I thought you were liberal, though? A Libertarian is, like, a Republican on steroids. 
I’m confused.
Anywhos, I want a Conservative who is as close to the middle as possible, but still able to pick a side, because that’s how I am. Yeah, I’m too picky. Paul and Palin are both way too extreme. 
I have actually metioned on here that I am indepedent, I am on no political party. If I had to choose, I’d be a Libertarian, because I believe in equal rights, legalize it, legalize it! Make our government smaller, not larger! That’s when tyranny comes a long.
“Liberal” isn’t a political party.
Sometimes I agree with the Reps, and sometimes (erm, a lot) disagree. Sometimes I agree with the Dems and disagree with the Dems.
That’s why I don’t do political parties, it’s too many restrictions, what you can and can’t believe in.
I don’t like Obama because he’s “a democrat” or “because he’s black”. I like him because he’s a great man with a great mind. Hello, his Health Care Bill? Yes, please! You say it’s socialist? Well, then, get rid of the police and firemen. That’s socalism! And it’s working out darn well for other countries
And when Paul was running on the Republican ticket in 2008, he was the only one of the Republicans with any lick of sense, and wasn’t “extreme” at all
This sums up my thoughts on Paul:
ij by elliejessieeve, on Flickr
I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.
-Ron Paul
This part is important (for me). America has been playing ‘world police’ for too long and it’s time they stop telling other countries what to do and set an example instead. Yes, China, Iraq, North Korea, et cetera et cetera are guilty of human rights violations and dictatorships and all that. But you only have to search ‘Guantanamo’ or ‘Halliburton’ to realise that America’s hands aren’t exactly clean either. 
Rant aside, this Paul guy sounds like a nice chap. And yes, I don’t really believe in dichotomous dualism like ‘Good vs. Evil’, ‘Left vs. Right’, ‘Liberal vs Conservatism’. One should pick the best aspects from both camps and seek a common middle ground. 
I’m wondering when being a superpower has ever worked out for a country. It’s really a screwed if you do/screwed if you don’t situation no matter who’s in charge.
I’d like to see the demise of the whole superpower dynamic altogether before the end of this century.
There really seems to be no benefits to being top dog ss far as I can see, anyway. So, why would anyone want to be top dog?
Ask Rome. Oh wait, they’re not around anymore because it didn’t work out…
-Is from UK-
Well, all ‘empires’ fall eventually, guys. No-one can effectively ‘rule’ the world forever. Granted, I kind of suspected America to hold on for a bit longer, though while now China is becoming more powerful I think America will hold on a little while at least. I mean, they were kind of ‘ruling’ it in a non-empire-ish way. More like instead of being the well, kind of the abusive parent (like most empires, including the British one) America was more acting like the eldest kid the family put in charge or something strange like that even though no ‘parent’ put them in charge to begin with.
Like an older sibling they knew they couldn’t get away with the same stuff though they were having more power than other countries obviously in that situation. So, they’ve occasionally had power trips, they’ve taken advantage but also in some occasions tried to help their ‘little brothers and sisters’ and also sometimes messed up or found out things weren’t going to be as easy as they first suspected or don’t really know the main problem. Truth is, America probably doesn’t have any more knowledge than say a seven year old versus a six year old sibling in terms of ‘family affairs’ in comparison to some other countries when it comes to foreign diplomatic actionsk but it’s just how things worked out. They have more power, so…
But when you think about it, the amount of time they’ve been ‘in power’ hasn’t been long at all.
There’s no parent right now and the parents of the past were incredibly lacking. We all just have to grow up I guess as societies.
In more traditional empires, once you steal something you pretty much spend your whole life trying to fight people off for it. And then you’ll eventually lose it, anyway. Though America is far from having that sort of thing as the ‘traditional empire’ while still having a level of power over other countries. Plus, of course we’re supposed to know better than extend empires right now, so…
If that makes any sense at all. (Probably not).
In any case, being the leader isn’t all flowers and happiness and getting to do what you want. It’s also having the reponsibility to do it as well. And America as still the worlds most powerful country means people outside it care about what happens obviously even though we can’t vote in it.
You make good points, mentalguru, and I really love your analogy.
I’ve been trying to think up something that didn’t rely on the party system. But I’ve been having a really hard time.
Let me just lay this out. So it seems that the two party system is broken. Politicians seem more worried about pleasing their party than the people who elected them. Not all of them, but a great many seem to fall into this category.
Now, some would suggest that it would be time to bring in a multi-party system, but that has its own problems. One of those problems is that so much time is spent on parties wrestling each other for control. You can already see this in the two party system, but it’s even more apparent in the multi-party system. And bipartisan support is often seem as nearly impossible as things stand now. Imagine how hard it would be when it becomes multipartisan.
So an elimination of the party system would seem like the only logical step, correct? Well as it turns out, nope, not at all. Not as far as I can figure out because it seems that having a party system does serve some purpose when it comes to the election process alone. Without parties how would primaries possibly work? You can have thousands of unbacked people running for major office. Not that it’s a terrible thing in theory, but in practice it’s so overwhelming that no one could possibly make an informed choice without being totally overwhelmed by all the information they’d need.
I’d imagine this all sounds rather simplistic. But I have been racking my brains over this for a couple of years now trying to figure out a better way.
Sorry if all of this sounds kinda stupid.
Not really, aerostarmonk. Politics was never an easy subject to begin with.
I love mentalguru’s analogy. Though I might also use the metaphor of the U.S. being a gifted country, the ‘cool guy or girl’ in the classroom with the smarts and the looks. Much like China or Australia, America is a huge country and occupies various ‘climate regions’ (including a group of islands in the Pacific!). Its hinterland is rich in natural resources, its people made of immigrants from all over the world. So, in a way, it is a ‘lucky’ country in comparison to say, Vatican City or Barbados, at least in terms of natural resources (the former makes it up by religion, the latter perhaps by tourism).
Another reason why America is so influential is also because of its pervasive pop-culture. People from all over the world appreciate and enjoy films from Hollywood, music from Tower Records, celebrities from all walks of life and backgrounds. And when we appreciate the stories, the culture, and the lives of people who live in one continent and a group of islands, we begin to share a universal ‘language’. Everyone knows who Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Julia Roberts, and Walt Disney is. Japan’s anime and India’s bollywood may be the future ‘pop-culture centers’ of the world, but for the moment, America controls the entertainment industry.
With regards to aerostarmonk’s dilemma, I think Singapore may offer a solution. Unlike Australia’s bipartisan system, or Malaysia’s convoluted multiparty alliances and factions, Singapore has a predominantly one-party system with a weak opposition. Of course, the man who made Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew) is still ‘behind-the-scenes’ as a ‘Minister Mentor’, and a lot of pro-democracy commentators have likened his method to a ‘dynasty’ (His son, Lee Hsien Long is the current Prime Minister).
I think this is all hogwash. First of all, a bipartisan rule will only result in the kind of internal politics that never results in anything getting done. The fact that LKY was iron-fisted in the beginning was part of the reason for Singapore’s success.
Second, it is still a democracy. There are opposition parties. The problem is, most of the ‘pro-opposition’ supporters here don’t collectively back any one party. As a result, there is never a really strong opposition party that emerges to effectively contests the ruling party. This can be fixed with better political education and voters being more decisive instead of ‘buckshot’ supporting.
Third, because one party (the People’s Action Party) calls the shots, that means there is better coordination and more continuity in projects. Whereas in a bipartisan or multi-party system, if an opposition party gets voted for the next term, you can be sure they won’t be vested to continue their opponent’s policies or projects.
Of course, the critics will wail there is no political freedom in Singapore. But I feel the lack of political competition gives better security and safety. While you might not be able to, say, purchase a handgun from a convenience store, or get pornography legally here, you can be sure that you can walk home safely at night. Which sounds like a fair tradeoff to me.
The trick is, to have a capable and responsible leader. Otherwise, you’ll end up with a Mao or Castro, and nobody likes dictatorships. So if you ask me, Singapore’s pseudo-democracy is one of the best political systems in the world for the moment.
I’m not too qualified to talk about American politics but from what I’ve seen of your parties (which to me, having a two party system is really dumb) I wouldn’t want any of them in. All of you who wish to vote conservative - don’t. Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country. Do you really want someone that dumb in your leadership? Put it this was: Your conservatives make ours look like Karl Marx. Glenn Back is crazy. He is the type of person that makes America the most hated country in the world. Take a look at this:
You can’t tell me you want this sort of people making your decisions?!?!?
I don’t wish to start a religious argument here - but the Tea Party are also really stupid. Religion should not be an integral part of politics. Politics should be what the people want, not what a book written thousands of year ago wants.
Plus here’s what the majority of your conservative party believes:
Homosexuality is wrong.
Abortion is wrong.
Racism is OK.
Capital punishment is acceptable.
Nuclear weapons are the way to go.
Obama is the spawn of Satan and because of his skin colour he’s less qualified to be president.
Like I said, I don’t mean to stereotype but a lot of American conservatives won’t be aware there are other countries outside their borders.
Here, even in the UK, the typical American conservative would be branded as a racist homophobe and hence you’d have to join the BNP (aka be universally hated).
To those of you who believe the Ground Zero Mosque is indeed, a mosque, please watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
Also: youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02ls … re=related
Please refrain from double-posting and writing in capitals. TDIT
While I understand (and in fact, agree with) your views, I would use a more diplomatic manner to describe the opposition, Wall-E. I don’t really think the Conservatives believe Obama is the spawn of Satan, for example, though they probably don’t support his policies on principle.
Although I agree that Glenn Beck isn’t putting a lot of thought into his statements lately. I mean, he recently compared Soros to the Nazis for his ‘Puppet Master’ special. Really? Firstly, Soros is a Hungarian-Jew, so he’s definitely not in their company. Secondly, he may be a powerful figure (who apparently brought down the Malaysian economy and incurred Mahathir’s wrath, I might add), but he is also a philanthropist and benefactor of many charities. Far from Totalitarian Ruler material, it seems.
If anything, Beck’s fearmongering and conspiracy theorizing mirrors the anti-semitism scare campaigns of Hitler and the Third Reich. Talk about irony, huh?
I agree with every word of this. The Radical-Conservatives may believe that, but they are a very, very, very, small number and a fraction of a precent of Conservatives.
Like my dad for instance leans very much so to the right, but he also believes in something called reason. So it makes me mad when people typecast Republicans as evil racist people.
I should not have posted here.
I don’t like either political party, either. I’m just more right than left.
Why not? 
Because I read too much and watch too much news, so I always end up making people mad.
Wait, who got mad by you reading and watching the news?
Nobody should get mad at you for wanting to know more, IV. I always believe knowledge is power, and reading and watching the news is one of the ways to get that.
I should know. I’m taking journalism and mass comm as a degree!
I think it’s easy for some people to confuse nationalism with racism. Although they are to a certain extent interlinked, you can be one without being the other (ie you can be patriotic without being racist, and vice versa). Conservatives generally prefer tighter immigration laws and are interested in protectionist movements for the locals.
But the irony is that the true indigenous people are often the ones who are marginalised (Native Americans, Aborigines, Malays, etc.) and that the majority are actually European immigrants (or in the case of countries like Singapore and Philippines, Orientals). In countries like South Africa or Brazil, it’s even trickier with ‘Mulattos’ or Eurasians. Especially with globalisation nowadays, it is quite difficult to distinguish between the natives and the ‘others’.
Who is a true American? Or Australian, South African, or Malaysian for that matter? The most frustrating thing is that illegal immigrants and ungrateful migrants (ie those who break the law) are giving multiculturalism a bad name. And then there are those who have dual-citizenship or Permanent Residence statuses. Which country do they belong to?
If you ask me, I support a leader who believes in legal immigration and integration of foreigners into the community. Ethnic enclaves should be discouraged (that can be solved by mixed public housing and quotas for private residences). The best outcome is you’ll get cosmopolitans, those who are able to adapt to and even adopt some of the host culture while keeping some of their own. Saying we can’t let in the foreigners because they have ‘strange customs’ or they’re ‘stealing our jobs’ are lame excuses. Things are only strange if you don’t take the time to understand them. As for job competition, well, nothing a little skills upgrading and further education can’t fix.
Isolationist policies are if anything, the furthest from a true democracy. China learnt that recently by opening its borders. Running a country is like having a party, the more the merrier, as long as you keep the troublemakers out.
Well, my dad doesn’t like it because I’m too left, and everyone around here and at school thinks I’m too right. That makes no sense!
That’s the world of politics! It doesn’t make sense. And don’t hide your beliefs because you dad, us, and your school may disagree. You only should be ashamed if you’re radical to the point of causing harm to people (ie Stalin, Hitler) and you’re not! To each their own.
It’d just be nice for someone to agree with me every now and then. At least Democrats and Republicans agree with each other. I’m by myself over here. 
TDIT: As a Brit, the American Conservatives that I see are the racists trailer trash. Like I said.
Incredigirl: That makes a lot of sense.
As we move down generations and social groups, the “centre mark” also moves. So in your dad’s eyes you could be too far left of his “centre mark”, but your peers’ “centre mark” will be left of you. You do to a degree inherit your parents’ political view, and I did for a while until I went to a non-Christian, white single faith school. I saw that the “bad immigrants” aren’t actually bad, So, I’m left in all marks, but I’m much further left of my parents’ and my Grandparents think I’m a communist. I’m still left because I go to a private school with lots of conservatives there. So, your political view depends on your company, really. For example, if you are in a room with a bunch of die-hard communists then you’ll be extremely right, but a bunch of Fascists, then you’ll be left.