Political Standings

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
12 years 3 months ago #48478 by
Replied by on topic Re: Political Standings
Milton Friedman.

(Libertarian)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
12 years 3 months ago #48482 by
Replied by on topic Re: Political Standings
I'll just list my current favorite politician. Michael Ham, running for US senator.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • RyuJin
  • Offline
  • Master
  • Master
    Registered
  • The Path of Ignorance is Paved with Fear
More
12 years 3 months ago #48484 by RyuJin
Replied by RyuJin on topic Re: Political Standings
whoever's caught lying the least amount :woohoo:

Warning: Spoiler!

Quotes:
Warning: Spoiler!

J.L.Lawson,Master Knight, M.div, Eastern Studies S.I.G. Advisor (Formerly Known as the Buddhist Rite)
Former Masters: GM Kana Seiko Haruki , Br.John
Current Apprentices: Baru
Former Apprentices:Adhara(knight), Zenchi (knight)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
12 years 3 months ago #48494 by
Replied by on topic Re: Political Standings
I'm American, and I generally side with the Republican Party. As far as the political spectrum, I consider myself slightly right of moderate (though many have classified me as liberal). I think I could be best described as a classical liberal or as a libertarian. I am 100% for individual freedom, the right to bear arms, free speech, freedom of thought, and in that regard, I can identify with American conservatism. However, I have a few liberal tendencies, as I am pro-choice, and I am extremely wary of organized religion (though I am religious). I mainly just go for whoever is trying to take away the least of my rights.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
12 years 3 months ago #48500 by
Replied by on topic Re: Political Standings
In all but the rarest of occassions, government action is the application of force to place one group or individual over another.

Here in the states, once there was an "United States", our founders managed to cobble together an inherrantly flawed system where no one could do anything politically at the national level without public support already being so prevalent that no one really disagreed with the idea anymore. I'm of the opinion that this was by design. There was a reason that the vice president was originally the 2nd runner up for the presidency. It put the final vote on tough issues in a party contrary to the that of the presidency and therefore any truely devisive issues had no chance of resolution at the national scale.

I am of the oppinion that this initial setup was a good thing. The subsequent increases in power of the Federal government and the increases in power of the Executive and Judicial branches, as well as the ignoring of constitutinoal law by the legislature when it suits them has created a government that can "get things done". This is a horrible horrible idea if one wants a nation with real and true personal freedoms. In general I vote based on establishing a stale-mate in government. I vote for one party to be dominant in congress but not 'too dominant' and I vote for the opposite party for presidential elections so the vice president's vote comes up very rarely, the president has an unfriendly congress but not one that can bypass veto. Similarly i look to stack the judicial as close to 50/50 as possible.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi