acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/2600599
I often wonder why people support one party or another and hold fast, but sometimes support a view of the other... and within that wonder why people support the person their party "chooses"... because often times they arent the best candidate(s) nor do they hold true to "your" views...
I could be wrong but IMO the party nominates the "most electable." Eg., McCain is not/was not the truest of conservatives/republicans but rather the most electable of the lot. Ron Paul was probably the most conservative and his ideals are probably the closest to those of most republicans but his views would probably be too extreme to be electable by the masses. One has to remember that there is a large number of independent or swing voters that have to be nurtured. Paul is not that kinda guy which is IMO is exactly why he is deserving of respect, if not for his views than for the strength of his convictions. You may not hold the same convictions as as him, but IMO have to respect the fact that he truly does believe what he believes and will not waver on those convictions. It is this very quality of him that I admire, not so much for the view itself, but for the strength of it. It is also the quality that makes him unelectable.
IMO voters often don't pick the best guy for the job, they vote based on their pocketbooks. If they are doing well, the status quo continues. If they are in fear at all, they choose the party that is not presently sitting in the White House with the feeling that the present administration caused it and the other party promises to fix it. Look at the last few elections where a party change was made in the White house, we were either in or near a recession in every one. End of Ford's term, Carter's term, papa Bush's term, all recessions. End of Clinton's term, going into one. End of baby Bush's term, obvious and this will continue IMO. I would be quite surprised if the dems didn't take the White House based on this premise alone, nothing else seems to matter.
There are many instances in which one may hold views that conflict with the parties. Eg., you are a republican who believes in the promise of say, stem cell research or a democrat who believes in the 2nd Amendment, and the list could go on forever.
Personally, I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal with an extreme emphasis on the Constitution so I cannot, in good conscience, support either party. Each party has qualities that I like and despise, as such neither is worthy of any support from me. The libertarian party once held promise but have since gone sideways. This leads me to look more at honor, integrity, strength of conviction, leadership qualities, intelligence combined with common sense, and the like rather than policy. We haven't seen these qualities in quite some time IMO.
I'd like to do away with the parties altogether but that won't happen. The machines in both are simply too big and will fight for their very survival and it is human nature to have a sense of "belonging." Problem is that they are inherently divisive which is what keeps them in power. United we stand, divided we fall, and they will certainly keep it that way, it keeps their power bases intact.
http:///forum/post/2600599
I often wonder why people support one party or another and hold fast, but sometimes support a view of the other... and within that wonder why people support the person their party "chooses"... because often times they arent the best candidate(s) nor do they hold true to "your" views...
I could be wrong but IMO the party nominates the "most electable." Eg., McCain is not/was not the truest of conservatives/republicans but rather the most electable of the lot. Ron Paul was probably the most conservative and his ideals are probably the closest to those of most republicans but his views would probably be too extreme to be electable by the masses. One has to remember that there is a large number of independent or swing voters that have to be nurtured. Paul is not that kinda guy which is IMO is exactly why he is deserving of respect, if not for his views than for the strength of his convictions. You may not hold the same convictions as as him, but IMO have to respect the fact that he truly does believe what he believes and will not waver on those convictions. It is this very quality of him that I admire, not so much for the view itself, but for the strength of it. It is also the quality that makes him unelectable.
IMO voters often don't pick the best guy for the job, they vote based on their pocketbooks. If they are doing well, the status quo continues. If they are in fear at all, they choose the party that is not presently sitting in the White House with the feeling that the present administration caused it and the other party promises to fix it. Look at the last few elections where a party change was made in the White house, we were either in or near a recession in every one. End of Ford's term, Carter's term, papa Bush's term, all recessions. End of Clinton's term, going into one. End of baby Bush's term, obvious and this will continue IMO. I would be quite surprised if the dems didn't take the White House based on this premise alone, nothing else seems to matter.
There are many instances in which one may hold views that conflict with the parties. Eg., you are a republican who believes in the promise of say, stem cell research or a democrat who believes in the 2nd Amendment, and the list could go on forever.
Personally, I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal with an extreme emphasis on the Constitution so I cannot, in good conscience, support either party. Each party has qualities that I like and despise, as such neither is worthy of any support from me. The libertarian party once held promise but have since gone sideways. This leads me to look more at honor, integrity, strength of conviction, leadership qualities, intelligence combined with common sense, and the like rather than policy. We haven't seen these qualities in quite some time IMO.
I'd like to do away with the parties altogether but that won't happen. The machines in both are simply too big and will fight for their very survival and it is human nature to have a sense of "belonging." Problem is that they are inherently divisive which is what keeps them in power. United we stand, divided we fall, and they will certainly keep it that way, it keeps their power bases intact.
