What is Your Stake in Politics?

[scaredyclassic]

I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high[/quote]
He’s absolutely cool. And will bring mutton chops back into style. Not sure why his karate skills make him a straight shooter – but I like his platform.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high[/quote]
He’s absolutely cool. And will bring mutton chops back into style. Not sure why his karate skills make him a straight shooter – but I like his platform.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high[/quote]
He’s absolutely cool. And will bring mutton chops back into style. Not sure why his karate skills make him a straight shooter – but I like his platform.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high[/quote]
He’s absolutely cool. And will bring mutton chops back into style. Not sure why his karate skills make him a straight shooter – but I like his platform.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]I find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high[/quote]
He’s absolutely cool. And will bring mutton chops back into style. Not sure why his karate skills make him a straight shooter – but I like his platform.

[poorgradstudent]

Unlike a lot of people, I actually think despite the recent economic hiccup, the United States is still the greatest country on earth, and perhaps has the strongest political system; certainly in the top ten. Direct Democracy has many flaws, but it beats every other system that’s been tried.

On national issues I support personal freedom. I could never vote for a candidate who believed in taking rights away from certain groups of people just because they’re different.

I also believe the income distribution in this country is ridiculous. The rich reap the rewards of what taxes pay for but don’t contribute their fair share. Most arguments about wealth creation and marginal tax rates are silly; we’re no where near overtaxing productivity. I admire the governments and systems of the Scandinavian countries; highly socially liberal, and strong economies despite relatively high tax rates. In my youth I considered moving to Sweden, where my family roots stem from.

All this means I just can’t vote for a Republican. George W. Bush did a lot of damage in my mind to a brand I wasn’t a huge fan of to begin with; he was truly *Anti*-science in his policies, including funding for research. I considered Arnold, but voted against him both times. Perhaps in two decades “South Park Republicans” (true small government, socially liberal) will be running the hen-house. I could vote for an openly Atheist Republican, assuming they supported rights for gays, women and minorities.

For example, in the current California Senate and Governor races, I watched the primaries closely. I love Barbara Boxer and what she stands for, and Fironia is a woman whose legacy at HP involves lay-offs and a Golden Parachute after running it into the ground. Whitman is a better businesswoman and candidate, and Brown is kinda mediocre. I’m voting for Brown, but I won’t cry in my beer if Whitman happens to win.

[poorgradstudent]

Unlike a lot of people, I actually think despite the recent economic hiccup, the United States is still the greatest country on earth, and perhaps has the strongest political system; certainly in the top ten. Direct Democracy has many flaws, but it beats every other system that’s been tried.

On national issues I support personal freedom. I could never vote for a candidate who believed in taking rights away from certain groups of people just because they’re different.

I also believe the income distribution in this country is ridiculous. The rich reap the rewards of what taxes pay for but don’t contribute their fair share. Most arguments about wealth creation and marginal tax rates are silly; we’re no where near overtaxing productivity. I admire the governments and systems of the Scandinavian countries; highly socially liberal, and strong economies despite relatively high tax rates. In my youth I considered moving to Sweden, where my family roots stem from.

All this means I just can’t vote for a Republican. George W. Bush did a lot of damage in my mind to a brand I wasn’t a huge fan of to begin with; he was truly *Anti*-science in his policies, including funding for research. I considered Arnold, but voted against him both times. Perhaps in two decades “South Park Republicans” (true small government, socially liberal) will be running the hen-house. I could vote for an openly Atheist Republican, assuming they supported rights for gays, women and minorities.

For example, in the current California Senate and Governor races, I watched the primaries closely. I love Barbara Boxer and what she stands for, and Fironia is a woman whose legacy at HP involves lay-offs and a Golden Parachute after running it into the ground. Whitman is a better businesswoman and candidate, and Brown is kinda mediocre. I’m voting for Brown, but I won’t cry in my beer if Whitman happens to win.

[poorgradstudent]

Unlike a lot of people, I actually think despite the recent economic hiccup, the United States is still the greatest country on earth, and perhaps has the strongest political system; certainly in the top ten. Direct Democracy has many flaws, but it beats every other system that’s been tried.

On national issues I support personal freedom. I could never vote for a candidate who believed in taking rights away from certain groups of people just because they’re different.

I also believe the income distribution in this country is ridiculous. The rich reap the rewards of what taxes pay for but don’t contribute their fair share. Most arguments about wealth creation and marginal tax rates are silly; we’re no where near overtaxing productivity. I admire the governments and systems of the Scandinavian countries; highly socially liberal, and strong economies despite relatively high tax rates. In my youth I considered moving to Sweden, where my family roots stem from.

All this means I just can’t vote for a Republican. George W. Bush did a lot of damage in my mind to a brand I wasn’t a huge fan of to begin with; he was truly *Anti*-science in his policies, including funding for research. I considered Arnold, but voted against him both times. Perhaps in two decades “South Park Republicans” (true small government, socially liberal) will be running the hen-house. I could vote for an openly Atheist Republican, assuming they supported rights for gays, women and minorities.

For example, in the current California Senate and Governor races, I watched the primaries closely. I love Barbara Boxer and what she stands for, and Fironia is a woman whose legacy at HP involves lay-offs and a Golden Parachute after running it into the ground. Whitman is a better businesswoman and candidate, and Brown is kinda mediocre. I’m voting for Brown, but I won’t cry in my beer if Whitman happens to win.

[poorgradstudent]

Unlike a lot of people, I actually think despite the recent economic hiccup, the United States is still the greatest country on earth, and perhaps has the strongest political system; certainly in the top ten. Direct Democracy has many flaws, but it beats every other system that’s been tried.

On national issues I support personal freedom. I could never vote for a candidate who believed in taking rights away from certain groups of people just because they’re different.

I also believe the income distribution in this country is ridiculous. The rich reap the rewards of what taxes pay for but don’t contribute their fair share. Most arguments about wealth creation and marginal tax rates are silly; we’re no where near overtaxing productivity. I admire the governments and systems of the Scandinavian countries; highly socially liberal, and strong economies despite relatively high tax rates. In my youth I considered moving to Sweden, where my family roots stem from.

All this means I just can’t vote for a Republican. George W. Bush did a lot of damage in my mind to a brand I wasn’t a huge fan of to begin with; he was truly *Anti*-science in his policies, including funding for research. I considered Arnold, but voted against him both times. Perhaps in two decades “South Park Republicans” (true small government, socially liberal) will be running the hen-house. I could vote for an openly Atheist Republican, assuming they supported rights for gays, women and minorities.

For example, in the current California Senate and Governor races, I watched the primaries closely. I love Barbara Boxer and what she stands for, and Fironia is a woman whose legacy at HP involves lay-offs and a Golden Parachute after running it into the ground. Whitman is a better businesswoman and candidate, and Brown is kinda mediocre. I’m voting for Brown, but I won’t cry in my beer if Whitman happens to win.

[poorgradstudent]

Unlike a lot of people, I actually think despite the recent economic hiccup, the United States is still the greatest country on earth, and perhaps has the strongest political system; certainly in the top ten. Direct Democracy has many flaws, but it beats every other system that’s been tried.

On national issues I support personal freedom. I could never vote for a candidate who believed in taking rights away from certain groups of people just because they’re different.

I also believe the income distribution in this country is ridiculous. The rich reap the rewards of what taxes pay for but don’t contribute their fair share. Most arguments about wealth creation and marginal tax rates are silly; we’re no where near overtaxing productivity. I admire the governments and systems of the Scandinavian countries; highly socially liberal, and strong economies despite relatively high tax rates. In my youth I considered moving to Sweden, where my family roots stem from.

All this means I just can’t vote for a Republican. George W. Bush did a lot of damage in my mind to a brand I wasn’t a huge fan of to begin with; he was truly *Anti*-science in his policies, including funding for research. I considered Arnold, but voted against him both times. Perhaps in two decades “South Park Republicans” (true small government, socially liberal) will be running the hen-house. I could vote for an openly Atheist Republican, assuming they supported rights for gays, women and minorities.

For example, in the current California Senate and Governor races, I watched the primaries closely. I love Barbara Boxer and what she stands for, and Fironia is a woman whose legacy at HP involves lay-offs and a Golden Parachute after running it into the ground. Whitman is a better businesswoman and candidate, and Brown is kinda mediocre. I’m voting for Brown, but I won’t cry in my beer if Whitman happens to win.

[briansd1]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
Because “they are bitter”? 🙂

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But America is a land of optimists and positive thinking. True or not – most people believe that there is a good deal of meritocracy and class mobility here. I may be broke today but I truly believe that in this society I can move up and join the ranks of the rich. Therefore, I would not support policies that advocate taxing their wealth away.

In most of the world elsewhere people view things differently. Rich/aristocrats are a separate class – one can never join them. So it is OK to tax their wealth away.
[/quote]

That would be rational if there really was upward mobility.

The truth is that social mobility in America isn’t much different than in Europe.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
And finally, working class conservatives probably feel threatened by the elitist leaders of social liberalism. GOP candidates probably do a better job connecting with them on some level.[/quote]

That’s a very interesting observation.

Conservative keep on saying that they want to go back to the good ol’ days of the 1950s.

Back then, conservatives were well behaved. Kids addressed their parents as Sir and Ma’am. Loud-mouthed vulgar folks would not be welcomed into a conservative home.

Judging from the popular Hollywood movies and the fashion of the 1950s, the working class looked up and wanted to emulate the elite.

Today, it seems such a paradox that conservatives would embrace and empathize with the crass vernacular of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.

Modern conservatives may hold puritan values, but they sure don’t show it.

[briansd1]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
Because “they are bitter”? 🙂

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But America is a land of optimists and positive thinking. True or not – most people believe that there is a good deal of meritocracy and class mobility here. I may be broke today but I truly believe that in this society I can move up and join the ranks of the rich. Therefore, I would not support policies that advocate taxing their wealth away.

In most of the world elsewhere people view things differently. Rich/aristocrats are a separate class – one can never join them. So it is OK to tax their wealth away.
[/quote]

That would be rational if there really was upward mobility.

The truth is that social mobility in America isn’t much different than in Europe.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
And finally, working class conservatives probably feel threatened by the elitist leaders of social liberalism. GOP candidates probably do a better job connecting with them on some level.[/quote]

That’s a very interesting observation.

Conservative keep on saying that they want to go back to the good ol’ days of the 1950s.

Back then, conservatives were well behaved. Kids addressed their parents as Sir and Ma’am. Loud-mouthed vulgar folks would not be welcomed into a conservative home.

Judging from the popular Hollywood movies and the fashion of the 1950s, the working class looked up and wanted to emulate the elite.

Today, it seems such a paradox that conservatives would embrace and empathize with the crass vernacular of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.

Modern conservatives may hold puritan values, but they sure don’t show it.

[briansd1]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
Because “they are bitter”? 🙂

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But America is a land of optimists and positive thinking. True or not – most people believe that there is a good deal of meritocracy and class mobility here. I may be broke today but I truly believe that in this society I can move up and join the ranks of the rich. Therefore, I would not support policies that advocate taxing their wealth away.

In most of the world elsewhere people view things differently. Rich/aristocrats are a separate class – one can never join them. So it is OK to tax their wealth away.
[/quote]

That would be rational if there really was upward mobility.

The truth is that social mobility in America isn’t much different than in Europe.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
And finally, working class conservatives probably feel threatened by the elitist leaders of social liberalism. GOP candidates probably do a better job connecting with them on some level.[/quote]

That’s a very interesting observation.

Conservative keep on saying that they want to go back to the good ol’ days of the 1950s.

Back then, conservatives were well behaved. Kids addressed their parents as Sir and Ma’am. Loud-mouthed vulgar folks would not be welcomed into a conservative home.

Judging from the popular Hollywood movies and the fashion of the 1950s, the working class looked up and wanted to emulate the elite.

Today, it seems such a paradox that conservatives would embrace and empathize with the crass vernacular of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.

Modern conservatives may hold puritan values, but they sure don’t show it.

[briansd1]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
Because “they are bitter”? 🙂

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But America is a land of optimists and positive thinking. True or not – most people believe that there is a good deal of meritocracy and class mobility here. I may be broke today but I truly believe that in this society I can move up and join the ranks of the rich. Therefore, I would not support policies that advocate taxing their wealth away.

In most of the world elsewhere people view things differently. Rich/aristocrats are a separate class – one can never join them. So it is OK to tax their wealth away.
[/quote]

That would be rational if there really was upward mobility.

The truth is that social mobility in America isn’t much different than in Europe.

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
And finally, working class conservatives probably feel threatened by the elitist leaders of social liberalism. GOP candidates probably do a better job connecting with them on some level.[/quote]

That’s a very interesting observation.

Conservative keep on saying that they want to go back to the good ol’ days of the 1950s.

Back then, conservatives were well behaved. Kids addressed their parents as Sir and Ma’am. Loud-mouthed vulgar folks would not be welcomed into a conservative home.

Judging from the popular Hollywood movies and the fashion of the 1950s, the working class looked up and wanted to emulate the elite.

Today, it seems such a paradox that conservatives would embrace and empathize with the crass vernacular of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.

Modern conservatives may hold puritan values, but they sure don’t show it.

[Author]

Posts