US: Democrat or Republican

[bedub1]

I'm curious as to the political makeup of the Americans here on CC....

[V.I.]

You forgot an "Independent" selection.

Also you forgot "GFY".

I would have had a difficult time selecting between these two options.

[duday53]

not american

[bedub1]

You forgot an "Independent" selection.

Also you forgot "GFY".

I would have had a difficult time selecting between these two options.

Yes, I purposely left those off....If you are either of them, just don't vote.

And in case you haven't heard of this one: "Practice Safe Sex, GFY"

[Simonov]

socialist

[Frigidus]

Choosing either of the above options is a bad choice...associating your political views with those of someone else is like deferring your opinion.

[muy_thaiguy]

Choosing either of the above options is a bad choice...associating your political views with those of someone else is like deferring your opinion.

Tell that to the 7 Dems up there, and me, the one Republican up there.

[ignotus]

socialist

social democrat liberal

[The Weird One]

You forgot an "Independent" selection.

Also you forgot "GFY".

I would have had a difficult time selecting between these two options.

[DaGip]

I am voting Republican, but if Ron Paul doesn't get in...I am getting out of the Republican Party. Going back to being a Libertarian, I believe. Or maybe just wander around aimlessly like Cain, an alien with no home of his own...

[unriggable]

Somewhat socialist.

[Serbia]

I am voting Republican, but if Ron Paul doesn't get in...I am getting out of the Republican Party. Going back to being a Libertarian, I believe. Or maybe just wander around aimlessly like Cain, an alien with no home of his own...

Bye bye, you'll be going back to being Libertarian. However, do you REALLY want to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance, rather than vote for the Republican to beat Hillary?

[muy_thaiguy]

*looks at poll*

It seems that the GOP made quite the comeback it seems.

[jay_a2j]

I am voting Republican, but if Ron Paul doesn't get in...I am getting out of the Republican Party. Going back to being a Libertarian, I believe. Or maybe just wander around aimlessly like Cain, an alien with no home of his own...

Bye bye, you'll be going back to being Libertarian. However, do you REALLY want to vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance, rather than vote for the Republican to beat Hillary?

lol you guys just don't get it. There is no difference between Hillary and any of the Republicans- besides Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that HOLDS TO THE CONSTITUTION! This country is screwed if we don't do something to stop the Feds from raping the Constitution. You will no longer have the freedoms you now enjoy! For "politics as usual" vote Hillary or any Republican to "beat her". For REAL CHANGE back to a CONSTITUTIONAL government vote Ron Paul.....your freedom depends on it.

[heavycola]

This country is screwed if we don't do something to stop the Feds from raping the Constitution.

If ron paul IS the constitution, does this mean the FBI has been raping an old man?


If so, could you or your straitjacket buddy xtra post a link?

[NaynNay]

republican, yeahz! =)
..
jk, democrat =P

[jay_a2j]

This country is screwed if we don't do something to stop the Feds from raping the Constitution.

If ron paul IS the constitution, does this mean the FBI has been raping an old man?


If so, could you or your straitjacket buddy xtra post a link?

[Snorri1234]

I don't remember anything about the constitution being against gay marriage and abortion.

[jay_a2j]

I don't remember anything about the constitution being against gay marriage and abortion.

[heavycola]

if guns kill people, do wrecking balls demolish houses? Are pencils made with the express purpose of misspelling words? If you shoot someone dead with a gun, can you rub it out with an eraser and start again? If i have mindless, ill thought-through platitudes in my sig, will i do myself any favours?

[luns101]

When I'm not stumping for myself...I usually vote for the Republican candidate.

[Nephilim]

I'm curious as to the political makeup of the Americans here on CC....

of course you meant US citizens rather than denizens of the western hemisphere.......


and i got a question for jay: if ron paul is the only hope for preserving our freedoms......

what about all the folks who have "less freedom" than you? minorities and such? maybe they have a different perspective on "freedom" and "constitutionality" than you, and therefore would be correct in assuming that a little rich old white man from Texas is probably not the one to guarantee greater freedoms and true equality (i think there's something in the constitution about those things....). this is especially true when considering that he would roll back pretty much everything that has been done to level the playing field.....

but of course to see the validity of that point, you'd have to step outside your little mental box of white-is-right, "christian" conservatism......

[got tonkaed]

more democrat than republican....though in many cases they dont differ very much at all from one another.

I think im a fence sitter as far as other countries politics go, but here im pretty far to the left.

[luns101]

I don't remember anything about the constitution being against gay marriage and abortion.

As far as the abortion question is concerned, our Declaration of Independence from England spelled out that there are 3 basic rights which come from natural rights. The first one of these is the right to life. Individual states were the ones that prohibited abortions under their reserved powers stated in the 10th amendment. They claimed to restrict abortions in order to promote the "general welfare" of their states. Roe vs. Wade was the court case which said that a Texas state law prohibiting abortions was unconstitutional. They based this decision on the 14th amendment, claiming that an individual's "right to privacy" was superior to a state's "reserved right" to restrict it.

People like myself would argue that the baby being aborted is a person. Therefore, that person being aborted is having its rights violated. People love to say "it's my choice to do this or it's my choice to do whatever I want with my own body", but if their choice means violating the rights of another human being, then I believe that's where they have to be stopped. Everyone has rights as long as they don't infringe on another person's rights. It all boils down to whether you believe that the baby is a person or not.

When you get into the whole gay marriage issue...once again, I think you're getting into overturning the original laws defined by the states. I'll find you the quote from the judge who overturned our DOMA law which passed here in California and defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't remember it verbatim, but I'm sure he also said that restricting gay marriage is unconstitutional because it denies an individual the "right to choose" who they will marry. I'll look up my old notes on that and give you the quote.

Homosexual couples can already receive benefits through civil unions here. So why are they so adamant about obtaining that term "marriage"? I think it's because they want approval and endorsement from the government. The legal justification for overturning existing law is once again..."it's my choice to do what I want with my body".

[Neoteny]

I don't remember anything about the constitution being against gay marriage and abortion.

As far as the abortion question is concerned, our Declaration of Independence from England spelled out that there are 3 basic rights which come from natural rights. The first one of these is the right to life. Individual states were the ones that prohibited abortions under their reserved powers stated in the 10th amendment. They claimed to restrict abortions in order to promote the "general welfare" of their states. Roe vs. Wade was the court case which said that a Texas state law prohibiting abortions was unconstitutional. They based this decision on the 14th amendment, claiming that an individual's "right to privacy" was superior to a state's "reserved right" to restrict it.

People like myself would argue that the baby being aborted is a person. Therefore, that person being aborted is having its rights violated. People love to say "it's my choice to do this or it's my choice to do whatever I want with my own body", but if their choice means violating the rights of another human being, then I believe that's where they have to be stopped. Everyone has rights as long as they don't infringe on another person's rights. It all boils down to whether you believe that the baby is a person or not.

When you get into the whole gay marriage issue...once again, I think you're getting into overturning the original laws defined by the states. I'll find you the quote from the judge who overturned our DOMA law which passed here in California and defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I can't remember it verbatim, but I'm sure he also said that restricting gay marriage is unconstitutional because it denies an individual the "right to choose" who they will marry. I'll look up my old notes on that and give you the quote.

Homosexual couples can already receive benefits through civil unions here. So why are they so adamant about obtaining that term "marriage"? I think it's because they want approval and endorsement from the government. The legal justification for overturning existing law is once again..."it's my choice to do what I want with my body".

Ack! Must... not... hijack... thread...

I vote Dem not because I agree with the things that they say (though I do agree with some), but because Republicans stand for everything that I am against, particularly their bastardization of science. Dems are the only viable alternative. At least until I run for office in another twenty years or so. Keep an eye out for me. You'll know the obnoxious atheist when you see me.