I know we have a bunch of people on this board who do not align with modern-day American liberals and Democrats, or American conservatives and Republicans. Yet, by nature, many of these people end up supporting one and opposing the other. As such, my question is this: do you align with Democrats or Republicans because you agree with their policy stances, or because you merely disagree with the other party so much that the only reasonable thing to do is side with the only opponent with a chance?

For my own part, I align more with Democrats than Republicans, but the thought of Republicans in power (generally) scares me so much that I end up supporting Democrats more than I would.

I enjoy a nice ale while watching those 2 groups make asses of themselves...hi ceebs

Pretty much this.

Luckily in Canada we actively elect members from four parties,akin to conservatives, democrats, socialists and separtists who represent a single state. This allows me to enjoy multiple ales while watching the foursome fall all over themselves being stupid.

With the size of government, I'd say that very few people agree with the majority of their party's policies.

On social issues I'm more left than the average liberal - the problem is paying for those programs. Fiscally, neither party has it figured out.

I also am completely terrified of the thought of Republicans in power. That alone will force my vote at times.

are you a Kokanee canadian or an Alexander Keiths canadian?

I used to be interested in the Republican vs Democrat stuff, until I realized that the two are far more alike than they are different. At least, where it matters.

I thought I had it all figured out, that the real debate was public vs private. Until I realized that both are generally as abusive as they can be, and together there's essentially no limit on how profoundly each can ruin lives (though private organization best aligns incentives and is preferable to public organization, though is certainly not without its liabilities).

Now I think I've settled on the fundamental societal conflict being that of the institution vs the individual. For today, anyway.

Basically, I'm apolitical and trending towards philosophical agnosticism. I'm closest to what would be considered a libertarian by most, but I still recoil at being lumped in with a bunch of Ayn Rand fetishists. I can only conclude that people still caught up enough in the Red Team vs Blue Team distraction to continue voting for either aren't paying very close attention, are focusing on too many inconsequential matters, or are too fearful to tread outside their own intellectual comfort zone to honestly confront what it is - not who it is - they're voting for.

god damn it thodoks, i just wrote exactly that but had to delete it because i didn't want to seem like i was plagiarizing

Micro brew guy. Bit of a beer slut. If it's amber or darker, I'll drink it. My go to beer is a Nut Brown Ale brewed by a very small micro brewery called Dead Frog. Good stuff. Had some good brews in Vegas a couple weeks ago.

I used to be like that, then over the last decade or so, I've realized that each party has had more than enough chance with about as much power as each could obtain and they have essentially wasted thier chances at virtually every opportunity. Elections have consequences, but most of the major issues are going to remain status quo no matter who is in power. The DNC and the GOP continually give us poor if not absolutely horrible canidates for the office of president. After the dust settles and we see the ballots do you not always have a sense of....wow....this is the best we could do?

Voting out of fear is a foolish endeavour. It's a waste of time. If you disagree with the way the two party system has been working you have to vote against it.

Everytime we get so called new blood in congress of the republican or democratic ilk... they all wind up following the leader.... even if they do vote a few times out of protest.... because there are so many trade offs on votes. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

I think that's lunacy. I'd rather have principled politicians with an idea who stick to it with their actions.


Under the current system with each election "change" all we really do is swap out a few people at the top and shift the political dollars back and forth to this or that industry. Our politicians currently just go pay off the guys who put money in their pockets to win an election.

Most major Corporations/Unions etc make sure they grease the wheels on both sides.

Much like thodoks above, I don't really feel like I want to be associated with a party because of the lunatic fringe that tend to be so vocal.

I pretty much vote for whichever major party is in the minority, because I want to deadlock the agendas of both of them. Does that mean I support both, or neither of them

I learn hard right on some issues and fairly left on others. Neither party really fits me. I'd say I'm liberal on a lot of issues but with a heavy dose of libertarianism in there as well. I think until we make a core change in what America is we get pretty much the same results regardless of who is in power at the moment.

We need a parliamentary system so some of the smaller parties can have some level of say and representation in our government. I also think we need to confront the military industrial complex that drives much of our foreign policy. I'm also for pushing much of the current federal power back to the state level and quit abusing the commerce clause.

I found it odd that the Republicans were once Abolishionist and Democrats were once the KKK...



....

The problem with going towards parliamentary is you risk giving disproportionate power to small parties, because the big party needs their support to get over the 50% barrier. Maybe that's a good thing sometimes--for someone like you, that might means a states rights party gains that influence--but it could also mean an ultranationalist, xenophobic party gets power over the issues it cares most about.

As for the MIC driving foreign policy, I'd argue balance of power concerns and the desire for secure energy supplies and a stable global economy have been much more important (and other factors such as humanitarianism play lesser roles as well). That, in itself, is not a defense of our foreign policies, but a better explanation for why they come about. Some aspects of policy, such as how much is spent on what programs, certainly are heavily affected by the MIC's political power, but not the fighting of wars or troop deployments in Asia and Europe. But I guess this is something for another topic.

Is this just true at the national level, or do you do this at the state level or even local level as well?

And I guess that could go to anyone in this topic: does your answer to this question depend on what level we're talking about? Are Republicans in state or local power as scary as those in national power?

In my state. the vote is pretty pointless, as I live in one of the most left-wing districts in one of the most right wing states. Local elections usually aren't that partisan, and it's easier to find someone to vote for who you can actually agree with most the time.

I consider myself faily liberal and I vote for Democrats. I wouldn't completely rule out voting for a republican, but the way that party is going it makes me think that wouldn't happen for quite a while.

People that are agnostic about politics crack me up. They are so frustrated by modern politicians that they don't feel they are worthy of a vote. But the only way to change those politicians is to participate in the process by choosing a side and voting. Sure, it is statistically meaningless, but it still feels empowering to know you care enough to make your voice heard.

All I heard was "sure it actually is meaningless, but it feels good so do it anyway."