Libertarian Party is the best.
Always lose.
So we’re without fault.
Always lose.
So we’re without fault.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
democrat or republican
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
I voted Democrat in the midterms and will do so again in 2024, the overarching reason being to defeat the Republicans. If you do not understand why by now, nothing I say is likely to help.
You are without fault? I'll take that as modest humor rather than mindless naivete.
I used to support the Democrats. My grandfather supported them, too. He always used to say "The Republicans are for the rich, while the Democrats are for the working man."
Also, it became quickly apparent to me early in life that Republicans were the party responsible for the Great Depression, while it was the Democrats who got us out of the Depression. Moreover, the Democrats under FDR and Truman created the biggest economic boom in history, which led to an enormous boost in the standard of living for Americans.
Working people were able to finally move out of tenements/slums and into better quality suburban housing. Those of us in my generation heard all about how much better it was during our time (1960s) than during our parents' or grandparents' time, as they had to live through the Depression/WW2 and even worse times prior to that (i.e., neither of my grandfathers made it past the 8th grade). I realized that it was the Democrats who made that possible, even despite the Republicans fighting them every step of the way.
Of course, I also recognized the liabilities within the Democratic Party, namely the Dixiecrats and the warmongering Democrats (though they also had quite a few peaceniks as well). However, during the Nixon era, I started to see the Republicans as the party of big business, corruption, and organized crime, whereas the Democrats (in my view) were the lesser of two evils.
But I started to grow older and the years went by, my frustration with the Democrats started to grow. I thought Carter was better than both Ford or Reagan, but the problem with Carter (and many other Democrats) was that he was rather weak and not forceful enough. He couldn't stand up to Iran, he couldn't stand up to Brezhnev, and (worst of all) he couldn't stand up to Reagan. Even within his own party, Ted Kennedy was razzing him - and there were quite a number of other Democrats who didn't like Carter.
During the 80s, the Democrats turned out to be a major disappointment. They just wimped out and gave in. They all but abandoned whatever semblance of support they had for the peace movement. Reagan was ramping up the Cold War and boosting defense spending leading to huge deficits, while the Democrats were just sitting on their thumbs.
And then when our Democratic governor ordered national guard and state police to act as paid goons and strikebreakers for the copper companies, I grew even more disillusioned with the Democrats.
It was scenes like this which ultimately caused me to reject the Democrats and turn even further left. But at the time, it was the Reaganites, the Republicans, the Moral Majority, the Cold Warriors (Birchers), and Big Business which ruled the roost. The Democrats were just wimpy, weak, ineffectual, hapless wannabes.
It was around the same time that, whatever remained of the high-minded social justice movements of the 1960s (world peace, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.) had become thoroughly corporatized and sanitized. Former hippies-turned-yuppies joined the establishment and started to have an influence, which was reflected and symbolized in the rise of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In the 24-year period from 1968 to 1992, Republicans had control of the White House for all but four of those years. The Democrats were looking pretty sick for quite a long time, yet Clinton had whatever charisma or mojo to turn things around. But by that time, I had grown politically aware enough as to be able to see through such political games.
I was leaning heavily towards socialism, although this same period in my life coincided with a certain "religious phase" I went through. I guess I got to the point where I saw no hope in politics and figured that only a miracle could have saved us. But when no miracles were forthcoming, I started looking at politics again. However, just as I have no faith in religion, I also have no faith in politics, at least not as it has been practiced.
I still lean socialist, although strictly speaking, I would be okay with a mixed Keynesian system. I still believe in the principles of equality, human rights, anti-war, anti-interventionism, economic justice. I think that we have some critical issues here in the U.S. which need to be addressed, but for a variety of reasons, neither party seems willing or able to adequately address the problems facing the country. They may pay lip service to certain causes and pass half-hearted measures to make it look like they're trying to do something. But ultimately, they're just going around in circles, and one wonders if they even know just what in the heck they're doing.
At this point, it seems the Republicans will either implode on their own, or they might go full-blown fascist. The people are in a rather funny mood these days; things seem like they're kind of in flux.
What we could see is a split from both parties. The moderate, anti-Trump Republicans may break off and form their own party (and they might just pull it off if enough big name Republicans get the backing they need to do it). This will leave what's left of the Republican Party as truly the "Trump Party," which will attract the America First crowd and move even further right.
Likewise, there are moderate and somewhat conservative Democrats who might also gravitate towards a "de-Trumpified" version of the Republicans. A party where people like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Liz Cheney could coexist side-by-side.
If that happens, what remains in the Democratic Party might move it further to the left.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Mafia godfathers have devoted followers. Pol Pot had devoted followers. So do Putin and many convicted serial killers.
Which ones should we vote for along side tRump?
The Pugs ARE the elites. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a textbook example of a conman’s mark, or John, or dip, who probably agrees with
Time for little kiddies to grow brains and backbones, then get some clues. A vote for Pugs is a vote against the working class and a vote for the aristocracy.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
A very well written post almost all of which I agree with. However, in the short term and without being naïvely optimistic, I will still vote for the Democrats over Republican conservatism, and especially Trump-treasonous-anti-Democracy-conservatism, every time. Because, as patriots for humanity and democracy as the greatest form of government, we must all fight the fake conservatism of the current US GOP.I used to support the Democrats. My grandfather supported them, too. He always used to say "The Republicans are for the rich, while the Democrats are for the working man."
Also, it became quickly apparent to me early in life that Republicans were the party responsible for the Great Depression, while it was the Democrats who got us out of the Depression. Moreover, the Democrats under FDR and Truman created the biggest economic boom in history, which led to an enormous boost in the standard of living for Americans.
Working people were able to finally move out of tenements/slums and into better quality suburban housing. Those of us in my generation heard all about how much better it was during our time (1960s) than during our parents' or grandparents' time, as they had to live through the Depression/WW2 and even worse times prior to that (i.e., neither of my grandfathers made it past the 8th grade). I realized that it was the Democrats who made that possible, even despite the Republicans fighting them every step of the way.
Of course, I also recognized the liabilities within the Democratic Party, namely the Dixiecrats and the warmongering Democrats (though they also had quite a few peaceniks as well). However, during the Nixon era, I started to see the Republicans as the party of big business, corruption, and organized crime, whereas the Democrats (in my view) were the lesser of two evils.
But I started to grow older and the years went by, my frustration with the Democrats started to grow. I thought Carter was better than both Ford or Reagan, but the problem with Carter (and many other Democrats) was that he was rather weak and not forceful enough. He couldn't stand up to Iran, he couldn't stand up to Brezhnev, and (worst of all) he couldn't stand up to Reagan. Even within his own party, Ted Kennedy was razzing him - and there were quite a number of other Democrats who didn't like Carter.
During the 80s, the Democrats turned out to be a major disappointment. They just wimped out and gave in. They all but abandoned whatever semblance of support they had for the peace movement. Reagan was ramping up the Cold War and boosting defense spending leading to huge deficits, while the Democrats were just sitting on their thumbs.
And then when our Democratic governor ordered national guard and state police to act as paid goons and strikebreakers for the copper companies, I grew even more disillusioned with the Democrats.
It was scenes like this which ultimately caused me to reject the Democrats and turn even further left. But at the time, it was the Reaganites, the Republicans, the Moral Majority, the Cold Warriors (Birchers), and Big Business which ruled the roost. The Democrats were just wimpy, weak, ineffectual, hapless wannabes.
View attachment 67594
It was around the same time that, whatever remained of the high-minded social justice movements of the 1960s (world peace, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.) had become thoroughly corporatized and sanitized. Former hippies-turned-yuppies joined the establishment and started to have an influence, which was reflected and symbolized in the rise of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In the 24-year period from 1968 to 1992, Republicans had control of the White House for all but four of those years. The Democrats were looking pretty sick for quite a long time, yet Clinton had whatever charisma or mojo to turn things around. But by that time, I had grown politically aware enough as to be able to see through such political games.
I was leaning heavily towards socialism, although this same period in my life coincided with a certain "religious phase" I went through. I guess I got to the point where I saw no hope in politics and figured that only a miracle could have saved us. But when no miracles were forthcoming, I started looking at politics again. However, just as I have no faith in religion, I also have no faith in politics, at least not as it has been practiced.
I still lean socialist, although strictly speaking, I would be okay with a mixed Keynesian system. I still believe in the principles of equality, human rights, anti-war, anti-interventionism, economic justice. I think that we have some critical issues here in the U.S. which need to be addressed, but for a variety of reasons, neither party seems willing or able to adequately address the problems facing the country. They may pay lip service to certain causes and pass half-hearted measures to make it look like they're trying to do something. But ultimately, they're just going around in circles, and one wonders if they even know just what in the heck they're doing.
At this point, it seems the Republicans will either implode on their own, or they might go full-blown fascist. The people are in a rather funny mood these days; things seem like they're kind of in flux.
What we could see is a split from both parties. The moderate, anti-Trump Republicans may break off and form their own party (and they might just pull it off if enough big name Republicans get the backing they need to do it). This will leave what's left of the Republican Party as truly the "Trump Party," which will attract the America First crowd and move even further right.
Likewise, there are moderate and somewhat conservative Democrats who might also gravitate towards a "de-Trumpified" version of the Republicans. A party where people like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Liz Cheney could coexist side-by-side.
If that happens, what remains in the Democratic Party might move it further to the left.
If the dems were pro-working class, they would make free universal healthcare.The Pugs ARE the elites. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a textbook example of a conman’s mark, or John, or dip, who probably agrees withinsaneinane expressions like “latte sipping democratic elites”, because right wing press told you to think it.
Time for little kiddies to grow brains and backbones, then get some clues. A vote for Pugs is a vote against the working class and a vote for the aristocracy.
We Never Know
No Slack
Its not as hidden as it used to be. Some wear rings, hats, have little decals on their vehicle, etc.
It's not the same thing as saying it openly.
We Never Know
No Slack
True. However if you pay attention you will see these and similar things quite often.
That symbol is on dollar bills too. It means nothing.
If someone is a Mason, they should say it.
We Never Know
No Slack
"That symbol is on dollar bills too"
I guess I have never seen that symbol on a dollar bill. Got a reference?
I disagree... those would be QAnon and similar groups.I think Freemasonry is the epitome of the Us vs Them mentality, meaning that they are better than ordinary people.
That's just my personal opinion.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Wow - 16 paragraphs and two [curated) pictures.
Fine, but could you tell us who you would tend to vote for if given the options of Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, and Socialist?
Parenthetically, as some very active in the 60's I found the following slightly insulting and extremely shallow:
"It was around the same time that, whatever remained of the high-minded social justice movements of the 1960s (world peace, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.) had become thoroughly corporatized and sanitized."
I'm not American, but I have lost all respect for the Republican Party at some point in the 1980s.
Never had any reason to reconsider. Quite on the contrary. Even before Trump, they were the party of such notables as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the Bushes.
The Democrat Party seems to be seriously flawed. Which is leagues better than the Republicans even dream of ever becoming.
Never had any reason to reconsider. Quite on the contrary. Even before Trump, they were the party of such notables as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the Bushes.
The Democrat Party seems to be seriously flawed. Which is leagues better than the Republicans even dream of ever becoming.
The eye, the pyramid ...I mean...new world order in Latin.
Novus Ordo Saeculorum annuit coeptis.
The new world order favors the initiated.
We Never Know
No Slack
So its not that symbol then.
Wow - 16 paragraphs and two [curated) pictures.
Fine, but could you tell us who you would tend to vote for if given the options of Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, and Socialist?
I didn't even count the number of paragraphs. Just some thoughts I had about the subject matter introduced in this thread.
I would vote Socialist if I could, although I still consider Democrats to be the lesser of two evils, despite any criticism I might have for them.
It wasn't meant to be insulting to those who were active in the 60s, but about the direction things went in the 80s and 90s. It may seem "shallow" to you, and there's obviously a bit more to it than that. I was just summing up what I've seen and observed over my life.