Is anyone here open to the possibility of voting for the 'opposite' party?

[bendted]

I can't imagine voting for Romney under any circumstance that I can think of. None. Well, maybe if it was revealed that he was gay, then yes. But otherwise I'm completely closed to the possibility. Airtight closed. How about you?

And if your are a republican, the same applies to Obama and dems.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Since you used 'opposite" as the qualifier, then I voted NO.

The 'opposite' of Republican is Democrat in our two party system.

Which means that as Americans we're forced to choose between knuckle dragging right wing neanderthals, and socialist Darwinists as our representatives.

I'll always vote against anyone or any candidate who's party platform is presented in absolutes.

 

[Rolyo85]

I voted yes, because if the Republican party stood for what it's supposed to be standing, it would be a viable alternative. This is a purely hypothetical question though, because as a gay man, of course I only have one option.

 

[gregoryd]

Rolyo85, as a gay man what is that one option? Why are you voting as a gay man and not as a citizen?

I feel there are many more things at stake as a citizen than as a gay man.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Rolyo85, as a gay man what is that one option? Why are you voting as a gay man and not as a citizen?

I feel there are many more things at stake as a citizen than as a gay man.

Maybe because he doesn't want to vote as a SECOND CLASS citizen?

All those "things at stake" aren't going to do you any good if you are going to be discriminated against for who you are. You may believe you're very evolved to think "beyond JUST gay" but the people you're giving your vote to are still going to look down on you and whisper behind your back that you're nothing but a dirty faggot who doesn't deserve the same rights as your straight brethren.

They'll take your vote though

 

[Kulindahr]

I won't vote for either of the two opposite parties. The Two-Faced Whore masquerading as foes is authoritarian, and I won't vote that way.

 

[Stardreamer]

I won't vote for either of the two opposite parties. The Two-Faced Whore masquerading as foes is authoritarian, and I won't vote that way.

I'm starting to settle towards Gary Johnson.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't vote for either of the two opposite parties. The Two-Faced Whore masquerading as foes is authoritarian, and I won't vote that way.

I'm starting to settle towards Gary Johnson.

 

[mightbe]

Out of the question. I think that we should do away with the two-party system in favor of a mulitparty system. Of course, those impeding the US's progress in respect to the rest of the world (Republicans), would be completely against it. As a gay man, there is unfortunately one option to go with if you want anything changed. Sure, you can abstain from voting, but that doesn't win anything.

I disagree with gregoryd. Being a citizen ultimately means looking out for your best interests, but if you're cool with discrimination, violence, hate, being a second-class citizen and what-not, who am I to stop you? The only way you can vote as a citizen is to vote as yourself. Being gay and proud of it is a fairly definitive part of who you are. If everyone voted like you want us to, everybody would agree. The fact is that people think differently and hold other issues above others, and might have the exact same run-down of issues but stand on the opposite side of every one. If people are voting the way that best suits their own priorities and interests, then that's the best kind of democracy. Not everyone does that. Some people vote however people tell them (or expect them) to. And it's those people who are fucking the system.

Some things need to be laid out and set right before. America needs to grow up and move on. We haven't moved forward with the rest of the world. The Republicans started this. Got everything exactly the way they wanted it and stopped it there. That's their very philosophy. Or rather the one they claim to follow. Conservatism is the principle to keep things as they are. The Republican party would rather set things back a notch. The Democratic Party is attempting to shake the Republicans so that we at least have a chance or rejoining the pack in the future. We need to catch up before people should vote the way they want to. It needs to be stressed that if things keep going as they are, we might never catch up. We need to implement large changes to at least get the legislation up-to-date. Then rework the system. Then comes the strenuous task of getting the population to follow along. Build support afterwards. Sometimes, people just need to be pushed in to get going. If we keep doddling over particulars we'll get nowhere.

So if you don't vote as yourself, are you voting for the cat lady down the street? Be proud of yourself. If you're self-loathing, well, you're already fucking yourself so I can't tell you to go do that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Out of the question. I think that we should do away with the two-party system in favor of a mulitparty system. Of course, those impeding the US's progress in respect to the rest of the world (Republicans), would be completely against it. As a gay man, there is unfortunately one option to go with if you want anything changed. Sure, you can abstain from voting, but that doesn't win anything.

Herein are Republicans not republicans. A real republican would want whatever system will best get the people represented not just in theory, but in their actual views. That is more so an ideal of any democrat, of course.

 

[kev]

JUB is a global community, but I am assuming that your are referring to the USA. I have voted for people in three different parties on the same ballot.

Your question does make me wonder, though: I wonder how the women in countries controlled by Shariah law (for example, the one where gay people are executed for being gay...you know the one I mean) will vote...oh, wait, they won't. It kind of makes you wonder why anyone would ever vote for a Leftist on a national ticket.

 

[maxpowr9]

I've already voted for Scott Brown once because Coakley did not deserve to be a senator. I feel much different about Warren and will be voting for her and Obama in November.

Course since I am home, it will be fun to see my parent's new neighbors and if they break the unwritten rule of the neighborhood and post pickets.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already voted for Scott Brown once because Coakley did not deserve to be a senator. I feel much different about Warren and will be voting for her and Obama in November.

Course since I am home, it will be fun to see my parent's new neighbors and if they break the unwritten rule of the neighborhood and post pickets.

 

[mightbe]

Herein are Republicans not republicans. A real republican would want whatever system will best get the people represented not just in theory, but in their actual views. That is more so an ideal of any democrat, of course.

If Republicans were republicans, they might actually be a valid party. That it, of course, if you ignore all the other BS.

If perhaps both parties evolved into present-day parties representing the lines as they are elsewhere understood to be, a fiscally conservative party is viable (right now, our left party is right of left elsewhere, and our right is further right than anywhere else. There needs to be a leftward shift). But that would only be if their policies were true to theory. Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. Haven't been for some time. They're more about greed and corporations now (as a side-note to making Democrats look bad).

We need to spend more money on domestic services than that to survive. You have to above surviving-level before you can be fiscally conservative. You have to be at or above the minimum. And despite the best efforts, we're are quite a bit below. We have plenty of money. That's not the problem. It's just being allocated incorrectly. Remove some funding from the military, or better yet, don't start any more wars. Education is a better investment anyway. When that's done, universal health care needs to be imposed. We spend more money on military than anybody else. In fact, we spend so much more, that even if we reduced it to only a tiny bit above the next-highest, we'd have oodles more money to ease the rest of the system. The only reason that federal taxes need to be increased is because people deem cesspools like an oversized military to be necessary. We could probably REDUCE taxes if we use them right.

I don't have a problem with a fiscally conservative view, but i do have a problem with Republicans.

 

[Benvolio]

In 2010, 60% of White voters voted Republicans, and, as Pat Rendell said, Black and Hispanic voters are the heart and soul of the Democrat base. (No, not 100%) You cannot understand American politics without realizing that.
Democrats have alienated the assimilated majority by pandering to minorities at the expense of the majority. Republicans cannot win over minority voters without similar pandering.
Benefits for minorities at the expense of the majority looks like liberalism because it involves redistribution. Resisting those changes looks like conservatism. But the real dynamic is minorities vs assimilated majority.

 

[rareboy]

^ Are you sure it is as Black and White as all that?

 

[Benvolio]

Not 100%, as I said. But after the Civil War, the Democrat party became an alliance between the Southerners and Northern immigrants, largely Catholic. Remember "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" in 1888? Republicans were the Northern Protestant majority. Things got mixed a little during the Roosevelt years, and many Catholics and Southerners have since become assimilated, but new immigrants and the black vote have kept the majority v minorities split about the same.

 

[rareboy]

rofl.........

 

[palemale]

Not 100%, as I said. But after the Civil War, the Democrat party became an alliance between the Southerners and Northern immigrants, largely Catholic. Remember "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" in 1888? Republicans were the Northern Protestant majority. Things got mixed a little during the Roosevelt years, and many Catholics and Southerners have since become assimilated, but new immigrants and the black vote have kept the majority v minorities split about the same.

White Catholics in the Northeast are still heavily democratic and voted for Obama. Some of the bluest states in the Country are the states with the heaviest concentration of white Catholic voters, i.e. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, where white Catholic voters voted for Obama.

Jews also vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, no matter where in the country they live. Religiously unaffiliated white voters tend to vote for democrats. Religiously affiliated Protestants are the only white voters who vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.

 

[chrisrobin]

Is voting for the "opposite party" the same thing as "opposite marriage" as declared by the lovely and talented Carrie Prejean?

I will vote for a Republicon - at the point of a gun.

 

[cityboy-stl]

NO. Republicans had a candidate that I was open to supporting as were many center to center left democrats, Jon Huntsman, but he was far too reasonable for the party as a whole. There is no way I will vote for Romney.

 

[Benvolio]

White Catholics in the Northeast are still heavily democratic and voted for Obama. Some of the bluest states in the Country are the states with the heaviest concentration of white Catholic voters, i.e. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, where white Catholic voters voted for Obama.

Jews also vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, no matter where in the country they live. Religiously unaffiliated white voters tend to vote for democrats. Religiously affiliated Protestants are the only white voters who vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.

In think that is largely true and consistent with what I said. Catholics and Jewish voters have historically been minorities. Some Catholics are moving to the Republicans. I am sure that many non religious people still vote Republican, but people who identify themselves as"atheists" are probably more likely to be Democrats, but I have not see any polls to that effect.