Dear Liberals, Dear Conservatives...

who are we supposed to vote for if we fit neither of the political stereotypes?

Denying apathy means to vote, but the choice of two ice-cream flavours in a parlor of hundreds of flavours doesnt seem like much of a choice to many of us.

Ive been called a liberal on these boards, Ive been called a conservatives on these boards...and this to me proves there is something deeply limiting, pre-defining, stifling within the politcal psyche of our nation.

Why are positions of candidates so damn predictable?

Why are the positions of those who call themselves left-wing/right-wing so damn predictable?


"This one candidate will go to war. This other candidate will cause poverty in our nation." What lousy "freedom of choice" is that supposed to be?

And how is it possible that some of the most unmoving people stick to the same ideology all their life and to any situation?

Isnt it natural to change ones opinion depending on the context?

And wouldnt it be nice if we had a list of 20 parties/candidates instead of two?

Who are people like us supposed to vote for?

And most importantly:

When I say opinion X, why is it automatically assumed that I also believe in Y and Z?



That just pisses me off. "Oh, you believe in X? Then you are a Y and therefore also believe in Z".

Why do so many conversations here follow these predictable patterns?

Help, so that we may find our place within the political spectrum.

In the words of A. Badiou, one politician necessarily must lay the bed for the next as was done for him.

I believe that the way our political system is set up was designed to create exactly the problem you mention.

Although you might find yourself at odds with different people in different debates, the party you vote for should be the one that is closest to your views concerning the party's basic manifesto. Personally I think our politics need a good dose of left-wing thinking (more than mainstream offers) to rock the boat a little and refresh the situation.

Originally posted by Rigel
Why not 19.5 ?

Because this is the Political Forum, not the secrets-exposed forum.

Originally posted by Kupios
Again, I think a good dose of left-wing policy would help a great deal.

I edited my post, meant to say "here and there".

I think a good dose of "taking the best from left and right" would hep a great deal.

I cannot possibly vote Bush or McCain because they´re actually stupid enough to think that going to war will not cause a reaction of more war.

But I cannot possibly vote for left-wingers because of the economic squalor they leave behind everywhere they reign.

Originally posted by Rigel


Don't feel ashamed... Louise Michel used to be a mason, you know... At least for few days...

I have no idea what you´re talking about.

Ron Paul at least helped in building awareness of a force beyond the 2-party-system.

However...even the whole idea of a "3rd alternative" is laughable. I was under the assumption that any sane person will enjoy 20 alternatives.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

Im fine with Ron Paul and what he stood for.

Lyndon LaRouche? No, not really. Too narrow.

I hope to get some real liberals and conservatives here to explain to me how the hell one can be fully one or the other.

Originally posted by dizziedame
So, what is the answer?

Maybe one of the smaller, short-term answers is to lessen the extreme stereo-typing of one group toward the other.

Just because someone is pro-X doesnt mean he´s generally a democrat or republican.

I am mainly posting this thread because I see the stereotypes run rampant HERE all the time.

Its like: Have this one liberal stance: Loose 50% of your friends. Have this one conservative stance: Loose the other 50%.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]