Have you ever considered your party could be wrong?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 03:59:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Have you ever considered your party could be wrong?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Have you ever considered your party could be wrong?
#1
Yes -- Democrat
 
#2
No -- Democrat
 
#3
Yes -- Republican
 
#4
No -- Republican
 
#5
Yes -- Other
 
#6
No -- Other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 51

Author Topic: Have you ever considered your party could be wrong?  (Read 3176 times)
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2005, 06:41:17 PM »

Yes, my party has been wrong before.  As one example, I don't like affirmative action.  It should be done away with; it's no longer needed.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2005, 07:28:46 PM »

Back when I was a Democrat, YES, and that's why I switched to independent - too many disagreements, ESPECIALLY with the socially left wing of the party.

As an independent, the question doesn't apply. Wink
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2005, 02:54:15 AM »

The Republican Party is wrong on most social issues(although I agree with the death penality) . They should not care what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults and keep the federal government intervention to a minimum. The federal government should have no place in things such as marriage and abortion. but yet it seems the modern day GOP wants to push for constitutional ammendments giving more government intervention. The Republicans main point of focus should be a balenced budget, a decent economy and foreign policy.

The GOP should take lessons from the Libertarian Party on social issues.

The federal government can have a role in abortion. The clause that says the feds must guarantee a republican form of government to the states gives them that power, because in a republic you don't take lives without due process. I'lll agree it is preferable to keep that at state level though.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2005, 11:22:56 AM »

Okay here is what I have against my party:

I do not like the President's attempts to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. Although I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned I think that the states should have the final say in how to define marriage. If Massachusetts wants to have full Gay Marriage then so be it but if Idaho doesn't the states that have Civil Union/Gay Marriage laws should respect the decisions of those other states.

I do not like the fiscal irresponsibility of the current Government. The Republicans have always been the party of balanced budget and small government. We should work on cutting spending not to increase it more. Reduce waste and cut unneeded spending should be the first priority of the Republicans.

I also disagree with the GOP on Marijuana legalisation. It should be made legal although I consider it a state issue.

Also call me crazy but I still believe that states should have some say on what they want to legalize and/or sanction as per Amendment 10. I believe both parties have taken away too much power from the states since the balance of power between the states and the Federal Government is crucial to the continuing effectiveness of our liberal democracy.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,676
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2005, 11:37:04 AM »

Yes. Too much pandering to suburban nancy's goes on IMO.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2005, 12:29:58 PM »

They are wrong to back away from supporting gay marriage.  I didn't buy that Kerry though gay marriage was wrong for a second. 
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,479


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2005, 12:37:31 PM »

They are wrong to back away from supporting gay marriage.  I didn't buy that Kerry though gay marriage was wrong for a second. 

That and abortion as well.  I think he was fiddling on the issue to prevent losing many Catholic voters.  If he's pro-choice, just say it.  Don't feed us lines like "I'm personally against it."  I can see being against partial-birth in some cases, but don't confuse us.
Logged
nini2287
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,616


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2005, 03:51:25 PM »
« Edited: January 06, 2005, 10:49:35 PM by nini2287 »

Yes, I disagree with my party on:
Abortion
Content on TV/Video games
Capping Malpractice Lawsuits
Free Trade (I believe in less regulations, but not completely open markets)
Affirmative Action in the workplace
Funding for religous charities
Not thinking there is a problem with social security
Patriot Act

And a few more, I'll edit this post if I can think of them.
Logged
MHS2002
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,642


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2005, 11:47:27 PM »

Just right off the top of my head:

I think the Republicans right now are irresponsible fiscally and I also disagree with the FMA.
Logged
Serenity Now
tomm_86
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2005, 10:24:45 AM »

Since you didn't provide a substanitive argument on the Constitution, I'll just assume you're an idiot, since that's what I've been doing for a while now anyway.

That's because you constantly use the constitution as a defense mechanism so that you can discredit and write-off anybody who disagrees with you.

From what little I know, the constitution was designed to establish and protect a democratic system of government, not to be used as a propganda tool by the likes of you.
Logged
Serenity Now
tomm_86
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2005, 10:28:32 AM »


Since you didn't provide a substanitive argument on the Constitution, I'll just assume you're an idiot, since that's what I've been doing for a while now anyway.

That's because you constantly use the constitution as a defense mechanism so that you can discredit and write-off anybody who disagrees with you.

From what little I know, the constitution was designed to establish and protect a democratic system of government, not to be used as a propganda tool by the likes of you.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2005, 12:27:06 PM »

The point to a Constitution is to have something people can rally around when it's violated.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2005, 12:44:30 PM »

Yes.

The Democrats should never have retreated from a Trumanite defence/foreign policy, which ultimately allowed Republican presidents' Reagan and GHWB to realise Truman's vision. Even today, we have GWB persuing a Truman-like policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Democrats are too liberal on certain social issues like gay marriage (they should reject it loud and clear, while supporting civil unions) and abortion (it should only be allowed if the woman's physical and psychological well-being are at risk as opposed to on demand/request)

The Democratic Party represents the economic interests of the majority of Americans but with the increasing saliency of "moral values" as electoral issues; such issues can't be ignored and need to be addressed

The Democratic Party as it stands risks being confined to the periphery

Dave
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2005, 10:27:21 PM »

I don't like the way the Republicans have become the party of government, and in Congress at least sometimes act like the Democrats did when they controlled Congress.

The fact that they changed their rules to allow Tom Delay to stay on as Majority Leader after his indictment is an example of that.

As far as issues go, I think that Republicans are overly hostile to mass transit, and too friendly to the automobile.  This of course reflects their suburban and rural base, and their poor showing in urban areas.  And then of course, there's the federal budget deficit.

I don't love the Republican position on every issue, but I can think of few issues on which I favor the Democratic position over the Republican one.  Usually, if I don't like the Republican position, I will like the Democratic position even less.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 16 queries.