Your Political Affiliation (Not Necessarily Ideology)

[nodoginnafight]

One caveat, and this will irritate more than a few people but here it is.....

People, there is no such thing as an 'Independent'

You are either a Conservative or you are a libtard.

Calling yourself an 'Independent' simply reinforces the belief that you're not smart enough to be a Conservative.

If you are offended....? Suck on it.

Just the way it is

Independent doesn't mean moderate. Independent means unafilliated with a political party.
Conservative is a position along the political spectrum as is liberal and moderate. That designation is not related to party affiliation.

If you were "smart enough" to be a conservative, you'd probably be "smart enough" to not try to compare apples and oranges.

 

[Pete7469]

One caveat, and this will irritate more than a few people but here it is.....

People, there is no such thing as an 'Independent'

You are either a Conservative or you are a libtard.

Calling yourself an 'Independent' simply reinforces the belief that you're not smart enough to be a Conservative.

If you are offended....? Suck on it.

Just the way it is

I consider it a matter of right vs. wrong.

Liberal bed wetters are almost universally wrong on every issue. On the few matters they're close to right on, their motivated that way for nefarious purposes.

I tend to vote repuke, out of hope the party can be forced right. The statists took over the democrook party completely, I think we can oust them from the repuke party. Once the moonbats are defeated and flee to canada or cuba, we can truly advance the cause of constitutional republican liberty.

 

[ModerateGOP]

One caveat, and this will irritate more than a few people but here it is.....

People, there is no such thing as an 'Independent'

You are either a Conservative or you are a libtard.

Calling yourself an 'Independent' simply reinforces the belief that you're not smart enough to be a Conservative.

If you are offended....? Suck on it.

Just the way it is

FWIW, the poll asks what you affiliate as. You could be a registered Independent and still consider yourself a conservative.

It does?

sunuvabitch

I thought it said "What best describes you?"

And I didn't know you could register under all those other descriptions like, "Conservative on social issues but likes to watch women's volleyball"

Learn something new in here ever day

I apologize: I posted it in my first post after the poll ... the poll does say "What best describes you?" Sorry. Also, lighten up.

 

[DiamondDave]

I will not vote for any liberal/progressive... I will not support ones who want to increase the scope of government and its spending.. and anyone who supports entitlements to persons and/or corporations, I will not vote for.. hence why I have recently voted for more constitutionalists and libertarians than republicans.. and why I cannot vote for the leftists

And yet, the lion's share of our massive deficit came from two unpaid for wars and subsidies for the rich Republicans mislabeled "tax cuts". Nothing to do with Democrats. And we know where Libertarians stand. "Let him die" and supportive of racism. Hmm, are Libertarians "pro" women's rights? That's one thing I don't know.

The sad thing is that the world has become very complex requiring enormous intelligence resources and smart, educated people to keep this country safe from foreign interests. Republicans want to undermine government thereby putting this country at risk and they think smart people are "elitists". Our greatest danger is not from the outside, but the ignorants who live within the borders and shriek "shrink government and cut spending" but have no idea what that actually means.

Repeating your debunked bullshit once again?? Lion's share comes from ENTITLEMENT SPENDING..

Our greatest 'ignorants' who are our greatest risk are the ones (like you) who think government needs to be there to solve your every problem and take care of your every personal need

 

[Harry Dresden]

When you look at the current Republican Party and their positions on economics, the poor, civil rights, health care, American helping American, disaster relief, women's rights, immigration, science, technology, jobs, business, education and the environment, I don't believe you can be a moderate and vote for that party. Every current position the Republican Party has is extreme and very far outside of what is considered the "norm". This is the most radical party in my lifetime if you go by their Party Platform, where they are on the issues, the fact they are 90% white and what they did to this country under former President Bush. Then you add in the unearned hatred for the current president. Their talk of secession and support for domestic terrorism. Where does "moderate" fit in? Perhaps in the next generation. But not for at least the next 10 years.

the fact they are 90% white

you are so like i said you are......mention this in just about every post......thanx for proving me right again Dean.....

 

[gallantwarrior]

One caveat, and this will irritate more than a few people but here it is.....

People, there is no such thing as an 'Independent'

You are either a Conservative or you are a libtard.

Calling yourself an 'Independent' simply reinforces the belief that you're not smart enough to be a Conservative.

If you are offended....? Suck on it.

Just the way it is

For the purposes of the OP, 'Independent' is offered in many states as a voter registry selection. Lots of people who do not wish to affiliate themselves with a specific party but who still wish to vote. I am unaware of 'Conservstive Party' offered as a registration choice.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Wow, a USMB poll that isn't slanted or cynical, well done.

And it actually includes an answer that works for me, "Independent - All Over the Place"!



.

 

[eagle7_31]

When you look at the current Republican Party and their positions on economics, the poor, civil rights, health care, American helping American, disaster relief, women's rights, immigration, science, technology, jobs, business, education and the environment, I don't believe you can be a moderate and vote for that party. Every current position the Republican Party has is extreme and very far outside of what is considered the "norm". This is the most radical party in my lifetime if you go by their Party Platform, where they are on the issues, the fact they are 90% white and what they did to this country under former President Bush. Then you add in the unearned hatred for the current president. Their talk of secession and support for domestic terrorism. Where does "moderate" fit in? Perhaps in the next generation. But not for at least the next 10 years.

Where do you get your delusions? Just wondering.

 

[ModerateGOP]

.

Wow, a USMB poll that isn't slanted or cynical, well done.

And it actually includes an answer that works for me, "Independent - All Over the Place"!



.

Thanks, rock on!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I refuse to label myself.

 

[rdean]

When you look at the current Republican Party and their positions on economics, the poor, civil rights, health care, American helping American, disaster relief, women's rights, immigration, science, technology, jobs, business, education and the environment, I don't believe you can be a moderate and vote for that party. Every current position the Republican Party has is extreme and very far outside of what is considered the "norm". This is the most radical party in my lifetime if you go by their Party Platform, where they are on the issues, the fact they are 90% white and what they did to this country under former President Bush. Then you add in the unearned hatred for the current president. Their talk of secession and support for domestic terrorism. Where does "moderate" fit in? Perhaps in the next generation. But not for at least the next 10 years.

That's the thing: any intelligent person knows that he or she can disagree with any one or multiple element(s) of a party's platform. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, moderate on gun control, in favor of a path to citizenship ... yet fiscally conservative. I believe in tax breaks for everyone, including ALL businesses, cuts in wasteful spending and a flat tax code. I do not vote for President based on those social issues, because they won't be the ones deciding them. What Republican President is actually going to have an impact on overturning Roe v. Wade?! They've tried for forty years now... Gay marriage? That will be a courts and legislature debate. Period. Obama's "support" of it had no effect on the issue, IMO. The President will have a decent effect on immigration reform, but there are multiple rising Republicans who are just as "enlightened" on immigration reform as many Democrats are, so no contrast there. Gun control? Maybe ... but like I said, I'm pretty moderate on that anyway.

What does that leave me with? A stark divide between the fiscal policies of the Democrats and those of the Republicans. Sure, I probably have more in common with a Moderate Democrat than a Right Wing Republican, and I absolutely hate that those nutjobs have a presence in the GOP right now, but I care enough about the fiscal issues (on which I think the Democrats are just awful) to vote Republican. And I'm still a moderate.

EDIT: If a Democrat came out in support of all those fiscal policies I just mentioned, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat ... but they're too dependent on some of their largest voting blocs (working class, those who benefit from government redistribution of wealth, those on government programs, etc.) to ever do that. Hence, I will not be supporting any Democrat any time soon, no matter how crazy some Republicans are.

Republicans have slandered the Democrat Party for years insisting they are the party of "spend". And yet, where did the deficits come from? Not the Democrats. In fact, Clinton left a surplus.
How do Republicans get away with the slander? Think about it. Every good business man in the world says it "take money to make money". There is money being spent on nothing, like the 9 billion in cash Republicans sent to Iraq that simply vanished. Think what you could buy with 9 billion in cash. Then the tax cuts that gave business the capital to move jobs to China. See a pattern?
And when were Republicans considered the "Party of Ideas"? When they spent money building the interstate highway system, at the time, the envy of the world. And NASA, behind unknown billions in patents and licenses. And it was Republicans behind the investments in science and technology in schools and colleges.
So what happened?
In the middle 60's, the conservatives fled the Democratic Party because of the blacks, and the conservatives joined and swelled the ranks of the Republican Party which is why it's 90% white today. Now, they insist tax cuts for the wealthy, being anti education, against women's right, hating minorities, anti science and anti investment are all "conservative". No, they are not. They are the cobblestones paving the road to disaster. We saw that for 6 years under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses and the courts leaving no one but the voters to stop them. Because of Gerrymandering, the voters haven't been completely successful.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What we really need is to completely clean our legislative houses. Then we need to find a way to attract people of good moral and ethical values who will put aside their party affiliations in favor of doing the job the electorate hires them to do.

 

[ModerateGOP]

I refuse to label myself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I refuse to label myself.

Yes, I am.

 

[Amelia]

One caveat, and this will irritate more than a few people but here it is.....

People, there is no such thing as an 'Independent'

You are either a Conservative or you are a libtard.

Calling yourself an 'Independent' simply reinforces the belief that you're not smart enough to be a Conservative.

If you are offended....? Suck on it.

Just the way it is

For the purposes of the OP, 'Independent' is offered in many states as a voter registry selection. Lots of people who do not wish to affiliate themselves with a specific party but who still wish to vote. I am unaware of 'Conservstive Party' offered as a registration choice.

The Conservative Party is offered as a registration choice in at least the state of New York.

Here in Wisconsin we don't register our party. I still consider myself a Republican.

 

[Edgetho]

FWIW, the poll asks what you affiliate as. You could be a registered Independent and still consider yourself a conservative.

It does?

sunuvabitch

I thought it said "What best describes you?"

And I didn't know you could register under all those other descriptions like, "Conservative on social issues but likes to watch women's volleyball"

Learn something new in here ever day

I apologize: I posted it in my first post after the poll ... the poll does say "What best describes you?" Sorry. Also, lighten up.

Just trying add a little humor

 

[nodoginnafight]

What we really need is to completely clean our legislative houses. Then we need to find a way to attract people of good moral and ethical values who will put aside their party affiliations in favor of doing the job the electorate hires them to do.

I agree and I disagree.
I believe that every district has the say in whether or not to "clean their house" or not. If you don't live in a particular district, you shouldn't have any say in who represents that district.

But I agree that the two major parties have codified their own hold on power to the exclusion of other groups. And that is to the detriment of our country. These days it is all about party and not about country. We are all suffering for that.

I believe the courts (because every other branch is far too entrench in one of the major parties to address it) should address these systemic hurdles and open our system up.

A few more strong parties would split legislatures up a little more and demand that every party work with one or more parties to get a majority and pass legislation. I think that would weaken the partisan divides that are crippling our nation right now.

 

[blastoff]

Registered independent, or I think they call it unaffiliated here, and a strong proponent of conservatism.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm a registered republican (in spite of the fact that most republicans make my skin crawl) because I wanted to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

I am a registered republican because I like to vote against the bank breaking liberals every chance I get. Plus I like to make your skin crawl

The notion that either party has championed fiscally responsible policy is the product of talking points - not reality.

As a registered republican I can vote against EVERY liberal. Dont you get it?

Against big spending gopers in the primaries and against libs in generals.

 

[ModerateGOP]

Republicans have slandered the Democrat Party for years insisting they are the party of "spend". And yet, where did the deficits come from? Not the Democrats. In fact, Clinton left a surplus.
How do Republicans get away with the slander? Think about it. Every good business man in the world says it "take money to make money". There is money being spent on nothing, like the 9 billion in cash Republicans sent to Iraq that simply vanished. Think what you could buy with 9 billion in cash. Then the tax cuts that gave business the capital to move jobs to China. See a pattern?
And when were Republicans considered the "Party of Ideas"? When they spent money building the interstate highway system, at the time, the envy of the world. And NASA, behind unknown billions in patents and licenses. And it was Republicans behind the investments in science and technology in schools and colleges.
So what happened?
In the middle 60's, the conservatives fled the Democratic Party because of the blacks, and the conservatives joined and swelled the ranks of the Republican Party which is why it's 90% white today. Now, they insist tax cuts for the wealthy, being anti education, against women's right, hating minorities, anti science and anti investment are all "conservative". No, they are not. They are the cobblestones paving the road to disaster. We saw that for 6 years under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses and the courts leaving no one but the voters to stop them. Because of Gerrymandering, the voters haven't been completely successful.

Woah. Okay, first of all, Clinton had a technology boom and a Republican controlled Congress that had to back him into a corner in order to get vital spending cuts ... both of those were the reason for the surplus. Period. They definitely were not Clinton's policies. And while Bush incurred defecits, they were mostly because of the wars. You can argue against the wars, fine, and I DO think he should not have cut taxes while trying to fund a war ... but his policies, had it been peacetime, would have reduced the debt. That's not an excuse, as he DIDN'T reduce the debt and deserves fault for making it bigger, but make no mistake that this was the war's doing. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the interstates) was all for internal spending, but he also cut TONS of spending and was a fiscally conservative President. In his fairwell address, he warned of entitlement programs and simply putting off the debt for future generations to pay.

On that note, I'm not going to let you get away with the age old lie that the racist, dumb, rural, uneducated Southern Democrats became Republicans at the flip of a switch ... it just didn't happen. Period. Of all the Southern Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, ONE became a Republican. Republicans voted for the bill in BOTH houses of Congress in significantly higher percentages. They did the same for the Voting Rights Act one year later (which right there shatters the fantasy lie that the Civil Rights Act simply delivered the South to the GOP). Also, Southern Democrats were dumb but they weren't THAT dumb: after the Democrats finally (100 years late, I might add) evolved on civil rights issues and stopped being blatantly racist, why would angry Southern Whites then move to a party that had supported the same cause a full century before?! Why didn't all these Republicans of the '50s and '60s that Democrats always try to say were "the liberals back then" EVER switch parties when this supposed "switch" happened? The story has holes all over it. People always point to the electoral results after that, but in the elections that the South supported the Republicans after that (with the exclusion of '64, when most REPUBLICANS didn't support Goldwater ... he won a tiny plurality at the convention), almost every other state did, too: 1972 (Nixon won every state but one), 1980 (Reagan landslide #1), 1984 (Reagan landslide #2), 1988 (Bush landslide). Look at 1968 (voted for a third party candidate, a former Democrat), 1976 (Carter swept the entire South), 1992 and 1996 (Clinton split the South with Bush and Dole).

This myth that the South switched is just flat out absurd. Republicans didn't gain control of Southern Congressional seats until nearly three decades later, and they didn't control state legislatures until LITERALLY two years ago. It's fantasy history made up by Democrats who are (rightfully) ashamed of their horrible history of racism. The 4 S's aren't exactly a good legacy: slavery, secession, segregation and socialism. Do Republicans enjoy success in the South now? Of course ... but make no mistake, there is a DIRECT correlation between the South becoming less racist and the GOP gaining ground there. That's not debatable. Also, the main emergence of GOP power there correlated with the Democratic Party taking newly liberal stances on gun control and abortion, two issues very important to many Southerners.

Nice try, though.