What is your politics? (anonymous RMP political survey) - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

What is your politics? (anonymous RMP political survey)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to get a sense (through an anonymous poll) what forum member's social politics were?

Please take the time to take the poll. I think it'll be interesting to see the results.

Thanks,

Khashyar

Posted by: vic2012

Well Khash,

I voted. I understand that in the USA it's pretty much liberal all around the edges and more parochial and conservative the further towards the centre (Bush country) you go.

But in the UK its a little more complicated
The rural areas are prodominantly both liberal and conservative and the urban areas have traditionally been for more state intervention, i.e. Labour. Although these days, there's practically nothing to choose between the three main political parties' politics.

Posted by: searcher

My problem these days is that I don't like the definition of many terms, such as "liberal" or "conservative".

They are GROSSLY misused!!!!!!!!!! <----- Major understatement!

I will probably catch some heat because of this.....

The "liberals" THESE DAYS in the UNITED STATES (I don't know about England or other parts of the world) seem to not liberal at all but rather SOCIALIST!

(I guess you can tell i'm not particularly fond of socialist/socialism

)

The conservatives have drifted off base too!

I am a Libertarian and what I consider a TRUE liberal at heart, yet with conservative views. I'll explain....

I believe in the U.S. constitution as it was written and in its original meaning. I don't believe the government should involve itself in the daily lives of its citizens. Instead of treating them like citizens, we are being treated more as its subjects!

I believe in the seperation of church and state and that everyone has a right to believe as they choose so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

But in a conservative way I believe in God but we can not make people believe in our God (or whatever God the powers that are in charge believe in) by legislations or force - war, etc.

As I see things now neither of our two big political parties is NEITHER liberal nor conservative, they have many things in common and very little to distinguish them from one another.

Well, I better stop before I get in trouble

Now i'm not sure what to vote!

Anybody up for discussing religion???

Posted by: yodaamnot

"Politics" is a UGLY word but someone got to do it.

Someone once told me that "All polies are like bananas, they go in green, come out yellow and are never straight!!!"

Posted by: Khashyar

I know that terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't neat and clean terms, and that they translate into different things in other countries like England and Australia...

We can try to answer the poll as best we can.

Reading some of the responses to this poll thread, and the other men about Western men in general (http://russianmeetingplace.com/foru...ead.php?t=8892), I see that it seems that we have a variety of cultural views and values expressed in the forum.

Khashyar

P.S... I haven't voted yet in this poll (because I didn't want to influence the poll at all), but I will over the next day or two....

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khashyar

I know that terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't neat and clean terms, and that they translate into different things in other countries like England and Australia...

Liberal & Conservative are traditionally the same thing in Australia.

Now for my Aussie friends to disown me. I am a liberal/conservative voter more often than not, but I have socialist ideals (i.e. Labor) but labor has always sucked in Australia at being able to handle money so I dont trust them with the cheque book. I usually vote for the people who I think are looking long term (i.e. make the country better of for the majority of people for the long term, without harming the rights and priveledges of anyone) and not short term (i.e. Election vote winner policies).

To me they are all liars and cheats and I hope that someday in the future a better way of living and running a country will be found.

Searcher, I have to say the whole idea of the seperation of church and state has gone way off track. If you are up for a meaningful discusion I'll do it with you and anyone else who is interested, just start a seperate thread.

Posted by: yodaamnot

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking

To me they are all liars and cheats and I hope that someday in the future a better way of living and running a country will be found.

Spoken like a John Lennon fan - "Imagine..."

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodaamnot

Spoken like a John Lennon fan - "Imagine..."

Sorry to disapoint ya yoda, but I cant stand the guy.

Posted by: Jerico

I am a conservative but the Republicans really let me down so maybe i will vote Democrat this coming election.
They are the do nothing party.Maybe I will vote for a cartoon character or something like that.I will just write it in.
Why vote on propositions also? 80 percent of the people will approve something and some Liberal judge will over turn the peoples wishes.
No wonder many people do not vote.
I am old school , meaning I dont need the government for money or handouts.
I have worked my whole life and never did I use or attempt to use social services.
I was raised on the "If you want it , you must work for it approach " in life.
I am certainly not a rich man but everything I own has been worked for.
My wife ( a Russian woman) however is so Liberal it sometimes makes me puck.

I think it has a lot to do with her coming from a Russian country IMHO.The government should pay for everything approach.
When she gets a full time job and wonders why the Government takes so much from her paycheck, then I suspect she will change her way of thinking.
Jerry

Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

I am a conservative but the Republicans really let me down so maybe i will vote Democrat this coming election.
They are the do nothing party.Maybe I will vote for a cartoon character or something like that.I will just write it in.
Why vote on propositions also? 80 percent of the people will approve something and some Liberal judge will over turn the peoples wishes.
No wonder many people do not vote.
I am old school , meaning I dont need the government for money or handouts.
I have worked my whole life and never did I use or attempt to use social services.
I was raised on the "If you want it , you must work for it approach " in life.
I am certainly not a rich man but everything I own has been worked for.
My wife ( a Russian woman) however is so Liberal it sometimes makes me puck.

Interesting perspective, Jerry, about the difference in politics between you and your wife.

I don't know how to characterize the difference between Lena and I. I would say that Lena is a bit more old-fashioned than I am, but we still get along well.

It's hard to define Lena's social values because she has been influenced and raised in a different Eastern culture.

Lena does have one friend from her high school who lives in L.A. now who truly is very liberal, probably socialist. Perhaps Moderate is a good way to describe Lena's social values.

Khashyar

Posted by: Jerico

Ya Khashyar the difference between my wife and I as far as politics is extreme.Hehehe
She really cares about people so in a way its good that she cares.
Of course we both come from different walks of life.
Im not saying that I dont care about people but lets just say I see a lot of milk going on in society that she does not see.

Jerry

Posted by: Khashyar

(I like your avatar, Jerry

)

Perhaps the fact that you and your wife have differences in your social values will make your marriage interesting and stimulating for you both, and help you each think in a different way.

Khashyar

Posted by: Jerico

[QUOTE](I like your avatar, Jerry )

Perhaps the fact that you and your wife have differences in your social values will make your marriage interesting and stimulating for you both, and help you each think in a different way.

Khashyar

Well so far I have been married over a year now (YAY) and things are pretty good.
Thanks Khashyar about the avatar

I thought I would show my ugly mug for a change to show people who I am , LOL
Jerry

Posted by: Khashyar

[QUOTE=Jerico]

Quote:

(I like your avatar, Jerry )

Perhaps the fact that you and your wife have differences in your social values will make your marriage interesting and stimulating for you both, and help you each think in a different way.

Khashyar

Well so far I have been married over a year now (YAY) and things are pretty good.
Thanks Khashyar about the avatar

I thought I would show my ugly mug for a change to show people who I am , LOL
Jerry

Beauty and ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, Jerry.

Posted by: Khashyar

It's really interesting how there seems to be a pretty balanced representation of "Liberal" and "Conservative" members in the forum.

(So far, 8 members voted that they were culturally conservative, 7 member chose liberal, and 2 moderate).

I'm actually happy that the results are diverse.

Khashyar

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Ha ha, I am glad I am not the only Moderate.

Posted by: firemansam

Swinging voters unite!

Posted by: searcher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khashyar

I'm actually happy that the results are diverse.

Khashyar

Yes, that is one of the things that makes this forum so interesting!

Posted by: GREGK

The majority of American politicians tend to be either attorneys or wealthy businessmen who are backed by special interest groups with a lot of money. The days of a common man being able to run for national office are long gone. "Joe Citizen" is no longer represented in Washington D.C. in any meaningful way.

Posted by: bobjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by firemansam

Swinging voters unite!

don,t know how you would apply this to aus
for mine there is no such thing as an honest polly
here most aussies would say that they have less credability than a used car salesman
ok oz guys immagin little johny as honest john the car salesman,on his record since he was elected.
would you buy a car from him,beleive any warranty etc
personaly i would walk first

his wife stated he wouldn,t know the price of a loaf of bread when he was our treasurer
he has selective memory loss,but only about the truth & facts
someone called him sgt shultz (hogans hero,s) see nothing ,know nothing,hear nothing hmm could also be the 3 monkeys lol bloody pollies

except it isn,t funny ,so who do you get to replace them
even the green honest 1,s soon dip there snouts into the troff.

Posted by: Jill

I'm pretty much your average bleeding heart liberal on her way to go hug some trees

(Although I actually voted moderate leaning toward liberal).

Posted by: That1Guy

It is interesting to think that both liberals and conservatives agree that the government should pay for/administer certain things. Certainly, the line between the two is blurred because of definitions, and perhaps is truly only a matter of which programs the government should or should not be involved in?

Posted by: deccie

As Bob knows I differ with him over our view of Australian politicans.. Well some of them at least. (-:

We have an interesting situation here right now. The Federal Government is conservative and all the states and territories would be closer to Democrat/Liberal. It used to be widely thought this was because labour governments were recognised for the deliery of services but people wanted conservatism as far as national policies like defence and the federal econonmy were concerned.

In both situations the performance of all levels of government has gone down when they have won massive majorities.

My own example of the Queensland Government has been an accident in waiting ever since the start of the last term in office.

We have some major "sleeper" issues just waiting to bite when the next recession hits that will see the current incumbent kicked out no matter who the opposition is!

These are:
1. Size of housing mortgage required as a multiple of annual income.
I saw some interesting data just the other night that compared the increase in the price of petrol to the increase of the value of peoples houses since hte last petrol shock of the 1970's. Housing has increased in cost something like 700% since the 1970's whereas petrol has only increased something like 100% (after taking inflation into account)

This means that when the next recession does hit, it will only take a 3-5% increase in interest rates and you will see thousands of families losing their homes.

The second issue is that of industrial reform. Again, this will not truly bite until the next recession. In boom times people's wages will always go up when there are shortages but when the recession hits a lot of people will be given ultimatums about their contined employment. In a bad economic cycle with a huge mortgage and a wife and kids most people will take what is offerred rather than risk being unemployed..

The thing that magnifies this effect that is different to the UK and the US is that here we have compulsory voting.

Posted by: yodaamnot

Quote:

Originally Posted by deccie

This means that when the next recession does hit, it will only take a 3-5% increase in interest rates and you will see thousands of families losing their homes.

Taylor's Theory - It's difficult to convince someone to do anything when their belly is empty.

When an election is called during a recession, there will be a likelyhood of a change in government or maybe not time will tell.

Posted by: deccie

Thanks for the reply Yoda.

I think based on recent history it's still likely.. Specifically if you look at the 1983 and 1996 elections.

I find it funny that people associate the Liberal government with fiscal responsibility given how our economy was a basket case in 1983 and the incoming labour government started the process of reform to get us where we are today. For all that I dislike his politics little Johnny Howard is a far better PM than he was Treasurer!

Posted by: BradIL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill

I'm pretty much your average bleeding heart liberal on her way to go hug some trees

(Although I actually voted moderate leaning toward liberal).

How do I say this without taking a demeaning tone... well... I can't think of a way soooooo... Chilly you remind me of my Mom. Paul Simon could ALWAYS count her among the Illinoisians generously giving him a vote!

Brad voted moderate leaning conservative. Being from the Land of Lincoln (and a childhood of Abraham Lincoln marinade) the Republican party was irrestible, but I am equal measure a frustrated Libertarian (who would not being welcomed).

I agree with Thomas Jefferson that I don't favor an energetic federal government except as explicity chartered in the Constitution. But active government at more local levels is delightful, and for this, Illinois is perfect. Power devolved to several state institutions, with a generous nod to the home rule of local government. The characters that end up administering all of this are a different story, but I love the way its all set up!

Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradIL

Well, that makes three Libertarians on the board that I know of.

I want the government controlling as little as possible in the daily life of citizens. And, as you point out that's exactly what the US Constitution calls for.
I've never understood the clamor of either liberals or conservatives for the government to control aspects of their life. Governments in general do a terrible job at administering even the simplest programs - why would anyone want such an entity to control their very life?

Here's an interesting 1 minute test to determine your real political outlook: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Posted by: yodaamnot

Quote:

Originally Posted by deccie

For all that I dislike his politics little Johnny Howard is a far better PM than he was Treasurer!

"Honest John", I wonder whether you recalled him putting forward a proposal to include kids income (kids working for pocket money to learn the value of money) into their parents wages so that it can be taxed - pretty poor.

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:

Originally Posted by deccie

Thanks for the reply Yoda.

I think based on recent history it's still likely.. Specifically if you look at the 1983 and 1996 elections.

I find it funny that people associate the Liberal government with fiscal responsibility given how our economy was a basket case in 1983 and the incoming labour government started the process of reform to get us where we are today. For all that I dislike his politics little Johnny Howard is a far better PM than he was Treasurer!

Deccie do you remember Gough, the cough, Whitlam and the Indian Loan Shark fiasco that lost him the Prime Ministership. That is why we had such a shocking current account deficit that has only just been paid out BTW. I know you are younger than me but I see a Kimbo, the Bimbo, Beasley memory laps happening here. For a while we had a government that just kept paying for stuff we didn't have the money to buy. Paul, Mr Smooth, Keating and his $70K dining room table paid for by my taxes so he could tell his friwends and family that he was splitting from his wife when even she didn't know about it.

All Polies make my hair stand up on end and my stomach churn but to be
honest aboput it, who do we have in Australia to remove "Honest John" from power that isn't from his own party? Labor woulda romped home if an election was held on thew weekend yet Beasley woulda lost his seat, so would not have been PM. WHo would we have had then? Macklin? Rudd? I doubt it.

Sorry slightly off track.

Posted by: bobjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking

oz mate we are of a mind lol
honest john only in oz would this lying little snake be called honest seeing how we often call people the reverse of what they are.
dec saying he is a better pm than a treasurer dosen,t say much for his pm abilities either.
maybe gilliard ?
i reckon aussies have just about had a gutfull of the lies from the libs & this ir bs /petrol prices might just finish them

Posted by: bobjf

ok guys this might sound strange comeing from me the master hijacker lol
best we let this thread return to topic

i is just as guilty & will desist lol

Posted by: novotul

Well, this guy in the USA classifies himself as very liberal, whatever that means.

I hope that my gay son has the opportunity to marry, just as I hope to remarry. In the part of America where I live, that puts me far out on an edge.

My politics are highly environmentally oriented and if "liberal" = democrat then maybe "very liberal" doesn't fit. But I haven't seen political leaders with a "conservative" label ever in this country carry environmental values very well while those with the "liberal" label sometimes don't do so badly.

And then, when it comes to the present proclivities of "conservatives" in this country to wage wars of aggression -- how else can we consider our current military occupation of Iraq -- I get really confused what "conservative" means. If we accept the definitions of those who have power and use the term "conservative" to explain themselves and their policies, then I suspect that most people on this board have at least some problems with defining themselves as "conservative", consider just how bankrupt the current powers advancing their "conversative" agenda make this country ...

Posted by: GREGK

Many "liberals" as well as "conservatives" initially supported the Iraq war until all of the true facts came out regarding the actual status of Iraqs WMDs and terrorist ties. A lot of people got suckered into this mess, liberal and conservative alike. We can expect more of the same until we end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil ( watch out Iran!)

Posted by: Menehune

This is quite an interesting topic. I haven't visited this forum in ages since moving England and marrying my cockney wife.

I kinda find it funny that most liberals are democrats and most conservative are republicans. If you're a democrat and went back in time to meet Washington, you would be considered Republican. Somewhere along the time line the two parties switched roles.

I don't know whether to classify myself as a liberal or conservative. I am a registered independent and voted for Clinton against Bush Sr, but voted for Bush Jr. against Al Gore, so I can't be classified as a Donkey or an Elephant.

I do know, I follow the beliefs of John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau, that people are born good and left to their own according will do good. Therefore, I am glad that the founding fathers of the US borrowed their theories and incorporated into the US Constitution. I believe "goverment that governs best governs least". If a liberal statesman, oh wait they don't exist anymore... if a liberal politician have these values, i'll vote liberal and vice a vis.

I abhored Hobbes' and Machiavelli's beliefs the people are bad and left to their own accord will do bad things, hence they need a strong central figure to tell them what they can and can't do as outlined in the Levaithan or The Prince. My bane is socialism, big goverments telling you what you can do and can't do, social programs that instilled the belief that social programs are their god given rights (ie the new French labor law that caused so much rioting because they believed lifetime employement was their right and not a privilage). I can't fathom why people would want to live under these norms that exist in social democracies. I for one would like a choice. I want to choose my own doctor, choose my own college, and choose where I can live if can afford it. One's right to choose is forfeited under social programs and welfare. When people allow governments to do things for them, they lose all inhibitions and the rights to do things for themselves. For me, no one knows what's best for me but me, myself and I, not some technocrats thousand of miles away.

My politic choices follow along these lines. Anyone who shares my belief gets my vote. That said, more liberal politician in the US seem to be more and more like socilaists.

Posted by: Jutman

Hello

There are 10 to 12 main political versions in Europe. Most European countries have them. They names can be different, national and local issue can differ, but I will try to post a brief political presentation for Denmark (DK) / Europe.

We have the Unity party, and is mix of mainly Communist, Green and Left-socialists.
The idea: Capitalists are bad, but they want market economy. They want ecological production and also ecological foods. More money to poor and social troubled people. More tax to rich people and business, and return better public service, in particular public transportation. They don't like cars and is anti-unionist. they got about 3� % here in DK.

in Europe, you will communist parties standing alone, not much different from they once in Sovjet time, but they are very small today.
Or like in some countries you will the Green stands alone and yes, I am aware alson in USA. The green are proberly best/biggest in Germany.

--
The variant are the socialist party. They are Euro-socialist. They are in 'family' with the old once, but more realistic. Cars are okay, but better if it was small cars. The Union is not all bad. They understand, that you can't tax rich people and the business life. They are not happy about them, but wants to go to a dialogue with them and find a comprosie to solve the problems in the society (the poor and weaks). also pro ecology, but not mandatory. They got about 6% in DK.

In Europe, there are a lot of sister parties and the influence and size vary from country to country. A lot of revitalised communist parties in the former East, belong to this category.
--
The next variant is the Socialdemocrats or Labour or in Southern Europe its actually the socialists (Greece, Portugal and Spain). all pro-unionist.
They see themselves as a sister party to the democrats in USA, however I disagree with that. Around Europe these parties, has undergoing a modernisation, to more market orientated, privatisation and less paperwork.

However they are still wants a lot of public companies and services. Subsidary and in some cases monopoly. Higher tax to rich people ( those with own homes), and wants to use more money at public issues, like better hospitals, better schools, public transportation.

They 3 above all belong to the 'working' class, is left from the center. the next is rigth at the center.

Its the Radical party. Sounds bad, but its a socialliberal party. There social orientiation is left, the economical orientation is rigth. Lower tax, better business life, but wants more luxary tax, and tax at water, pollution and so on.
They say: public sector is okay, but competion is also okay from private companies.
I am actually not aware how big and how many sister parties they have in europe. There are some. In DK they are rising in popularity with around 15%.

The next is the conservative party. Public sector is acceptable, if there is no other choice and its effiecient. Tax, for rich must go down. Luxary tax, is accepted but is not endorsed. In DK its around 10%.
There is a lot of parties in Europe and in some countries rather big and is not always agree, in particular about Europe. In DK they are pro but in UK not.

a variant of them, is the Christian democrats. In DK 1% and is conservative, except not like alcohol, abortion and smoking. in Germany they are in power with Kansler Merkel.But I don't think in Germany the Christian is against alcohol, abortion and smoking.

The next is the Liberals. (however there are also social liberal).

The Conservative, Christians and liberals all see them as friends of the Republicans in USA.

In DK, the liberals don't want to cut tax. !!! They endorse privatisation, but also a functionable public sector and is not against it. They are also not against public transport, but should happen at more market base and so subsidiased. Which is a general rule. wants to put riminals longer time behind bars, wants to have system which people can come to, not a system who comes to the people. Is more pro business, than others. Now in DK almost 30%.

In Europe they are not very big, but are everywhere. I think most famous are the losing Bertolusci in Italy.

Thelast category is the nationalists. They vary a lot from country to country on economical issues. The commoners is more help to poor / week people and is anti emigration parties, and also anti EU.
They are under rise in Europe. In DK is about 15%, but vary a lot around Europe.

There are also other variants I have'nt comment. Like the feminsts. georgians, local/national parties.

Posted by: JamesB

Really hopeTo see the back of Blair.He has killed Britain.Though his wife is doing very Nicely thanks.!

Posted by: Jutman

JamesB

I must admit I cant comment on his results at interior, educational and social issue but at forein issues I can.

I was not for the intervention in Iraq, but support the idea, if you are there, you must do the job finish.
Concerning EU, he is the MAN. I not 100% thrilled about him, but understand he has to adjust his politics to interioir issues as well, and for that alone he will get respect.

But I ill agree with he tend to be arrogant at the TV.

Posted by: skinsfan

I agree Jutman....you cannot cut and run from Iraq......the fanatics in that region hope and pray that we will ..... if we did leave, all hell will break loose, and these fanatics will unleash cowardly terror in every corner of the world. it is always easy to run...it is difficult to stand and do what is right in the face of criticism from people who have no vision and/or solutions other than run away and do nothing ..... this is my point of view.....

Posted by: dagpop

In getting back on the subject.My ideals are more conservative.In American politics, you don't always have the cream of the crop to choose from.
Sometimes you have to choose the least of two evils.During Bush's first term in office he seemed like a real leader.This second term,he has gone down the tubes.In the 2008 elections,there is no one that I see as a clear favorite.The field will be wide open.

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagpop

In getting back on the subject.My ideals are more conservative.In American politics, you don't always have the cream of the crop to choose from.

This is the same in Australia. I remember a day when an opposition party was just that, a party that really heldd the government accountable for what it did and overall the country was better run for it> Now we have periods of time when the government is the only one who seems to be able to think, not neccasarily stright but think anyway, while the opposition languishes in its own purile muck while it tries to look like a viable alternative to the government of the day.

This is not a swipe at the American system but when a comment is made about cream of the crop I think you need to consider that voting is not compulsory either. Most of the American public leave the choice of who is going to govern what is the most powerful nation on the planet up to a few. Those few who vote may or may not be the cream of the voting crop but they appear to care about the country they live in enough to try to have a say of who governs them. I wonder if a revote was done when Clinton left the Presidency and Al Gore was his replacement but G.W.B got the nod for the top job under a scream of unfair voting cards would G.W.B even had been given a 1st term in office. Someone once said something like "Do not think what America can do for you but what can you do for America."

Posted by: Jutman

Hi

In Denmark its a another situation. Historical we have been very socialistic until 81 we we got a new administration. Since then the individual, competition and cutting the budget has been in focus. Now we look at the future and people starts to question if this cutting in welfare is a good idea.

Our situation is that we need people in many sector. In for cleaning there is about 15% avialable jobs. And the future more retired people will come, so this situation wil be reinforced. So the administration wants people to work longer time, start college earlier.
They do that, by punish people economical, and thats rather difficult for people to understand when all numbers are postive. Low unemployment, low inflation, tradesurplus and the state budget has huge plus.In europe most countries has a debt of 60% of GDP, we are down at 30% and has no foriegn debt.

So the discussion is whats best, to punish people, or to reward people. Find other measures to gain more people to the labour market. Open the door for labour from the new est EU members?
And its really not about meaning conservaatibe, liberal or anything.

Posted by: dagpop

Oz,you are correct about only a few determine an outcome of an elections.I do not understand why people don't vote.In our history,many people have given there lives, to give us this right.If everyone voted,many elections could be totally different from there outcomes.Many people don't want to go into politics because there past will be dug up and scrutinized.That is why the crop is so slim with choices.

Posted by: Jutman

Quote:

I do not understand why people don't vote

There some different reasons.

1) Politics is not interesting for people
2) The difference between the parties are rather small.
3) the believe that politicians can't do anything good anyway. (Can't control economy, oil price and so on)

These 3 is rather universal, disregard country.

For USA (you can disagree of course), but a 4th reason in USA taugth at college, and repoarted from USA by TV is:
4) a: The preregistration system. If you struggle, you don't have energy to go twice. of course this is only a small part of the population.
b: In many stats and counties, the number of votings. Like who will be the police chief and so on; has a negativ impact of %. I know is some parts of USA, these are recently been seperated.

Posted by: Jutman

Quote:

Many people don't want to go into politics because there past will be dug up and scrutinized

yes, I find it a little strange. Ok, of course not criminal but I like to know hat the candidates are normal, human beings with whatever flows they have. Nobody is perfect.

Here in Denmark, our last PM was remarried with a woman from another political party who was a leader and in the EP. I always try imagine Bush remarry Hilary Clinton.

The same PM had a daugther who comited suicide during is PM (and after was relected). Or now we have a EP member, who got divorce, was a secretary of 'something'. After divorce remarry as a homosexual. Got honourred by the Queen. Still is in the EP.
I just can't see the headlines, Cheney gets divorce and remarry a US marine, a Iraqi veteran.

Posted by: Ronin_FM3

Dr. Samuel Johnson:

"Of all that human hearts and souls endure,
How little laws and kings may cure."

Posted by: Rockyof Florida

I am a registered republican, but, I vote for who I feel will do the best job whether they are republican, democrat or independent.
Rocky

Posted by: freebird

Quote:

Originally Posted by searcher

Now i'm not sure what to vote!

Anybody up for discussing religion???

Hey Searcher! I think we need to protest the lack of a "libertarian" option!!

Situation is a little different in every country so this is a rather strange poll, with Aussies, Brits & Europeans all mixing it up. Since we in Canada get so much media coverage from the USA, & it seems you have more bizzare events than us, (gay senators in Idaho, questioners TASERed at public forums etc.) much more lively than north of the border!

But it seems that there should be a third choice in the USA, not just far Right or loony Left!

Posted by: JohnnyLaRue

I never have voted in a USA election at all. Hell I don't think I am even registered to vote. I dislike the two party/lesser of two evils winner take all, media decides the nominee (not allowing others in debates), taking over a year for the presidential race, electoral college system. Both the Democrats and GOP are pretty much the same IMO.

Before anyone says who others have died for my right to vote I was in the US military and never once did I feel if I died it was so Americans can vote. I might have voted for Ron Paul if he got the nominee.

I am also a dual citizen (born in Canada) and have voted once (for the Conservatives and Harper) after being disgusted with the Liberals and Martin.

I guess there is no political party I agree with so I don't vote. I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The Democrats want to punish hard working people who have money like me by taxing the rich. The GOP has the religious right and I reject religion and religion will be the downfall of mankind.

Bottom line is I don't care and unless a 3rd party in the USA has a legit shot I won't vote.

Oh and to the Aussie on here I love Aussie politics! Hilarious! Where else will you get cardboard cutouts of people (Rudd?) in parliament? Hell that kind of humour is worth the extra I pay for my international satellite TV package.