RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
You know, it actually made Clinton more popular in some circles here in Europe
It made Clinton significantly more popular in America, that he bummed that girl in the gob
What is your political party CFCers?
- Thread starter Tambien
- Start date
It made Clinton significantly more popular in America, that he bummed that girl in the gob
Winner
Diverse in Unity
You make me consult Urban Dictionary a lot lately, are you aware of that?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Because they like talking in a weird subset of the language.
You know, it actually made Clinton more popular in some circles here in Europe
Well he probably needed it then, after being burned in effigy in parts of Europe. Yeah, lots of foreigners love to idolize Clinton now, but it's like he was everyone's flavor of the month back in the 90s.
sophie
Break My Heart
I'm technically a registered member of the Democratic Party, but I don't really see the point in voting and haven't done so for the last 2 elections, so take from that what you will.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
That comes with the job.
Here Clinton is idolized, more so than in Western Europe. Clinton was one of those guys who actually did care about Central Europe and he did a lot to advance its cause. Rest assured we'll name a few squares, streets, and railway stations after him (like Wilson - that guy has quite a few of them)
...Rest assured we'll name a few squares, streets, and railway stations after him (like Wilson - that guy has quite a few of them)
Speaking of which, do you have any places named after Russian or Soviet things left?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
Similar to Owen, slash, where's the multiple choice option? Technically I'm registered as a Democrat (though in a state I no longer live in), but I consider myself a moderate as well as an independent. I thought about reregistering as a Republican in '08 since I cared more about the outcome of the Republican primary than the Democratic one, but ultimately didn't. That is what I see as the biggest benefit of being registered to a major party (and sometimes a few smaller ones), though - in some states, you can only vote in primaries for the party to which you are registered.
I've also become more apathetic in the past 4-5 years, not so much in that I completely don't care about politics, but in that I see it as inefficient to spend lots of my time keeping up on it or worrying about it, so I no longer actively seek out political information.
I probably will vote in February, looks like there might be something on the ballot I'd care about.
I didn't vote since too many of the options apply to me.
I've also become more apathetic in the past 4-5 years, not so much in that I completely don't care about politics, but in that I see it as inefficient to spend lots of my time keeping up on it or worrying about it, so I no longer actively seek out political information.
I probably will vote in February, looks like there might be something on the ballot I'd care about.
I didn't vote since too many of the options apply to me.
That's great. Now I'm thinking of myself as a paleoliberal.
I'm in that boat too. I pine for the liberalism of FDR and Truman. The Democratic party has moved so far to the right since then it's not even the same party.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
FDR and Truman are what I like to call Concentration Camp Democrats since that's what they were. The Democrats should instead go back to Grover Cleveland, the laissez-faire, hard money, anti-tariff individualist Democrats.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Also, Republicans should go back to Calvin Coolidge.
I don't want economic disasters. I want sound economics. In that respect, no one has been better than FDR and Truman.
Back in Cleveland's time, Democrat and Republican meant quite different things. Democrats were the laissez-faire types and the Republicans were in favor of more government. That changed early in the 20th Century. If the democrats were to change as you suggest, how would they be different from the Republicans.
I'm a liberal republican who's voted democrat in the last 3 presidential elections. Like most people, I'm a mass of contradictions.
+1 for realizing the party system in America is transient and has changed since the 19th century, -2 for messing up both party's positions. No major party in the US has ever promoted a bigger government simply for the sake of having a bigger government. Ever.
Not really. There is not a straight comparison of modern party philosophies to those of the 1890s. You can't even say they were opposites. Times were too different.
The modern parties coalesced and have, more or less, been in their current philosophical molds since the 1930s.
As to the OP. I'm not 100% sure, but I think I"m registered Democrat, mostly, at the time so I could participate in the primaries, etc... At times I've been not-aligned, and I think I was green at one point, but that was a long time ago.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
While 19th century Republicans and Democrats were both very laissez-faire by today's standards, Republicans generally were in favor of very high tariffs while Democrats weren't. If that doesn't make early Republicans less econmically interventionist than Democrats, nothing does.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
Also I am pro Republic, direct election of senators was a disaster. All out Democracy always seems to fail. It's like they have some sort of half-life.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
I doubt that could make that sentance make any sense anyway
Especially here. I never had any time for him except when he bummed that girl in the gob
