I don't identify myself with any political party because I find them all corrupt, but I tend to be very liberal on social issues and slightly liberal on economy.
I'm independent, but if I had to think of a political party that I identify myself with, it might be The Socialist Party USA. There are probably a few in Europe I come closer to though.
I don't specifically align myself with any political party fully, nor do I have one set of ideological beleifs in politics; some issues I'm liberal on and some issues I'm conservative, I don't have any preset stances on things. But if I was to choose one, I'd be closest to a liberal (maybe specifically a welfare liberal?), and therefore I'd support the Liberal Party of Canada and the Democratic Party.
[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]I am a fairly liberal Republican. I'm pro-choice, pro-business, pro-war. And I will be voting for McCain in the fall.shoeman12
[QUOTE="bman784"]I identify with the political ideologies of socialism, but I support the United States Democratic party out of necessity.H8sMikeMoore
If you have a very loose and tenuous definition of socialism. Functional social programs =/= socialism.
so you at least admit the democratic party is pushing socialism?
usually by "pushing socialism" that means that theyre bringing it in one step at a time
anyway, functioning is debateable.
I don't see them trying to seize control of the economy. They want to limit tax breaks and create more available social programs. It's a bit closer to socialism, but socialism it definitely isn't. Trying to define the democrats as "socialist" is usually a sensationalist tactic used by political opposition to portray them in a negative light.
[QUOTE="bman784"]I identify with the political ideologies of socialism, but I support the United States Democratic party out of necessity.bman784
If you have a very loose and tenuous definition of socialism. Functional social programs =/= socialism.
so you at least admit the democratic party is pushing socialism?
usually by "pushing socialism" that means that theyre bringing it in one step at a time
anyway, functioning is debateable.
I don't see them trying to seize control of the economy. They want to limit tax breaks and create more available social programs. It's a bit closer to socialism, but socialism it definitely isn't. Trying to define the democrats as "socialist" is usually a sensationalist tactic used by political opposition to portray them in a negative light.
didnt say they were socialists. pushing. just as dangerous though
[QUOTE="bman784"]I identify with the political ideologies of socialism, but I support the United States Democratic party out of necessity.H8sMikeMoore
If you have a very loose and tenuous definition of socialism. Functional social programs =/= socialism.
so you at least admit the democratic party is pushing socialism?
usually by "pushing socialism" that means that theyre bringing it in one step at a time
anyway, functioning is debateable.
I don't see them trying to seize control of the economy. They want to limit tax breaks and create more available social programs. It's a bit closer to socialism, but socialism it definitely isn't. Trying to define the democrats as "socialist" is usually a sensationalist tactic used by political opposition to portray them in a negative light.
didnt say they were socialists. pushing. just as dangerous though
So advocating more upper taxation and social programs is just as dangerous as seizing complete control of a capitalist economy:| I somehow doubt that. It's paranoia to think that the democratic party is some hidden path to socialism. Even if that were true, look how we did under Clinton. It would be one heck of an improvement over how we're doing now.
Log in to comment