It blows my mind that Republicans call themselves fiscally conservative. How is being willing to spend a trillion dollars on a utterly pointless war fiscally conservative? Somehow they get away with that but they're "fiscally conservative" because they want to cut millions from social programs. That's a load of bull that no one should fall for.
Just in case those "fiscally conservative" Repubs have forgotten, the last balanced budget and budget surplus came under a Democratic president.
This. Fiscally conservative = cutting taxes in most recent history.
I am socially liberal/fiscally conservative but don't align myself with either party. I pretty much hate them both. I don't even see the point in voting in this presidential election to tell you the truth. Neither choice works for me.
This. I can't get past the Republican party's focus on restricting women's health options. I am fiscally conservative but socially progressive.
Oh, but I am registered Republican. I want to be able to vote in local Republican primaries to attempt to keep the scary ones out of general election. Sometimes that works. This year it didn't.
It blows my mind that Republicans call themselves fiscally conservative. How is being willing to spend a trillion dollars on a utterly pointless war fiscally conservative? Somehow they get away with that but they're "fiscally conservative" because they want to cut millions from social programs. That's a load of bull that no one should fall for.
Just in case those "fiscally conservative" Repubs have forgotten, the last balanced budget and budget surplus came under a Democratic president.
I don't consider "fiscally conservative" to be equal to "republican"
Maybe you don't, but that's what many many people claim to be and use that reason for voting Republican.
Post by mrs.spunky on Sept 18, 2012 8:56:12 GMT -5
There are several on here, some more vocal than others. I find myself becoming more libertarian every day - keep the government small, keep spending and taxes down and leave my body alone.
For those of you that don't like either candidate are you not voting 3rd party?
Honestly, I don't feel like my vote would count as much. I did consider it. I don't think Jill Stein is awesome or anything like that.
Is there a Libertarian even running? I thought JS was running for the Green Party?
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, is running under the Libertarian ticket.
ETA: He is a Ron Paul Libertarian who supports eliminating the Fed. He is also pro-choice, supports gay marriage and wants to withdraw from all foreign wars. However, I just can't get on board with his feelings on Iran and not supporting Israel if it was involved in a war with Iran.
So is mine. He's pretty much a single issue voter on the issue of taxes, which he thinks are too high. Other than that he's pretty liberal but would never vote Democrat because of their perceived fiscal extravagance. Forget trying to tell him the Republicans aren't any better though! lol
For those of you that don't like either candidate are you not voting 3rd party?
I'm pretty sure I voted 3rd party last time, and am very seriously considering doing so again. I know that person won't win, but I'm so tired of voting for the candidate I hate least.
For those of you that don't like either candidate are you not voting 3rd party?
I don't love everything about Obama (mainly middle east issues) but I'm still voting for him - I like the idea of Jill Stein, but she wouldn't know what the hell to do if she won (plus its not like she would).
It blows my mind that Republicans call themselves fiscally conservative. How is being willing to spend a trillion dollars on a utterly pointless war fiscally conservative? Somehow they get away with that but they're "fiscally conservative" because they want to cut millions from social programs. That's a load of bull that no one should fall for.
Just in case those "fiscally conservative" Repubs have forgotten, the last balanced budget and budget surplus came under a Democratic president.
I have libertarian values and tend to vote Republican. To answer your question, today's fiscal conservatism is a movement to lessen debt, balance the budget, and work towards a surplus. It doesn't mean that all spending should be avoided.
Its funny - I am very Dem, but I definitely have a libertarian side. Leave my body alone, legalize drugs, don't ban sugary sodas in NYC... etc. I definitely think you can be a Dem who wants less government. The problem is that certain protections are necessary for the health and welfare of OTHERS. Like, ban cigarettes in public places because it hurts OTHERS. Make drunk driving illegal because it hurts OTHERS. I DGAF what you do to yourself as long as you dont affect other people.
I'm a Liberal (Canada) so I'd probably be a commie by US standards, LOL. My husband, who votes Conservative up here, thinks that the Reps in the US are bsc.
I would be interested in a party that was more fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I cannot support a candidate who opposes gay marriage or is anti-abortion rights. Those two issues to me are probably dealbreakers.
I would actually like to hear from more republicans on the board. I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around Romney this year and the shit that is coming out of his mouth, that I wonder if there is anyone who truly believes what he's saying. I'm extremely liberal, but would really like to learn more about the other side in an educated and calm manner.
Feel free to ask! I am not up for a debate or for things to get nasty, but I would be willing to answer your questions.
It blows my mind that Republicans call themselves fiscally conservative. How is being willing to spend a trillion dollars on a utterly pointless war fiscally conservative? Somehow they get away with that but they're "fiscally conservative" because they want to cut millions from social programs. That's a load of bull that no one should fall for.
Just in case those "fiscally conservative" Repubs have forgotten, the last balanced budget and budget surplus came under a Democratic president.
I have libertarian values and tend to vote Republican. To answer your question, today's fiscal conservatism is a movement to lessen debt, balance the budget, and work towards a surplus. It doesn't mean that all spending should be avoided.
That's a fair assessment of fiscal conservativism. But that is NOT what the Republicans plan does. It does the opposite. And most of the Repub presidents in recent history have done similarly terrible jobs of being "fiscally conservative." The fact that that most people, including well-educated, smart people still think R's' are the party of fiscal conservatism boggles my mind.
I would actually like to hear from more republicans on the board. I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around Romney this year and the shit that is coming out of his mouth, that I wonder if there is anyone who truly believes what he's saying. I'm extremely liberal, but would really like to learn more about the other side in an educated and calm manner.
Feel free to ask! I am not up for a debate or for things to get nasty, but I would be willing to answer your questions.
What are your thoughts on Romney? Do you agree with the Reps social views as well as fiscal? If so, why? As a woman (I'm assuming you're a woman) does their view on women's rights bother you at all?
I hear a lot of people say they'd vote 3rd party if the candidate had a chance. Why does having a chance matter? If enough people are voting 3rd party do you think it would have an impact on the current system? Why does having your vote count matter to you?
I hear a lot of people say they'd vote 3rd party if the candidate had a chance. Why does having a chance matter? If enough people are voting 3rd party do you think it would have an impact on the current system? Why does having your vote count matter to you?
But if no one votes 3rd party because they don't have a chance doesn't that reinforce the current system? I'm not saying it can change overnight, but lets say 10% of voters vote 3rd party this election and then next election 15% vote and it keeps going until they're actually in the running. Does it not work this way? Am I being naive? I honestly don't know a ton about politics, it just seems like it should work that way.
If I still lived in the Northeast, I might vote for Republican local/state candidates since some of them seem to be able to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but in most of NC, Republican = socially conservative first and foremost and give some lip service to fiscal responsibility. Especially with the recent amendment defining "marriage."
Ditto.
Plus science research funding is usually stronger under a federal government of democrats and that's important for my job security.
thanks kirkette, I appreciate it I actually really enjoy talking to educated people about this, because I feel like those on my FB feed are not educated
But if no one votes 3rd party because they don't have a chance doesn't that reinforce the current system? I'm not saying it can change overnight, but lets say 10% of voters vote 3rd party this election and then next election 15% vote and it keeps going until they're actually in the running. Does it not work this way? Am I being naive? I honestly don't know a ton about politics, it just seems like it should work that way.
It's the Electoral College's fault.
I'm being TIC but those who support the EC support it in part because it reinforces the two-party system.
States rarely split their vote. In 2008, when Nebraska did, they introduced a bill (that never passed) to go to a winner-take-all situation.