Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nika Aldrich]

Republicans are historically for larger government with regards to regulating social issues (regulations over speech, abortion, pornography, yadda yadda) and larger government with regards to defense, but smaller government with regards to domestic policies - attempting to encourage more states' rights, tend toward pure capitalism, and repeal regulations on environment, trade, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs.

Democrats are historically for larger government with regards to social programs and regulations that affect social issues and purport to help "control" the dangers of pure captialism, but smaller government with regards to defense and social control (speech, abortion, art, yadda yadda).

Libertarians are generally for smaller government in all regards.  We would call them "anti-federalists."  They want less government control in my life, my bedroom, by books, and my womb, but also smaller government with regards to defense, social programs, etc.

I don't know of a party that is big into social regulations and also social control, or the opposite of the libertarians.

Nika.

[joeq]

Fletcher wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 10:37

This year I will, as I have done in the last several elections, vote "Libertarian" as theirs is the only platform that actually makes any sense to me http://www.lp.org/issues As always, YMMV Peace

I also find the Libertarian position to be the one that feels right and consistent.   I usually vote Libertarian and once I even ran for State office on the Libertarian slate.

I live in NY, which thanks to the Electoral College and our 2 party system means my vote "counts", but doesn't really matter.  

However, in this election,  if I did live in a swing state,  I would vote for Kerry,  because I feel that Bush and his team are incompetent, ideologically motivated bunglers.  

Throw the bums out.


Joe Quesada

[Markus Fischer]

joeq wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 23:59

,  because I feel that Bush and his team are incompetent, ideologically motivated bunglers.

from an outside(international) point of view, a paranoiac(or not so paranoiac) would continue the sentence:

"... who have a remarkable bunch of conventional and nuclear weapons at their fingertips and had shown that they did not have special inhibitions to use them"

[rphilbeck]

No matter what you say about this president, or how you feel.  At least half the country disagrees with you.  

[Nika Aldrich]

RobertPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 27 October 2004 00:44

No matter what you say about this president, or how you feel.  At least half the country disagrees with you.

This is a very good point.  My personal observation has been (forgive me if this seems one-sided), but the folks on one side of the debate tend to be far more incredulous that anyone could possibly conceive that this president is doing a good job.  They are bewildered and frustrated that people disagree with them, as if the other people must be stoopid or something.

I don't see this as much from the other side.  

Just a personal observation.

Nika.

[Lee Tyler]

Way to go, George!    Well, NOT!      

[bobkatz]

RobertPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 19:44

No matter what you say about this president, or how you feel.  At least half the country disagrees with you.

A good portion of that half of the country is probably voting with their hearts and their fears, I fear, but not their minds. Kerry has not done a good job of winning over the women; I do think the country does vote a great deal on charisma.

A great deal of that half of the country are still in shock over the discrepancy between what Bush says and what he really does, but aren't ready to admit it yet, especially on this business of a war that the country got into and they're supposed to gung-ho support.  Like during the early years of the Vietnam war protests, the curve is moving in the direction of the left but starting small. This vote will reflect the condition of the country and its mandate on November 2nd. Two weeks later, if Kerry loses, and all hell breaks out in Iraq, try another election  

BK

[George Massenburg]

RobertPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 18:44

No matter what you say about this president, or how you feel.  At least half the country disagrees with you.

But at the same time it must be understood that half of the country gets it's news from Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network.  I'm not sure that one can debate the issues unless one is willing to spend time reading enough different sources to form an individual picture of each issue.

George

[natpub]

It may be useful to bear in mind that a large percentage of the country may not have a home phone, and as a result are not counted when polls are done.

This can have the effect of skewing resulting data such as to eliminate the opinions of the most disenfranchised portions of the population.

Statiticians and pollsters have as much as admitted that they probably miss much of this strata of the nation. However, it is additionally written off that they are also a portion unlikely or unable to vote or get to a voting locale.

More recently, pollsters have admitted a greater fear, since they clearly never worried much about the poor or their opinions. That fear is cell phones...As that upper eschelon strata who live exclusively on cell phones becomes larger, reliable measurment of that "oh-so-important" group of jet-setters will become hopelessly skewed.

The fact is that when folks here are saying half the population is such-and-such, ya'll really are not talking about half the population at all, only half those who are readily reachable by home phones.

While a sufficient N in polling can usually allow assessment within statistical certainties, +/- a measured margin of error, once the total population to be sampled becomes inconviniently inaccessible, all these polls will become what most of them are already--utter bullshit.

Take care,

KT

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Quote:

But at the same time it must be understood that half of the country gets it's news from Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network. I'm not sure that one can debate the issues unless one is willing to spend time reading enough different sources to form an individual picture of each issue.

I hate to disagree on that - Fox has around 2 million viewers on a good night.  The "big three" evening news programs have around 25 million.  It doesn't even compare.  Fox is only leading the way in *cable* news.  

[natpub]

Thats all fine and good, John, but you are comparing apples and oranges--one thing is a national evening news summary on for 30 minutues when joe and jane generic get home and flip on the tv for a catch up. The other is a 24 hour a day machine.

You are also not counting that many of those network viewers are under age 18 or otherwise have a very low probability of voting as compared to cable news viewers.

In either case, I refer to my just previous post about the phrase "half the country."

[James Slanger]

Polls are almost never truly representative of the population, this election especially. Of course, with voter apathy, our elections haven't been either. I'd be happier with whoever won if:

1. voter turnout was well above 50%
2. they won with a true majority instead of a plurality

If over 50% of the total people over 18 years of age voted for Bush, I could accept that. I'd probably move to Montana and become a gun-carrying liberal, but I'd accept it.

/jim

[James Slanger]

And now that I've said polls are worthless....

Have you seen those polls showing that the majority of the people who support Bush are misinformed i.e. believing that Iraq has WMDs, that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11, and that most of the world supports Bush?  This correlated to which news programs they watched.  Those who had the most facts wrong watched FOX.


I'll post the links when I get home.

/jim

[PRobb]

James Slanger wrote on Wed, 27 October 2004 00:10

And now that I've said polls are worthless.... Have you seen those polls showing that the majority of the people who support Bush are misinformed i.e. believing that Iraq has WMDs, that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11, and that most of the world supports Bush?  This correlated to which news programs they watched.  Those who had the most facts wrong watched FOX. I'll post the links when I get home. /jim

This relates directly to Nika's comment about the frustration the left is experiencing. Because its not just Iraq. The same misconceptions apply to the economy, education, the environment and his far right social agenda. Bush has been a horrible president and it just doesn't seem to matter.

[Rail Jon Rogut]

For those planning to vote for a third candidate.. I implore  you to reconsider...  the next president will have a huge affect on the balance of the Supreme Court...  You're not just voting for the next 4 years.. you're voting for possibly the next 20 to 30 years of civil liberties.

Rail