"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

[gamerprinter]

It should if those people share funding and campaign machinery. Rare indeed is the candidate who says, "I'm a member of Party X, but I get *nothing* from being part of the party!"

Doesn't any candidate require some level of funding acquired on their own before one is able to gain funding from the party at large? I'll admit that they share "machinery", but not necessarily the same funding sources.

The whole point of having a "party" is to work as a group, cooperate, and have a sort of political "brand". They are *choosing* to associate with that brand, and what it implies. When you do that, you don't get to take only the good bits.

If there were one agreed implication of the "brand" there'd only be one candidate from each party. So obviously not everyone is in perfect sync with all other party members. There would be no labels within a party. How could there be centrist, conservative, liberal members within the same party if being "Repubican" only means one set of goals? I completely disagree with your assessment. I don't think this is true for any political party. There is always variances in every ideology. For myself, for example, I agree with party convictions to minimize government involvement with small business, I believe in smaller government, and to a large degree to Republican foreign policy and commitments to the military, beyond that on most other Republican concerns, I generally oppose or at least have strong feelings that don't necessarily coincide with most of the party - this is the extent of my party association, yet I still call myself Republican. There certainly is a loyal block within the party, that always vote along party lines, no matter what, but this doesn't describe every member of that party.

And you might want to check on specific voting records - while they may have not run campaigns putting emphasis on some of the uglier bits, each party does tend to vote as a block. On the federal level, voting against party lines is pretty rare these days. I can't speak to what happens on your state level, but I think you actually have to go look to be sure.

I'll vote in a primary election with the goal of attempting to gain the party nomination for a particular candidate I feel most closely fits my goals. When that candidate loses to another member of the party, if I feel strongly against their agenda, I won't vote in the "block" just to pick a Republican over a Democrat, nor just to vote within party lines. If I don't agree with a particular party nominee, I don't vote for that person at all. I'd rather not vote than to defy my own convictions. And I have voted against party lines in one past election as well. It may be rare, but I'm one of those practitioners willing to defy party lines. Unless one of the current Republican candidates clarifies or does a flip-flop on their racial perspectives before the party nomination and change my mind, I don't plan to vote in the current Presidential elections, as none fit my agenda. Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days? Are you familiar with the practices of every or even most voters? Clearly not. You're making an assumption that cannot be proven. Polls can suggest trends, but polls cannot prove anything.

 

[Kramodlog]

Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days? Are you familiar with the practices of every or even most voters? Clearly not. You're making an assumption that cannot be proven. Polls can suggest trends, but polls cannot prove anything.

You mean voters who vote against party line? Judging form the candidates that do get the nominations within the Republican party, I'd say that a majority of voters follow the party line or turn a blind eye to the the parts they do not like.

On a unrelated note, I remember someone saying that Chris Christie was the centrist among Repuplican presidential candiates. Well, he needs attention and wants votes from the more radical Republican base, so he wants to treat immigrants like Fedex packages instead of human beings. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/politics/chris-christie-fedex-packages/index.html

 

[Kramodlog]

The question should be framed as "How many Republicans must propose (or vote for) racist policies before it can be labeled as racists, which would be answered with it's majority", not how many of it's politicians, since the current batch of Presidential candidates only seems to represent the extreme right of the party (whom I consider a minority and not in anyway representative of my Republican ideals, so not worth being applicable to labels). The opinions of a few bad apples should'nt have the power to give the entirety of its group with any kind of label, especially when not representing its majority.

What does it say about a party of the only way to be a viable candiate is to appeal to the extremist part of you party and the front runner is the most racits of them all? And it isn't a local election*. It is a national election where you'd think centrist might be more numerous than the radial and racist elements in the party. But right now "centrists" like Chris Christie say immigrants must be tracked like Fedex packages, Bush talks about "anchor babies" and Scott Walker talks about building a wall between... Canada and the US. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ker-canada-border-wall-immigration-terrorists

To me it says the influence of the radicals and racists is way more important than a lot of Republicans are willing to face. I think a lot of it has to egocentricity. If you're white and have some money, you do not care about social programs, minority issues and protecting the environment just seems to raise the cost of stuff. Low taxes, guns, religion might just be what a lot of Republicans care about. Gay rights? Women's rights? Immigrantion? The environment? Meh. It is selfish, not racist, but this selfishness might lead to turning a blind eye to racism and racist found within the party. But if non-racist people tolerate racist people within a political party and that influences policies, don't they share responsability in the fact that racist policies are being proposed and implimented?


*Althought, the way primaries are held in each states intead of universal sufferage across the country does create a distortion.

 

[Umbran]

Besides, how do you know that voting against party lines is rare these days?

I was talking about the legislators voting the party line, not the electorate.

The idea that your legislator is somehow independent of the negative aspects of their party, untouched or clean, can be checked by looking at their voting records. If your legislator pretty much always votes the party line, then he or she is apt to be supporting some of the problematic legislation.

The votes cast by members of legislatures are a matter of public record. And there are folks who watch the data.

For example, on the Federal level, both parties typically vote the party line. As in, generally, each legislator votes with the rest of his or her party over 90% of the time:

https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/house/republican
https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/house/democrat

https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/republican
https://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/democrat

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-sets-record-for-voting-along-party-lines-20140203

http://media.cq.com/votestudies/

 

[gamerprinter]

You mean voters who vote against party line? Judging form the candidates that do get the nominations within the Republican party, I'd say that a majority of voters follow the party line or turn a blind eye to the the parts they do not like.

That may be true, I don't know, I don't have a pulse on the Republican party, that said, what a given majority of anything does or does not do shouldn't mean to apply to the party as a whole, that's been my only point in every post I've made in this thread. I am consciously not a member of that majority.

On a unrelated note, I remember someone saying that Chris Christie was the centrist among Repuplican presidential candiates. Well, he needs attention and wants votes from the more radical Republican base, so he wants to treat immigrants like Fedex packages instead of human beings. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/politics/chris-christie-fedex-packages/index.html

Well packages don't make individual decisions and transport themselves where ever they want, unlike the freedom of being human, so what works for Fedex can't necessarily be applicable to tracking people. That said, the private sector often has solutions to problems that can be applied to governmental issues. Is it dehumanizing to compare tracking people to tracking packages? Probably, but that doesn't mean those ideas that work in tracking packages, might not be useful in tracking temporary Visa based immigrants. So as a possible means of solving the tracking of Visa holders, I am not opposed to taking a look at Fedex, nor any private sector solution. Regarding Christie's veto on an ID based checks as a means of gun control, I disagree, and am perfectly fine with better ways to identify gun owners, nor agree with his position on Abortion, and many other issues. In weighing his pro and cons, I can agree to some of his platform issues, but probably not most of them, thus I have too many cons with Christie to consider him my candidate.

 

[gamerprinter]

I was talking about the legislators voting the party line, not the electorate.

Well I wasn't talking about the votes by legislators, so we're talking around each other about completely different points. I'm not a legislator, so I cannot speak on their decisions.

As an ardent opponent to the electoral college, I'd rather not my legislators voting record mean so much, rather only be concerned with my voting record only.

 

[prosfilaes]

Because Europeans are participating in this conversation, while Marcus Aurelius and Caligula are - to my knowledge - not. It's reasonable to include the viewpoints of those present when discussing a topic.

And you're saying there are no Chinese or Indians? I certainly don't know that, and would welcome their discussions.

The point about Marcus Aurelius is that when looking at the Roman Empire, judging it by the standards of Europe teaches you little to nothing about the Roman Empire. There are many people of all places who study the Roman Empire, but they learn not to simply judge it by the standards of modern day.

If you're not personally interested in other perspectives, that's fine - you can simply ignore those posts.

The discussion was about where the center was, when unspecified. I don't see any reason to ignore posts from Europeans willing to talk about the US as the US, or explicitly taking about the US from a European perspective, and I don't see any way to deal with people who use an unspecified center askew from the US; even if I make the unjustified assumption that all Europeans will use such a center, that doesn't help me with people who don't list their location.

 

[MechaPilot]

As an ardent opponent to the electoral college, I'd rather not my legislators voting record mean so much, rather only be concerned with my voting record only.

The votes of legislators illustrates the policies they will support, and when the legislators of one party vote one way on an issue it shows a party-wide support for that position. Voting for legislators who have voted for racist or oppressive policies either means support of those policies by supporting the legislators who voted for them, or turning a blind eye to those votes (perhaps willingly doing so). I don't see how the electoral college fits into that, especially when (to the best of my knowledge) the electoral college only matters when it comes to the final election and not to the nomination of presidential candidates or the selection process in party primaries.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well, since I've stated multiple times in this thread, that I only vote during the main elections, never during primaries. Therefore the electoral college's existence becomes an unnecessary step between my vote and a candidate's winning or loosing - it means everything. I otherwise only vote during local elections on local issues. I've never voted during legislator elections

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's my problem with that:

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

― John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

(See also Burke's similar aphorism.)

You say you're a member of a political party and only vote in the local elections. Meanwhile, it is the state and national legislators who propose and pass the most impactful laws.

But by opting out of the broader political process- a process you say elects people you don't like- you're complicit in letting those officials to gain power.