Do you take any stances that contradicts your party's?

[Sims2789]

I have become pretty pro-school choice. I believe very strongly in comprehensive education reform, and that is going to require some major democratic constituencies, like teachers unions, getting shaken up a little bit.

I've actually voted for more republicans I think in city elections than I have Democrats, at least when I lived in larger cities. I think that Urban Democrats have, in some cases, perpetuated dependency, particularly when it comes to schools. Some of them have also been softer on crime, although I can't say thats true for national or state level democrats.

We could shake up the teacher unions without subsidizing private education or creating unregulated private schools in poor areas that teach even less than the public schools and thrive off vouchers.

The influx of young voters, many of whom had programs cut so the teachers could get a slightly higher raise, could help with the teacher unions.

Urban Democrats do things like pass residential parking zones while urban Republicans force strip clubs to have bumpers between the dancers and the audience. If the Greens were a force in Berkeley (they won in Richmond, CA, which is like Oakland but poorer and more violent) I'd probably vote for them, even if they are more bureaucratic.

 

[Sims2789]

Lean Democrat on most issues, but differ on a couple. Plus the definitions seem way too broad in the OP. Conservatives want personal liberty? Maybe on some issues, but just look at where they stand on many social issues.

Not to mention the economy, with their subsidies and other supply-side welfares.

 

[Holycannoli]

I do have slight differences, but so does everyone. I differ on illegal immigration mostly but that's a hot issue with many different opinions in both parties.

Other than that though I don't differ too much. If I differed too much why choose my party?

If this were the platform of the Republican party, I would have very few stances that contradict it.

I think "personal responsibility" just means "not socialist". I agree wholeheartedly with it.

And general_kill, you are a moderate You don't lean to one party or the other, and have as many conservative views as liberal. There is no "Moderate" party though so it's almost like whichever party you choose is the right one (or wrong one)

 

[luiz]

I am not affiliated with any party nor will ever be.

I have voted mostly for the Brazilian Social-Democratic Party, even though I don't care for them very much. I do like the fact that their leadership can all read and right in proper portuguese, and I also appreciate the fact that the none of them were communist terrorists in the 70's (which by itself makes them much better than most big parties here).

I also vote strategically for whatever non-communist party when it is necessary to keep the Worker's Party from winning. I have voted for a corrupt politician who I hate for Senator because the dispute was very close with a stalinist (the crook won, fortunately).

That's politics in Brazil, voting for crooks and socialists in hope of keeping the Bolsheviks out.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I am an independant. The views that I have are my own views and cannot be labeled within the confines a party that would like to regulate and bottle me up in.

 

[The Yankee]

I'm currently a registered Democrat, so let's see....

Immigration: Do not favor a fast track to citizenship for those that have come here illegally. Do favor liberalized immigration laws to cut the red tape and waiting, and it is unrealistic to hope to jail and/or deport those here illegally, but they have to go to the back of the line for citizenship purposes.

Gay marriage: I support full marriage rights, whatever they're called. Depending on the Democrat, the stance may vary from them.

Affirmative Action: No. Just no. I can see an economic version...but I do not think a racial one has any purpose here any longer.

Iraq: I'm moving more towards the view that we can't just up and leave. I do, however, don't support the view that we should be in there full tilt for an indefinite period of time. Something has to give, eventually....

Fiscal responsibility: For all the grand talk, the Democrats haven't proved yet that they actually want to erase the earmark trading, lobbyist pushing, bloated budgetary policies. The Republicans definitely haven't shown they want that either, so I'm stuck, again.

Gun control: I do not think heavy federal gun control laws should be in place. I do see the value in local governments setting the laws, though, but this can't be a top-down kind of thing, IMO. That won't square with many Democrats.

Usual nanny state banning spree: Do not want. Whether it's the blanket bans on smoking or city councils wasting time passing resolutions against this or that, just no. Go away.

Taxes: Undecided for an overall policy, but the heavy tilt that Democrats often vote to give to those who don't quality to pay income taxes, anyway, grinds my gears.

Welfare: Leave it there, but I don't get many Democratic resistance efforts against adding in more requirements to ensure that recipients get on their own two feet as quickly as possible. To the credit of Bill Clinton (and mostly Republicans in Congress), some progress was made in the 1990s. But it faced a lot of Democratic opposition.

Protectionism: Eventually we have to man up and be competitive if we expect to keep our quality jobs here. A lot of the Democratic protectionist streak lately has not been finding itself agreeing with me. I will readily admit that I do not know how to protect ourselves against incredibly cheap labor from countries that have nearly no labor standards, though, so I'll punt.

Education: I can't say how many Democrats support or are against it, but I'd be for vouchers, so long as the recipient schools meet certain guidelines.

Union Relations: This is more a local problem, since the costs end up coming out of more local budgets. However, making deals with, say, the TWU here working the MTA (mass transit) in New York and granting deals that would allow them to retire after only 20 or 25 years is wrong. While everything is given to those established workers, new potential workers are shafted and look elsewhere, lowering our pool of talent. The same goes for teachers' unions and many other such public employees. The good ones do deserve some quality pay, but I can't side with deals that won't allow the local governments to weed out the bad apples or deals that give a treasure chest to current employees at the cost of our future talent. This is not just a problem I have with local Democratic politicians. This cuts across party lines.


Whew...I think that covers most of it. Not all of that consists of complete splits, nor do they have to. But this is what I can think of at the moment.

 

[Integral]

Let's see, I'm a registered Democrat, voted Libertarian in the last (2006) election, and routinely support the Republican economic platform, but not the way they've implemented it. I'm somewhat between the parties when it comes to social issues.

Meh. I'm just going to copy Yankee's categories, throw in a few of my own, and sound off. It's been a while since I've made a substanstive post.




Immigration: I support relaxed immigration quotas and a special path to citizenship with preconditions for the 20 million illegals already here. Different circumstances require different policies, and if the restrictions are too great then they simply won't come out of the shadows. I'm against mass deportation except in cases where the illegal immigrant has a criminal record. Somewhat closer to the Democratic position.

Gay marriage: Seperation of marriage and state; full legal rights to gay couples. Leave marriage to the churches and legal considerations to the civil government. Closer to the Democratic position.

Affirmative Action: Do not want. Closer to the Republican position.

Iraq: I see Iraq as one stage in the context of a broader strategy against extremism. I've disagreed heavily with the current Administration's handling of the situtation, but would like to see continued American presence there. All in all, the US military is an organization that does not change until it experiences defeat. Hopefully the setback in Iraq will prompt change in the military to face the challenges of the 21st century. Closer to the Barnett position. I guess it's similar to the Republican position.

Fiscal responsibility: Good thing. Neither party has made much progress in this area on their own; it took a divided government in the 1990s along with strong revenue growth to provide the surplus. I'm tempted to give the Democrats a turn with the budget controls, provided that they are checked by a Republican Congress. Newt, save us!

Gun control: I'm generally opposed to Federal gun control. Locally, it may be a different issue. Closer to the Republican position.

Usual nanny state banning spree: Do not want.

Taxes: I used to be sold on the flat tax; now I'm not sure if that is practical in America today. Still, tax policy is only meaningful when discussed in the context of budget policy.

Welfare: EITC and similar workfare programs are good.

Protectionism: I support NAFTA, CAFTA, and pretty much all of the other little trade deals out there. To help displaced workers, I'd like to see a Federal/state program to improve adult education opportunities. Closer to the Republican position.

Education: I support anything Downtown says regarding education. Anything. I'm also for school choice.

Union Relations: Not my table.

Death Penalty: I'm generally opposed to it on the grounds that I don't trust the government to kill people properly. Now, I can see the Kantian argument for the death penalty with regards to murderers, but the evidence would have to be airtight. Closer to the Democratic position.

Energy policy: See link in my sig. Favor a carbon tax, splitting the revenue between energy investments and the EITC. Currently, the Democrats are the only ones to make moves towards a carbon tax, and even then only in isolated situations.

Foreign aid: I'm generally for development aid, as it is both an economic and security asset. I'd particularly like to see expanded aid in Latin America. I don't know which party that's closer to.

Trade: The US must be committed to free trade. I'm with the Republicans on this one.

Quoth Larry Summers:

I think the decision to support NAFTA was a crucial one because it was really a watershed as to whether America was going to stand for larger markets, was going to stand for forward defense of our interests by trying to have a more integrated global economy [in] which countries were growing. So [a] watershed in our relations with Mexico and establishing a real partnership with a country with whom we had a 2,000-mile border. I think it resulted in a profound change in the internal political dynamics in Mexico in favor of the progressive forces that believed in the market and friendship with the United States as opposed to the forces that believed more in socialism and opposition to the United States. And NAFTA didn't cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy both because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation. It didn't cost the budget anything. It was a very worthwhile investment for our country.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

This is more a UK/US issue than in other nations, as the two nations only have 2 main parties. For example, the Republican party contains both the Bible-thumping wing and the libitertian wing, while the Democrats contain the big-state wing and the uber liberal wing.

I'm in a rather sticky position. On economic issues, I am hard-left (Socialist Labour), on foreign policy a Europhile (Liberal Democrats) and on personal issues a libertarian (Lib Dems??)

I would have a home in the Labour Party, but it's moved to be next-door to the Tories, which I dislike both interlectually and instinctivly.

Reading some of the American's political comments - it makes me really . It hammers home the fact that the British political system is pretty rotten, nearly all the big decisions are done by hook or crook, the two main parties are so close in political positions now they may as well become a single party
and the general lethargy in our political life. I was reading a book about the collapse of Classical Greece - and the historian's description of the Athenian democracy a couple of decades before their destruction is so similar to the UK today that I couldn't sleep.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I disagree with so many issues in all of the many political parties in the Netherlands, I have admitted defeat and voted the last 3 times by filling in questionairs on the inet and voting whatever the results they gave me. Or the most common result.

(edit: and I have been voting the first female on the list of that party)

I don't know any political party I can get behind here. Not a single one. And there are dozens. If I were to move to a country with only 2 major parties I think I might not vote at all.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm going to follow The Yankee and Integral and expand upon mines.

As I said before, I am a registered Democrat.

Immigration: Relaxed Immigration quotas, and favor the cut on red tape and beaurocracy to shorten the wait time. allow illegals to apply for citizenship

Abortion: Only support it for cases of rape, incest, and risk of mother's life. Against abortion as a form of birth control.

Gay marriage: Federal Government should have no involvement and should be resolved in a state level eather offering civil unions or marriages. Personally see marriage as between a man and a woman.

Affirmative Action: Employment should be based on what skills and qualifications you have to bring to the table, not based on what race you are. No preferance for race in employment and education please.

Iraq: Was fanatically against the war and wanting to see a complete pull out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. Lately came to terms and disagreed with the administration's way of handling it and see that we should not up and leave. I'd like to see the war to be a success so that we can have a minimal amount of US troops there.

Believe me this issue was very hard to come to terms with as I had been fanatically against it since 2003.

Fiscal responsibility: Would like to see the Democrats step up to the plate to prove that they are Fiscaly Responsible and bring the nation out of debt and into surplus. Disapointed with the Republicans on how they handled the budgets as well as the economy.

Gun control: Opposed to Federal gun controls, local governments and states should have a say as each area and locations of the US has a different issue

Usual nanny state banning spree: Favor indoor smoking bans. Generaly, against most nanny state bannings.

Taxes: Against high taxes that take out a chunk out of my pay check. Side with the Democrats to give to those who don't make enough to pay for income taxes.

Welfare: Keep it as it is, but make it so that it get's people back on their feet instead of abusing it.

Protectionism: Support the trade with other nation. However, I would like to see programs that would help displaced and layed off workers that lost their jobs due to outsourcing.

Education: Undecided as for K-12 education. For adult education, would like to see more opportunities to make it affordable and convenient for adults (especially workers who work two jobs) to go to college

Union Relations: Favor worker's rights. As far as unions go, they don't have that much power (If you don't count the UAW union that set foot in Foxwoods) in my area. After the UAW (United Auto Worker's) fiasco at Foxwoods, tend to side against union relations.

Death Penalty: Favor only to severe criminal cases when the criminal intentionally takes another human being's life.

Energy policy: Favor the construction of nuclear power plants and phase out fossil fueled power plants (natural gas power plants should be used as strictly during high demand times)

Favor research into alternative fuels that would reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern and OPEC petroleum.

Foreign aid: Undecided

Trade: Favor free trade between the US and other trade partners.

 

[The Yankee]

Let's see, I'm a registered Democrat, voted Libertarian in the last (2006) election, and routinely support the Republican economic platform, but not the way they've implemented it. I'm somewhat between the parties when it comes to social issues.

I would not have guessed you were registered with anyone.

Gay marriage: Seperation of marriage and state; full legal rights to gay couples. Leave marriage to the churches and legal considerations to the civil government. Closer to the Democratic position.

A separation of marriage and state would be wonderful...but I've probably given up on that idea. It's still my ideal, however. Since it basically is a certain kind of contract in the eyes of the government.

Still doesn't mean there's really a home for me, on that or on a lot of other things. Oh well.

 

[Theige]

I'll probably vote Democrat, but I'd favor a major increase in state education, as opposed to healthcare.

 

[NYHunter]

I'm basically a liberal republican. Used to be a libertarian republican, and while I am still libertarian on principle, I think some major government activity is needed particularly in energy, transportation and infrastructure. And that some libertarian ideas can't work right now. For example getting rid of things like the FDA (an agency I hate) is too risky right now. I am also an environmentalist.

It should be noted I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004. Although I was too young to vote both times. This time I am 19 but am not sure who I will vote for.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Vote Ralph Nader 2008!

 

[Integral]

I would not have guessed you were registered with anyone.

Well, I had to register with some party to vote in the 2006 midterm election. With my state's closed primaries, I thought Democratic sounded good at the time.

A separation of marriage and state would be wonderful...but I've probably given up on that idea. It's still my ideal, however. Since it basically is a certain kind of contract in the eyes of the government.

As long as the civil and religious meanings of marriage are considered one and the same, the debate on "gay marriage" will continue. I think that most of the arguments against it would fall away if we merely separated those two functions.

Sadly, I don't see that happening.

Still doesn't mean there's really a home for me, on that or on a lot of other things. Oh well.

You could always make your own party. I know of at least three others who would join.

 

[The Yankee]

Myself and three others in my party is four more than I would have expected.

 

[Gecko1]

No I'm pretty coherant with the National Gecko Rational-Socialist party.

 

[Narz]

Do you take any stances that contradicts your party's?

I have had many stances that have contradicted my party's.

For example, my party once wanted to use their beer bong in the house & I told them **** that, take it outside!