Which political party do you belong to? Why?

I hope that you don't kill me for this answer ...Neither. I don't align myself with any single party,ever. When considering all of the recent nonsense and in-fighting amongst both parties,it seems ridiculous to me that I would belong to one or the other.It's no longer about the good of the country,it's about "You're Republican,I'm a Democrat" and then the fight beins from there.

Don't get me wrong,I LOVE my country,but both parties embrace ideals that I think are important. At that point all you can do is tryto decide who's "kinda" being truthful and base your decision on their track record.So I don't now nor ever will ever consider myself anything but me,making my decisions beased on what viable information is available to me. Sources: My Epinion BrainBuilder_is_gone's Recommendations The Best Democracy Money Can Buy Amazon List Price: $14.00 Used from: $1.40 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 151 reviews) Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws Amazon List Price: $26.99 Used from: $2.30 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 52 reviews) Merchants of Misery: How Corporate America Profits From Poverty Amazon List Price: $17.95 Used from: $0.98 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (based on 3 reviews) The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians--and How We Can Survive Them Amazon List Price: $16.95 Used from: $9.79 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 10 reviews) It's getting a bit ot of control...

I was born a Democrat, raised a Democrat and I suppose I’ll die a Democrat. Like most white Southerners of my generation I was raised not to trust revenue agents, Yankees or Republicans. Now of course most of the South is solidly Republican but I am very liberal on economic, labor, civil rights and foreign policy issues so I am still most comfortable in the Democratic Party.

I do tend to agree with the Republicans on a few social issues like abortion but when taking in the big picture I agree with the Democrats far more than I do the Republicans. Given the current President I can’t find too many pros for the GOP right now except that some people in the Republican Party are beginning to wake up and demand some accountability out of the ever-secretive Bush White House. The biggest strike against both parties is there cow towing to the extreme constituencies within their ranks.

The Republicans cater way too much to the far right and the Democrats to the extreme and sometimes weird left. Sources: my opinion KingofRandomCrap's Recommendations Democrat Party String Lights novelty lighting c7 Official Bush Countdown Clock Amazon List Price: $26.00 Democratic Balloon Amazon List Price: $19.99 Democrat Barbecue Sauce Amazon List Price: $7.95 Bendos Democrat Democratic Donkey Keychain Amazon List Price: $6.99 What a Party! : My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals Amazon List Price: $24.95 Used from: $10.95 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 17 reviews) .

None I vote for the candidate that best fits what I think he should support. I think the party system is stupid and prevents good peopel from getting into government based on their own opinions and beliefs. Sources: My opinion .

Officially none, but I tend to side with the Democrats in most elections.... Basically, I absolutely detest both the major political parties. Essentially, other than a few hot button issues, there's not a huge difference between them. Unfortunately, the few issues are very huge in and of themselves.

I am an independent, I've voted for people in both major parties and a couple smaller ones, though the vast majority of my votes on a state and national level have gone to Democrats. The other big problem I have with both major parties is their stranglehold on Democracy...I don't believe this is by accident, and I would do anything to change it. I don't think we're served by a two party system, in fact, I think by and large, both parties are controlled by special interests.

Big business generally donates more to Republicans, but they also give some money to Democrats, because in case they do win, it buys influence. I don't like living in a Democracy that is essentially for sale. I also think that this tends to drive people away from the polls.

There's this conventional wisdom about one vote doesn't count, and about not wastings one's vote on a 3rd party candidate. The problem is as we all know, if we could convince all those people who think their one vote won't count that if everyone who felt that way went to the polls, it would more than count, we'd still have to convince them that everyone who feels that way is going to go to the polls...it's a cycle put in place and fed by the two party system. And whenever there's an outsider, that person is marginalized until their potential impact does not come through.

I think that if we had a viable third party candidate for President, and that come the week leading up to the elections, that person had support within shooting range of the top contender, that person would win. I say that because of a theory I have, which was tested and proven in my home state. I believe that there are a ton of people who would vote for anyone else, and probably even more who would vote for a 3rd party candidate if that candidate spoke truthfully and made sense.

I think the number of people who don't vote or have never voted would not show up on the polling (which concentrates on registered voters), and they would be energized at the last minute thinking it's too close to call, this person really could win, I'm going to vote, because I actually have a reason to do so. Again I saw this happen. I'm from Minnesota, and this happened when we elected Jesse Ventura governor.

People laugh, and Jesse was the kind of guy who couldn't take criticism and couldn't keep his mouth shut (not a politician), and the media ate him alive...and all he did was whine about it and call the media "jackals", while he continually lost credibility, and with it power, and essentially became ineffective. But in the beginning, when he was the outsider, we had a Republican contender who many didn't trust because he was the mayor of St. Paul (the city I live in), and ran it financially into the ground, and came to power as a Democrat, but switched party affiliations after talking to top level Republican operatives at a national level (he weaseled his way into a U.S. Senate seat, but I guess we're still supposed to believe that his motives for switching parties had nothing to do with being groomed, even though he went almost overnight from being pro-choice to pro-life...who does that? ).

We had a Democrat who had a famous name, but who was stodgy and boring and most of his support came from people who just didn't want the Republican to win. Then Jesse came along and he started to say things that made a lot of sense to a lot of people, like maybe we should at least look at decriminalization of certain controlled substances and prostitution such as is done successfully in many other economies...stuff no politician would ever say even if they thought it. People found his honesty and openness to at least studying new ideas to see if they were feasible to be refreshing.At the same time, they two major parties tried to shut him out of the debates (though he got in and won them hands down), and did everything they could to marginalize him.

But they didn't attack him because they didn't take him seriously. Because he was untarnished, the clear winner of the debates, and full of new ideas and a willigness to keep an open mind, his poll numbers started to climb when the masses started to pay attention. The conventional wisdom had been that he'd take support away from the Republicans because they were more likely to break party affiliations given the history of their candidate, but his views were more aligned with Democrats and he started to take some support from them.

When we got to election day, his numbers were within striking distance of the Republican who had pulled ahead. Democrats realized that their candidate wasn't going to win, and they abandoned him. Furthermore, people came out of the woodwork who had not been voters and swept him into power by a wide margin.

Even Republican support deteriorated slightly, despite the fact that many potential non-voting Republicans made it to the polls because they didn't want Jesse to win. This is what I think needs to happen on a national level, because we have this problem. Each year, any viable outsider is portrayed by both parties as an outsider.

They are shut out of the debates, even if it meant changing debate moderators in order to keep the status quo. Anyone who got too powerful (see Perot) had any flaw amplified and jumped on by pundits and other operatives, in order to marginalize him in the eyes of the electorate. And when necessary, attack ads have been used against serious 3rd party contenders.

Because attack ads are not really about casting aspersions on one's opponent...they are about driving down the numbers of voters. The fewer voters to deal with, the easier they are to manipulate. If you can glut the airwaves with ads that make thinking people sick, and if you can egg your opponent into joining you at that level, you drive away the people who are put off by that kind of thing, as it makes both people look slimy and if all 3rd party candidates have so little support going into the endgame because they've been shut out of the process and marginalized, you know your vote is wasted so why cast it?

So, that drives away intelligent voters, but it also confuses the less intelligent, making them think there's no point in voting because both guys suck. So, you're left down to the core liberals and core conservatives who feel it would be disasterous if the other party got into power (until 2000 that seemed somewhat more hyperbolic than it does today however, at least in my opinion). If you're battling core against core...all you have to get to are the few remaining swing voters who are going to vote for the person they trust the most on that day.

So, here's essentially what I believe in, and it is a platform I think that could be won by a straight talking charismatic 3rd party candidate who could play the system well. Big problem is, anyone with enough integrity to hold this position, probably wouldn't want the job: Equality for all.No more discrimination of any kind based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion (or any other factor). Education for everyone.

Health care for everyone. Minimum wage above the poverty level. No taxation for anyone who can't afford it.

Publicly financed elections. Decriminialization of victimless crimes (crimes only against one's self). Intense treatment and support for "behavioral victims" of the repeal of said victimless crimes.

Strong response to violent crime. A job for anyone who wants to work. A social safety net for the most vulnerable in our society.

Guaranteed retirement benefits for all. End to corporate welfare. Insistence on taxes being paid by those who can afford to pay them, to whatever extent taxation is necessary in order to heal the problems of our society.

Funding of scientific research to end disease, not simply treat it for the benefit of drug companies' bottom lines. Strong military, but officially neutral stance in foreign matters. End to dependence on non-renewal energy sources.

I think the right person could almost end racism, sexism, hunger, disease, war, crime, poverty and dependence on foreign oil. Such a person would face fierce resistance from the entrenched power hierarchy, but if he/she could remain viable until the endgame (somehow), people would come out of the woodwork to vote. For me, the problem with Democrats (other than being betrothed to big money) is they are too passive and often don't respond aggressively enough to attacks...they take the high road and are seen as weak.

I mean, c'mon...we had a decorated war veteran vs. a draft dodger, and the veteran was perceived to be less military friendly? Some bleeding hearts also go too far, though I believe in FDRs principles of government as a social safety net, too few Democrats acknowledge that the system is taken advantage of. Republicans focus too much on personal responsibility, to the point that it's every man for himself.

They want us to live in an investment society and think it's possible for everyone to go from rags to riches if they're not too lazy to do it. Problem is, they have never been in the circumstances faced by some...they have no empathy for the plight of others. I also think they're too betrothed to religion.

We're supposed to have a separation of church and state, yet so many of our laws are dictated by the far right morality (abortion, gay marraige, etc.). They want everything run by and like a business as well, so it's all about power, which is dictated by money. If you have nothing to start out with, how do you gain power?

Certainly not through hard work, when the hardest work available...physical labor doesn't even pay a wage above the poverty line! Too many of the other parties concentrate on a niche...the Greens seem mostly concerned with the environment...they're a one trick pony. The Grass Roots wants to legalize it, but what else will they do?

Libertarian is as close as I can come to associating with a party, but again they mostly want to focus on getting government out of our affairs so from a social standpoint I support it, but it doesn't provide for the safety net we need in society. I'm in the middle, I'm not soft on crime, but I don't think a lot of things that are called crimes are criminal problems...they are social problems and needed to be dealt with as such. I want to make sure everyone can earn a living and afford health care and retire at a reasonable age, but I don't want to hand out free money to everyone who wants it.

I think the majority of opinion lies somewhere within the values I espouse, but no one in politics from any party has ever had the cajones to take such a stance.

Republican, thanks to the Weekly Reader When I was in 2nd grade, we had to read this little paper called "The Weekly Reader". On the cover they had pictures of Carter and Ford for the 1976 election. I thought Ford looked more presidential, so I decided that I must be a Republican.

Since then, I've come to find that neither party does a good job of representing my views, so I've just stuck with Republican, but I vote for the individual candidates, based on their individual merit (or lack there of).

" "Please share with me your favorite "political" joke about a politician or political party you support! For instance..." "What do you think about this new political party, The Anti-Prohibition Party?" "Do you think having more women involved in politics/political positions would make a difference? " "Who is up for some "Political Humor"?

Thats as far as I go discussing "Politics" I've seen how dangerous it can be LOL..

How do you deal with people who are blindly devoted to one political party...

Please share with me your favorite "political" joke about a politician or political party you support! For instance...

Thats as far as I go discussing "Politics" I've seen how dangerous it can be LOL..

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.