What political party do you vote with?

See, that's one thing I just cannot fathom. How can someone be republican and hippie?! You must either be a hell of a hypocrit or have very paradoxical ideas in your head. Are you trying to convince yourself you're an hippie because you think it's groovy, yet agreeing with the republicans cuz daddy tells you that it's the right thing to do?
Hippie is about equality, freedom, environment, etc., none of which republicans seem to care about.

 

I don't believe in politics, but since we live in a world full of insane and inhumane people we need something to keep society stable. I think government should only worry about our basic human rights and safety. Nothing else.

...that makes me somewhat a Libertarian... I guess...?

 

Republicans claim to value freedom above anything else. Unfortunately, for them freedom does not mean much besides low taxes, little or nothing in the way of business regulations and gun control laws, and a belligerent foreign policy.

 

I probably agree with the Green Party more, but I do not think it makes sense to vote for anything to the left of the Democrat Party unless the Democrat Party dominates the country like it did during the 1930's, and early 1960's.

The last time it made sense for someone to run to the left of the Democrat presidential candidate was 1964. Barry Goldwater was going to get the beating he deserved. Someone to the left of Lyndon Johnson with national name recognition could have told the American people the truth about Vietnam.

 

neoconservative =/= republican

 

deleted

 

A surprisingly large number of Republicans can read, but they move their lips, and need to look up the big words in a dictionary, if they own one.

 

God I just love generalizations.

 

I bet you do, probably just as much as I love fascists.

 

Alright Republicans might be asinine when it comes to some things but they're not fascists. The tea party movement sucks for the sole reason the Republican party has now become almost exclusively socially, evangelical conservative, even in liberal areas. There did in fact use to be liberal and moderate Republicans. Heck I live in CT which is one of the most liberal states in the country and we have a Republican governor and she constantly had one of the highest approval ratings in the country.

Or go one state north to Mass. and you get Mitt Romney, another Republican who made Mass the first state to legislate universal health care even if I have issues with how it was done(well much like the current federal version), but now they're basically all dying thanks to the tea baggers.

 

I think I missed where he claimed to be a hippie.

 

Yes not everyone here calls themselves a hippie, heck I sure don't.

 

I think there are better forums for the republicans to take part in than a hippie forum, so I suppose he must find himself somewhat drawn to the hip culture, even if ony lightly.

 

In response to the original question- I try to vote for the candidate whom I believe to be the least unqualified and least untrustworthy regardless of affiliation. A lot is said about the seriousness of the campaign by considering the content of campaign ads. Way too many hopefuls for office do not appear to take their constituency seriously. Who in their right mind actually expects a first term Senator to "clean up Washington"?

 

this is HIP forums..


Not hippie forums.

 

This is why argued against single term limits. Term limits in the overall might be good, but 1/2 of politics is knowing people and having influence and a voting/action record you can back up. First term politicians basically are just lap dogs.

 

I suspect you may be assuming too much about the membership here but it's understandable. I don't consider myself to be a hippie either- nor do I see very many of the regulars here as such. There's quite a diverse membership here.

 

You're close to 100% correct with your assessment of first termers... however, with a service limit in place there's a limit of time any one congressperson can cultivate undue influence and the junior senate and house members would need less to be obliged to the power of a senior member as the limit would limit how senior a member can become. Give the single term a twelve year maximum run with a small portion of seats turning over every two years the continuity of worthwhile national policy can be preserved while votes of "no confidence" in any member whose ouster short of full term becomes ensured with the initiation of a new election campaign from which (s)he is excluded and the toxic policy endorsed can be short circuited.

The limit to service could well attract more people genuinely interested in rendering actual public service as opposed to career crimin... err... politicians who would milk influence and favors for all they're worth while forgetting about the voters who installed them in the first place.

 

or in 2008, like with acorn's voting registration fraud scandal. i know someone who works for the local county lection board every voting session. he admitted he hacked the voting machine to where barack obama would win. it's not just diebold we have to worry about. honestly, it's the voters who put these assholes into office to begin with. so they too have no right to complain.