Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What political parties support you?

Page 5 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

17 Apr 2012, 9:35 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

While I know for a fact that my Dad's old Steel Workers Union had contributed to the Democrats, they still had fought for, and maintained, high pay and benefits for him and his fellow workers - and that's all that matters to me.
By the way, at their height of power under Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters who were arguably the dirtiest, most mobbed up union in America, had supported the Republicans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What are they like now? The pay and benefits?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

17 Apr 2012, 9:37 pm

The Greens?! Socially liberal?! ! I don't think so. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives even more than the main three.

UKIP I think are the most libertarian of the main parties (I'm a UKIP member) but, even in UKIP, there is a very heavy divergence between the main political ideologies of the membership and leadership.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

17 Apr 2012, 10:19 pm

Tequila wrote:
The Greens?! Socially liberal?! ! I don't think so. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives even more than the main three.

Really? The party which wants to legalize drugs and prostitution? The party that wants to scrap the ID cards? The party that probably has the strongest LGBT platform? The party that would give protection to conscientious objectors within the armed forces? The party that pledges to protect minority rights, such as those of Travellers? And most of the policies "telling everyone how to live their life" are more giving incentives. There are exceptions, of course, such as their carbon crediting scheme and restrictions on air traffic, but in general they are more liberal than the main three. Also, to be fair, they only try to modify lifestyles where they feel it is necessary for ecological reasons or, in the case of prevention of cruelty to animals for instance, for ethical reasons.

As for the libertarian elements of UKIP, it is all very well to allow people the freedom to live their lives however they want but without well-paying jobs and social services to help meet basic needs that freedom is meaningless. Freedom from government regulation is useless to someone trapped in wage slavery.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

17 Apr 2012, 10:25 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
As for the libertarian elements of UKIP, it is all very well to allow people the freedom to live their lives however they want but without well-paying jobs and social services to help meet basic needs that freedom is meaningless. Freedom from government regulation is useless to someone trapped in wage slavery.


That's UKIP's main policy in that we should govern ourselves and sort out our own employment policy. Hardline libertarianism has few fans within UKIP (I don't support it either). What is desired is a smaller, more efficient welfare state with a fluid employment market that safeguards worker's rights whilst allowing employers to sack unproductive workers. The main UKIP points are to combat high taxation, the excessive EU regulation, the bloated, inefficient and wasteful welfare state and government spending and pointless, punitive bureaucracy.

Just out of interest, AstroGeek, are you from the UK?



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

17 Apr 2012, 11:12 pm

Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
As for the libertarian elements of UKIP, it is all very well to allow people the freedom to live their lives however they want but without well-paying jobs and social services to help meet basic needs that freedom is meaningless. Freedom from government regulation is useless to someone trapped in wage slavery.


That's UKIP's main policy in that we should govern ourselves and sort out our own employment policy. Hardline libertarianism has few fans within UKIP (I don't support it either). What is desired is a smaller, more efficient welfare state with a fluid employment market that safeguards worker's rights whilst allowing employers to sack unproductive workers. The main UKIP points are to combat high taxation, the excessive EU regulation, the bloated, inefficient and wasteful welfare state and government spending and pointless, punitive bureaucracy.

Just out of interest, AstroGeek, are you from the UK?

No, I'm not--I'm from Canada. I can not claim to know all of the details of UK politics and issues. I have, however, read a lot of the details of the UK Greens' policies and found that most of them I really like, in principle at least. I have read much less about UKIP but dislike the general theme of their policies, although there will of course be individual ones that I may approve of.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Apr 2012, 11:53 pm

snapcap wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

While I know for a fact that my Dad's old Steel Workers Union had contributed to the Democrats, they still had fought for, and maintained, high pay and benefits for him and his fellow workers - and that's all that matters to me.
By the way, at their height of power under Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters who were arguably the dirtiest, most mobbed up union in America, had supported the Republicans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What are they like now? The pay and benefits?


I have no idea, as my Dad had passed away almost sixteen years ago, and he had been retired for years before that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

18 Apr 2012, 12:01 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

While I know for a fact that my Dad's old Steel Workers Union had contributed to the Democrats, they still had fought for, and maintained, high pay and benefits for him and his fellow workers - and that's all that matters to me.
By the way, at their height of power under Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters who were arguably the dirtiest, most mobbed up union in America, had supported the Republicans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What are they like now? The pay and benefits?


I have no idea, as my Dad had passed away almost sixteen years ago, and he had been retired for years before that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Do you really think they compare to what they offer today?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2012, 12:12 am

snapcap wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

While I know for a fact that my Dad's old Steel Workers Union had contributed to the Democrats, they still had fought for, and maintained, high pay and benefits for him and his fellow workers - and that's all that matters to me.
By the way, at their height of power under Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters who were arguably the dirtiest, most mobbed up union in America, had supported the Republicans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What are they like now? The pay and benefits?


I have no idea, as my Dad had passed away almost sixteen years ago, and he had been retired for years before that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Do you really think they compare to what they offer today?


Maybe not, since big business has made organized labor concede way too much, but I think unionized workers still have better benefits and wages than those who aren't.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,258
Location: the island of defective toy santas

18 Apr 2012, 12:37 am

i know that the federal gov't employee's union saved me from the predations of sociopathic officers who were the line supervisors at the army hospital i used to work at. too many of those cats seemed to think they could boss the civilians around just like their one-stripe privates. one had the nerve to tell me i was "insufficiently military." :roll: unions still do have utility, especially today when an onrush of psycho bosses seem to be coming out of the woodwork.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2012, 12:50 am

auntblabby wrote:
i know that the federal gov't employee's union saved me from the predations of sociopathic officers who were the line supervisors at the army hospital i used to work at. too many of those cats seemed to think they could boss the civilians around just like their one-stripe privates. one had the nerve to tell me i was "insufficiently military." :roll: unions still do have utility, especially today when an onrush of psycho bosses seem to be coming out of the woodwork.


I totally admit, I am "insufficiently military."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

18 Apr 2012, 10:29 am

AstroGeek wrote:
I have read much less about UKIP but dislike the general theme of their policies, although there will of course be individual ones that I may approve of.


You can read their local elections manifesto here (http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPlocalManifesto2012.pdf).



American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

21 Apr 2012, 4:18 pm

scubasteve wrote:
Well, it's an election year, so all the parties support me. Although, once the election is over, none of them will give a **** about me... Funny how that happens.


I agree with this assessment. Neither major party here in the states cares about the little people. They merely pretend they do and, in my opinion, Democrats pretend a lot better. But I usually vote for Republicans because R candidates are typically not as bad as D candidates.

auntblabby wrote:
the dems were the only party that ever tried to get me affordable health care, the repubs not only are opposed to affordable healthcare for all us disposable riffraff working class folk, but have just disrespected me from all directions to include [via new voter suppression laws in many states] denying my citizens' right to vote against repubs and their anti-working class plans.


This sounds like MSNBC propaganda. Maybe the Dems "tried" to get working class people affordable healthcare but, like all leftist grand plans, they failed miserably and, instead of going down, healthcare prices continue to rise dramatically after Obamacare. The Republicans are not passing "voter suppression laws." I think you mean voter ID laws. Quite a difference don't you think? If requiring people to show ID to do something important is an act of disrespect toward that person, then we are one disrespectful society. I think our society is disrespectful but it has nothing to do with laws requiring ID to be shown all of the time. Finally, what are "anti-working class plans"?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Apr 2012, 4:47 pm

American wrote:
scubasteve wrote:
Well, it's an election year, so all the parties support me. Although, once the election is over, none of them will give a **** about me... Funny how that happens.


I agree with this assessment. Neither major party here in the states cares about the little people. They merely pretend they do and, in my opinion, Democrats pretend a lot better. But I usually vote for Republicans because R candidates are typically not as bad as D candidates.

auntblabby wrote:
the dems were the only party that ever tried to get me affordable health care, the repubs not only are opposed to affordable healthcare for all us disposable riffraff working class folk, but have just disrespected me from all directions to include [via new voter suppression laws in many states] denying my citizens' right to vote against repubs and their anti-working class plans.


This sounds like MSNBC propaganda. Maybe the Dems "tried" to get working class people affordable healthcare but, like all leftist grand plans, they failed miserably and, instead of going down, healthcare prices continue to rise dramatically after Obamacare. The Republicans are not passing "voter suppression laws." I think you mean voter ID laws. Quite a difference don't you think? If requiring people to show ID to do something important is an act of disrespect toward that person, then we are one disrespectful society. I think our society is disrespectful but it has nothing to do with laws requiring ID to be shown all of the time. Finally, what are "anti-working class plans"?


I.D. laws are voter suppression laws. Voters who don't have proper identification are denied - not a privilege - a right. This is directed at poor, minority, elderly, and young voters, who generally vote Democrat, as they are less likely to have proper I.D. A case in point; college I.D. is not considered acceptable, but gun registration is. In another case, an elderly black lady who had been voting her whole adult life had recently been denied the right to vote because she could produce all documentation, save for her marriage license. How blatant does that have to be to be evident? And all this is in place because of the threat of voter fraud - a crime that is so small that it hardly constitutes one percent of ballots cast - and which is just as often perpetrated by the right as by the left. And yet where are these laws being directed at conservatives, and not just liberal voters? And no, that's not just MSNBC propaganda.
And by the way, MSNBC is a hell of a lot more reliable than Fox.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AdamAdam
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 48
Location: Manchester

21 Apr 2012, 4:51 pm

I've voted for the Labour party in each election I've been eligible to vote in



American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

21 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I.D. laws are voter suppression laws. Voters who don't have proper identification are denied - not a privilege - a right. This is directed at poor, minority, elderly, and young voters, who generally vote Democrat, as they are less likely to have proper I.D. A case in point; college I.D. is not considered acceptable, but gun registration is. In another case, an elderly black lady who had been voting her whole adult life had recently been denied the right to vote because she could produce all documentation, save for her marriage license. How blatant does that have to be to be evident? And all this is in place because of the threat of voter fraud - a crime that is so small that it hardly constitutes one percent of ballots cast - and which is just as often perpetrated by the right as by the left. And yet where are these laws being directed at conservatives, and not just liberal voters? And no, that's not just MSNBC propaganda.
And by the way, MSNBC is a hell of a lot more reliable than Fox.


How can one not have any ID? This is what always baffles me. I have all sorts of ID. But, even for people who currently do not have an ID, they can get one easily. If they bother to go vote, then they will bother to get an ID. I think it depends on the state as to whether college student IDs are acceptable. If it is from a state-owned institution, then it should be for sure. As for "gun registration" being a valid ID for voting, I have never heard of this. Concealed carry permits are, as they should be, because they are government issued photo ID. The black woman not being allowed to vote for lack of marriage license is new to me. I'm sure the people who denied her the right to vote were acting outside of the law.

As for Republicans and voter fraud, it just doesn't happen that much. Democrats are the Queens of voter fraud. The reason why liberals feel these laws are directed at them is precisely for that reason. Furthermore, those individuals that are too irresponsible to get an ID are key Democrat voters. These are the people Democrat operatives like to round up, put on a bus, and send to the polls to blindly vote for Democrats.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Apr 2012, 5:17 pm

American wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I.D. laws are voter suppression laws. Voters who don't have proper identification are denied - not a privilege - a right. This is directed at poor, minority, elderly, and young voters, who generally vote Democrat, as they are less likely to have proper I.D. A case in point; college I.D. is not considered acceptable, but gun registration is. In another case, an elderly black lady who had been voting her whole adult life had recently been denied the right to vote because she could produce all documentation, save for her marriage license. How blatant does that have to be to be evident? And all this is in place because of the threat of voter fraud - a crime that is so small that it hardly constitutes one percent of ballots cast - and which is just as often perpetrated by the right as by the left. And yet where are these laws being directed at conservatives, and not just liberal voters? And no, that's not just MSNBC propaganda.
And by the way, MSNBC is a hell of a lot more reliable than Fox.


How can one not have any ID? This is what always baffles me. I have all sorts of ID. But, even for people who currently do not have an ID, they can get one easily. If they bother to go vote, then they will bother to get an ID. I think it depends on the state as to whether college student IDs are acceptable. If it is from a state-owned institution, then it should be for sure. As for "gun registration" being a valid ID for voting, I have never heard of this. Concealed carry permits are, as they should be, because they are government issued photo ID. The black woman not being allowed to vote for lack of marriage license is new to me. I'm sure the people who denied her the right to vote were acting outside of the law.

As for Republicans and voter fraud, it just doesn't happen that much. Democrats are the Queens of voter fraud. The reason why liberals feel these laws are directed at them is precisely for that reason. Furthermore, those individuals that are too irresponsible to get an ID are key Democrat voters. These are the people Democrat operatives like to round up, put on a bus, and send to the polls to blindly vote for Democrats.


Now I really know you're getting all your news from Fox. I have never heard of anyone in this day and age being bussed around to commit voter fraud.
And yes, there are plenty of people without proper I.D.; especially when the lack of money and resources makes driving - let alone then getting a driver's license - prohibitive. Especially when food and shelter are of more concern. That's the real reason behind these "voter fraud" laws.
And yes, it was illegal to deny this elderly woman the right to vote. That's the intent of the law. As I have already stated, the whole purpose of these laws is to keep selected blocks of citizens from voting in order to give the Republican party an edge.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer