We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → D vs. R and L vs. C
| 23 | 4818 |
I grew up in a family split completely down the middle as far as political parties went. I had uncles and aunts who were insanely democratic and liberal, and uncles and aunts who were insanely republican and conservative. My parents were both extremely republican and conservative, but I feel that I've been influenced by both sides of the spectrum. I would probably call myself a republican most of the time, but I'm a fairly liberal one at that. Yes, I'm one curious character.
I've been interested in politics for years, and sometimes I can't seem to choose between either party/ideal. So, I'm asking the AG community to persuade me to either the democratic/liberal side, or towards the republican/conservative side.
- 23 Replies
Why does it have to be either or? I consider my self to be an independent liberal. (that's liberal not Liberal) Basically I try not to align myself with any party.
Pick your own stance on different issues, then vote for the party that best fulfills most of those opinions in the form of concrete policies.
The point was to have a democrat vs. republican thread. I'm not seriously looking for input for either side. But thanks anyway, haha.
The point was to have a democrat vs. republican thread.
2 party's that are bashing each other to win a election.
it's really stupid.
why not more party's so that everyone actually can find a party close to them. and not choose if the room is black or white. some kind of grey is better then either.
maybe then the party's are going to say what they stand for and not only bash the face of the other candidate. atm, nothing is keeping them in control.
I think it would be better to first look at your general positions socially and economically. If you are generally pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro education funding, etc, you'll find that democrats line up with your social views better. If you tend to be against gay marriage, pro life, and against excessive social spending, republicans will probably agree with your social views better.
Also, I would look at economics, as democrats tend to favor the ideas of pump priming, and higher taxes with more supportive programs (welfare, unemployment benefits, medicare and medicaid) while republicans tend to favor trickle down, lower taxes and lower spening (with the exception of defense spending). So I would rate which issues matter most to you, which approaches you believe strengthen the economy best and which candidates are going to align themselves with those positions most often. It isn't always a matter of party lines either. If qualities such as bipartisanship or integrity tend to be most important, evaluate the candidates on a case by case basis. Not all republicans are good or bad, and same with democrats. I don't think you need a permanent party alignment but rather a consistently well-researched opinion on your candidates before you vote.
If you lean towards one person against another, I would also challenge you to come up with five good reasons to vote for the other person, and then see if you have more reason to go with your first choice. Being skeptical of your gut feeling is always a good thing.
Basically, define what positions you hold and how important they are, research each candidate on a case by case basis, and be open minded to the idea that your opinion is wrong.
why not more party's so that everyone actually can find a party close to them. and not choose if the room is black or white. some kind of grey is better then either.
Because that often leads to politicking instead of enacting actual governmental policy. Parties spend half their time trying to form coalitions or playing kingmaker that nothing gets done. The flip side is that you have a mature and more open political system.
On the other hand, I live in a country where thankfully, although there is one ruling party with almost all the seats, has been ranked amongst the top few transparent states in the world. Sometimes, one party might not be a bad idea if that party is geared towards the good of the nation in general, i.e the Communist Party of China. It might be corrupt, but it takes good care of the nation, and works for the nation. I.e State competence.
Parties spend half their time trying to form coalitions or playing kingmaker that nothing gets done. The flip side is that you have a mature and more open political system.
does it matter that they take a half year to form a coalition, if you get a mature and open system for the next 3 and half year in return? and a closer bond between the citizens and politics.
why not more party's so that everyone actually can find a party close to them. and not choose if the room is black or white. some kind of grey is better then either.
Because it further divides the votes and you could end up with minority governments. Not that this is ever a bad thing, it allows the other parties to keep the one in charge from going power-crazy, like what is happening right where I am.
Back to topic, I prefer Liberal over Conservative. Conservative rubs me the wrong way, with people more influenced by a bible than quality of life. I also disagree with low taxes, here in Ontario the healthcare system is crashing due to lack of funding, funding that could be coming from taxes that don't really exist.
I'd like raised taxes + less spending to pay off foreign debts. Not sure which side that falls under.
does it matter that they take a half year to form a coalition, if you get a mature and open system for the next 3 and half year in return? and a closer bond between the citizens and politics.
Yes it does. Because coalitions fall apart, or often make for strange bed fellows. Britain has a coalition complete with a kingmaker, look at it!
I'd like raised taxes + less spending to pay off foreign debts. Not sure which side that falls under.
D. Just you might not agree where they cut.
.
I'd like raised taxes + less spending to pay off foreign debts. Not sure which side that falls under.
That sounds closer to the Democratic approach. Republicans like the idea of trickle down tax cuts which they believe will jump start the economy so quickly that it creates greater revenue. Speaking personally, I don't think there's an end all answer that works in every situation. I think trickle down works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't, and pump priming works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. It really depends on what the intended goal is. Tax increases do generate immediate revenue generally, but it may or may not hurt the amount of money being circulated through the economy depending on the situation. Tax cuts do generally help the economy, but not always to the point where the intended revenue can be generated, which creates a debt problem, which hurts the economy (because we have to pay for it somehow). So I think seeing the intended benefits is important so we can know when they work.
As far as the specifically Republican vs Democrat attempt, I think whether you raise taxes on the rich or cut taxes on the rich should depend on what their current state of affairs is. For instance, if they're in a "spend money to make money" situation, the more money they have, the more they'll spend. If they're in a "hang onto every penny I've got" situation, raising their taxes and reinvesting it into the economy may be the only way to get it back into the economy. So I like both sides when they've got it right but I generally don't like the logic they end up using to convince people to agree with them. For instance, I thought that during the 2012 presidential debates, both Romney and Obama used arguments that were flawed. Romney kinda went in the direction of "Obama was president, things aren't better" without always drawing causality. Obama kinda went in the direction of "Bush cut taxes on the rich, therefore tax cuts on the rich always hurt the economy" without trying to draw causality for the 2008 Recession. I don't blame them for having to dumb it down this way in the debates since they only have so much time and can't draw it out in detail. I think their websites and speeches should have gone into more detail economically, though.
I think their websites and speeches should have gone into more detail economically, though.
If you understand economics, it would make sense, even if it was watered down. There are plenty of more deep analysis online.
Yes it does. Because coalitions fall apart, or often make for strange bed fellows. Britain has a coalition complete with a kingmaker, look at it!
so have we. and tho it is true what you say. i still prefer the diversity and the ability to find the party that is close to your own ideas. over the black or white system.
i think mostly because in a black or white system, there is no 3rd dog that can walk away whit the bone while the 2 others are fighting over it. nothing keeps them focused on what really matters, if you know what i mean.
i think mostly because in a black or white system, there is no 3rd dog that can walk away whit the bone while the 2 others are fighting over it. nothing keeps them focused on what really matters, if you know what i mean.
Oh, a two party system is just as bad. I was comparing it to a system where one party reigns supreme.
Oh, a two party system is just as bad. I was comparing it to a system where one party reigns supreme.
if that 1 party ****s up then there is no other party to fall back on.
it depends allot on the party if that system works yes or no.
You must be logged in to post a reply!