• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

What Party do you support in USA?

  • Thread starter Deleted User
  • Start date
  • Views 4,030
  • Replies 62

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
I'm neither. I go for what works best. The problem is some policies that work in some places wont work in others.
I go for whatever works best for a particular case, scenario or country. If Communism works really well for a country, then i'll support it. If it doesn't then I won't. If less communistic ideals works best then i'll support that. I'm for what ever works best. Different countries has different needs and policies.
 
Last edited by SG854,

brickmii82

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
1,442
Trophies
1
Age
41
XP
2,929
Country
United States
I find it difficult to pick a political party to align with. I guess I feel like it’s childish to be “with these guys or those guys.” It’s a clique mentality, and I’m not one to be told how I should think or feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User

hoist20032002

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
241
Trophies
1
XP
957
Country
United States
Neither. I have felt that we've needed a 3rd party system instead of people throwing their votes away or voting for less of 2 greater evils. Republitards and Demonrats are both outdated party factions that do more harm than good.
 

CallmeBerto

The Lone Wanderer
Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
1,468
Trophies
1
Age
32
Location
USA
Website
steamcommunity.com
XP
3,856
Country
United States
Both suck in general.

Sometimes I agree with the left on X and sometimes the right on Y. Sometimes I disagree with both. There is my biggest issue. I never feel like I'm represented in any real way.

The problem is really the people who put up with it. They treat politics like it's sports agro with me or with them.
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Both suck in general.

Sometimes I agree with the left on X and sometimes the right on Y. Sometimes I disagree with both. There is my biggest issue. I never feel like I'm represented in any real way.

The problem is really the people who put up with it. They treat politics like it's sports agro with me or with them.
There are typically a lot of third party options. The problem is that they never end up getting any money for advertising
 

CallmeBerto

The Lone Wanderer
Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
1,468
Trophies
1
Age
32
Location
USA
Website
steamcommunity.com
XP
3,856
Country
United States
There are typically a lot of third party options. The problem is that they never end up getting any money for advertising

Hahaha you are right and I completely forgot about them. Yeah they only make up 3%-5% of people who vote for them. Guess I am apart of the problem in that case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I very much support the Democratic Party. The Green Party's not so bad when you exclude the effect they've had on some elections.
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Hahaha you are right and I completely forgot about them. Yeah they only make up 3%-5% of people who vote for them. Guess I am apart of the problem in that case.
That's part of it, but the bigger issue really is funding. I honestly would rather that we switch over to the European campaign model, where every candidate is automatically allotted a certain amount of money to use how they wish for the campaign (on top of fundraising efforts), but are barred from using personal funds
 
  • Like
Reactions: CallmeBerto

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,452
Trophies
2
XP
6,871
Country
United States
I am a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to me, means we should be free to do as we wish up to the point where our actions interfere with someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That means MJ should be legal, and same sex marriage should never have been an issue in the first place. It also means, however, that affirmative action should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should be much more limited and dependent on working for the benefits. If you're receiving welfare you're taking from others, so put something in while you're at it. Also, since we are a taxed nation, I believe in preserving the integrity of our sovereignty and that means secure borders and merit-based immigration. I don't let my neighbors' dogs eat my dogs' food, so why should I be ok with the government doing that with my money?

As for the two major political parties, I have reached the conclusion that the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is what they want the Government to not let the other do.
 
Last edited by Hanafuda,
  • Like
Reactions: CallmeBerto

kuwanger

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
1,510
Trophies
0
XP
1,783
Country
United States
Also, since we are a taxed nation, I believe in preserving the integrity of our sovereignty and that means secure borders and merit-based immigration. I don't let my neighbors' dogs eat my dogs' food, so why should I be ok with the government doing that with my money?

I mostly believe what you say, but I'd say the above is a contradiction to fiscal conservatism to a degree. Yes, immigrants by their nature do take advantage of various services (roads, police, etc) that they don't necessarily pay for immediately or ever. But over any reasonable period of time, they'll start paying taxes and then income taxes because people need to eat, have shelter, etc and they'll either (1) work for it or (2) import the money and spend it. The simple truth is in the short term, the US and many other countries need more workers to fulfill the social security ratio hole. In the long term (which legally needs changed now), social security needs to greatly reduced to accommodate a realistic ratio of workers to beneficiaries.

Beyond taxes, it's illogical to suggest that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ideals that constrained to the borders of the USA. If goods can be imported to the US towards those end*, it stands to reason services and people should be allowed to follow as well for the same ends*. This is rather the cornerstone of capitalism and libertarianism: goods and people are part of the economic engine and the free movement of both is the cornerstone of a free market. It's little surprise then that, short of some exceptions**, immigration (even mass immigration) is beneficial to the host country because it causes a market correction that overall is beneficial to society.

Personally, though, it comes down to liberty to me. No government owns me and shouldn't be allowed to forbid me from entering or leaving without specific reason: criminal action even would be reason for detainment, not deportation and exile. If I can't find a way to survive legally wherever I go, I'll just have to move again--possibly back to where I was from--regardless of whether I cross a border or not along the way. Caging people in or out is its own sort of prison. I know realistically there's a limit to this from a practical perspective and always some risk of fifth invasion or the like, so I can understand some need for a quota system or the like. Clearly, though, the quota system we have now has little bearing on those concerns.

* Pursuit of happiness != property, but from a practical perspective in today's economy and considered the lack of frontier land to claim, people have to work in some fashion to live in a country for an extended period of time --barring some immense wealth. So, one way or the other people will work and spend money and taxes will be collected. One can argue the idea that taxes will go up to compensate for the time delay between immigrants using services vs paying for them or them being in low paying jobs not contributing as much, but that holds true for children as well, and we don't use that as an argument for government controlling family size. Besides, government will, if it can get voters to flaccidly agree, find a way to justify its spending and taxes as it pleases.

** There's always exceptions, except for the rule of there's always exceptions. :) Seriously, though, there have been studies that show the overall result that immigration economically benefits society. It's just something that might take a generation or two to fully kick in. Honestly, though, since I'm more concerned about the liberty issue than the economic one, it doesn't matter to me as much if we "suffer" the exception. I don't have a notion of US society as a static thing that immigration may destroy. I think that's just an illusion, like most things in life.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
That's part of it, but the bigger issue really is funding. I honestly would rather that we switch over to the European campaign model, where every candidate is automatically allotted a certain amount of money to use how they wish for the campaign (on top of fundraising efforts), but are barred from using personal funds
Dude that's an awesome idea, why are we not doing this? Fuckin hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Dude that's an awesome idea, why are we not doing this? Fuckin hell.
Good question. It probably has to do with the stigma that the people who would best lead the nation are the ones with the most money.

I believe Seattle actually experimented with campaign vouchers, which is a similar idea (all citizens get to choose where vouchers go to support their candidate of choice). The conservative party detested it, though, because it was somehow inhibiting corporations right to lobby iirc (which is bs)
 
Last edited by TotalInsanity4,
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Good question. It probably has to do with the stigma that the people who would best lead the nation are the ones with the most money.

I believe Seattle actually experimented with campaign vouchers, which is a similar idea (all citizens get to choose where vouchers go to support their candidate of choice). The conservative party detested it, though, because it was somehow inhibiting corporations right to lobby iirc (which is bs)
Interesting. I actually plan to move to Washington in the near future, hopefully they let this shit happen and tell the conservatives and the lobbyists to fuck off. Lobbying is already a big enough problem as it is and imo should just be entirely outlawed. Presentations, information, that's one thing. Lobbying is another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty: I may take a shower to remove all the sunburns in my body