Question Political Spectrum

[This Year's Girl]

Love you!!! 😀 wish I could give you karma but I'm om my phone. I tomorrow 🙂

I love politics. I'm not old enough to vote yet (one more year!), but I'm very liberal, for the record. I'm planning on registering Independent because oi, mainstream U.S. politics is not pretty on either side.

I do prefer most Democratic candidates, but I can't say I'll act simply along party lines. Most of all, I'm a feminist. For me that means anti-sexism, racism, classism, ableism, sizeism, cissexism, homophobia, etc., whether institutional or overt. Yup, one of those anti-kyriarchical feminists who believes that all oppression is connected. Radical by most standards, but proud of it- I think there's a false correlation between radical and "crazy" out there.

tl;dr version: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, pro-universal healthcare, pro-constitutional rights. Anti-war, anti-Islamophobia, anti-relying on the "invisible hand" of the market to fix everything.

How cool is it that this thread is friendly to all? 😀

 

[Tome]

I don't really like to classify myself. But... I'm more left wing than right wing. I'm more liberal than conservative. I just think that on most cases, people should have the right to choose and feel free. So, obviously I'm for gay marriage! When it comes to abortion though, it's difficult for me to decide what I'm more for... On one hand I think it's wrong to kill something that *will* end up being alive. But on the other hand, I can see some scenarios where a woman would have some, if not all of her life screwed up by having a kid. Weither it's an accident at a very young age, or rape, or something of that nature. On these cases I'm leaning more toward pro-choice.

As for guns... Well I know how it is in the USA. It's not the same thing here in Canada. Lots of people here don't have guns since they don't feel like they'll need to defend themselves from someone. But from the stories I've heard from multiple american friends over the years, I think I'd be pro-gun if I lived there.

I also have seen people comment 'capital punishment'. Well I'm totally against that. People(no matter what they did) shouldn't be killed.

Aside from that... Well as for the protection of environment and feminism, I can't say I'm a big follower, but I support them both, my own way. 😛

 

[zobothehobo]

Im pro-life, pro-gun, anti-animal testing, anti-prostitution, pro-patting-down-at-the-airport, anti-KanyeWest and it doesnt bother me if gays serve in the military. I have no idea where that lands me on the scale but from past experiences Im severly more conservative than most everyone here. I dont belong to any specific party but the one presidential election Ive been old enough to participate in, I voted Republican because Obama is pro-choice.
Posted via Mobile Device

Ok, I said I'd stay out of this thread and I really should... But I've heard this said by other people and I really honestly don't get it. You voted for McCain BECAUSE Obama is pro-choice. What makes that ONE ISSUE bigger than all the others? I mean it's not even an issue Obama's been pushing. It's not an issue he pushed in his campaign. I just don't really think that issue is all that relevant in the grand scheme of things. I mean Obama also thinks gay marriage should be gay civil unions which I think is separate but equal but I still would have voted for him if I was old enough because that's not an issue he pushed and it's not one of the main issues we had to deal with as soon as he got into office. Same thing with pro-life/pro-choice. It's just something he believes but it's not something he pushed or is pushing... so I don't understand not voting for him because of his stance on an issue that's not really a relatively big or important issue and that's not being pushed by the candidate in question.

 

[white avenger]

Ok, I said I'd stay out of this thread and I really should... But I've heard this said by other people and I really honestly don't get it. You voted for McCain BECAUSE Obama is pro-choice. What makes that ONE ISSUE bigger than all the others? I mean it's not even an issue Obama's been pushing. It's not an issue he pushed in his campaign. I just don't really think that issue is all that relevant in the grand scheme of things. I mean Obama also thinks gay marriage should be gay civil unions which I think is separate but equal but I still would have voted for him if I was old enough because that's not an issue he pushed and it's not one of the main issues we had to deal with as soon as he got into office. Same thing with pro-life/pro-choice. It's just something he believes but it's not something he pushed or is pushing... so I don't understand not voting for him because of his stance on an issue that's not really a relatively big or important issue and that's not being pushed by the candidate in question.

This is a topic that you can discuss/debate/argue over until the cows come home without ever getting an answer that it completely agreeable to everyone. The vast majority of people do vote for a candidate because of his or her stance on a particular issue, and that issue might seem totally irrelevant to others. Others might vote for the candidate for any number of reasons. I'm sure that more than a few people voted for Schwarzenegger in California simply because he was the Terminator, and I'm also certain that there were quite a few people who voted for Obama simply because he was a member of a racial minority. Conversely, and sadly, I'm also sure that just as many people voted FOR McCain just to keep that racial minority candidate out of the White House.

People vote for, or against, particular candidates for any number of reasons, some as trivial as voting for John Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon simply because Nixon looked sweaty and unshaven in the close ups in the Kennedy/Nixon Debates. The truth of the matter is, very few people ever bother to make their choices from careful study and assessment of the candidate's total qualifications, or lack thereof. They pick one issue that is, to them, very important, and vote for the candidate who most closely professes to share their opinions on that issue. Gun control, gay rights, abortion, equal opportunity, or simply party affiliations, become the determining factor for casting their vote, regardless of what the candidate believes or supports on other issues.

And that's not just the American way, it's the HUMAN way. It's like that all over the world.

 

[MRNewman]

This is a topic that you can discuss/debate/argue over until the cows come home without ever getting an answer that it completely agreeable to everyone. The vast majority of people do vote for a candidate because of his or her stance on a particular issue, and that issue might seem totally irrelevant to others. Others might vote for the candidate for any number of reasons. I'm sure that more than a few people voted for Schwarzenegger in California simply because he was the Terminator, and I'm also certain that there were quite a few people who voted for Obama simply because he was a member of a racial minority. Conversely, and sadly, I'm also sure that just as many people voted FOR McCain just to keep that racial minority candidate out of the White House.

People vote for, or against, particular candidates for any number of reasons, some as trivial as voting for John Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon simply because Nixon looked sweaty and unshaven in the close ups in the Kennedy/Nixon Debates. The truth of the matter is, very few people ever bother to make their choices from careful study and assessment of the candidate's total qualifications, or lack thereof. They pick one issue that is, to them, very important, and vote for the candidate who most closely professes to share their opinions on that issue. Gun control, gay rights, abortion, equal opportunity, or simply party affiliations, become the determining factor for casting their vote, regardless of what the candidate believes or supports on other issues.

And that's not just the American way, it's the HUMAN way. It's like that all over the world.

It's true. A LOT of people vote on single issues. Example - in 2004, how many Americans voted for Kerry solely because he wasn't George W. Bush. Same with McCain over Obama.

Personally, I liked John McCain - liked him when he ran in 2000, liked him again in 2008. That's just me, though.

 

[zobothehobo]

It's true. A LOT of people vote on single issues. Example - in 2004, how many Americans voted for Kerry solely because he wasn't George W. Bush. Same with McCain over Obama.

Personally, I liked John McCain - liked him when he ran in 2000, liked him again in 2008. That's just me, though.

Honestly, I don't think the single issue of Kerry not being Bush was the same thing as the single issue of abortions. That was relevant AND it's more than just one issue. Plus seriously, if you don't like the current president THAT much, why vote for him again? I'm not going to comment on any particular feeling about Bush or Kerry in particular... but if there was a president I thought was doing a REALLY SUPER awful job, I'd do everything in my power to get them out of office. Even if that means voting for some BECAUSE they're not that president. It's like you've got 2 major choices. 1 and 2. You've seen 1 for four years now and you don't like it. Doesn't it make sense to pick 2 this time? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. So I really don't think those two "single issues" can be equated.

 

[MRNewman]

Honestly, I don't think the single issue of Kerry not being Bush was the same thing as the single issue of abortions. That was relevant AND it's more than just one issue. Plus seriously, if you don't like the current president THAT much, why vote for him again? I'm not going to comment on any particular feeling about Bush or Kerry in particular... but if there was a president I thought was doing a REALLY SUPER awful job, I'd do everything in my power to get them out of office. Even if that means voting for some BECAUSE they're not that president. It's like you've got 2 major choices. 1 and 2. You've seen 1 for four years now and you don't like it. Doesn't it make sense to pick 2 this time? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. So I really don't think those two "single issues" can be equated.

I've seen a number of people who vote only on the issue of abortion or the issue of same-sex marriage or any number of single issue voters. I know some of these people personally.

It's hard to change these people's minds as that's the thing that matters most to them. Even if they disagree with said person on every other issue.

 

[brinkster130]

zobothehobo agrees: I know that. But the point of my question was why? I don't understand why. I know that it happens... but why? What makes that issue so much more important than ALL of the others?

I don't think you will ever get a straight answer on why some people care about one issue more than other issues. I suppose for some people its because it's an issue that personally effects them or a loved one, maybe it's an issue they know lots about or maybe it's just an issue they are passionate about. I think the 'why?' will be different for each individual voting based on that individual issue.

 

[VisionGirl]

Ok, I said I'd stay out of this thread and I really should... But I've heard this said by other people and I really honestly don't get it. You voted for McCain BECAUSE Obama is pro-choice. What makes that ONE ISSUE bigger than all the others? I mean it's not even an issue Obama's been pushing. It's not an issue he pushed in his campaign.

I agree, especially because a Republican presidency (& a Republican-controlled Congress) doesn't mean Roe v Wade will get overturned, or that anything different will happen on this issue! Look at the 8 years of GWB!

But I agree with others that you will not get a clear answer to this question.

And FTR, I'm a liberal/progressive Democrat, although probably not as liberal or radical as others. I definitely would not consider myself a Socialist or anything. But I'm an anomaly in my state, that just passed a law banning Sharia Law & another making English our official language (who cares about those damned Native Americans who were here before the rest of us & still speak their native languages!). @@

 

[This Year's Girl]

I guess I see socialism really differently from some of you since I grew up in Sweden and we have a very strong social democrat movement since a very long time here. But what I was going to say, I just came to think of this clip that was on the daily show, it's sooo funny! Hope you like it!:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1

I hope noone gets offended by it. I totally respect everyones opinion, I think this is something everyone can enjoy and it's poking fun of both swedes and americans 🙂 Plus, my favourite artist of all time, Robyn is in the clip! 😀

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

You guys live in a socialist nightmare. hahahahahahahah

We do. Plus, we all smell of lavender and free education 😀

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

Im pro-life, pro-gun, anti-animal testing, anti-prostitution, pro-patting-down-at-the-airport, anti-KanyeWest and it doesnt bother me if gays serve in the military. I have no idea where that lands me on the scale but from past experiences Im severly more conservative than most everyone here. I dont belong to any specific party but the one presidential election Ive been old enough to participate in, I voted Republican because Obama is pro-choice.
Posted via Mobile Device

How can you be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time? This might be one of these issues where there's a really pronounced European/American difference just because we grew up with completely different policies, but would you just take a look at the statistics of how many people get shot in the US every year, compared to Western Europe?

 

[white avenger]

How can you be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time?

Mainly because the vast majority of gun owners in the United States never use their guns for murder or any other violent purpose. Equating gun ownership with murder is like equating auto accidents with the number of traffic deaths to automobile ownership. In either case, you are blaming death on an inanimate object rather than the misuse by the owner/operator. And even if you don't see that logic, there are laws providing for punishment for those who are found guilty of murder, but there is government funding supporting abortion clinics, even though both involve the premeditated taking of human life.

No legitimate gun owner supports the concept of pro murder, whether the taking of human life is due to a bullet, a knife, or a surgical procedure.

 

[Username]

Mainly because the vast majority of gun owners in the United States never use their guns for murder or any other violent purpose. Equating gun ownership with murder is like equating auto accidents with the number of traffic deaths to automobile ownership. In either case, you are blaming death on an inanimate object rather than the misuse by the owner/operator. And even if you don't see that logic, there are laws providing for punishment for those who are found guilty of murder, but there is government funding supporting abortion clinics, even though both involve the premeditated taking of human life.

No legitimate gun owner supports the concept of pro murder, whether the taking of human life is due to a bullet, a knife, or a surgical procedure.

Why own a gun at all?
If you don't use it to hurt people then why have one, guns are made for the reason to hurt and kill right?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Mainly because the vast majority of gun owners in the United States never use their guns for murder or any other violent purpose. Equating gun ownership with murder is like equating auto accidents with the number of traffic deaths to automobile ownership.

Very well said, White Avenger... good job.

---------- Post added at 08:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

guns are made for the reason to hurt and kill right?

No, thats not right. Guns are a recreational sport here.. they have shooting sports and competitions. Some guns, particularly automatic assault rifles are made, in my opinion, for one purpose, but to lump all guns together is wrong.

 

[Harley]

I feel like I lit a fire. white avenger has done a pretty good job so far saying what I would say. Ill try to answer the questions Ive beem asked but Ill do a better job when Im not on my phone. Im a prolife activist and would view voting a prochoice president into office as a stepback in those efforts. Also someone said Bush didnt make any difference in the prolife agenda when he was in office. Thats not true. He signed a ban on partial birth abortions. That was a HUGE deal for prolife supporters. As far as the progun thing, white avenger and Scobro have pretty much said what I would say. Most everyone I know here in Michigan either owns a gun or has immediate access to one. None of those people have killed anyone.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Mumrik]

Why own a gun at all?
If you don't use it to hurt people then why have one, guns are made for the reason to hurt and kill right?

Gunshooting is a sport like any other. I know a lot of sport shooters (I don't really know if that would be the correct term in English, but I doubt it) and let me assure you, these people would never dream of pointing even an unloaded gun at another person. I like to go to the shooting range myself once in a while. Of course, you have to have a license, so obviously not anyone can walk into a shop to buy one.

Then there are also the cases of hunters, police, security and such. Those need guns too.

Of course, there are people who say it makes them feel safer to have a gun in the house in case someone breaks in, but, honestly, I could just give an intruder a kick in the unmetionables before I have walked to the weapons locker, unlocked it, got a gun and went to the location where the rounds are stored. You can't just have a gun lying around the house and this is checked up on. Of course, I'm only talking about Germany in both of these cases, I don't know how it is in other countries but sincerely hope it's not too different.

 

[Kean]

Mainly because the vast majority of gun owners in the United States never use their guns for murder or any other violent purpose.

Username, feel free to correct me here, but WA, I don't think that is exactly what is being got at here. I don't think she is trying to say that if you have a gun it signifies an intent to kill but rather if you have a gun there is a much greater chance of danger.

Does anyone have a statistic for how many accidental gun deaths there are in the U.S. every year? When I was studying in America one of my lecturers told us about her best friend's 16 year old son and his friends who were messing around with (what he thought was his fathers unloaded gun). One of the kids, joking, pointed the gun at the boy, pulled the trigger and blew his head off. If there hadn't been guns in the house, that kid would more than likely be alive now.

Regardless how innocent or pure the intent, the mere presence of guns creates a greater scope danger and violence.

I do agree with Kristine though, I think this is one of the main issues that can really show the difference between an European and an American in terms of social acceptability. In Ireland, for instance, our police force (apart from on special unit) do not have guns.

 

[zobothehobo]

I just looked it up and was unable to find a good statistic about accidental gun deaths in the short time I've got before I have to leave... but I did find the most disturbing site claiming all accidental gun deaths weren't actually deaths because of the gun shot, but rather because the doctor was too incompetent to save the person. The last line of the site was "Remember: Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

 

[Username]

Username, feel free to correct me here, but WA, I don't think that is exactly what is being got at here. I don't think she is trying to say that if you have a gun it signifies an intent to kill but rather if you have a gun there is a much greater chance of danger.

Does anyone have a statistic for how many accidental gun deaths there are in the U.S. every year? When I was studying in America one of my lecturers told us about her best friend's 16 year old son and his friends who were messing around with (what he thought was his fathers unloaded gun). One of the kids, joking, pointed the gun at the boy, pulled the trigger and blew his head off. If there hadn't been guns in the house, that kid would more than likely be alive now.

Regardless how innocent or pure the intent, the mere presence of guns creates a greater scope danger and violence.

Yes that's pretty much my opinion. Considering the damage that guns do, I would never want to have a gun in my home and I don't really understand people who do, for whatever reason they have them. you do hear horror stories like that all the time, there was boy here in Sweden a while ago who was like cleaning his dads rifle or something and it accidentally went off and he shot his younger sister to death.

 

[xfivebyfive]

I'm sorry but I don't think it makes sense to be Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice when guns have killed so many people. Whether it be by murder or accident. If you have a gun in your home it is far more likely for someone to get hurt than if you don't. Guns don't kill people, people do? No. People with guns!

In my opinion owning a gun is supporting violence, and I don't see how that can go with being Pro-Life. Or anti-animal testing. People either own guns for their protection so if they need to they can shoot someone. Or they own it for hunting and they shoot animals. So really I don't see how they go together. So its ok to kill animals as long as you don't test on them?