Do you think the party you support is truly the better choice for the country, or is it simply guided by your interests and opinions?
I don't support either, and I think that's a better choice.
It's an opinion and I'm Independent so I'm not sure that really counts as supporting a party so to speak. I know there are Independent candidates but I just vote for the person who I believe will do the best job.
Most policies held by the Republican Party are the best for the country. There are some policies held by the Democratic Party that I personally benefit but they're not in the best interest of the country, so I vote against them.
Which Republican policies? Shutting down the govt? Threatening to default? Lowering our bond rating? Mucking around in foreign policy and treaty negotiations? Selling out to the telecoms? Which are the good policies of today's Republicans?
Pro small businesses environment
And the letter to Iran, fight against Net Neutrality, invitation to Netanyahu, govt shutdowns, near default, hurting the U.S. bond rating are all addressing these? I've been a lifelong Republican but these clowns don't have US interests at heart.
Look, letter to Iran and invite to Netanyahu was about the same issue. Obama is negotiating a bad deal with Iran and doesn't care that nobody agrees with him.
The government shutdown is a bipartisan disagreement, you cannot blame only the Republicans for that.
I pretty much hate'em all.
Since I switch I believe it's better. Perfect no.
I don't support any party
Party-free is the way to be! Don't let a party platform dictate your values and voting record.
The second choice doesn't make logical sense, I don't think. If you didn't believe your party was best for the country, why would you be following it?
You could have a particular agenda for instance. Don't discount selfishness.
Oh, you're right, I didn't think of that.
But doesn't everyone think their opinion is correct/the best? So if a party is representing one's views, which are based on one's judgement to be correct, doesn't that make them de facto the best from that individual's perspective?
Not necessarily. Suppose a business owner thinks a particular party will give him tax breaks bc it's business friendly, and he votes for that party. He may not care for the country, just his best interests.
Yes, the Green party really would be the best guidance for the country. Deprivatization of the air waves, reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, 100% publicly-funded elections with equal money on all sides, an Amendment banning corporate personhood,
immediate decertification of any corporation that spends money to influence any politican or election, the implementation of a Federal-level grassroots initiative system like that used in many states, strong enhancement of the Voting Rights act...
in short, the Green party wants to tackle the #1 biggest-baddest problem that America has today: the unholy molestation of the media and government by the private sector. Fix that, and literally everything else falls back into place.
That sounds more plainly socialist than Green. You mentioned none of the environmental issues so important for Greens, emissions, animal rights, environment etc.
I don't agree. Influence elections is the most socialist policy I know. At least that is what Democrats do.
Opinion. I have my opinion that Democrats are more progressive when it comes to social issues, which I mostly support (not all issues) but Republicans more competent with economic issues. This should earn me scorn from both sides ;)
What aspects of the Republican economic platform resonate with you?
A rather free market with few restrictions, mostly based on supply and demand. Republicans give more freedom to businesses. Doesn't mean I don't support a basic social safety net.
I actually DO have an agenda though: innovation. Competition and financial incentives foster innovation. Competition like between Apple and Android.
Android and Apple don't operate in competitive markets. They operate in oligopolies and regularly engage in competitive behavior--from hiring practices, wage agreements between "competitors," overseas cash hoarding, cutthroat pricing, etc. etc. etc.
That may be capitalism, but it sure as hell isn't competition. That's why liberals love their regulatory agencies: it's really the only way to reconcile the inherent consolidationary tendencies of pure capitalism with the benefits of competition.
I don't buy for a second that Republican economic policy is at all pro-competition. The abysmal record of conservative economic policy confirms how completely asinine it is at achieving competition and prosperity for the middle class.