IN YOUR OWN WORDS - What set of beliefs define a person's polical affiliation?

[TheNewbie]

I'm not even sure I'd use "statist/individualist" as much as "party affiliate/individual." The Libertarian Party pushes a number of non-statist ideas that I think are absolute non-starters despite being closer in alignment to them than anyone else.

I could probably get along with the Democrats if they weren't so eager to nail me to the wall for being a gun owner, and could also get along with the Republicans if they weren't so eager to throw me over said wall for being Hispanic. Instead, they, like almost all parties, seem to be consolidating and narrowing their viewpoints to where if you're out of line on one thing or another, you're now "the enemy."

If I had to pick a political figure to align myself with at this point, it'd probably be Snake Plissken. "President of what?"

I hope you are joking about Republicans being anti-Hispanic.


Right now I am a member of the Forest Party. The Forest Party sees that the biggest threat to the West and America is leftism/progressive thought. The two promote or lead to poverty, racism, misogyny, misandry, anti-Judeo- Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-Western and anti-American. Plus they are driven by emotion.

So I am on the side that is fighting that. Even if that side is not perfect, wants too much government, has a leader who talks trashy, and whatever other issues there are.

People are way to driven by emotion and the desire to feel good about themselves. I am driven by making the world a better place, even if I have to do by voting for a party I don't always like.

[Otaku.edc]

I hope you are joking about Republicans being anti-Hispanic.


Right now I am a member of the Forest Party. The Forest Party sees that the biggest threat to the West and America is leftism/progressive thought. The two promote or lead to poverty, racism, misogyny, misandry, anti-Judeo- Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-Western and anti-American. Plus they are driven by emotion.

So I am on the side that is fighting that. Even if that side is not perfect, wants too much government, has a leader who talks trashy, and whatever other issues there are.

People are way to driven by emotion and the desire to feel good about themselves. I am driven by making the world a better place, even if I have to do by voting for a party I don't always like.

I know I said I wasn't interested in links, but do you got one for the Forest Party that you think is accurate?

[TheNewbie]

I know I said I wasn't interested in links, but do you got one for the Forest Party that you think is accurate?

Sorry, I meant to put this in my original post. lol

What I meant was that I look at the Forest and not the trees. Right now, we are in Forest mode, so I vote Republican. The lesser of two bads means more good.


While I don't agree with them on everything, and I find many of them to be pathetic cowards, they can get elected. I really don't think a lot of people understand how destructive and dangerous the left is. How it has polluted the university, and even the churches. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.


*- My ideas are largely influenced by Dennis Prager, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Larry Elder. They are wise men and good reads.. Even if I don't agree with them on everything.

[Otaku.edc]

All good, I googled Forest Party....and well...maybe I should just ask rather than assume.

[TheNewbie]

All good, I googled Forest Party....and well...maybe I should just ask rather than assume.

No, that was on me. It was meant to kind of be goofy.

With today's environment, any party name would probably be a party!

[Jack Ryan]

Hello,

Per another discussion on a thread, I got curious:

What criteria do people use to include/exclude a person from being a part of a particular political party, loose affiliation, philosophy, etc.? Do you have a series of 'litmus tests' that act as 'by definition' criteria? Abortion? Gun Rights? Taxes? Social safety net? Gay Rights? Defense spending? Foreign Policy? Climate Change? etc.

Genuinely curious, not interested in telling people they are wrong or monsters, etc.

Just ask that you give your thoughts in your own words, and not with links and quotes.

People include or exclude themselves from political parties. You'll never be excluded from any party by the politicians so long as they think there is any chance you will vote for them.

The suckers, ah I mean constituents, identify with a party based on very few criteria. What they think the answer is to a few questions.

1. What is in it for ME?
2. Do I have any honor or integrity at all left any where in my body?
3. Do I think they can win or where do I have the best chance to gain anything for myself.

Of course there is always the exception to the rule but I'd say those three cover at least 99% of those ELIGIBLE to vote.

[einherjarvalk]

I hope you are joking about Republicans being anti-Hispanic.

Not really. At bare minimum, they're not doing enough to root out anti-Hispanic elements. I don't look especially Hispanic (my appearance tends to skew more Asian depending on who you ask), and as a result that's made some Republicans comfortable talking to me about how "certain races" (read: blacks and hispanics) are "genetically predisposed to violence and crime" while I stand there completely aghast as they unknowingly tell me I should be treated with more suspicion by the law because of my last name and heritage.

It may be a small segment of the right that's coming fresh out of /pol/ and other alt-right bastions, but that cancer absolutely needs to be cut out and it needs to be cut out now, because if you don't think that's going to trickle up into leadership in a decade or two and lock us into a permanent Democrat majority, you need to look at how quickly communism and socialism have taken root on the other side because the "big tent" mindset prevented them from getting the boot.

Right now, I vote for Republicans out of a mutual interest (firearms) and sheer spite for how the Democrat propaganda machine convinced almost all my "friends" to turn on me for voting third party in 2016 (apparently my one protest vote for Gary Johnson could've flipped Texas for Hillary). Beyond that, I don't trust them any further an I could throw 'em.

[blues]

deleted

[RevolverRob]

(apparently my one protest vote for Gary Johnson could've flipped Texas for Hillary).

Sorry dude, it was my protest vote for Gary Johnson in Texas that could've flipped it for Hillary. Let your 'friends' know that it was me.

I feel absolutely everything you're saying right here. I get the advantage of having a white last name, though I look a bit more Hispanic (sounds like at least), so I've heard all kinds of horrific things from people who identify as "right". Only thing I can say in response to that is...I've heard lots of horrific things from people who identify "left". And what I've learned over the years is that the worst of the worst (from either side) are the people that vote straight party.

Consistently, those folks tend to be the most ignorant out there, regardless of if D, R, G, or L. So much so, one set of criteria I use for determining if someone is a moron or not is to ask if they have ever voted "straight party" in their life. If the answer is "yes". Then I immediately discount their social and political opinions. I'd seriously support the outright abolition of the straight party vote choice on ballots and tongue-in-cheekily support the outright abolition of people who vote straight party.

[critter]

No, the living document bullshit is the idea that the words in the Constitution are open to interpretation and that interpretation evolves over time. If people want it to change, the amendment process is near perfect for a changing society.

Yeah, the Living Document crap is an end run attempt by people who wish to undermine what is or enforce what isn't and wouldn't get the support for the amendment process (while usually pulling virtual imaginary highly threatened children out of their collective asses).