I'm so torn

[StanMac]

I'm glad to see, well maybe not glad but comforted to see that there are others who are in a similar situation as me. I had had a rather fatalistic view of the world of politics but I suppose its not as bad as I was making it to be, and a lot of good advice, thanks all!

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

I usually just do what I can to keep democrats out of power. I like to vote for libertarians whenever there is a republican in the same district who is likely to win, but republicans definitely get my vote if theres any chance of a democrat win. Parties are very significant, and while voting for whoever shares your priorities the most is usually the way to go its not smart to ignore the party that could end up in power because of your vote. Plus after they get into office theres a good chance they could suddenly stop caring so much about the issues that made you vote for them.

Very important point right there. Many of the Dems elected to Congress were relatively conservative, but by electing those reps, their constituents handed Congress to Pelosi and the far left.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by wombat13

Very important point right there. Many of the Dems elected to Congress were relatively conservative, but by electing those reps, their constituents handed Congress to Pelosi and the far left.

That's a good point.

Party affiliation matters much more when you are talking about congress. When I said that it doesn't matter, I was talking about the individual.

Individuals should vote based on the issues that are most important to them.

Frank

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

- I don't like gay marriage but its fine with me if you give them the same tax advantages as married people. Adding an amendment to our constitution to define marriage seems ridiculous to me.

- I am against abortion.

- The government spends way too much. Stop all entitlement programs, and anything else that is too far from the basics: defending our country and protecting the rights to life, liberty, and (pursuit of) property.

- Any tax system that forces me to pay more than anyone else is crap -- including the progressive income tax and any flat percentage-based system. People who are more successful than average don't owe anything to anyone because of it. The government should keep its hands away from my property (especially my money and guns)

- I am for legal immigration. Illegals should be treated as what they are, criminals. I don't know if they can right now or not, but they sure as hell shouldnt be able to get any of my tax money to feed the kids they can't afford.

- The government should not establish an official religion. Praying/ Bible reading/ Christmas trees/ whatever should be allowed wherever people want to put them.

- I really dont believe that a strong federal government is the right way to manage a country this size and with the number and different types of people we have here...government power should be kept as local as possible. If people in minnesota think universal healthcare is a good idea that's fine with me -- as long as I don't have to pay for it.



So I'm mostly libertarian, my main problems with that party are its views on war and abortion.

I'm with you with on everything but gay marriage. The only compelling state interest in sanctioning marriage is that an ongoing supply of children is necessary to ensure the future existence of the nation. Since gay marriage does nothing to increase the supply of future citizens (aka taxpayers) there is no reason that the state should sanction it or offer any support such as tax breaks. Besides, I didn't realize I was getting a tax break for being married.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

That's a good point.

Party affiliation matters much more when you are talking about congress. When I said that it doesn't matter, I was talking about the individual.

Individuals should vote based on the issues that are most important to them.

Frank

I agree completely. However, I would argue that the individual must take the strategic view of voting. How will one's vote affect the issues one cares about is the primary concern rather than with which candidate does one most agree.

That's why I used the example of the recent Congressional election. Anyone that voted for a Dem rep that was pro 2-A actually cast a vote putting their 2-A rights in jeopardy by handing control of Congress and the committees to the liberal wing of the party.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by StanMac

I can't decide if i would classify myself as Liberal or Conservative... I mean I know I'm a pretty middle of the road moderate, I just there was a party for me. One that didn't want to take my new AR from me, and that wanted to protect the country, yet also one that felt that it was the governments roll to take care of its people that needed help the most i.e. the poor (more welfare programs, just implemented with the right standards and fail safes to keep them from being abused) and the sick (universal health care) It sucks having such a polarized policical scene where I have to pick and choose the things i care most about while leaving things i care a lot about to never get the chance to be acted upon.

That's the problem. It is very difficult to design welfare programs that aren't prone to abuse. The only welfare program that can't be abused is the one that doesn't exist. Furthermore, entitlement programs always get bigger.

[rockerz71]

Originally Posted by wombat13

Besides, I didn't realize I was getting a tax break for being married.

Maybe not, I have never been married. I thought that was why they came up with "civil unions" or whatever.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Maybe not, I have never been married. I thought that was why they came up with "civil unions" or whatever.

I think that the key to the civil union thing was the ability to make decisions for a loved one who is hospitalized, joint property ownership and things of that nature. It could just as easily be taken care of with the help of a good lawyer, but the idea of civil unions was to make it so without lawyers getting too involved. I have absolutely no problem with civil unions, to be honest I think that the only "marriage" should be in a religious context and government should get out of that business all together. Unfortunately we all know that once they get their toes into something, we're screwed.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by wombat13

I agree completely. However, I would argue that the individual must take the strategic view of voting. How will one's vote affect the issues one cares about is the primary concern rather than with which candidate does one most agree.

That's why I used the example of the recent Congressional election. Anyone that voted for a Dem rep that was pro 2-A actually cast a vote putting their 2-A rights in jeopardy by handing control of Congress and the committees to the liberal wing of the party.

Exactly! That is why I wrote that people should vote regarding the issues that are most important to them. While I might have disagreed with a candidate about emminent domain, for example, he/she would still get my vote because of his/her views on gun rights and abortion.

Take Bob Casey, the newly elected conservative democrat from PA. He is anti-abortion. Some pro-choice dems probably voted for him, which ended up electing someone who disagrees with them on an important issue.

I always vote regarding the issues. I just happen to agree with the conservatives about 99% of the time.

Frank

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Maybe not, I have never been married. I thought that was why they came up with "civil unions" or whatever.

Actually it's generally the opposite. I'd have to take a look to see if it was finally changed, but historically the tax deduction for a married couple has been less than the deductions for two individuals. That's what people have called the "marriage penalty" in the income tax code.

The charitable interpretation of what gays are after with the push for gay marriage are inheritance rights, health care coverage under employers' family benefits provisions, etc. The not-so-charitable view is that it is just another part of the liberal agenda to radically transform society and undermine traditional institutions.