Political Outlook

by sdmf at 03/28/09 6:39PM
How would you describe your political beliefs/outlook?

Pretty sure most will be the same, considering the group, but I am interested in seeing how people label themselves.
  • plato
    So are some "conservatives," see Bush, Cheney, McCain, et all "neocons."
    by plato at 04/11/09 11:10AM
  • packetstorm5150
    There's a difference in making bad decisions and being an idiot. I point to exhibit a: the lady who said she wouldn't have to pay for gas because Obama won the election. :p
    by packetstorm5150 at 04/11/09 10:05PM
  • plato
    You're right, perhaps "evil" better describes them. I do not believe they made just bad decisions, but often times purposely evil/sinful ones in order to exploit, defraud, murder, and steal.
    by plato at 04/13/09 9:25AM
  • the_gaffer
    I'm a classic liberal, driven by Big Brother to a position somewhere between the Constitution party and the Guns & Dope party. Really.
    by the_gaffer at 08/11/09 8:07PM
  • je
    Still not willing to check out America's Independent Party?
    by je at 08/13/09 7:20AM
  • the_gaffer
    I checked it out a long time ago.
    by the_gaffer at 08/14/09 7:37PM
  • je
    And what was there that you disagreed with?
    by je at 08/16/09 3:11PM
  • the_gaffer
    They struck me as being populist. The Constitution party was already around, and there is little in their platform that I disagree with.
    by the_gaffer at 08/16/09 8:38PM
  • the_gaffer
    And the Guns and Dope party is really just a joke. They say that if everybody that had guns and everybody that has some kind of interest drugs got together, that they could rule the nation under the banner " If you tollerate my hobbies, I'll tolerate yours".
    One of those crazy parties that promotes personal responsibility.
    by the_gaffer at 08/16/09 8:45PM
  • je
    I'm not sure what you mean by "populist". I've found it defined as "A supporter of the rights and power of the people." If that's what you mean, how is that a bad thing? And what, in particular, do you find populist about them?
    by je at 08/19/09 6:26PM
  • je
    One week, and no answer from gaffer. Has he just been busy, did he forget to reply, or does he just not have a good answer? (I don't mean to single him out, but this seems to be pretty typical of the attitude toward AIP--dismiss them out of hand, throw unfounded accusations at them, and then run away. Nothing personal against gaffer--whose opinions I generally greatly respect--but this needs to be addressed. If there's something wrong with AIP, I want to know it so I can get out. If not, the prejudice against them needs to be exposed. Or maybe gaffer really did just forget to answer.)
    by je at 08/27/09 10:41AM
  • the_gaffer
    Someone told me that I had been called out here, and I see it's true!
    OK. Let me see if I can explain why I am not a member of the AI party.
    Their platform, displayed on their webpage, is populist. By that, I mean that they merely beat the same drum of discontent that we get from CNN, Fox news and displays that are meant to whip up emotion rather than thought.
    The basic fodder put out front shows a somewhat conservative and somewhat constitutional pattern, but is vague or misleading in some key areas.
    It wants to end the rule of liberals. What does that mean? I am a liberal of sorts and wish that the government had more like me there to drag it back into constitutional guidelines.
    There is no mention in the platform of the ammendments to the constitution that were instituted by the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. I personally think that the 17th amendment has killed us, and throw weight behind anyone that is in favor of seeing it repealed. Like the CP does.
    The AI talks about the protection of life (aka abortion), while the Constitution party has the same concern for all of natural life, including the aged. In these days when "death panels" are talked about, they have already taken the high ground.
    The AI is predominantly a California group, which is fine, because every party has to start somewhere, eh? But from 91-08, it was affiliated with the Taxpayer/ Constitution party, but broke off for no reason that I can see except these:
    1. To put up, in their own words, a "popular platform".
    2. To allow Alan keys a slot to run for president for the umpteenth time.
    Now I have voted for Al in the past. He knows what to say and when to say it. But having watched him for the past decade now, I do not feel inclined to vote for him anymore. He was defeated by Chuck Baldwin in the CP primaries and jumped ship to the AIP
    by the_gaffer at 08/27/09 7:03PM
  • the_gaffer
    after that defeat.
    Also, he is a neo-con and I am not. He, and by association the AIP, do not hold my non-interventionist views. The CP does.
    by the_gaffer at 08/27/09 7:59PM
  • je
    I don't see anything in the platform about "ending the rule of liberals". I even ran it through my word processor, and searched for the phrase, in case I missed it; and it's not there. Neither is the word "liberals" or even "liberal".

    When you mention the 17th Amendment, I know you're definitely looking at the wrong party. America's Independent Party has in its platform the repeal of not only the 17th, but also the 16th Amendment.

    So apparently you've been looking at the wrong website. America's Independent Party's site is aipnews.com. I encourage you to take a look.

    I will agree that many of their positions are very similar to those of the CP. But I don't see why that should be a problem.

    If by "non-interventionist" you mean that we shouldn't retaliate against an organization that killed nearly 3,000 of our innocent citizens--on our soil--then you are right that the AIP is probably no place for you. But in all fairness, your charicature of Keyes' foreign policy is grossly over-simplified. Although he supports war against radical Islamic terrorism, he does not at all approve of the way that Bush conducted the war. He does not believe that "establishing democracy" should be a war aim. And I don't think he believes we should be interfering in the affairs of other nations. He does believe in peace through strength, and in defending our nation from foreign enemies, and in striking back against any who would attack us. I'm guessing you do to. Does that mean you're a neo-con?

    I'm not saying that the prejudice originated with you, but it does seem that you have some biased information. Again, I encourage you to take a look at AMERICA'S Independent Party at aipnews.com. There may very well be something there that you disagree with, but you would do well to at least take an unbiased look, which clearly you have not yet had the opportunity to do.

    And by the way, even if you don't agree with us on everything, you may be able to agree on enough to work with us. If you're registered with the CP, you can still join AIP, too. They accept members (and candidates) who are active in other parties, as long as they agree on a few important core principles. This could even be a way for you to use AIP to garner support for some of your CP candidates.

    And lest you think I'm a mere Alan Keyes apologist--I voted for Chuck Baldwin.
    by je at 08/27/09 10:22PM
  • the_gaffer
    I perused the site you identified.
    I guess the bigest difference in parties that I could easily define is that the AIP touts conservatism, while the CP holds up the banner of liberty.
    by the_gaffer at 08/27/09 10:43PM
  • je
    What?! Did you even glance at the platform? Some of the headings are:

    Equal rights for our posterity

    The “reason for being” of government, and of America’s Independent Party

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    Restoring limited government

    Peace through strength

    Sovereignty

    Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments


    Those don't have anything to do with liberty? It's all just conservative political philosophy, and doesn't uphold freedom?

    Earlier, you said, "I personally think that the 17th amendment has killed us, and throw weight behind anyone that is in favor of seeing it repealed." Does that apply to AIP, or were you just saying that because you thought AIP didn't support the repeal of the 17th?
    by je at 08/28/09 8:22AM
  • the_gaffer
    The CP is against repealing the 16th also. I was just speaking my own emphasis. The AIP is not the evil party nor the stupid party. It is, in my mind, a splinter group from the CP. I am not against it. It just doesn't line up as well as the CP does with me. Check out their platform and then tell me where I am misled.
    by the_gaffer at 08/28/09 3:46PM
  • je
    Ok, that's fair.

    There has been quite a bit of false or misleading information popping up about AIP. I'm just trying to set the record straight, and separate truth from malicious rumor. (Not that you had malicious intent, but perhaps one of your information sources did, or else were themselves misled.) But if you just don't line up with AIP, that's completely different, (although I do think you'd find that you have more with them in common than you think if you would dig a little deeper.)

    I kind of feel the same way about the CP. I agree with them on almost everything, but I do match up slightly better with AIP. I also believe AIP is better organized, and will be much more effective in advancing a Constitutionalist agenda.
    by je at 08/28/09 10:09PM
  • plato
    The Party and its 2 wings have the system so locked down that it doesn't matter anyways. The AIP, CP, L, etc. None of them have a chance in my opinion. The only hope is an abolishment of the Party (or System) itself. Hence the name, Ron Paul REVOLUTION.

    Just my 2 cents worth.
    by plato at 08/31/09 9:50PM
  • je
    That's kind of along the same lines of the AIP philosophy. We understand that part of the problem with the GOP--the reason they are no longer a conservative party--is because somewhere along the line, they became more concerned about getting and holding power for the party than about standing up for the principles of their base.

    In order to avoid making that same mistake, AIP has put a couple of measures in place: First of all, to have a voice in the decisions of the party, you have to sign an affiliation agreement stating that you will adhere to a few basic principles (respect for life, respect for the Constitution, etc.) This is designed to keep out such "moderates" and compromisers as have ruined the GOP.

    Secondly, since they are looking at restoring the power to the people--not grabbing power for the party--they have adopted a policy of endorsing candidates based on their policy positions, without regard to party. Most the candidates they have endorsed so far have been true conservative Republicans, not registered AIP canidates.

    AIP leaders talk all the time about taking power back from the parties, and from the political system, and giving it back to the people. So it sounds like you have enough in common that you might want to look into them a little further.

    Link:
    by je at 09/02/09 10:45AM