Okay, I really hate the way that political parties have developed in America today. I think that national politics has become way too focused into an "us versus them" mentality, and we're not getting anything effective done in the government.
Here's the situation -- when I registered to vote four years ago when I turned 18, I registered as an independent. Although I find myself agreeing with many of the Democrats' policies (especially compared to the Republicans'), I've still never liked the Democratic Party itself.
However, the prospect of George W. Bush being elected for a second term as President of the United States leaves me feeling quite ill.
Therefore, with the upcoming primaries coming up in a few months, I'm wondering whether I should change my party affiliation so that I can vote in the primary, and contribute my own opinion concerning the Democratic candidates. After all, considering that they're the ones that I hope will get Dubya out of the White House next November, I should help choose the candidate.
The drawback, however, is that I've heard that both political party organizations end up pestering their members for campaign contributions quite frequently, once they're on the list. I recall my father getting quite a few calls when he was a registered Democrat. Does anyone have any experience to relate to me about that kind of thing? I'd like to know before I make the decision... I figure it would probably be worth it, in the end -- but I'm not sure what all the consequences might be. Information would be appreciated.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Thing is, join in political party in no way limits your ability to vote as an independent. It does however, as you point out, allow you more of a voice in the primary process whereby the candidate is chosen.
As for the second part, as a California Democrat, nobody has called me for donations. One might wonder if your father had donated money in the past and as a result got on a list or some other sort of thing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The damned Republicans send me mail sometimes asking for money, and I didn't register with any sort of affiliation at all. I've never even voted.
My parents are Republicans, though, so maybe they found out the address was the same, or something.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Join the opposite party and become a fifth columnist.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Californian Democrat, even active with a Dem technology group and I've never been pestered for donations apart from the dinner "fee" (which is generally not much more than dinner might have been otherwise.) Maybe they realize that I have no money.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We're screwed either way. We need a statesman, and Bush is the closest thing I've seen in a while. Which doesn't seem to be saying as much as I'd once hoped. None of the Democrats are any better, and third parties don't have a chance, as always. Nobody's gonna do anything all that different no matter who gets elected. Bush gets points for being an honest, decent human being, or at least looking like such for the most part. But that's not much at all.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Statesman? Shrub? Okay, Americans keep your hands down. How many of you in here from other countries think GW is a statesman?
Oy, pull the other one, Omega. All I can say is that at least he didn't puke on the Japanese Prime Minister the way his dad did...
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Join the opposite party and become a fifth columnist.
Oh yeah, like THAT'S going to work. Are the Republicans even HOLDING any primaries this year?
I will admit that none of the Democratic candidates has inspired me... yet. A few have caught my eye in one way or another over the past few months, although I haven't done any major research yet.
Despite my tendency to make jokes about him sometimes, I'll admit that he's not a BAD president, like some individuals in our country's past. He doesn't sit by and do exactly the opposite of what needs to be done and then sit on his hands and do nothing when that doesn't work -- like Herbert Hoover, for instance. He doesn't ignore the problem of sectional conflict and hope it goes away, like James Buchanan. However, from what little I know about economics, even I can see that Bush's policies for recovery are slanted far towards the rich end of the tax bracket, and aren't really going to do what he's been saying they're going to. His environmental policies are horrible and short-sighted. I have no trust at all in many of his cabinet officials -- when was the last time anything good was heard about Rumsfeld or Ashcroft, for instance? (Those two make me think "NightWatch" every time...) His actions and statements have embarrassed this country in the global community, and made irresponsible decisions that are very likely to be effecting our foreign policy for decades to come, regardless of when he leaves office. And his vice president? Dick Cheney scares me even more than Rumsfeld and Ashcroft put together!
No, there's no one, massive goof-up that I can point to and say, "This is why I think Bush is a bad president." I wasn't completely against the launch of the Iraq War. I realize that the scope and nature of the terrorist threat mandates responses that we're not really used to. But I do think that a lot of things in this country have been mishandled.
Do I think that the Democrats can do that much better of a job? No, not necessarily. But I can at least respect them a whole lot more than the buffoon we've got in Washington right now. And I think that any one of them can do a better job.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Statesman? Shrub? Okay, Americans keep your hands down. How many of you in here from other countries think GW is a statesman?
Not me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Bush gets points for being an honest, decent human being..."
How did I suddenly get into the bizarro universe?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I'll admit that he's not a BAD president..."
And how did I join you there?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If I take off my hat will I have a third eye????
State no party affiliation, which reminds me, IL didn't even ask.... I found something to like about this state.... Certainly not the drivers, lack of police on the roads, and several of the laws (making new ones instead of enforcing old ones).....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Omega liking George isn't crazy. But looking closely, THIS might be:
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Bush gets points for being an honest, decent human being, or at least looking like such for the most part. But that's not much at all.
Isn't that getting dangerously close to Omega criticising Mr Bush? That's more bizaro than anything else in the universe ever.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
OK...I'll make myself the target of much scorn.
FIRST...I don't agree with EVERYTHING that Bush has done. From Environmental issues to Economics.
However, we are at WAR. Bush stated after 9-11 that it would be a LONG war and UNCONVENTIONAL. We are not fighting against a nation itent on conquest, but an IDEALISM intent on the destruction of anything related to the Western World or Judeo-Christendom. It's amazing that a large group of people are crying to "Stop the Hate" concerning gay rights but not for the devisive religious, or racial tirades that are occuring.
And before I get flamed... YES, the Crusades WERE WRONG, just as Jihad is WRONG. Government should neither establish nor prohibit religion. Its far too easy to stir up USEFUL IDIOTS in anger and selfrighteousness to commit attrocities in the name of God.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I support anti-American terrorism.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What an odd statement.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Quite.
And as for my criticizing Bush, my statement was not intended to convey that. I simply wished to cover the possibility that he was not as he seemed to be. And I never said Bush was a statesman, simply that he was as close as I'd seen in a while. I won't be happy with a government until I'm running it, and Bush is no exception.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
feeling a touch mislead???? and you are misleading youself, Kaiser Omega....
Yes, that is an odd statement, but considering the source.... I shrug here....
How does one truly battle an idealism that has nothing but the complete and utter destruction of your way of life as it's goal???? You can't combat them, it gains enemies.... You can't give them aide, it gains enemies.... You can't ignore them, it gains enemies.... You can't reason with them, they are beyond that....
You are simply fucked and must do something, so you try all but the ignore part.... and it gain enemies....
Either by throwing you military or economic might around you are a bully or an arrogant fuck-wit...
We can not win, so we must kill you all.....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
How you battle it? You eliminate the socio-economic conditions that are a feeding ground for extremism.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Which involves gobs of money well-spent. I think it would be terribly ironic if we actually had the stones to start building good schools all over Iraq and Afghanistan, thus preventing ignorance from being able to take root quite so easily. Ironic because we've been needing gobs of money for our schools for decades. *sigh*
--Jonah
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Money isn't a cure. If it was, then there shouldn't be any welfare recipients left in America. Unfortunately, the "system" only produces further generations of "needy".
What is needed is FORGIVENESS. AND, it needs to be TAUGHT from day one. Then Personal Responsibility 101. What happened to you might be somebody else's fault, but what YOU DO from there isn't.
Everyone has a tragedy in life. Everyone has had crap happen. But, it is very few that get back up and determine that it will not defeat them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"How does one truly battle an idealism that has nothing but the complete and utter destruction of your way of life as it's goal????"
You stop doing the shit that's pissing them off.
But, in our case, we just kept doing it with renewed vigor. And yet we still can't figure out why they hate us. Hm...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I didn't say start throwing money at people. That doesn't work. I said start throwing money at educating people. Teaching them to think for themselves. Gives less opening for other people to think for them.
I don't have much respect for any religion that requires ignorance in order to thrive. Anything that doesn't welcome rational scrutiny is to be treated as suspect, in my opinion. One of the reasons I'm glad I was raised Episcopalian. They welcome free enquiry, examination of doctrine, questioning of beliefs... I think I came out of all that (with help from my parents' scientific-mindedness in the first place) with a pretty strong personality and moral compass.
--Jonah
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You stop doing the shit that's pissing them off.
Like... breathing?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Like fucking around in the Mid-East like we own the world.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, does that include aide to help out those that need it????
It isn't that we are over there that has them pissed off TSN, it is the fact that we exist and are not conforming to there way of life and their beliefs.... No options, we are to convert or die, not stay home or die....
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
There is no tolerance until nobody is wrong. And everything is acceptable. If there are no wrongs, then ALL behaviour is acceptable?
Politically Correct Math:
2 + 2 = 7 or 19 or well whatever you want it to be.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It isn't that we are over there that has them pissed off TSN, it is the fact that we exist and are not conforming to there way of life and their beliefs.... No options, we are to convert or die, not stay home or die...."
If this were true, they'd be attacking every country that isn't Muslim. When was the last time you heard of al-Qaeda (or whoever) flying a plane into, say, Big Ben, or the Brandenburg Gate, or the Kremlin? It's the US they call "the Great Satan", not the entire non-Muslim world.
Now, granted, you're always going to have a few nujobs who will want to blow people up no matter what. But, if the US had never interfered with anything in the Mid-East, the WTC/Pentagon attacks, for one, never would have occured.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And the fact is, it's going to take a LOOOOOOONG time before the situation gets tangibly better. And I don't just mean better as in "We blew up a terrorist cell", but better as in "We've eliminated a lot of the conditions that have caused people to want to become terrorists".
Look at the Ireland situation. How long has that been going on for? And that's a place that's far smaller, filled with people who are, apparently, closer to our mindset than those in the middle east. You can't expect to get the middle east to stop hating you tomorrow. You can't expect them to stop hating you for at least a decade, and unfortunatly (or not), that's way past election time.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)