Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe in the constitution.
The second amendment is important to me, and I recognize it as a fundamental right.
On the same note, I don't think that that the law should come from religious law.
Extending that, I firmly believe marriage between consenting adults of any creed is covered under the constitution.
I recognize that the bill of rights does not grant rights, but prevents the government from taking them away.
I'm also in favor of many social programs, recognize the importance of taxes - but generally feel the government is oversized as it is.
So it's frustrating - when you really only have two candidate choices. Neither of the major parties represent the constitution. Both have cherry-picked and sit firmly on their beliefs.
Who else feels this way? How does it affect your voting?
I've been aware of the libertarian (small 'l' emphasized) alternative since my college days in the late Sixties, although the Libertarian (capital"L") Party was not officially founded until 1972. I don't identify with every measure advocated by small 'l' libertarians, but I do register as a capital 'L' Libertarian in order to keep a reasonably-cohesive alternative to the contradictions in both major parties on the ballot.
Both major parties represent coalitions, and both have "captive embarrassments" - contingents identified with simplistic or ego-centric behavior; with the Republicans, it's the more extreme elements of the Religious Right, and with the Democrats, it's a broad spectrum of one-issue zealots who believe that their cause can only be advanced by harnessing the legal monopoly on coercion reserved for the state.
In its early years. the libertarian movement usually saw its strongest tensions with the Christian right who, for better or worse, were a unifying factor in Ronald Reagan's huge success in the 1980's. That unity began to erode under the two Bushes, and wasn't helped by the follies of Ken Starr and others during the Clinton scandals.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have put together a coalition which appeals to the various segments of society disillusioned by the emergence of a global economy, and have found the usual scapegoat in the capitalism which all of us favored via more hard cash, brain cells, or scruples (and including almost all independent voters) know has to overcome the simplistic, (and more often as time passes) Fascistic message that is Political Correctness.
The proportion of Americans who enter a voting booth more aware of what they have to lose to Big Brother, rather than what they have to gain by abandoning their birthright is, fortunately, greater than one would suspect by browsing most of the drivel which, unfortunately, tends to dominate the P&OC forum.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-01-2015 at 01:16 PM..
I find both parties detestable. Republicans, if they actually supported what they said they supported (ideological, not literal), I may actually consider myself Republican. But see, their idea of personal liberty and such really only applies to them. Anyone else can **** off. I don't much care for that.
And of course Democrats are just... bleh. They switch who the victim is every time. They're never entirely wrong, it's just that they're also never very fourth coming. They claim to care about poor people; in fact, they've laid that on quite heavily since FDR. Notice; there are still an abundance of poor people. A surplus really. Somehow, over the course of 70 years, they've managed to continue 'helping' the poor. Perhaps they meant help the poor grow in numbers, but I assumed they meant irradiate poverty. But if they did that, then what would the run on?
I don't vote based on parties though. I look at what the stand for and their character. If I see someone and think they're great, I'll vote for them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,566 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I find both parties detestable. Republicans, if they actually supported what they said they supported (ideological, not literal), I may actually consider myself Republican. But see, their idea of personal liberty and such really only applies to them. Anyone else can **** off. I don't much care for that.
And of course Democrats are just... bleh. They switch who the victim is every time. They're never entirely wrong, it's just that they're also never very fourth coming. They claim to care about poor people; in fact, they've laid that on quite heavily since FDR. Notice; there are still an abundance of poor people. A surplus really. Somehow, over the course of 70 years, they've managed to continue 'helping' the poor. Perhaps they meant help the poor grow in numbers, but I assumed they meant irradiate poverty. But if they did that, then what would the run on?
I don't vote based on parties though. I look at what the stand for and their character. If I see someone and think they're great, I'll vote for them.
The number of Americans in Poverty when records starting being kept in the 50's was 40 million, today it is 46.2 million.
but in 1959, 40 million was 25% of the population, 46 million today is only 15% of the population.
heck we ever even got back over the 40 million mark until 2010.
A 10% drop in 50 years. If that were a constant rate, it would take 500 years to completely end poverty; 250 to cut it in half. Just for perspective, in four month, it will be America's 239th birthday, 11 years away from being how many years we would be away from cutting poverty in half.
And let me ask you this, how has the poverty line been calculated? Are there people who are considered lower-middle class now who would have been in poverty in 1950?
And are people who are living in poverty doing better or worse? What about unemployment, benefits, access to food and health care, etc. How has that changed or improved?
And either way, a 10% drop in 50 years really isn't much of an accomplishment. Obviously, it's not an easy task to take on, but surely we could have done better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
