NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

Why do you vote the way you do?
I don't :(. Poor me. *Laments*
Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?
It represents my interests, and does not have my well-being in particular in mind. Let people do as they want, if I want to commit suicide, let me.

Really, I just vote for the politician who says they're doing something about whatever it is the media has me afraid of currently.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

Currently, I'm not voting. I feel it would be ludicrous voting for elections in Germany, since I haven't lived in the country for well over 5 years now. And I can't vote in Ireland since I don't have citizenship

Usually, I would pick myself a social ecological individualist pacifist party. If I can find one.

Where I live, the political parties only represent the interests of the politicians.

As, therefor, I don't have a party of choice and, as an immigrant, I don't have the right to vote, your questions simply do not apply.

Not everyone lives under circumstances where, what you take for granted to be the political situation exists

I try to vote for the ones that will do the least damage. That being said, I do genuinely believe representatives have at least some interest in the well-being of their communities, but that it tends to be diluted once you get to the Federal level. As a result, my voting in local/state elections tends to be a lot more proactive, not the least due to the greater independence local candidates have compared to their forcibly centrist counterparts in Washington.

Currently, I'm not voting. I feel it would be ludicrous voting for elections in Germany, since I haven't lived in the country for well over 5 years now. And I can't vote in Ireland since I'm not a resident.


This... except different countries. Not a citizen in my adopted nation, thus - no vote. Not going to queer the pitch in the mothercountry.

If I could have voted in the primaries, I'd have voted for Gravel. The only bright spot on an otherwise entirely dismal presentation.

I vote for the people who most agree with my political positions who have a shot at putting those ideas into policy.

Why not?

I vote for whoever the Liberal/Corporate media tells me to.

I vote for freedom. As a general rule, I can't look to any of the major parties to leave me be. Third party or write-in are the only options unless there is a candidate from D or R who transcends partisan squabbles.

I'm rather libertarian, and quite individualist, with a bit of isolationist thrown in. Ron Paul gets my vote until the Republican primaries are done, then probably Constitution or maybe Libertarian party if McPain wins at the R convention as now seems probable.

Why not?
Because.

Being from the US, I find our Democratic party to be self serving, hypocritical, and elitist (in consideration of their own dogma); they condone vampirism by government upon the people, and will easily trample the rights of the one in their pursuit of the favor of the many.

The Republican party I see as being more true to their own doctrine, though far more dangerous if left unchecked. While seeming to espouse nationalism more-so than the Democrat (in the small world-view), ultimately, I believe that the Republican is anti-nationalist (in the large world-view) in consideration of global corporation...corporations which truly have no national identity and no interests in the global community outside of labor and consumerism (perhaps that is the sum of humanity and the ultimate inevitability, I like to hope not).

Both parties rape the US Constitution, and when they do that, they are in violation of their oath of office, and no longer legally hold that position with the people.

Article VI, clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

(There are further clarifications on the oath and its departmental variations, but the gist and meaning is there)

You make a contract with the people to support the US Constitution, and when you break it, your contract is null and void.

So it all comes down to who I believe will uphold their oath, and sadly, it is a pretty slim field.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom?
To an extent, aye. So there we go.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom?

Yes and no, not a socialist really but does like personal freedom.


Are you a conservative that wants a safety net?

Not a conservative but I might like a safety net, depending on what you mean by that.


Why do you vote the way you do?

Haven't voted yet.


Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

I don't have a party of choice, I'm skeptical of them all to be honest.

Really, I just vote for the politician who says they're doing something about whatever it is the media has me afraid of currently.

i find it better AND more "american" to vote for whoever is going to win anyway. i love bragging that i voted for the winner.

...

its not as happy right now as i thought it would be back in '04

Well, we live in a despicable Two-Party system so there's not much difference either way when you pick a candidate...

You can just count on one supporting/not supporting whatever the other one doesnt/does....so it really depends on who's party fucked up the country last...

I intend to vote Independent in November....Doesnt matter what party just as long as theyre not Republican or Democrat....

In a perfect world id have a Libertarian-Socialist Party to vote for...but it wont happen...Chomsky should run, lol....

In a perfect world id have a Libertarian-Socialist Party to vote for...but it wont happen...Chomsky should run, lol...

:fluffle:

Chomsky and Zinn '08 for the Anarchist Party. (wtfbbqrofl?)

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?
I'm here to vote for the most anti-authoritarian candidate I possible can. And since the US is a de facto one-party state for my consideration, I am not afraid to punish the Democrats by voting for a third party. I'll probably vote for Cynthia McKinney or write-in Kucinich if Obama loses the primary.

I will vote for left-wing third parties because I feel they are the least authoritarian platforms to vote for.

I am for gun rights (in a sense that puts the NRA to shame), LGBT rights, worker's rights (I support the Wobblies), women's rights (including self-identified women), and I sympathize with the struggles of racial minorities. I hate this war in Iraq, I hate the war in Afghanistan, I hate brutality against the Palestinians, I hate the fact that the Burmese government is dragging its feet about letting the international community deliver aid (and I hate that the international community even feels it should have to ask at this point). I like people to have food to eat, a roof over their head, and medical care. I would like us to rise above stupid and irrational differences that we have with religion, race, class, sex, your mom, sexuality and gender identity, age and ability.

There is no party for the above.

Sorry. I am done ranting. I will shut up now.

I am for gun rights (in a sense that puts the NRA to shame)

is that even possible?;)

I vote for Democrats. Why? Because they're not Republicans.

:fluffle:

Chomsky and Zinn '08 for the Anarchist Party. (wtfbbqrofl?)
Sounds good. I'd personally love to see Chomsky just completely fail. I used to be into being really very against the USA (see any post <3000 by me), but even then he really chafed my biscuits with his completely unnecessary ranting and lack of sympathy for the US or its mates in every single case.

That and he also completely idealises the Palestinians in their war with the Israelis. Were he as intelligent in terms of his world-view as he is with linguistics, he's probably realise that both sides' actions have been utterly shameful towards one another since time immemorial.

is that even possible?;)
Yes. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13692553&postcount=121)

I vote for Democrats. Why? Because they're not Republicans.

:p

Sounds good. I'd personally love to see Chomsky just completely fail.

Well of course he would fail. But his campaign ads would be fun to watch.


I used to be into being really very against the USA (see any post <3000 by me), but even then he really chafed my biscuits with his completely unnecessary ranting and lack of sympathy for the US or its mates in every single case.

Meh. I got over worshipping Chomsky a long time ago, so whatever. Besides, hating America was never a motivation for reading him.


That and he also completely idealises the Palestinians in their war with the Israelis. Were he as intelligent in terms of his world-view as he is with linguistics, he's probably realise that both sides' actions have been utterly shameful towards one another since time immemorial.
He is intelligent in his worldview. He's just one-sided to a fault, a problem which plagues many advocates for social change. I think he still has valuable things to say, but that doesn't mean that he should always be taken seriously.

Well of course he would fail. But his campaign ads would be fun to watch.
You sure they wouldn't just be overlong rants by a man who's had too much to think?
He is intelligent in his worldview. He's just one-sided to a fault, a problem which plagues many advocates for social change.
This makes him a poor commentator on the issue...
We should recognize that he has valuable things to say, but that doesn't mean that he should always be taken seriously.
Valuable things to say... such as what?

My little spur of the moment comment seems to have really steered this thread off-topic, lol...

You sure they wouldn't just be overlong rants by a man who's had too much to think?

I'm sure he could figure out something to say in 30 seconds. "Workers of the world, unite!" took me about 1.2 seconds to say. ;)


This makes him a poor commentator on the issue...

His commentary is lacking in important ways, yes.


Valuable things to say... such as what?

You must intensely dislike Chomsky. Is it the worldview, or the stupid things he's said in the past? For my part, I'm not a Chomskyite, so I'm not here to defend everything he's said or written, but just off the top of my head, here's a few things that make sense to me.

Here we go:

1) In foreign policy, a State should apply the same standards to itself as it does to others.

2) When considering authority, the presumption should be illegitimacy.

3) Lenin and Stalin sucked. Hitler sucked.

4) Workers should organize for better working conditions.

5) Supporting murderous dictators in foreign countries that pose little threat to the US is immoral.

I'm sure he could figure out something to say in 30 seconds. "Workers of the world, unite!" took me about 1.2 seconds to say. ;)
Aye. Just repeating that 24 times is not quite good enough.
His commentary is lacking in important ways, yes.
Yup...
You must intensely dislike Chomsky. Is it the worldview, or the stupid things he's said in the past? For my part, I'm not a Chomskyite, so I'm not here to defend everything he's said or written, but just off the top of my head, here's a few things that make sense to me.
As I said, he really chafes my biscuits. Goes too far in his one-sided commentary, really.
Here we go:

1) In foreign policy, a State should apply the same standards to itself as it does to others.
To whose benefit is that?
2) When considering authority, the presumption should be illegitimacy.
Innocent until proven guilty goes for everything, or it goes for nothing.
3) Lenin and Stalin sucked. Hitler sucked.
Aye, I think everyone and their mum holds that view, unless they're terminally stupid or something.
4) Workers should organize for better working conditions.
Valid only if it includes CEOs organising to repress their workers more and improve their own lot too.
5) Supporting murderous dictators in foreign countries that pose little threat to the US is immoral.
See the comments for number 3.

Innocent until proven guilty goes for everything, or it goes for nothing.


But the people arent Judges or Prosecutors...

The burden of Proof goes to the people imposing their Authority over the Masses...

Valid only if it includes CEOs organising to repress their workers more and improve their own lot too.


Why?

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

I vote, because I feel it's my right to and I wish to excercise. However, I do search for canidates that interest me, one's that might change the political system of this crackhouse called the US into one that fears its people's reactions and listens more then just 'protect' us by restricting our every rights...not there yet, but bush still has a few months to do something utterly idiotic.

But the people arent Judges or Prosecutors...
What is a revolution if not the prosecution, and often execution, of a state?
The burden of Proof goes to the people imposing their Authority over the Masses...
They've proven their worth by being in control.
Why?
They're workers too. Just because they have conflicting goals with other workers doesn't mean they don't work.

To whose benefit is that?

Why does it matter?


Innocent until proven guilty goes for everything, or it goes for nothing.

Are you trying to say that we should presume legitimacy?


Aye, I think everyone and their mum holds that view, unless they're terminally stupid or something.

Nevertheless, it's true.


Valid only if it includes CEOs organising to repress their workers more and improve their own lot too.

Are you serious?



Now, taking this post with your "anarchists are tools" comment, is it safe to say you might have changed substantially from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10956376&postcount=21)?

Why does it matter?
Because if it's not to anybody's benefit, why bother?
Are you trying to say that we should presume legitimacy?
Unless you can prove otherwise, aye.
Nevertheless, it's true.
Well yes...
Are you serious?
A CEO is as much a worker as the man in the factory.
Now, taking this post with your "anarchists are tools" comment, is it safe to say you might have changed substantially from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10956376&postcount=21)?
Just a bit ;)

What is a revolution if not the prosecution, and often execution, of a state?


What is a Revolution other than replacing one Authority with another Authority?

In the end the Burden of Proof falls to the Authority, no matter who, how, or why its there...

What is a Revolution other than replacing one Authority with another Authority?
The trial of the old order. Obviously. If it overwhelms and silences so-called 'popular' opposition, it's the winner. If it can't, it deserves to be replaced.
In the end the Burden of Proof falls to the Authority, no matter who, how, or why its there...
I would simply disagree with you on that matter.

Because if it's not to anybody's benefit, why bother?

Presumably the principle of universality is to everyone's benefit. And just because some standard is not to your benefit doesn't mean that you shouldn't be held to it. Fairness does not benefit you if you are being unfair to someone else and want to keep being unfair.


A CEO is as much a worker as the man in the factory.

Just a bit ;)
Then did you move to the authoritarian right quandrant? Just a guess.

Presumably the principle of universality is to everyone's benefit. And just because some standard is not to your benefit doesn't mean that you shouldn't be held to it.
How the hell do we pick the 'gold standard', then?

Pick somewhere really good like Sweden or something? Then everyone looks bad. Somewhere like Algeria? Feh, the West looks nice, everyone else looks rubbish. Which doesn't really improve anything other than the smugness of the west.

It'd be better if people were just candid about why they did stuff like launch wars, or torture people etc. - see the Iraq War. I doubt people would be so insulted if the Coalition had just said "we're going in to secure ourselves some long-term oil reserves". Aye, people would complain a bit, but they couldn't use arguments like "THIS WAS A LIE", which is a true, if extremely obvious statement. They'd just complain about how people in a far-away country were dying, something most people seemingly don't care about so long as they don't feel particularly betrayed about it.
Then did you move to the authoritarian right quandrant? Just a guess.
Not really. More the authoritarian pretty-much-left. I still have fairly socialist views on education, healthcare and the economy, I just really despise people who have double standards on workers' rights etc.

Interesting,

I was asked a similar question the other day on another forum, in the form of, "What empirical observations led to your political views?" Here's what I said:

I've observed that people who aren't in poverty or other inhumane conditions enjoy their lives more, and do more good things to make the lives of everyone else more enjoyable.

and

Social activities (marriages, movement, drug use) should only be limited to the extent that they have an economic effect that increases the above mentioned poverty and inhumane conditions; otherwise government is cutting down on that 'enjoyable life' think i was shooting for with the first point.

Oh and on the Chomsky thing, you guys crossed into critical thinking/argument, so suddenly I've got a say. Yootopia, authority does have to prove itself, at least if we're talking about authority as a 'recognized expert.' You only get to be an authority in an area by being consistently correct.

For the same reason that you can't appeal to an expert without showing that expert's reasoning, you can't consider National sovereignty correct by default. For instance, I can't say "Chomsky says X about computational linguistics, and he's an authority on the subject, so there." You'd (rightfully) be skeptical of the claim until I satisfactorily explained why Chomsky is an expert, and what his argument consists of for this particular area.

So yeah I just gave a long explanation of the ad verecundiam fallacy. Deal with it.

How the hell do we pick the 'gold standard', then?

Pick somewhere really good like Sweden or something? Then everyone looks bad. Somewhere like Algeria? Feh, the West looks nice, everyone else looks rubbish. Which doesn't really improve anything other than the smugness of the west.

I don't speak to how we pick the standard. And you're right, we should probably take a serious look at post-colonial criticism of Western standards. I'm just saying that if we're going to have a crappy standard and impose it on others, the least we can do is follow it ourselves.


It'd be better if people were just candid about why they did stuff like launch wars, or torture people etc. - see the Iraq War. I doubt people would be so insulted if the Coalition had just said "we're going in to secure ourselves some long-term oil reserves". Aye, people would complain a bit, but they couldn't use arguments like "THIS WAS A LIE", which is a true, if extremely obvious statement. They'd just complain about how people in a far-away country were dying, something most people seemingly don't care about so long as they don't feel particularly betrayed about it.

On the idea that honesty would lead to moral action, I presume?


Not really. More the authoritarian pretty-much-left. I still have fairly socialist views on education, healthcare and the economy, I just really despise people who have double standards on workers' rights etc.
I have honestly never heard of anyone talking about "double standards on workers' rights" so I'm interested to hear what you have to say; I might learn something new and cool.

for the way i vote, i would vote on the issues that they are been challenged not on the ploitics were people with a face, a name, and a title held in the senate/ house of representavies. anything that i agree with will intrest me in thinking of who i am going to vote for. i believe that people are starting to think voting is stupid but its our right as citizens on voting. i mean do u really want to go back to voting for a monarchy that can prosecute you for trying to kill/slander to him. with him having all the power the goverment will collasp only being ruled by one guy and if he dosent make people happy, there wil be riots. so vote for what you think is right. not because they have a face.

for the way i vote, i would vote on the issues that they are been challenged not on the ploitics

Yeah, Ploitics are never a good Party to follow, lol ;)

I don't speak to how we pick the standard. And you're right, we should probably take a serious look at post-colonial criticism of Western standards. I'm just saying that if we're going to have a crappy standard and impose it on others, the least we can do is follow it ourselves.
Quite.
On the idea that honesty would lead to moral action, I presume?
No, just because I don't like my intelligence being insulted with blatant lies.
I have honestly never heard of anyone talking about "double standards on workers' rights" so I'm interested to hear what you have to say; I might learn something new and cool.
I just get rubbed the wrong way by people who say that "workers should unite to improve their position", when actually what they mean is "those at the very lowest end of the workforce should unite to improve their position".

A manager and indeed a CEO are still workers, so I don't see why they shouldn't get the same kind of support when they want to improve their lot as the idealised prole.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

Well, i'm a social-democrat. The party i vote for is the one whose programme is closest to my ideas. We'll have to see if that programme survives government, though...

I just get rubbed the wrong way by people who say that "workers should unite to improve their position", when actually what they mean is "those at the very lowest end of the workforce should unite to improve their position".

A manager and indeed a CEO are still workers, so I don't see why they shouldn't get the same kind of support when they want to improve their lot as the idealised prole.
I guess I never thought of it that way. Hmm...

A manager and indeed a CEO are still workers, so I don't see why they shouldn't get the same kind of support when they want to improve their lot as the idealised prole.No, they're employers, or at the very least their interests are aligned with their employers, which is the same thing.

No, they're employers, or at the very least their interests are aligned with their employers, which is the same thing.

The managers of most modern corporations (which take up a majority of most markets) are not the same as the capitalists. The owners of these companies are so scattered they are virtually powerless. Their interests may be aligned with the employers, but not much more than the people under them.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

I hate whitey. That's why.

Before you ask, yes, I am black. Black Irish.

The managers of most modern companies are not the same as the capitalists. The owners of companies are so scattered they are virtually powerless. Their interests may be aligned with the employers, but not much more than the people under them.In many cases (unfortunately) the workers view their interests to be the same as the interests of the employers. Are they? Well, not by any of the standards currently used, but since interests are subjective, it's feasible that the workers' standards are the same as the employers'.
However, you seem to be thinking of corporations when you say "the owners of companies are scattered" - you mean shareholders, right? Most modern companies aren't corporations.
Corporations do pose a separate type of worker/employer relationship, though, so you're right about that.

In many cases (unfortunately) the workers view their interests to be the same as the interests of the employers. Are they? Well, not by any of the standards currently used, but since interests are subjective, it's feasible that the workers' standards are the same as the employers'.
However, you seem to be thinking of corporations when you say "the owners of companies are scattered" - you mean shareholders, right? Most modern companies aren't corporations.
Corporations do pose a separate type of worker/employer relationship, though, so you're right about that.

I did mean corporations, sorry. In fact, I will change that.
I take "interests" to mean "what the party in question sees as their interests," which often coincide with the upper management.

Are you a socialist that wants personal freedom? Are you a conservative that wants a safety net? Why do you vote the way you do? Do you feel that your party of choice truly represents your interests and has your well-being in mind?

I'm a moderate libertarian. There is no party that represents my interests and no party in existence has anyone's well-being in mind - they're after the survival of the party and party leaders and to that end they will do and say anything. I vote, as do most Americans, for the person that I consider to be the least of evils.

my why involves seeing so much totally unneccessary suffering that would be so easy to avoid creating the conditions responsible for it. would be, if people didn't put just about everything else ahead of the avoidance of doing so.

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