Democrats vs. Republicans...

[SteyrAUG]

So here we are all wondering how to fix the country and get it back on track. We all want more or less the same simple things.

1. Our freedoms, all of them not just those currently popular.

2. A fair shake, equal access to employment, justice and education. This means NO racism as policy, hate crime laws, affirmative action, etc.

3. To pay for our own stuff and nothing more. We generally feel our tax dollars should only be spent on things we ALL use such as roads, infastructure, etc. When we are kinda broke we don't care about art or other peoples hungry kids.

4. Limited government. We only need people doing important jobs. Everyone else can get a real job like us.

So how do we make the above, or your own variation of the above, a reality?

The Libertarian Party most closely resembles the above platform but they haven't won a election since.....well uh...they haven't won a election except on local levels where it don't make much of a difference. And if too many people vote Libertarian the worst of the other two may win.

The Democratic Party professes to be for the common man. Problem with them is they defend the first amendment for some and not others. Gay Photos for the NEA, sure. A progun exhibit, no way. Also they tend to run way too Socialist/Communist these days. Democrats equal huge taxes. You may be a single male, but you will be paying for a single teen mother day care center when they are in charge.

Bottom line is the Democartic Party has way too many problems to bring around. Even if we could get a Pro Gun Democratic Party there would still be too much working against us. It is mostly a lost cause.

The Republican Party says most of the things we want to hear. But just like the Democrats, they really couldn't give a crap about the little guy. They claim to want to scale back govvernment but ain't done it yet. BUT, they are less of a threat to our freedoms.

So what makes ordinary people fear Republicans and become Democrats? Mostly it is perception. The Democrats have done a good job portraying themselves as free and less repressive. Most people, especially the young, are tired of having things like sexuality repressed. This is why Liberals cheered Clintons scandal without considering the ramifications.

How can the Republicans win? First they need to stop trying to legislate morality. That is the job of parents, not laws. And more importantly you cannot make a bad person good with laws. No matter what law you pass, some 14 year old will get pregnant and go on Jerry Springer to brag about it.

They need to take religion out of the Republican platform. This creates more Democrats than probably any other factor. I don't mean we need to pry the ten commandments off of 100 year old government monuments, but we don't need Pat Robertson running for President or Jerry Falwell speaking at the conventions. Freedom of religion is a protected part of the first amendment but should not be official government policy. The faithful will still vote Republican and the Republicans will still protect their rights to believe as they choose. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, non Christians will feel comfortable voting Republican.

Those who are just like us are already Republican. What we need to do is what the Democrats did. Make the party more inviting to non Republicans. Then with a strong control of government and broader representation, we just might save this country.

 

[sctman800]

Libertarian, yes.

I was once a Democrat, this was years ago when I really thought they were for the common working man. Then I voted for Republicans because I thought they would protect my rights according to the Constitution. I have now come to believe I was wrong on both counts. How can the Democrats be for the common man when they tax us to death while destroying our rights according to the Second Ammendent. No, it is not about duck hunting, but I think everyone here knows that. Republicans are not much better protecting our rights, they just do it slower, and call it compromise. A good step might be for all the Republicrats to have to read and understand the constitution instead of polls about what will get them re-elected. Yes I realize Libertarians have a very poor chance of winning a national or statewide election, but in this last election in several states a Libertarian got more votes than the spread between the two Republicrat canidates. I expect that if this trend continues and expands some polititions will start to adopt some of the Libertarian thinking. I think even without an outright victory The Libertarian party will make a difference in politics as usual. Jim.

 

[foghornl]

Voted Democarp ONCE, my very first vote. Then the Demo Sheriff (and Tax Collector) got busted for using county funds for his personally owned 15 unit fleabag hotel. Haven't vote democarp since.

have voted Libertarian, and other 3rd party...including Ross Parrot.

What I would like to see on the next ballot is a button/choice marked TOATB...


Throw Out All The Bums

 

[Dannyboy]

They need to take religion out of the Republican platform. This creates more Democrats than probably any other factor. I don't mean we need to pry the ten commandments off of 100 year old government monuments, but we don't need Pat Robertson running for President or Jerry Falwell speaking at the conventions. Freedom of religion is a protected part of the first amendment but should not be official government policy. The faithful will still vote Republican and the Republicans will still protect their rights to believe as they choose. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, non Christians will feel comfortable voting Republican.

I can't begin to explain how much I agree with this. I get nauseous every time I see Falwell on one of the news channels.

 

[hd1.]

It's all about the money; the other issues are the smokescreen.
I'm too wealthy to benefit financially from the Dems; I'm not wealthy enough to benefit financially from the Repubs.

 

[wingnutx]

I'm a registered Libertarian, but I am more than happy to vote for Republicans who will actually walk the walk. The Republican Liberty Caucus seems like a serious small-l libertarian wing of the Republican party, and I may go back to being a Repub when I reregister, just to join.

There are arguements for fighting from within, as well as those for providing an external force to drag the GOP towards freedom issues. I don't know which is better, but I may go back to the former.

Libertarian vs Republican debates on freerepublic.com are an awful lot of fun, though. I'll always be at least a small-l libertarian

 

[Poodleshooter]

Some problems:
1. The public at large is "half libertarian". That is, they're willing to allow actions that they agree with, but they want to regulate everyone else's actions. Those who love liberty across the board, and vote that way, are EXTREMELY rare.
2. Many do not want a "fair shake". They want a slice off of the old government pork. "Please pass the bacon" is the motto of the day. We have moved from an attitude of achievement to one of entitlement.
3. Sure, we all agree on roads, but the people who get grants from the Nat. Endowment for the Arts want their money too, and are willing to scream and whine and vote to get it. Not everyone agrees on what is "necessary". See above.
4. Again, I agree, but the government workers in useless jobs make up a LARGE portion of the votes. Odds are, they will all vote to keep their jobs. In some areas, they actually form local voting majorities. 60% of the residents of the county that my parents live in work for a local, federal or state government agency of some sort.

Uniting a base is essential, but it's important to realize that the liberty loving views found on many gun boards are far from the norm among American citizens. I think that while the Republicans are temporarily in control, the mood of the populace toward socialism has been moved to the left by the Democratic/socialist propaganda of the last century.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I'm a registered Independent that has often voted Democrat and not ashamed to admit it. However, I have on occassion voted Republican and I agree, the big turn off is the religion factor. I hate people that try to shove the bible down people's throats as if they speak for "real Christians" everywhere. Yet, I've voted and just recently for Mitt Romney -- who inspite of being Republican is anti-gun. Go figure...

 

[Joe Demko]

Democrats want to deprive me of some of my rights and orchestrate my life. Republicans want to deprive me of some of my rights and orchestrate my life. Who gives a crap what they call themselves? They are far more alike than they are different.

 

[Khornet]

Religion

you mean, it's bad when Jerry Falwell speaks at Republican functions, but it's not when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson race-bait at Demo ones. All clear now.

Let's turn it around: maybe more people would vote Demo if they didn't see the party as (fill in blank:atheistic, PC, malevolent feminist,etc.)

There's no story here, I think. People vote Demo because the Dems ideas are more compatible with their own overall, and same for Repubs.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I don't follow Sharpton. Anyone speaks of religion in a political environment -- or any other-- I tune them out. I think Sharpton's a dolt by the way...

Be honest though, most Republicans are southern, bible belt types that take a my way or the highway attitude with politics and religion, which are not seperate but joined at the hip.

 

[Kaylee]

I think the "reform from within" of the GOP is increasingly the best option as far as sheer effectiveness goes. It's a smaller battlefield, and thus an easier win.

-K

 

[bogie]

Well, the Republicans were reeling following Watergate. They essentially were taken over by the religous nutjobs. That's the worst thing to happen to freedom in a long time. It's driven many fence sitters toward the Democrat side.

Because, face it, Joe Stein is a little nervous about having people who occasionally start screamin' and frothin' at the mouth having guns...

 

[Sindawe]

Republican and Democrats

Democrats: Socialist Party A

Republicans: Socialist Party B

OMAO either party will lead the ruin of the Republic, a job which both are well on their way to accomplishing now. It is rare when cast my vote for either anymore. I voted Republican in '84 since the Star Wars defense initiative made sense to me. I Voted Libertarian in '88 since I did not want either George Bush Sr. in office, being disgusted with the "Just Say No" and the resurgence of the War on Some Drugs, or Dukkasus (sp) after seeing what a pest hole Mass. had turned into. I voted Democrat in '92 while in my vegitarian Eco-Nut phase, and had hopes that Clinton would end the WoSD (boy was I naive). '96 was Libertarian again, except for the occasional local Dem who was Libertarian in all but party affiliation. Since then we've had Libertarian candidates on the Ballet for all offices in Colorado (though not exactly the ones *I* wanted, like Bob Glass for Gov) and its been Libertarian all the way.

Poodleshooter: I'm one of those who love Liberty across the board, and vote that way for the past seven years. I don't want to tell others how to run their lives (but will offer advice and input if asked), and I WILL NOT let others tell me how to run mine. I don't want a slice off of Uncle Suger's bacon slab and despise those who do. "Leave the frell alone, and I'll do the same for you"

 

[SteyrAUG]

Quote by Khornet:

you mean, it's bad when Jerry Falwell speaks at Republican functions, but it's not when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson race-bait at Demo ones. All clear now.

Khornet , I NEVER said that and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. But it just goes to demostrrate the lengths "some" will stoop to in a attempt to discredit anyone who does not subscribe to their religious agenda.

To clairify my position on Jackson and Sharpton, I have EXACTLY the same problem with them, or ANYONE from ANY PARTY who attempts to promote a religious issue as government policy. But rarely do Jackson or Sharpton promote a religious agenda because:

1. The Democrats do that to a far lesser extent than Republicans.

2. Jackson and Sharpton are usually far too busy promoting equally ridiculous agendas concerning race.

3. I don't think they are really all that religious. I personally feel that the ONLY reason Jackson and Sharpton profess to be religious leaders is in an attempt to give themsleves some kind of credibility within their followers.

 

[Khornet]

Steyr,

take a deep breath and re-holster. Then check your first post, and tell me whether you weren't saying that one of your objections to the Repubs is Jerry Falwell et. al... 'course you were, and quite right too, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If that's extreme right-wing talk, I stand guilty as charged.

Jesse and Al not all that religious? Dead right. But they want to be called 'Rev'...why is that? You answered correctly: for the gloss of respectability it lends their shabby selves.

Dems make less of a deal about religion than Repubs? Almost right. More like none of a deal. But religious faith is nothing to be ashamed of. Ask Joe Lieberman. But I doubt I'm alone in noticing that Christian faith is another matter. Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Atheist are all more welcome in the Dem tent than Christians are.

If a man has faith, how could it not be reflected in what he does and says? And if it's not reflected, how much faith is really there?

Let's not get into a peeing contest, brother. But those of us who are religious beleivers do tend to react when our faith is identified as a problem.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

most Republicans are southern, bible belt types that take a my way or the highway attitude with politics and religion,

The media certainly wants you to think this. I guess it's working. Oh...and most gun owners are toothless rednecks a few cans short of a 6-pack.

Most Republicans I know just work hard and want to live and let live while they provide for their families.

I agree that the Moral Majority and their ilk are disturbing, but I think they are a very small part of the current Republican party. It's the blue-blood, country club RINO politicians that go-along-to-get-along that I think really hurt the party.

Working from the inside and getting regular business people involved in the Republican Party is the way to go. I totally agree with the original poster's points.

 

[Loach]

Be honest though, most Republicans are southern, bible belt types that take a my way or the highway attitude with politics and religion, which are not seperate but joined at the hip.

Spoken like a true yankee...

But I agree that religion and politics should be completely separated. If anyone from any party thinks otherwise, I don't even consider giving them my vote. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian too, but I prefer my preaching on Sunday morning.

This is probably a bit off-topic, and It's probably a pretty unpopular opinion here, but I strongly believe "In God we trust" should never have made it on our money and "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance (as the author would have intended, accoring to his family)

 

[MrAcheson]

I am a christian and a registered Republican. I vote my conscience. My conscience is heavily dependent on my faith and what it leads my to believe is right. Therefore my vote is heavily dependent on my faith. To try to separate my faith from everything else is to mentally and spiritually castrate myself. Perhaps your faith is not something which is all encompassing in your life, but thats your loss not mine.

As for the republicans, if they completely dropped their conservative social values then evangelicals would flock away from them in droves. I am much more comfortable voting for a socially conservative Democrat than a socially liberal republican. I voted against Barbara Hafer in PA twice because of it. Many people like me would gladly form a third party if that became necessary in order to vote our consciences.

That said, Robertson and Falwell do need to shut up. The Republicans have and are extending their reach to other religious conservatives (like many Jews) because of their shared stance on these social issues. Politically this is not a bad thing. The republicans should be tactful about their religious orientation, but they need to attempt to keep a firm moral base. And put an expiration date on the Patriot Act of course.

I won't vote Libertarian as long as they insist on stripping out all land/product/economic/health regulation and standards creation from the federal government. These were created as solutions to huge nationwide problems. The Libertarians do not propose new solutions to these problems, therefore there is no reason we won't have a Dust Bowl/Great Depression/Drug Epidemic once they are dismantled.

 

[Marshall]

Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, religious?

Someone said both parties are really about the same? The democratic party stands for about every moral belief I do not! The majority of the Democrats that hold morality very loosely are the same democrates that hold most liberties and rights we are afforded very loosely. It seems to be an across the board attitude that streches from one issue to the next and has become destructive to this nation, in my opinion.

 

[SteyrAUG]

Once again, religion should have NOTHING to do with government with the single execption that people should have "freedom of religion."

I fully understand that the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives are Chistian. However, not having religion as part of the Republican party does not make ANYONE of those Republicans "less" Christian. It does however alienate many people from the Republican Party.

Also, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being Christian. It just shouldn't be part of the government. It will always be a big part of the heritage of this country but it shouldn't be part of the political process.

Religion is supposed to be a personal and private matter in my opinion. And like I said, you can never legislate morality anyway.

Does this mean I believe a politician or someone politically active shouldn't be religious? Of course not. And to say so would be against the intent of the Consitution. However, religion as "part" of the government is a very dangerous thing that almost always goes bad.

 

[GoRon]

Separating religion from politics is not possible any more than separating philosophy from politics is. A religious person views reality through the prism of their religions belief system, whether its Judiesm, Christianity, Islam etc.. Their politics will mirror what they believe about the world. The same goes for a non religious person, they also have a prism they view the world through and will vote accordingly. Usually when someone complains about the influence of religion in politics they are really saying they want they're philosophy (materialism, socialism, communism, athiesm, pragmatism, moral relativism, etc...) to be the operating idea in govm't. The government doesn't operate in a vacume, somebody's view of reality is going to be legislated. I vote Republican when it counts and libertarian when there is no danger of a dem getting elected.

 

[SteyrAUG]

GoRon, I can accept that reality.

What I'm asking for is that they not legislate religion. Of course a persons religion, or lack thereof, will affect their world view and decisions. But the Republican party has been guilt of advocating far more than this at times.

If we can remove the "official" religious agenda anchored to the Republican Party we can concentrate on it's true strengths (Fiscal Conservatism) and get a much larger following that will protect the nation from the likes of Hillary Clinton who are Democrats simply because they are ignorant of what the Democratic Party actually is and are still pissed they can no longer buy Playboy at a 7-11 because of Reagans Messe Commision.

 

[BerettaNut92]

I voted for Bill Simon but the rest Libertarians. I still have to sleep at night!

Most California Republicans are pretty liberal.

 

[NewShooter78]

I agree with SteyrAUG in that fact that the GOP is greatly hurt by the Moral Majority that runs the Republican party right now. I am completely for anyone to practice their religious beliefs or lack there of. But when you have people trying to enact "faith based initiatives" by law, it has a polarizing effect. When some of the biggest self proclaimed Repubs are religious zealots like Falwell, then you drive a lot of people far away who might otherwise have joined the party. I think that there are more true fence sitters who align themselves with the Democratic party because of religious overtones in the Republican party.

I totally encourage all of you to vote your conscience. If this is religiously influenced, then so be it. But the Republican party is supposed to be about LIMITED government involvement in all of our lives. People who are in office and use their religious beliefs as a platform shouldn't be there in the first place. That is trying to regulate morality, and that should only be taught in the home. If it isn't then shame on the parents that failed in that aspect, but don't try and regulate it.

A perfect example of this are laws that will not allow same sex marriages. These have nothing to do with anything governmental, and everything to do with a religious based morality. If you don't agree with it then that is your right but by you not letting someone else do it you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. And by doing so depriving them of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

It's issues like this that keep the Republican party from getting anything done in this country. And people like me from aligning myself with the party. I don't want my moral behaviour dictated to me by the state. If I wanted that I could go to church or temple.

Once again, religion should have NOTHING to do with government with the single execption that people should have "freedom of religion."

Once this can be achieved in the Republican party, then Democrats would be hard pressed to put up such good numbers even when they do loose.

As for the republicans, if they completely dropped their conservative social values then evangelicals would flock away from them in droves.

Well I doubt that a bunch of evangelicals would ever put together a serious third party, and then when that failed they would go back to the Republican party. And there is nothing wrong with supporting good values like the strenth of the family, taking care of one's own problems, and supporting liberty. None of those things are soley dictated by religion. Only the roles within the family are.

True Republicans wouldn't use legislation to tell you how to live your life. That shouldn't be the goal of gov't. Religion should be a community issue at the most, and is better off in the home, your church, and if you so chose to pay for it, your school as well.

And since I'll end this diatribe here...flame on!!

edited not very well for spelling