I will NEVER vote for a candidate from either party.
I will NEVER vote for a candidate from either party.
I'm more Republican.
Although I say screw the leaders. We need someone who was not bred for it there entire lives. Someone to understand how we feel instead of all these useless rich politicians.
Regarding my suggestion, it is not economically-biased. It's educationally-biased. There are plenty of poor homeless people who can outargue college graduates on a variety of politically and socially important subjects. "They" can complain all they want, but implementing efficacy studies and continual updates a la GREs and SATs they would be no more biased than the SATs or GREs (which aren't).
Addressing your other points, you clearly have little to no education on religiosity and party demographics (Kevin Phillips has an outstanding book out on this that I would recommend if I were confident you'd read it), have even less education in tact, and are arguing from stereotypes rather than facts. "Proven ppl from the south are not as educated as ppl from the east coast"? I'd love to see how you "prove" this. Lastly, your poll means literally nothing, except that out of the hundreds of active members who visit the site daily, 17 have voted and 9 of those state that they're Democrats. That's not even remotely representative of the international forum membership, much less representative of the American population at large.
Let me know when you want to let go of those prejudices for long enough to have a clear, coherent conversation about facts and figures instead of stereotypes and misconceptions.
Bad Memory (a pretty well-educated, non-religious Southern boy)
Also, "theory" in science does not mean what you think it means. It is not merely a guess. When something is called a theory in science, it means it is a well developed theoretical model to describe something. Like the theory of gravity, or the theory of electromagnetism.
Like my elsewhere-mentioned 12-step program for gov't, I/we all can come up with an equally large list for fixing the voting process. What a mess it is. Electors that don't have to vote per their districts, the media's misuse of exit polling, improper voting conduct and handling of ballots, to speak nothing of the fact that four states out of the entire country comprise literally of 54% of the total electoral votes for presidential elections, two parties given preferential, almost exclusive treatment by the voting system and the media...
Yeah. Just ranting at this point. Sorry guys.
Maintaining the integrity of any system, especially voting (and a laundry list of other easily compromised systems) is a nearly impossible task. Even with secure network voting, we're giving government officials, SIPR network administrators, and military leaders control of the voting process, including the dissemination of votes to proper authorities.
I identify as a Republican. I prefer less government interference in life. I prefer low taxes, and believe "trickle-down economics" works. I believe in maintaining superpower status and want to maintain our first-strike capability. I also want the government to stop sticking its nose into things it doesn't belong in, and want them to foster "green" tech, not shove it down our throats, or try to destroy us with that crap and trade bill. And I'm rabidly against gun control. I support gun education and prevention. But not "control".
Here's where the party and I diverge:
I don't believe in "spreading democracy". We don't have a democracy here, we have a representative republic. It works for us, most of the time. We have no authority, no higher calling, no mandate, to spread that model to others. Other types of government in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan should be fostered. IF they want an "Islamic Theocracy" it's really no business of ours. We want to do business, not compare lists of freedoms and laws. They can do what they want with their country.
I support "gay marriage". However, I really only support civil unions. The reason is that the word "marriage" adds a religious aspect, and the churches generally will not perform such a ceremony. We can't make them. Civil Unions offer the same status as a church-marriage. It becomes a civil rights/discrimination issue. The Justice of the Peace can perform the union, and if his religious scruples prevent it, then he can vacate the position.
I firmly support the separation of Church and State.
I am pro-choice. I don't care what women choose to do with their fetus. I would prefer that they and the father reach an agreement together, and I would prefer that abortion not be used as birth control. However, ultimately I feel that it's the woman's choice, and the state should not interfere. If they've done wrong by having an abortion, that's between them and their god. Not my business.
For the record, I am well aware that the GOP often does not do the things it professes to do. However, even with their stupid social agenda, they're more in line with me than the Democrats. Don't tell me about libertarians, either. I want a party, not a book club.
Aww no Communism. ):
I am actually a Republican. I'm pretty much the stereotype of it. I'm a Christian redneck, lol.
No, you don't. However, marriage is a religious institution when it's performed by a church. Therefore, gay "marriage" will never happen unless it's a civil union - which is basically a marriage minus the church, but performed by a Justice of the Peace, rather than a preacher.
I did not support the Patriot Act. George W. Bush is not a conservative. I opposed invading Iraq, and knew they were lying immediately when they claimed Al Qaeda and Saddam were in bed. That's a load of crap, and anyone who pays attention knew it. Yet both parties favored the war.
Michael Steele may or may not be the party chair just because he's black. That's a matter of opinion no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. Personally, I don't care for him and think he says stupid and inflammatory things.
McCain is a Democrat in disguise. He chose Palin because he thought having a woman would be a good way to get votes away from Hillary. It was a bad idea, and there were more qualified women he could have chosen. I do not like Sarah Palin. The GOP did not ask her to run, J-Mac did. We didn't have a say in the matter. How he managed to get the nomination is beyond me, he's only marginally different from Hillary. However, Palin did enjoy high approval ratings in Alaska, and stepped down [albeit wrongly] because of "drama". She didn't do a bad job of being governor, but she did show that she has a very thin skin, and shouldn't hold another office.
Nice job there, "the Bush Admin did everything I'm against." Should I assume you're a Democrat? Does it matter? Do you always agree with everything your party does? Do you find that you agree with basic principles, or whatever the politicians happen to say? Don't equate me to Bush just because of my party affiliation. I believe I already explained my stances on the big "decider" issues when someone takes a stance on one of the two big parties.
I like George W. Bush the man. I don't have much use for George W. Bush the President. I feel the same was about Obama.
Wait I'm British i don't know.
Who are the universally acknowledged evil ones? I'll vote their way.
I chose neither. Both parties promise something but hardly ever deliver.
Post removed. The core idea would fly, but due to an excessive amount of profanities and disturbing mental images, you'll have to reformulate it in a less vulgar manner if you want to express it here. Feel free to http://www.animeforum.com/images/buttons/edit.gif this message away if you want to do so.
Since I really don't like to censor opinions, the post roughly read: "I'm a democrat because of the republicans' attitude towards homosexuals."
I am neither, I'm a Conservative with libertarian leanings. I don't like either party..I believe for the most part the Republicans would do a little less social damage as apposed to the Democrats, but beneath the titles if you TRULY think about it..their isn't much that makes the Republican party and Democratic party different anymore.
I consider myself Independent, although I lean closer to the Republican side.
I'm defiantly consertive. A lot more than most republicans. Which most of them are not religious. Believe it or not I don't have a problem with gay marriage as long as it isn't in a christian church. If they get married in justice of the peace office then I don't care. Gizmo duck should read Leviticus 18 vs 22.
and as for gay marriage, let them get married. if a church will marry gay ppl then let them marry in the church, if not let them marry in a elvis wedding in vegas i don't care, but don't disrespect them and not call it marriage, you can't speak to the sacredness and sanctaty of something when most marriages end in divorce.