Political leaning...

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Derek » 1 June 2014, 08:50

BeyondThePale wrote:I realize that you don't get 'citizenship', and I realize you didn't just hook up and move, but people can, and that's part of my problem with it; that it can be abused. Also, what should family have to do with it? Why can't someone lonely and hopeless move somewhere else so easily if they want to? Why do people who want to be together get preferential treatment over single people?

Because the state doesn't have the responsibility to guarantee everyone's right to live where they want, but it does have a responsibility to protect its own citizens' right to be with the people they love.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5438
+1s received: 1537
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Severelius » 1 June 2014, 09:46

xyz72 wrote:I do feel myself alienated from all major parties though. I used to vote FDP, a center right party with strong liberal views, however, they recently fell to 3%(from nearly 20% just a while back) and I'm beginning to lose hope that they will return. They have aligned themselves more with the generic centrist stance of most of our other parties towards the end, trying to reclaim some voters that felt them too capitalistic during the financial crisis, and by doing so lost all appeal as the only party that didn't want to continue increasing taxes and government benefits when both are ridiculously high already. What's left are a centrist party build around Christianity, the Green party, a socialist-leaning party(these 3 have essentially identical views and make up about 80% of the votes), a radical left party, the Pirates and a new, anti-EU right-wing party. :sadblue:

I feel this same way with the political parties here in the UK. I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all) and have slowly just sold out all the things they said they stood for to make it easier for themselves in the coalition. And now with the local elections it's pretty obvious they are just getting demolished as a political entity and are unlikely to ever return even to the low support they had a few years ago. It's actually kind of depressing.

So now with them as pretty much a throw-away vote under any circumstances my choices are Labour, which I'm not entirely put-off by but can't say I'm massively into either but who, in my constituency at least, are always a distant third place in terms of actual votes in general elections (because I'm unlucky enough to be in the most conservative-voting part of England). Then there's the Tories, who I really don't like and will most likely never agree with and voting them would mean voting for my local MP to keep his seat and I really don't like the guy.

And then of course there's UKIP now becoming a noticeable player (especially down south, where I am because again: most conservative-voting region) and I feel my distaste for them has probably been well-documented by now so I can conceive of no situation where I'd actually ever willingly support them in any way.

Sometimes I wish I lived in America. At least then I'd only have two evils to pick the lesser of, not four.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2872
+1s received: 221
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: Virgin Islands (British) (vg)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 1 June 2014, 14:44

BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.

Moreover, my husband didn't get Dutch citizenship, and I didn't get American citizenship. You can't just marry someone and then become a citizen of their country. That's not how it works.

Without the EU/UK's recognition of our marriage, we wouldn't have been able to be together for more than 3 months at a time at all. We didn't "just hook up and move". (That makes it sound almost like we just got married to bypass immigration requirements.) We got married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

There are good reasons to regulate who can move into your country, but what good is it being a citizen of a country if that country won't even allow you to live there with your family? There is no benefit to keeping people like us apart just because we were born in different countries.

I never wanted to live in the United States, and my husband never wanted to live in Europe before meeting me. We just wanted to be together, somewhere.

I realize that you don't get 'citizenship', and I realize you didn't just hook up and move, but people can, and that's part of my problem with it; that it can be abused.

You don't think they have protections in place to prevent abuse? We were required to go to great lengths to prove that our marriage wasn't a "marriage of convenience", as they called it, before the UK would allow us to travel here in the first place, let alone settle down here. They even got doubtful once after we'd been living here for many months and threatened to deport my husband back to the USA.

It's nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be even for people who aren't abusing the system, let alone for people who are.

BeyondThePale wrote:Also, what should family have to do with it? Why can't someone lonely and hopeless move somewhere else so easily if they want to? Why do people who want to be together get preferential treatment over single people?
Derek wrote:Because the state doesn't have the responsibility to guarantee everyone's right to live where they want, but it does have a responsibility to protect its own citizens' right to be with the people they love.

This.

I'm all for making it easier for people to migrate. That's why I'm so happy that the EU enables European citizens to move to any other EU country if they want to and enjoy the same social protections there as citizens of those countries.

I can see why that's not so easy to work out with other countries like the US, because in many ways things are so much better in European countries that a lot of people might move into the EU and we might not be able to handle that, and it could easily be argued that it would be better for people to work to improve conditions in their own country rather than move away.

But family reunification isn't like that. My husband was happy living in the US, but he had a concrete reason for wanting to live with me, an EU citizen. The point wasn't to get him into the EU so he could mooch off our system or enjoy our job market or anything like that. The point was to live with me, and if the EU hadn't accepted us, we would have moved to Canada, which would have meant the EU losing a citizen it had paid to educate (who was running a business that was contributing to its economy and bringing in money from clients in North America and Asia).

Family-reunification laws keep your country's citizens, and everything that's been invested in them, from moving away to live with their foreign partners in other countries. This is a good thing.
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 1 June 2014, 14:44

Severelius wrote:I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all)

I can. They said they wouldn't join any coalition unless it would introduce proportional representation. That was the biggest reason why I liked them, and it was a lie.

Severelius wrote:Sometimes I wish I lived in America. At least then I'd only have two evils to pick the lesser of, not four.

What about the Netherlands? With proportional representation and some 12 parties currently having sitting members in the House of Representatives, there's always one you'll be pretty close to.

Image
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Edward » 1 June 2014, 16:53

René wrote:
Severelius wrote:I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all)

I can. They said they wouldn't join any coalition unless it would introduce proportional representation. That was the biggest reason why I liked them, and it was a lie.

I think all Labour offered them was an referendum on PR. Still better than a referendum on AV but still not what they were after, and I'd be surprised if there was a yes vote on a PR referendum given what happened with AV.

I guess generally the Lib Dems should've really used their bargaining position a lot better, it was just unfortunate for them that a coalition with Labour wouldn't have quite got them a majority, so the option there wasn't really idealistic.
Formerly known as upthebracket
Edward
 
Posts: 863
+1s received: 1
Joined: 21 December 2012, 00:54
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 1 June 2014, 17:28

Edward wrote:
René wrote:
Severelius wrote:I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all)

I can. They said they wouldn't join any coalition unless it would introduce proportional representation. That was the biggest reason why I liked them, and it was a lie.

I think all Labour offered them was an referendum on PR. Still better than a referendum on AV but still not what they were after, and I'd be surprised if there was a yes vote on a PR referendum given what happened with AV.

I guess generally the Lib Dems should've really used their bargaining position a lot better, it was just unfortunate for them that a coalition with Labour wouldn't have quite got them a majority, so the option there wasn't really idealistic.

I know, so they should not have entered a coalition with either of them.

Allowing a hung parliament with no coalition is better than breaking such a major promise to your voters and getting demolished afterwards.
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby BeyondThePale » 1 June 2014, 18:01

René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.

Moreover, my husband didn't get Dutch citizenship, and I didn't get American citizenship. You can't just marry someone and then become a citizen of their country. That's not how it works.

Without the EU/UK's recognition of our marriage, we wouldn't have been able to be together for more than 3 months at a time at all. We didn't "just hook up and move". (That makes it sound almost like we just got married to bypass immigration requirements.) We got married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

There are good reasons to regulate who can move into your country, but what good is it being a citizen of a country if that country won't even allow you to live there with your family? There is no benefit to keeping people like us apart just because we were born in different countries.

I never wanted to live in the United States, and my husband never wanted to live in Europe before meeting me. We just wanted to be together, somewhere.

I realize that you don't get 'citizenship', and I realize you didn't just hook up and move, but people can, and that's part of my problem with it; that it can be abused.

You don't think they have protections in place to prevent abuse? We were required to go to great lengths to prove that our marriage wasn't a "marriage of convenience", as they called it, before the UK would allow us to travel here in the first place, let alone settle down here. They even got doubtful once after we'd been living here for many months and threatened to deport my husband back to the USA.

It's nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be even for people who aren't abusing the system, let alone for people who are.

BeyondThePale wrote:Also, what should family have to do with it? Why can't someone lonely and hopeless move somewhere else so easily if they want to? Why do people who want to be together get preferential treatment over single people?
Derek wrote:Because the state doesn't have the responsibility to guarantee everyone's right to live where they want, but it does have a responsibility to protect its own citizens' right to be with the people they love.

This.

I'm all for making it easier for people to migrate. That's why I'm so happy that the EU enables European citizens to move to any other EU country if they want to and enjoy the same social protections there as citizens of those countries.

I can see why that's not so easy to work out with other countries like the US, because in many ways things are so much better in European countries that a lot of people might move into the EU and we might not be able to handle that, and it could easily be argued that it would be better for people to work to improve conditions in their own country rather than move away.

But family reunification isn't like that. My husband was happy living in the US, but he had a concrete reason for wanting to live with me, an EU citizen. The point wasn't to get him into the EU so he could mooch off our system or enjoy our job market or anything like that. The point was to live with me, and if the EU hadn't accepted us, we would have moved to Canada, which would have meant the EU losing a citizen it had paid to educate (who was running a business that was contributing to its economy and bringing in money from clients in North America and Asia).

Family-reunification laws keep your country's citizens, and everything that's been invested in them, from moving away to live with their foreign partners in other countries. This is a good thing.


You're right about things being better in the EU, but wrong about working to improve our country for the better being an easy argument. I once believed that it was better to work toward building this country for the better rather than fleeing, but that's not how things work here; we have no voice, we have no choice, we're just given the illusion of voice to placate us. This an aristocratic, nearly theocratic police state; it's a goddamn mess here and I fucking hate it.

As far as family reunification goes, my father didn't want to raise his children and decided he didn't want to pay child support so he married an Aussie, moved to Melbourne and got away from it all. So much for reunification. I guess his new wife was more important than responsibility.
Jive the lions.
User avatar
BeyondThePale
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 6 March 2014, 23:04
Location: Pacific Northwest
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 1 June 2014, 18:32

BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
Derek wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:
René wrote:
BeyondThePale wrote:I'm partial to the parties that support the idea that marriage is between two people and not the government. Marriage should just be this ceremonial symbolic thing people do. No one should get special benefits for being married, it's ridiculous.

What about the benefit of being allowed to live with your foreign partner without one of you having to go through an arduous, expensive and sometimes impossible immigration process?

I don't think it's ridiculous that my marriage allowed me to bring my American husband here to live with me in the EU.


Because it's a slap in the face to those who work their asses off to gain citizenship when two people can just hook up and move.

I think part of the point of marriage is that it isn't just hooking up. What about husbands or wives without careers who are financially dependent on their spouses? What about widows and widowers who would prefer to inherit their late spouse's assets without the government taking half? What about the multitudes of ordinances that determine countless legal issues ranging in subject from custodial rights to tax liability? I would say the view that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love is pretty naive.

Moreover, my husband didn't get Dutch citizenship, and I didn't get American citizenship. You can't just marry someone and then become a citizen of their country. That's not how it works.

Without the EU/UK's recognition of our marriage, we wouldn't have been able to be together for more than 3 months at a time at all. We didn't "just hook up and move". (That makes it sound almost like we just got married to bypass immigration requirements.) We got married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.

There are good reasons to regulate who can move into your country, but what good is it being a citizen of a country if that country won't even allow you to live there with your family? There is no benefit to keeping people like us apart just because we were born in different countries.

I never wanted to live in the United States, and my husband never wanted to live in Europe before meeting me. We just wanted to be together, somewhere.

I realize that you don't get 'citizenship', and I realize you didn't just hook up and move, but people can, and that's part of my problem with it; that it can be abused.

You don't think they have protections in place to prevent abuse? We were required to go to great lengths to prove that our marriage wasn't a "marriage of convenience", as they called it, before the UK would allow us to travel here in the first place, let alone settle down here. They even got doubtful once after we'd been living here for many months and threatened to deport my husband back to the USA.

It's nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be even for people who aren't abusing the system, let alone for people who are.

BeyondThePale wrote:Also, what should family have to do with it? Why can't someone lonely and hopeless move somewhere else so easily if they want to? Why do people who want to be together get preferential treatment over single people?
Derek wrote:Because the state doesn't have the responsibility to guarantee everyone's right to live where they want, but it does have a responsibility to protect its own citizens' right to be with the people they love.

This.

I'm all for making it easier for people to migrate. That's why I'm so happy that the EU enables European citizens to move to any other EU country if they want to and enjoy the same social protections there as citizens of those countries.

I can see why that's not so easy to work out with other countries like the US, because in many ways things are so much better in European countries that a lot of people might move into the EU and we might not be able to handle that, and it could easily be argued that it would be better for people to work to improve conditions in their own country rather than move away.

But family reunification isn't like that. My husband was happy living in the US, but he had a concrete reason for wanting to live with me, an EU citizen. The point wasn't to get him into the EU so he could mooch off our system or enjoy our job market or anything like that. The point was to live with me, and if the EU hadn't accepted us, we would have moved to Canada, which would have meant the EU losing a citizen it had paid to educate (who was running a business that was contributing to its economy and bringing in money from clients in North America and Asia).

Family-reunification laws keep your country's citizens, and everything that's been invested in them, from moving away to live with their foreign partners in other countries. This is a good thing.

You're right about things being better in the EU, but wrong about working to improve our country for the better being an easy argument. I once believed that it was better to work toward building this country for the better rather than fleeing, but that's not how things work here; we have no voice, we have no choice, we're just given the illusion of voice to placate us. This an aristocratic, nearly theocratic police state; it's a goddamn mess here and I fucking hate it.

As far as family reunification goes, my father didn't want to raise his children and decided he didn't want to pay child support so he married an Aussie, moved to Melbourne and got away from it all. So much for reunification. I guess his new wife was more important than responsibility.

I sensed that there was a more emotional aspect to your opinion. :/ :hug:

There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Brenden » 1 June 2014, 18:36

René wrote:There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com

Also, Mayday PAC.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6714
+1s received: 1559
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Severelius » 1 June 2014, 18:50

René wrote:
Severelius wrote:I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all)

I can. They said they wouldn't join any coalition unless it would introduce proportional representation. That was the biggest reason why I liked them, and it was a lie.

Fair point.

I'll admit to not being that into politics in 2010 so if I had been I'd have probably found reasons to blame them. If it helps, I've not hesitated to pile on the scorn and blame for the past 4 years since. At this point I really can see the only way they could make me genuinely support that party again was if Nick Clegg and anyone who thinks he's still doing a good job or made the right choices was just banished from it outright, never to return.

Though sadly the Lib Dems are the best option for unseating my cretinous bastard of an MP, so I'm kind of stuck. Unless somehow the Lib Dems are tanked so damn much that this time around Labour picks up a good majority of the votes that otherwise would have gone Lib Dem... but I don't think that's going to happen. This is the South, Labour's never going to make good gains down here unless there's some weird viral outbreak that only targets conservative people and keeps them bed-ridden on election day.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2872
+1s received: 221
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: Virgin Islands (British) (vg)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Edward » 1 June 2014, 19:06

René wrote:
Edward wrote:
René wrote:
Severelius wrote:I've only ever voted once, when I was 18 and the first time I was eligible to do so and I voted for the Liberal Democrats. Because of the three main parties here, I felt they were the ones that were most in line with my political ideas. But then they joined up with the Tories (I honestly can't blame them for that initial move, it was either that or have no say in anything at all)

I can. They said they wouldn't join any coalition unless it would introduce proportional representation. That was the biggest reason why I liked them, and it was a lie.

I think all Labour offered them was an referendum on PR. Still better than a referendum on AV but still not what they were after, and I'd be surprised if there was a yes vote on a PR referendum given what happened with AV.

I guess generally the Lib Dems should've really used their bargaining position a lot better, it was just unfortunate for them that a coalition with Labour wouldn't have quite got them a majority, so the option there wasn't really idealistic.

I know, so they should not have entered a coalition with either of them.

Allowing a hung parliament with no coalition is better than breaking such a major promise to your voters and getting demolished afterwards.

True. I hope now that parties will include in their manifestos 'policies which we're willing to drop to compromise in a coalition.' I somewhat doubt that'll happen though :P
Formerly known as upthebracket
Edward
 
Posts: 863
+1s received: 1
Joined: 21 December 2012, 00:54
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Derek » 2 June 2014, 22:08

Brenden wrote:
René wrote:There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com

Also, Mayday PAC.

There are PACs dedicated to minimizing the influence of PACs?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5438
+1s received: 1537
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Paragon » 2 June 2014, 22:10

Derek wrote:There are PACs dedicated to minimizing the influence of PACs?

I laughed when I heard about it.
Image
User avatar
Paragon
Moderator
 
Posts: 3026
+1s received: 36
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Boston, The Holy See
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Josh » 2 June 2014, 22:11

Severelius wrote:This is the South, Labour's never going to make good gains down here unless there's some weird viral outbreak that only targets conservative people and keeps them bed-ridden on election day.

Hmm, you're giving me ideas... :awesome:
Josh
 
Posts: 3456
+1s received: 31
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:55
Location: London or Valencia
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 2 June 2014, 22:18

Brenden wrote:
René wrote:There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com

Also, Mayday PAC.

That one's Lawrence Lessig's! :awesome:
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7892
+1s received: 1694
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby nikolii » 2 June 2014, 22:26

Reverting back to the original post, I would find myself quite likely voting for a party that has LGBT rights as a party policy, although I think now is the correct time to point out that I would be voting in the same was a heterosexual. My political ideology has always been molded around the ideas of a government/free market balanced economy and for the ideal of an egalitarian society for all. Every other policy a party makes is largely irrelevant to me, as these are my core principles that I have founded for myself and which I consider the best course of action morally, economically and so forth.
And Marmaduke you are a bitch.
Image
User avatar
nikolii
 
Posts: 825
+1s received: 27
Joined: 20 December 2012, 23:07

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Brenden » 3 June 2014, 04:53

Derek wrote:
Brenden wrote:
René wrote:There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com

Also, Mayday PAC.

There are PACs dedicated to minimizing the influence of PACs?

Yes, because you have to work in the system that exists if you want to change it. Although it's not really about the PACs per se, it's about the inordinate amounts of money funnelled into politics through Super PACs.

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Brenden wrote:
René wrote:There is something you can do: join the fight to get money out of politics. Wolf-PAC.com

Also, Mayday PAC.

That one's Lawrence Lessig's! :awesome:

I know! :awesome:
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6714
+1s received: 1559
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby london12 » 12 September 2014, 01:16

With the current election season in the states, I'll try to bump this thread.

I hate people who just vote for the party and because someone told them to (my mom a couple days ago because her union told her to) and people who do not vote at all.

For example, I voted libertarian in the last presidential election. Sure I knew my vote would be wasted but it's moral to me because the other candidates were dumb and inferior. Romney and Osama. It depends if I like the candidate and their policies. I voted democrat when I was younger but living in a wicked wicked liberal democrat state, democrat is not always the best option. I wish the US had more than 2 major parties and were giving equal air time.

I consider myself a moderate libertarian green tree hugger.

Outright libertarian is just plain wacko. It's chaos. Liberal democrat and conservative republicans are like bombs waiting to happen.
london12
 
Posts: 22
+1s received: 2
Joined: 1 July 2014, 23:50
Country: United States (us)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby René » 12 September 2014, 03:04

london12 wrote:In the 1980's we gave Obama guns and training to push out the Russians. And look were we are now. Thirteen years of war we no end in sight.
london12 wrote:For example, I voted libertarian in the last presidential election. Sure I knew my vote would be wasted but it's moral to me because the other candidates were dumb and inferior. Romney and Osama.

...
ImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 4586
+1s received: 1085
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Political leaning...

Unread postby Nickr » 13 September 2014, 16:05

Voted UKIP in the most recent elections, will vote UKIP in all following elections.
[6:42 PM] Marmaduke: Nick is GFO Lord of the Dance

Semen disposal unit
User avatar
Nickr
 
Posts: 355
+1s received: 18
Joined: 2 June 2014, 13:23
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests