• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Political Affiliation Poll

Pick a party.

  • Democrat

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Libertarian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Independent (mostly Democrat)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Independent (mostly Republican)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Independent (mostly Libertarian)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't Vote

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
I would consider myself mostly libertarian. I'll side with people regardless of party so long as their idea is about having less government. Too bad both major candidates are for more and not less government. Looks like I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name.

Imagine, a candidate who isn't running anymore is more exciting than the two still in it.
If you haven't taken time to look at him, check out Chuck Baldwin. He was endorsed at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.
 

murphy2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
143
Location
, ,
imported post

I am for which ever band-aid that slows down the bleeding. I only hope we find a cure for Democrats.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
imported post

I'm from the strict Constitutionalist, limited government, fiscally responsible, states rights corner of the Republican tent. I respect the Libertarian party, but differ from them on illegal drug issues and illegal immigration issues.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Some libertarian leanings, but not enough to sway me away from the GOP. I think one of the most important factors is putting solid Constitution supporting justices in the federal courts. With Stevens approaching 90 and Ginsburg mid 70's, I will not throw away my vote. This is the only place that we'll see any movement on issues that concern us.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

asforme wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
I would consider myself mostly libertarian. I'll side with people regardless of party so long as their idea is about having less government. Too bad both major candidates are for more and not less government. Looks like I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name.

Imagine, a candidate who isn't running anymore is more exciting than the two still in it.
If you haven't taken time to look at him, check out Chuck Baldwin. He was endorsed at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.
I doubt it'll make much difference if I vote for Baldwin, Barr, or Paul. I don't think either will be elected. It's really just a protest vote. I hope that enough people will vote for one of those three that it'll wake up some more people to the problems with our system.
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

AZkopper wrote:
I'm from the strict Constitutionalist, limited government, fiscally responsible, states rights corner of the Republican tent. I respect the Libertarian party, but differ from them on illegal drug issues and illegal immigration issues.

"Illegal" drug issues and "illegal" immigration? The only reason some drugs are illegal is because govt says so, other than that, it is totally arbitrary. Alcohol was legal before it was illegal before it was legal again. Marijuana was legal before it was illegal. You used to be able to get heroine with a prescription. Totally arbitrary laws and that "war on drugs" they are fighting now is completely useless. The war is worse than the drugs could ever be. The "illegal" nature of these drugs is what makes them dangerous. Look into it.

As for immigration, those laws are also totally arbitrary too. If I buy a piece of property in Costa Rica, who is the govt to tell me I cant live onMY OWN property? Free people should be able to live where they wish. Of course, the problem is none of us are free. Why? Becasue govt is the enemyof freedom. Why do you think the 2A is there?

Just philosophical ideas to think about.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

I chose Independent (Mostly Libertarian), but there really wasn't an accurate choice for me. I'm an independent ex-Democrat. I don't support the Libertarian party, but I don't support the others as parties either.

I'm a pro-gun liberal. I don't want to ban guns OR abortion. I believe that the government should concern itself mostly with dealing with people and collections of people who want to do actual wrongful physical harm to others. A home invasion is wrongful. You shooting a home invader ISN'T.

I'll be voting for McCain. I don't particularly like him, but I'm from Chicago and loathe ALL Chicago politicians and wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw a boxcar with Rosie O'Donnell and 50,000 donuts in it. That translates as a vote against Obama, one of the most fanatically anti-gun SERIOUS candidates in history.
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
asforme wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
I would consider myself mostly libertarian. I'll side with people regardless of party so long as their idea is about having less government. Too bad both major candidates are for more and not less government. Looks like I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name.

Imagine, a candidate who isn't running anymore is more exciting than the two still in it.
If you haven't taken time to look at him, check out Chuck Baldwin. He was endorsed at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.
I doubt it'll make much difference if I vote for Baldwin, Barr, or Paul. I don't think either will be elected. It's really just a protest vote. I hope that enough people will vote for one of those three that it'll wake up some more people to the problems with our system.
I'm just skeptical of the system and wonder if a write in would be counted at all. I want to vote for someone on the ballot so that the republicans can look at the results and see that they're loosing votes to real conservatives.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Neo-conservative, Edmund Burke/William Buckley school. Vote Republican exclusively because never had a democrat worth a shit to vote for. Lieberman/Zell Miller are good guys, but never on the ballot where I lived. Even if they were, chances are the Republican candidate would be just as good and vote with the GOP in aligning the Senate/House which is a key consideration.
 

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
imported post

Closest to a partyaffiliation I'd have is the Constitution party. RKBA, crime/punishment, and smaller government are the main issues I look for. Typically when I find a candidate who agrees with my theory's on those issues, the rest of the issues fall into place anyways.

Baldwins viewpoints on the UN are a bit stronger then mine, but I also lean towards a form of isolationism, so I'd take him in a heartbeat over any rep/dem any day.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

I guess I will chime in as the young irresponsible guy who doesn't vote. Well, hasn't voted. I was old enough to vote eight years ago, I just didn't for some reason. Four years ago I had to much crap going on in my life to pay close attention to the race (what I did see didn't impress me) and didn't feel like it would be responsible to vote with as little information as I had. This year, I don't know. I really don't like either candidate very much, and it doesn't look like that's going to change. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and writing in a candidate is a pointless, futile gesture with our system. So, I may just sit this one out again.
 

AnaxImperator

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
252
Location
nowhere, Colorado, USA
imported post

Lykosis wrote:
I am a registered Republican. However, I consider myself a Conservative Constitutional Nationalist. I just wish that there was a mainstream party to belong to that espoused my views. The ones that exist now are part of or have very close ties to the White Supremacy Movement, which I do not want to be associated with.


I'm what a lot of people would consider a hard-line Nationalist as well.... and I agree that for the most part, Nationalists are generally linked to white-supremacy groups, as many of those groups/parties also disclose themselves as being Nationalists. Unfortunate, since I believe that there are many like us who are not white-supremacists, and partially because of that stigma we're marginalized or just ignored. The globalist movement has also contributed to that prejudice, portraying Nationalistideals as being out-dated, ignorant, and counterproductive.

On the contrary; I believe that global integration of our economy and culture is weakening &dilutingthe very same, and is severely compromising our national security. First & foremost is the porous nature of our borders. Treating illegal-immigrants with kid-gloves & generally ignoringborder securityis perhaps the worst threat to America's prosperity, safety, and national identity.... even more so than terrorisim. If we properly seal our borders by land, sea, & air, terrorists from abroad willpose less of a danger simply by their inability to gain entry into our country. But doing so would require a huge & firm committment by our Federal & State governments, and would go completely against the globalist agenda. They'd cry foul just on the basis of lost tourist revenues. Sealing our borders completely & efficiently also depends on our gaining independance from foreign energy, and decreasing our reliance on the global economy. America has the infrastructure, resources, and population to be self-sufficient andtruly free from the vagaries of externaleconomies and politics.

Most of all I feel America needs to eventuallyresign from the UN. That organization has been corrupt & impotent for decades; no better than the defunct League of Nations,and it's done nothing but interfere with America's interests & well-being both at home & abroad. IfRussia & China were not permanent members of the UN Security Council, I'd say that the UN would be more effective. But by havingtwo permanent Security Council nations with interests & ideals completely contrary to thevery principles of the UN Charter, the UN is permanently crippled and does nothing except tie-up valuable time & resources. The original intent behind the UN following WW2 was idealistic and honorable.But as with trueMarxisim, or any utopian ideal,ultimately doomed to fail simply due to human nature

I find it ironic and disgusting that the UN enforces conditions & standardson willing member-nations, but is unwilling & unable to bring to heel those member-nations who consistently violate the UN Charter. That the UN seeks to cement itself as a concrete world-wide governing body; establish a global taxation mechanisim; enforce it's will upon America and suppress our freedoms (one of which being our RTKBA); homogenize member-state militaries into a global standing army, and create a sovereign judicial & criminal-court system, only quickens our need to detach America from the UN's corruption & corrosive influence.

Hussein Obama and a vast majority of the liberal contingent subscribe to the globalist ideal, and would do their part to send us directly into the clutches of the UN, making vulnerable ournational livelyhoodto the subversive influences of Islam, Communisim/Socialisim, while throwing the doors open to any & all terrorists or outside force seeking our destruction.

Especially in this age, the globalist agenda is completely un-American and verydangerous, althoughtheyinsist that global integration & transparency is completely necessaryforAmerica'scontinual growth, prosperity, and survival. But rather than ensuring those things for America, coming to completely depend upon the rest of the world (via the UN) only ensures that America will eventually cease to exist as a free nation.... or a nation, period. The rest of the world is made up of nations populated & run by self-serving, nationalistic, idealistic, fanatical, lebensraum-seekingpeople. Thus by the world's very nature is the same necessary for America's continued existance. So in my mind, American Nationalisim has nothing to do with racisim, manifest-destiny, imperialisim, etc.... it has everything to do with ensuring the survival of our beautiful Nation, and ensuring that our descendants will have a sovereign, free, safe place to live and maintain the American-Dream.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

FogRider wrote:
I guess I will chime in as the young irresponsible guy who doesn't vote. Well, hasn't voted. I was old enough to vote eight years ago, I just didn't for some reason. Four years ago I had to much crap going on in my life to pay close attention to the race (what I did see didn't impress me) and didn't feel like it would be responsible to vote with as little information as I had. This year, I don't know. I really don't like either candidate very much, and it doesn't look like that's going to change. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and writing in a candidate is a pointless, futile gesture with our system. So, I may just sit this one out again.
I do hope those who plan to sit this one out are not being literal.

I can understand, though I disagree with, not casting a vote in the presidential race. Fortunately, we're permitted to disagree.

I feel compelled to remind voters though that there is more at stake here than just the White House. House and Senate races are just as important. And here in Virginia some of us have some first-hand knowledge of how important a few votes can be in our state legislatures.

Don't let those votes lag just because you don't like presidential candidates.

Edit: fixed a comma -- we grammar nazis get upset when we mis-use them.
 

AnaxImperator

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
252
Location
nowhere, Colorado, USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
I feel compelled to remind voters though that there is more at stake here than just the White House. House and Senate races are just as important.
+1

And also bear in mind that whoever takes the White House & Congress, also is who appoints the justices to our Federal Court system. And those justices are who ultimatelydecide if thelaws passed by Congress & signed by the President are consistent with the Constitution. Given a partisan & corrupt Congress,self-serving President, and puppet Supreme Court, our Constitutional Rightscould effectively be trampled.... and it could very well, and very easily happen.

I don't just pay attention to elections on the national level. Local &State elections are just as, if not more, important than Federalelections. After all,at the lowest levels is where the grist meets the grindstone, and inept community leaders aremore immediately dangerous than distant DC lawmakers. Plus I find City Council & Town Hall meetings entertaining & informative.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

YOu guys calling yourselves "nationalists"... you do know the difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism", right? You also know the difference between nationalism and federalism I hope? (Or maybe I hope you don't, since it would be worse to know these differences and still choose nationalism...)
 

Lykosis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
19
Location
Slidell, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
YOu guys calling yourselves "nationalists"... you do know the difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism", right? You also know the difference between nationalism and federalism I hope? (Or maybe I hope you don't, since it would be worse to know these differences and still choose nationalism...)


That would depend on what your definition of nationalism is.
 

yeahYeah

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
433
Location
Las Vegas, NV, ,
imported post

i was a republican until the whole illegal amnesty crap happened.

i didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me. I will vote for McCain, but i wont go back to the GOP until they clean house and return to their traditions.
 

Lykosis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
19
Location
Slidell, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Sobran is a self described theo-anarchist. This makes him opposed to anything that he would consider as "nationalist", and chooses to embrace the term "patriot" to try an distinguish his ideals from anything that might be construed by the general public as "nationalist". He therefore makes nationalism and nationalists out to being akin to those who root for the current best team in a given sport.

While this is interesting, I assert that there is no difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism, is, in fact, a part of nationalism. To better understand this, you might want the read the following:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#3.1

It explains nationalism from a philosphical point of view, borrowing heavily in its analysis from political science.

For me, there is no difference between nationalism and patriotism. I love my country and support my country. This makes me a patriot. I also want to see my country be the best in the world, protect it's identity and sovreignity, and prevent detrimental changes to both. This makes me a nationalist. To best do this, I believe in upholding and enforcing our Constitution by strictly interpreting it as well as maintaining the morals and values of our Founding Fathers since that is the foundation upon which the greatness that America is today was built. This makes me a conservative constitutionalist.
 
Top