Making Social Security reform the “third rail” of politics. Frankly, I’d love to have had everything I paid into Social Security since I started earning taxable income paid into a stock portfolio. I cannot even imagine the wealth I would have amassed.
I’m kind of like **Mosier ** – I’m not so much a Democrat as an anti-Republican.
Y’know, the thing that surprises me is how much Dopers of all political parties have in common!
I caucused for Obama, which makes me an official Democrat this year.
Unions - unions had a time and a place - and that time passed - for the most part - 30 years ago. Although like gun control, some situations call for a little union (or a little gun control) - just not absolute support for labor or gun control.
I lean conservative, but am not registered with any party.
I am not a neo-con, but an old school, minimize gov’t where we can conservative. Not laissez-faire, but with some tendencies that way.
And I think that the push to reverse Roe v. Wade is idiocy. Even if though I think it’s bad law, it’s not going to make abortion illegal through all 50 states automatically - it would simply put the issue back to the states. For the goal of reducing abortions, the best answers is not to change the legal climate, nor the medical, but to offer the most complete, effective sex-ed to all teens, starting around age 12. Maybe sooner. And, offer some subsidies on birth control besides condoms.
I usually vote Republican, but I tend to be more libertarian in terms of social issues. Personally, I think legally we should pretty much let people do what they want as long as it’s not hurting anyone else. What bothers me in particular about the party these days is the idea that the Feds should even get involved in these issues. For instance, I strongly disagree with a Constitutional amendment “protecting” man/woman marriage or a Supreme Court decision granting a right to abortion…these issues should be decided at the state level, and if that means that there are different laws in different states, well, that’s what the states are for.
I usually vote Democrat, but I’m not thrilled with their stance on abortion, or civil unions, but for different reasons.
I’m basically with MtF on abortion. I think the civil unions thing is a cop-out that goes along with the **NightRabbit’s ** point on wishy-washiness.
I’m a Democrat. The biggest flaw in my party is its stance on gun control. We are throwing away throngs of liberal voters who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Individual pols in recent years got in the habit of caving in to warmongers and those bent on handing over government money and power to the churches. Our party was in the minority for so long, they don’t know how to be in charge.
Registered Democrat here, mostly because for the last 30 years the Republican presidential candidates have all horrified me. I’m not happy about it, just doing what I think is wisest.
>I just don’t see how otherwise perfectly reasonable people can’t see that it really is killing a human being. […] there’s no good reason to draw a black-and-white line between abortion and infanticide.
I think this must be the most important point in the abortion debate, and dislike seeing a different debate proposed about whether we approve of killing children. For my part, I find it hard to believe others really think that that little knot of cells is a child. It will become a child, if everything goes in the most usual way. But, the same can be said to some degree about getting a girl drunk in the back of one’s car. So, I don’t think there’s a real good reason for drawing a black-and-white line between abstinence and abortion, either. Life is life, is life. It is always trying to get a foothold anyplace it can. This is the defining character of life. It does not automatically make starting a family a good plan. In practice, if we want killing kindergarten students illegal and we don’t want to prohibit abstinence, we have to have a line somewhere, or some kind of gradual limitation of options, I guess. And I note that more societies seem to consider birth as the start of life - I mean, one’s age is how long ago the birth occurred. Even pregnancy is not dated from the sex act that caused inception, it’s dated from the last menstrual period before that act. So, it seems to me very difficult to limit women’s access to safe and effective medical procedures on any of these bases.
Dang, I forgot to answer the OP. I closed things midway because I thought I heard the grandchild running around upstairs on a visit - turns out it was just some huge cat battle.
What I don’t like about the Democratic party is what seems like too much willingness to insert the government into various financial and other processes. I think defense and environmental protection and licensing radio frequencies and writing and administering law pretty much has to be the province of government. But it does these things with so much waste! Fifteen years ago when I read up on the subject, the laws governing the sale of cabbage ran to 35,000 words. The federal government is not an organization we want managing lots of transactions for us individually and getting things done for us individually that we are going to pay for anyway. Maybe the government can have a hand in providing a safety net, perhaps like welfare programs, but if the federal government is involved in handling most prescriptions or educating most children, it’s just draining money away from the matter at hand by adding so much inefficiency.
I wish I had the wonkishness to prefer specific solutions to this, but, anyway, it’s my doubt about the party I joined.
What do you mean by “absolute gun control”?
I don’t believe I’ve come across that phrase before, and I’m wondering if this is how the Democratic position is typically perceived.
While I’m aware there are some people who want all guns of any kind banned, my sense is that this view is unrealistic and represents an extreme fringe of the debate.
I’m independent, but usually vote Democratic. However, I can see the point of some Republicans too. This puts me all over the map. For example:
I don’t want “absolute gun control”, just reasonable gun control. I have no problem with legitimate hunting and personal protection. But I also don’t buy the slippery slope crap. Nobody needs an Uzi, a howitzer, or an ICBM. Every law we pass limits some freedoms, and since we don’t have an anarchy it becomes a question of being smart about which laws we pass.
I like the (typically Republican) idea of being friendly to business. However, I don’t think this means de-regulate everything in sight on general principle. I think business would benefit greatly by just reducing red tape and simplifying the tax code.
The abortion issue is misjudged on both major sides. We have the technology to make abortion a moot issue. Unwanted pregnancies simply don’t need to happen. Sex education and complete, unrestricted access to birth control would change this problem in a big way.
Agreed that the official Democratic position on it is not “absolute”, and I actually agree with you on reasonable control. But there’s tremendous pressure from the more lefty side of the party for a ban, a la the UK. And that’s what I very much disagree with.
Rick. Really now.
Rick: I like you. I really do. But in this case you’re a paranoid, delusional, miscreant who feels the world is against him.
My head hurts. Suffice it to say that you completely miss the points that we make and favor taking things to absurdities, but this is not the time, the place, or the forum for this. Of course, we could do this for the millionth time, explain ourselves quite clearly, and still face this sort of rhetoric over and over again, so what’s the point?
You’re simply not correct about what we want or what we say, and I would ask politely that you not mischaracterize our position in this manner. Thank you.
As a liberal Democrat, I think we are much too lenient on immigration and illegal aliens.
I was in a gun shop I think on Super Tuesday. The owner said that prices would soon go up “because of the election.” I didn’t debate him, but was he serious? Are people really afraid that Obama or Clinton will ban guns a week after becoming president??
Unwanted pregnancies will still happen because people are dumbshits, education or no.
Which “we” are you referring to?
I was giving my own views, having already made the caveat that I don’t think “absolute gun control” is a representative Democratic Party position. This thought seems to have been seconded by jayjay. Perhaps I’m mistaken - please, do tell.
While I have followed the debates on this board and elsewhere, I’ve somehow managed to come to opinions you don’t have much use for. Sorry if that hurts your head…
To address this directly and not take it any further, asserting anything about “howtizers” and “ICBMs” is inflammatory, and is continually brought up in every discussion about gun control, as if we aspire to what are essentially WMDs. We most assuredly do not.
We simply assert the right to own firearms that are legal to possess by any legal standard today. The omnibus laws of 1934, 1968, and 1986 are established and settled, and are pointless to object to. What we object to is any more restrictions stemming from ignorance. The assertion of “Howitzers and ICBMs” are nothing more than silliness, and the only legal full-automatic Uzis cost an arm and a leg, are severely regulated already (since 1934), and are unimportable and generally unavailable to the public (since 1986). Anything that looks like an Uzi in this country manufactured since 1986 is nothing more than an ungainly, somewhat cool looking 9mm pistol.
Well, that’s more than I intended to say, but that’s the bottom line. More than nothing else I hate the rhetoric, because people read that stuff and actually think that we hold that position, when we do not.
Nothing. I vote green. Anyone pro-environment is okay in my books.
I don’t really identify myself with a particular party though I guess I would be best described as a slightly right-leaning liberal, and tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. The one thing I disagree completely with the Democrats on is gun control. I guess it’s not an issue I actively care enough about to swing my vote, but I can’t get behind that particular party stance.
I’m also opposed to Affirmative Action as it currently exists. I can appreciate the thought behind the policy, but in practice, I just can’t support it. My opposition has probably been strengthened by living in a country where Affirmative Action is in full force, and (IMHO) implemented pretty poorly.
Not trying to take it further either, and I appreciate your restraint given the depth your feelings on the matter. But I am still unclear as to which “we” you are referring to. Whose position are you summarizing?
Send me a PM on this if you’d prefer.
Gun control is another issue I am not sure what to do with. What I would really like to see is the Second Amendment overturned. I don’t think anybody outside of law enforcement and the military should have guns. But, unless and until it gets overturned, I don’t see how we can limit people’s access to guns when that Amendment guarantees it.
Moreover, my understanding of the context is that the Second Amendment is talking about state-of-the-art military armaments, and that it guarantees our right to personally own nuclear-tipped ICBMs, aircraft carriers, and all the other things that arm militaries. I don’t see other people reasoning it out like that, but fail to understand why not.
I guess the Democrats usually try to limit access to dangerous arms in whatever ways they can, and suppose that’s what they should be doing. It seems utterly wrong from a logical point of view, not a practical one.