least that's how I have always felt.

And then there's all that stuff Jesus said about taking care of "the least of these", but never have I recalled the G.O.P making that a primary issue to address.

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?

When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party.

Then be a democrat.

The lines between the parties have blurred. I say go independent and vote for whomever you think is best. The primary I just voted in I switched to declaring myself a Democrat just to vote for Obama over Hillary. Was pointless to vote as a Republican. In my state you have to declare a party in the party elections.

Vote Ron Paul when/if he runs third party or vote Obama if you are okay with some differences in issues, or Bloomberg if he runs.

Vote Ron Paul when/if he runs third party or vote Obama if you are okay with some differences in issues, or Bloomberg if he runs.

He said he admires Lincoln.

I think I can guess how he feels about someone who thinks the Civil War shouldn't have been fought...

some things are worth conserving, but it takes a liberal to impliment them in the first place. most of them are NOT part of today's dominant culture and it is highly questionable that any of them ever were.

=^^=
.../\...

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party. The party that fought slavery. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move, Lincoln and the Republicans opposed it even before the Civil War, before he was elected. The party that tried to aid reconstruction. But that isn't the Republican party any more.

Maybe I just never thought about it. I just followed the party my parents followed, though I don't think they really consider it deeply either. It's just something they've grown accustomed to doing, I suppose. As people they don't embody the failings I've seen in the Right.

I wanted to be a Conservative, I wanted to be on the Right, but I just couldn't delude myself anymore. Whenever I would look at an online debate, sure there would be insults and name calling, and the exceptions to the rule were always there, but by and large it was the Liberals attacking ideas and the Conservatives attacking people. Even back then I always felt that an opponent should be respected, not ridiculed and demeaned in debate. Granted, I've shifted a little and I can end up pretty snippy sometimes, but even then it was never to the extent that I'd seen my fellow conservatives do it.

Then there was the matter of religion. I'm a WASP. Pretty basic stuff, nothing too shocking right there. But... the beliefs my parents raised me with... they match the Republican party's beliefs on paper, but not in practice. In terms of morality, I agree to quite some degree with what their view of Christian morality is... but I've never been able to force myself to agree that we should make that the law. As long as it doesn't cause any issues that should be punishable by law, Christian morality should only apply to Christians, or at least that's how I have always felt.

And then there's all that stuff Jesus said about taking care of "the least of these", but never have I recalled the G.O.P making that a primary issue to address.

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?


You are one of the few conservatives coming to this conclusion and I am glad there are many conservatives judging their own parties flaws for once and not just pointing. Its simple if you look at both parties. The republicans consist of those who prefer things to stay as they are in the 50's and there are the democrats who push forward for change. Sure both parties have flaws, but im going for change because thats where the futures at.

I hope you can move forward now aswell Geniasis. Dont hold yourself back any longer.

He said he admires Lincoln.

I think I can guess how he feels about someone who thinks the Civil War shouldn't have been fought...
Okay, so you definitely want Ron Paul then.

Welcome to the dark side, my child. The baby buffet is on your right, just in front of the abortion clinic.

Welcome to the dark side, my child. The baby buffet is on your right, just in front of the abortion clinic.
Are dead baby jokes siggable?

Are dead baby jokes siggable?

I'm going to say yes, if you have the space for it.

I'm going to say yes, if you have the space for it.
There we go.:cool:

Same boat here. I was a Republican once. I was shocked to find so many fellow Republicans who openly hated Lincoln. I want to create a New Party called the Bullmoose Republicans that embrace the ideals of Abraham Lincoln & Teddy Roosevelt. I want a party that fights for civil rights. I want a conservative party that actually wants to conserve the environment and conserve the constitution. I want a party that is actually fiscally responsible and doesn't buy votes with tax cuts for the rich while we bankrupt the country with massive deficits. I want a party that stays completely out of people's bedrooms and leaves all religion-related issues alone. Unfortunately this party exists only in my mind.

Bullmoose!

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party. The party that fought slavery. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move, Lincoln and the Republicans opposed it even before the Civil War, before he was elected. The party that tried to aid reconstruction. But that isn't the Republican party any more.

Maybe I just never thought about it. I just followed the party my parents followed, though I don't think they really consider it deeply either. It's just something they've grown accustomed to doing, I suppose. As people they don't embody the failings I've seen in the Right.

I wanted to be a Conservative, I wanted to be on the Right, but I just couldn't delude myself anymore. Whenever I would look at an online debate, sure there would be insults and name calling, and the exceptions to the rule were always there, but by and large it was the Liberals attacking ideas and the Conservatives attacking people. Even back then I always felt that an opponent should be respected, not ridiculed and demeaned in debate. Granted, I've shifted a little and I can end up pretty snippy sometimes, but even then it was never to the extent that I'd seen my fellow conservatives do it.

Then there was the matter of religion. I'm a WASP. Pretty basic stuff, nothing too shocking right there. But... the beliefs my parents raised me with... they match the Republican party's beliefs on paper, but not in practice. In terms of morality, I agree to quite some degree with what their view of Christian morality is... but I've never been able to force myself to agree that we should make that the law. As long as it doesn't cause any issues that should be punishable by law, Christian morality should only apply to Christians, or at least that's how I have always felt.

And then there's all that stuff Jesus said about taking care of "the least of these", but never have I recalled the G.O.P making that a primary issue to address.

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?

I arrived at the same conclusion a while ago, though I still find the republicans preferrable to the democrats...if I were forced to make the choice... both parties suck ass.

And I'm more of a DIC than a WASP-- Dark Italian Catholic :p

I found myself in a somewhat similar situation years ago. I wanted to be a Pierre Trudeau/Jean Chretien Liberal (Canada, in case that's not clear). I pretended for as long as I could that the party stood for my country's interests and social equity, or that a paternalistic state was necessary to protect us from the rampages of private business. Then one day I guess I woke up. Speaking as someone who seems to feel a lot like I felt then, the only thing I can tell you is to seriously check under the Democratic Party's hood. When I had taken stock of the situation and looked around at the other parties to see who fit my interests better, I came to the subsequent realisation that they really are all the same.

Okay, so you definitely want Ron Paul then.

Riiiight

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?
When the hell were you a kid?

The Republican party that you describe hasn't existed in my lifetime, and I grew up during Reagan.

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party. The party that fought slavery. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move, Lincoln and the Republicans opposed it even before the Civil War, before he was elected. The party that tried to aid reconstruction. But that isn't the Republican party any more.

so how are things back in 1912?

but yeah, its actually rather common for supporters of the republican party to be utterly utterly shocked by what the party actually is if they ever notice. we have polling data on this, even.

i should warn you - consistently thinking things through and looking at the evidence will almost certainly lead you even farther afield from where you started. but the trip is worthwhile anyways.

He said he admires Lincoln.

I think I can guess how he feels about someone who thinks the Civil War shouldn't have been fought...

Well now . . . I know what's being discussed here is Ron Paul's racist ghost writing elves but . . .

One can think that the Civil War should not have been fought without believing that slavery should not have been ended. We should have allowed the south to leave when they wished. We should have fought them until they ended slavery but we should not have forced them to remain in the union.

When the hell were you a kid?

The Republican party that you describe hasn't existed in my lifetime, and I grew up during Reagan.

Eh, I'm 17 right now and I turn 18 in July. Technically, you could say that I'm still a kid--though I was referring more to being a little kid--and it's not really that I thought the Republican party has made a massive shift in my lifetime, but that it isn't what I thought it was.

Very simply, there was a slow creep take over by the Christofacists after the 70s.

It peaked around 2000 and we're seeing the results now. I'd love to see the moderates of both parties and independents come togerther to form a third party and leave the Dems and GOP to the extremists partisans.
"Moderates" made me lol.

America has radical right wing conservatives and moderate conservatives. That's pretty much it.

If anything, we need a third party that is actually left-wing. Let the Democrats represent moderates, if they can manage to move left a bit, let the Republicans continue to represent the radical right, and let a third party step up to represent the left. We desperately need to shift the center back into the realm of sanity. What's currently "moderate" in the US would be solidly right-wing anywhere else.

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?

Very simply, there was a slow creep take over by the Christofacists after the 70s.

It peaked around 2000 and we're seeing the results now. I'd love to see the moderates of both parties and independents come togerther to form a third party and leave the Dems and GOP to the extremists partisans.

I arrived at the same conclusion a while ago, though I still find the republicans preferrable to the democrats...

Why?

Well now . . . I know what's being discussed here is Ron Paul's racist ghost writing elves but . . .

One can think that the Civil War should not have been fought without believing that slavery should not have been ended. We should have allowed the south to leave when they wished. We should have fought them until they ended slavery but we should not have forced them to remain in the union.

True, maybe, but that's not as simply as what I was. The OP admires Lincoln for the civil war, Paul didn't think it should be fought.

Therefore, I feel it is safe to assume that the OP does not admire Paul for his civil war views.

"Moderates" made me lol.

America has radical right wing conservatives and moderate conservatives. That's pretty much it.

If anything, we need a third party that is actually left-wing. Let the Democrats represent moderates, if they can manage to move left a bit, let the Republicans continue to represent the radical right, and let a third party step up to represent the left. We desperately need to shift the center back into the realm of sanity. What's currently "moderate" in the US would be solidly right-wing anywhere else.

The unfortunate thing is that a true 3-party system doesn't seem to work in a first-past the post election system. Just look at the UK, in theory it should be Tories on the right, Labour on the left, Lib Dems in the middle. But not only has labour become pretty indistinguisable if not at times more right wing that the conservatives, the Lib Dems are still trying to play with the big boys after about 20 years yet despite getting 30% of the actual vote have only a fraction of the parliament seats (although the way both labour and the conservatives are going this may start to change... if they can keep a single leader for more than a year).

My dad is a republican even though he disagrees with many of the things the party does. He just disagrees with democrats more. A lot of people disapprove of their parties because there are only 2 of them. Republicans don't really act like republicans any more. What happened to the small government thing? Maybe things would work better if there where a lot more independents.

My dad is a republican even though he disagrees with many of the things the party does. He just disagrees with democrats more. A lot of people disapprove of their parties because there are only 2 of them. Republicans don't really act like republicans any more. What happened to the small government thing? Maybe things would work better if there where a lot more independents.

Or maybe more than two functioning parties? Hell, even one more party would be an improvement if it was somewhere left of the democrats.

OP: That's why we have JOHN MCCAIN.

The unfortunate thing is that a true 3-party system doesn't seem to work in a first-past the post election system. Just look at the UK, in theory it should be Tories on the right, Labour on the left, Lib Dems in the middle. No, the left shift comes after people are fed up with the right-wing system and bring to power a real left-wing party, such as the Greens in Germany after the SPD became more centrist.

The unfortunate thing is that a true 3-party system doesn't seem to work in a first-past the post election system. Just look at the UK, in theory it should be Tories on the right, Labour on the left, Lib Dems in the middle. But not only has labour become pretty indistinguisable if not at times more right wing that the conservatives, the Lib Dems are still trying to play with the big boys after about 20 years yet despite getting 30% of the actual vote have only a fraction of the parliament seats (although the way both labour and the conservatives are going this may start to change... if they can keep a single leader for more than a year).

Then try a multi-party system. Ireland has been doing just fine with it. In fact we have two(yes, two!) different parties in power at the moment :eek:!

Or maybe more than two functioning parties? Hell, even one more party would be an improvement if it was somewhere left of the democrats.The whole party mentality isn't right because it encourages people to blindly accept any position their party chooses instead of thinking for themselves. Any time you have a group of people telling people what to think it can become corrupted. This isn't what the people who created the USA has in mind.

According to an NPR story I heard in Massachusetts there are actually more independents than there are republicans or democrats. Why can't other states be like that?

Welcome to the Republican party that formed around the 60s. They kind of switched.

The whole party mentality isn't right because it encourages people to blindly accept any position their party chooses instead of thinking for themselves. Any time you have a group of people telling people what to think it can become corrupted. This isn't what the people who created the USA has in mind.
The problem is that without parties, electing a good representative becomes critical because a lot of power is focused on the individual delegate. The problem of untrustworthy politicians is not as severe in the party system since there's a competition factor; allowing unrestrained collaboration introduces the potential for tyranny against public wishes.

In fact, something similar to this is being exemplified in the Democratic camp right now. "Superdelegates" are exactly the kind of thing you could expect in political office if you tried to naively switch to a party-less system.

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party. The party that fought slavery. Even if the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move, Lincoln and the Republicans opposed it even before the Civil War, before he was elected. The party that tried to aid reconstruction. But that isn't the Republican party any more.

Maybe I just never thought about it. I just followed the party my parents followed, though I don't think they really consider it deeply either. It's just something they've grown accustomed to doing, I suppose. As people they don't embody the failings I've seen in the Right.

I wanted to be a Conservative, I wanted to be on the Right, but I just couldn't delude myself anymore. Whenever I would look at an online debate, sure there would be insults and name calling, and the exceptions to the rule were always there, but by and large it was the Liberals attacking ideas and the Conservatives attacking people. Even back then I always felt that an opponent should be respected, not ridiculed and demeaned in debate. Granted, I've shifted a little and I can end up pretty snippy sometimes, but even then it was never to the extent that I'd seen my fellow conservatives do it.

Then there was the matter of religion. I'm a WASP. Pretty basic stuff, nothing too shocking right there. But... the beliefs my parents raised me with... they match the Republican party's beliefs on paper, but not in practice. In terms of morality, I agree to quite some degree with what their view of Christian morality is... but I've never been able to force myself to agree that we should make that the law. As long as it doesn't cause any issues that should be punishable by law, Christian morality should only apply to Christians, or at least that's how I have always felt.

And then there's all that stuff Jesus said about taking care of "the least of these", but never have I recalled the G.O.P making that a primary issue to address.

What happened to that party? When did it fall, and why did it make such a huge crater?

I will always favor the Republican platform more than the Democrats. I continue to be a Republican for that reason. Finding a Republican that actually does adhere to the platform is getting more rare though. I understand your frustrations. I focus on what I believe and not the ill mannered people who want to claim to be Republicans, sullying the party. If you really pay attention you will find that both parties have their pretenders.

Stick to who you are, and don't let who disappoints you make you doubt your beliefs.

I will always favor the Republican platform more than the Democrats. I continue to be a Republican for that reason. Finding a Republican that actually does adhere to the platform is getting more rare though. I understand your frustrations. I focus on what I believe and not the ill mannered people who want to claim to be Republicans, sullying the party. If you really pay attention you will find that both parties have their pretenders.

So, basically the No True Scotsman fallacy is your voting guide?

It's pretty silly to vote for a party based purely on what they claim to support, even after they've long since stopped actually supporting most of it. If there is one rule to American politics it's that you should watch what somebody actually does instead of taking them at their word.

So, basically the No True Scotsman fallacy is your voting guide?

It's pretty silly to vote for a party based purely on what they claim to support, even after they've long since stopped actually supporting most of it. If there is one rule to American politics it's that you should watch what somebody actually does instead of taking them at their word.

I didn't say I voted only Republican. I said I still support the platform. There is a big difference. Frankly plenty of dems also support a conservative platform if you look carefully. You bet I have been known to cross the aisle. My point was that just because some people have hurt the party doesn't mean you should assume all Republicans do. Just as piss poor Dems don't negate there are good ones in that party also. Each party has it's pretenders as I said.

The whole party mentality isn't right because it encourages people to blindly accept any position their party chooses instead of thinking for themselves. Any time you have a group of people telling people what to think it can become corrupted. This isn't what the people who created the USA has in mind.

A few of the Founding Fathers actually discouraged the creation of political parties, as I recall -- I don't remember which ones, however -- in part for this reason. Then again, most of said Fathers also wanted democracy to be distanced from the people by one level because they didn't think the average person could be trusted with political responsibility, hence we had the Electoral College and the former method of electing the Senate (now no longer in use).

*shrug*

Anyway, times change, and at the moment there's no party that advocates small government, or fiscal responsibility, or reduced taxes. There are plenty of people who support those ideas, of course, but the problem is that by the time those people have gotten into positions of power, they don't really want to pass any laws that will reduce their power -- hence government stays large and fiscally irresponsible and taxes are high.

Essentially the same as has happened in the UK; the electorate at large has lost a taste for ideological politics, and prefers to elect candidates on the grounds of how nice they seem.

Welcome to the dark side, my child. The baby buffet is on your right, just in front of the abortion clinic.

Hillary? Is that you? :eek:

This wasn't the party I wanted to be a part of. When I was little, I wanted to be a Republican because that was Lincoln's party.

Actualy, the parties (Conservative->Republican->Independant<-Democrat<-Liberal,) Have been found to have switched over time to their opposing beliefs. liberaltarianism is the attempt at anarchy but now a 'liberal' supports more goverment restrictions on capatalism. I mean :confused:

Essentially the same as has happened in the UK; the electorate at large has lost a taste for ideological politics, and prefers to elect candidates on the grounds of how nice they seem.

That's how it is in almost every country. ;)

A few of the Founding Fathers actually discouraged the creation of political parties, as I recall -- I don't remember which ones, however -- in part for this reason. Then again, most of said Fathers also wanted democracy to be distanced from the people by one level because they didn't think the average person could be trusted with political responsibility, hence we had the Electoral College and the former method of electing the Senate (now no longer in use).

It's not as though education was really at its peak in those days. I'm not sure the people could have been trusted with pure democracy at that point.

A few of the Founding Fathers actually discouraged the creation of political parties, as I recall -- I don't remember which ones, however --




The main one was George Washington, but you needto understand, he didnt want political parties because he just thought everyone should agree with him.


Itd be like if George Bush said "I dont think America should have parties anymore, its bad for unity. Everyone just come be a Republican".

liberaltarianism is the attempt at anarchy but now a 'liberal' supports more goverment restrictions on capatalism. I mean

I think you mean "Libertarianism". It's not an attempt at Anarchy, it's an attempt at Miniarchy. Back when the USA was still in it's early stages, Libertarians would(Probably) be known as "Federalists".

I'm going to say yes, if you have the space for it.

Sigged!

I think you mean "Libertarianism". It's not an attempt at Anarchy, it's an attempt at Miniarchy. Back when the USA was still in it's early stages, Libertarians would(Probably) be known as "Federalists".

Uh, no. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. Libertarians do not.

Uh, no. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. Libertarians do not.

Correct. Many libertarians see themselves as heirs of the Anti-Federalists.

Parties based on left right are bull. I fully agree with the way ireland has there system, no left righ divide their, I am an anarchist, though, so my view on government is slighlty skewed in the view of you friggin morons, stooped to the level of shifting the blame towards each other in a way more like a few school kids who were caught doing something wrong. No, it was his idea! I swear! let it go both parties suck, which is exactly why washington himself advised against them. besides there are like 5 types of dems and republicans anyways now, so we should just divide into like a 6 party system or accept anarchy, and no not the kind with looting and violence, the one that occured in catalonia during the spanish civil war.

Uh, no. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. Libertarians do not.

Not the American Federalists. Back in the day, those who were against Federalism were called Federalists for reasons I no longer remember.

Not the American Federalists. Back in the day, those who were against Federalism were called Federalists for reasons I no longer remember.

Nope. The American Federalists were for Federalism. Those against it were "Anti-Federalists".

Parties based on left right are bull. I fully agree with the way ireland has there system, no left righ divide their, I am an anarchist, though...

Take this, brother. May it serve you well.

http://www.gonegambling.com/emoticons/bomb.gif

The whole party mentality isn't right because it encourages people to blindly accept any position their party chooses instead of thinking for themselves. Any time you have a group of people telling people what to think it can become corrupted. This isn't what the people who created the USA has in mind.

According to an NPR story I heard in Massachusetts there are actually more independents than there are republicans or democrats. Why can't other states be like that?

I liked your OP. I approximately agree with it. I'm sorry to see you going off onto a tangent.

Kids should have the vote. If parents can teach their kids to shoot a gun, facilitate their kids in killing a bear or a rat ... if parents can teach their kids to use a toaster without setting the kitchen on fire ... why not teach them to vote?

It costs society a (possibly incompetent) vote, just as it costs society to have legally incompetent human beings operating guns or toasters. The cost is worth it ... taking the 'education' about civics out of the classroom, putting it on cable for the kids to choose their candidate and educate themselves on the issues, not just playing around but their actual candidate, their actual issues.

I have faith that most parents will take this seriously. That they will take their kids' vote seriously if they do their own. (The dipsticks who do not bother to vote won't make their kids vote either.) Sure, parents and teachers will lobby the votes of children, leveraging the systematic disempowerment of children to compel unfree votes.

But it's a question of rights. Children are citizens. They should vote, or else what we have is a plutocracy, rulership by those who already have the power.