What would you change about your chosen political party, if you could? Would you make them have more fiscal responsibility and accountability? Would you make them stop politicizing everything? Would you want your party to lean even further to left, right, center, independent, etc.?

All the above.

CenterBHSFan;1301881 wrote:Would you want your party to lean even further to left, right, center, independent, etc.?

WebFire;1301884 wrote:All the above.

Flip flopper

I'd want my now former party to actually be the party of small government instead of just claiming to be.

I'd like the Republican party to drop religion entirely and focus on being secular. Life's too short to politicize fairy tales to steal votes from the ignorant.

Good thread. I see this ending well.

CenterBHSFan;1301881 wrote:What would you change about your chosen political party, if you could? Would you make them have more fiscal responsibility and accountability? Would you make them stop politicizing everything? Would you want your party to lean even further to left, right, center, independent, etc.?

Definitely the bolded. I'd at least want to be able to attempt to convince myself that either party cares more about actually fixing things than they do about discrediting the other side. It's hard to be too critical of this site's politards for turning everything into some stupid partisan argument when all you have to do is turn on a TV to find out their role models who actually have/are running for offices are pretty much incapable of turning every damn thing into an us-vs-them argument.

FatHobbit;1301890 wrote:Flip flopper

All the parties need to lead further away from their own side.

I was a Republican and wanted them to believe in small government. So instead of waiting for them to change. I jumped to the Libertarian party.

Heretic;1301903 wrote:Definitely the bolded. I'd at least want to be able to attempt to convince myself that either party cares more about actually fixing things than they do about discrediting the other side. It's hard to be too critical of this site's politards for turning everything into some stupid partisan argument when all you have to do is turn on a TV to find out their role models who actually have/are running for offices are pretty much incapable of turning every damn thing into an us-vs-them argument.

I'm fairly certain you meant to say, "...are pretty much incapable of NOT turning every damn thing into an us-vs-them argument" but I get your point.

The problem is it's goofy to want political parties to stop politicizing everything. Right?

If we all thought the same way there'd be no need for political parties.

Basically, one party is for unlimited spending increases and limited tax increases, while the other is for limited spending increases and unlimited tax cuts. Both are unsustainable. I tend to believe the former takes us over the cliff faster.

It's not going to be particularly pretty in either case. Signs of another pending global recession already, and this time the Central Banks have no bullets left to intervene. That means unlimited quantitative easing until the next bubble temporarily, and fraudulently, provides a recovery. The bubble, this time, appears to be forming in sovereign debt - game over when that bursts.

I'd ask them to stop allowing the elite (ie banks) stop controlling america.

I'm not a member of a political party nor do I want to be. Political parties only strive to win elections. That's their only function which is why they're so damned inconsistent with their views.

believer;1301925 wrote:I'm fairly certain you meant to say, "...are pretty much incapable of NOT turning every damn thing into an us-vs-them argument" but I get your point.

The problem is it's goofy to want political parties to stop politicizing everything. Right?

If we all thought the same way there'd be no need for political parties.

Good catch on the first part. I agree with what you were saying, but to me, I think the problem is over-politicalizing, where it feels like they're almost deliberately not doing anything productive in order to bicker and argue, which brings everything down to the Jerry Springer model.

Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but it comes off to me as this sort of "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost" thing, where both sides would let the whole country utterly fall apart because they're more interesting in being "right" over some minute talking point than in working together *GASP* to figure out a legit way to fix things. Almost like they're conceding that we're all fucked, so the only important thing is to find a way to pin it all on the other side.

I don't think it's as complicated as all that.

When faced with tough choices, as we are now, the focus shifts to assigning blame in order to get re-elected.

Sort of like until most of the country (something probably considerably more than a simple majority) wakes-up to the reality of SS/Medicare reform, it's political suicide for any politician that supports it.

Also a really tough sell when you run $1T+ deficits to take money out of someone's pocket because the reckless spending only indicates you will have to keep coming back for more.

Heretic;1301996 wrote:Good catch on the first part. I agree with what you were saying, but to me, I think the problem is over-politicalizing, where it feels like they're almost deliberately not doing anything productive in order to bicker and argue, which brings everything down to the Jerry Springer model.

Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but it comes off to me as this sort of "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost" thing, where both sides would let the whole country utterly fall apart because they're more interesting in being "right" over some minute talking point than in working together *GASP* to figure out a legit way to fix things. Almost like they're conceding that we're all fucked, so the only important thing is to find a way to pin it all on the other side.

That's what political parties are designed to do though. They're designed to win elections.

Become truly conservative both socially and economically.

I Wear Pants;1302067 wrote:That's what political parties are designed to do though. They're designed to win elections.

Then listen to the people who actually make the decisions (i.e bank, trusts, etc) so do you want a lower tax puppet system or a higher taxed puppet system? lol

rydawg5;1302072 wrote:Then listen to the people who actually make the decisions (i.e bank, trusts, etc) so do you want a lower tax puppet system or a higher taxed puppet system? lol

Lower taxes don't mean I'm more likely to have a job or a higher paying job and higher taxes don't mean I'm less likely to have a job or have less pay. Of course the inverse is also true. But we've had tax cuts and raises all throughout our history and there certainly isn't the direct correlation that everyone claims that lower taxes always equals more jobs. Statistics simply don't support it.

Also in before some joker tries to turn what I just said into a call for higher taxes.

I Wear Pants;1302375 wrote:Lower taxes don't mean I'm more likely to have a job or a higher paying job and higher taxes don't mean I'm less likely to have a job or have less pay. Of course the inverse is also true. But we've had tax cuts and raises all throughout our history and there certainly isn't the direct correlation that everyone claims that lower taxes always equals more jobs. Statistics simply don't support it.

Also in before some joker tries to turn what I just said into a call for higher taxes.

The theme of my message is neither will be calling the shots.

pmoney25;1301912 wrote:I was a Republican and wanted them to believe in small government. So instead of waiting for them to change. I jumped to the Libertarian party.

Same here.

Con_Alma;1302068 wrote:Become truly conservative both socially and economically.

That's one thing the Republican party does pretty well. They are basically the exact opposite of what I'd like them to be. Made it pretty easy to bail.

While I disagree with at least some parts of economic conservatism I can completely understand the arguments behind it. I do not understand social conservatism, it's being on the wrong side of history on purpose.

I Wear Pants;1302394 wrote:I do not understand social conservatism, it's being on the wrong side of history on purpose.

Yep.

justincredible;1302389 wrote:That's one thing the Republican party does pretty well. They are basically the exact opposite of what I'd like them to be. Made it pretty easy to bail.

So you mean you figured out that Repubs are not Dems and you finally figured out you're a liberal? Congrats!

believer;1302509 wrote:So you mean you figured out that Repubs are not Dems and you finally figured out you're a liberal? Congrats!

LOL. No. Not even close.