If you discovered your political party was dishonest, malicious, and cruel-yet tried to persuade you otherwise-would you support the opposition, even if that meant compromising your lifestyle, social group, and perhaps bodily health?

No. There’s no reason one person or two or ten thousand should be able to ruin the ideals for everyone else.

Kate,

So you would support the opposition, though an unpopular position to do so, and become ostracized socially and black-listed economically, as well as potentially subject to personal harm for the sake of your ideals?

No. Going on party lines just to go on party lines is silly and counterproductive. That’s just breeding conflict and not achieving what’s best for the community at large. I think Kate’s got it right; a lot of the great legislative acts in the States started as a small, oppositional force, gaining momentum and popular support.

I am confused. “The party” doesn’t in and of itself make moral decisions. If people in the party were dishonest I would vote against them and put honest people in place. It’s called democracy and has been working pretty good for the last 200 + years.

Judi,

You assume that all elected officials are scrupulously honest, this is not the case, thus they do not reflect the direct will of the people. Furthermore, America is Not a true Democracy, never has been, it is a Constitutional Repubic. We vote for law-makers, yes, but that does not necessarily mean they will follow through with campaign promises, and there is No mechanism to enforce such honesty, other than ‘voting them out in the next election’ what a farce.

I usually don’t let a “group” govern my decisions, lifestyle, or beliefs. That is what sheep do.

In individuals insanity is extremely rare,However, in groups, parties, and epochs,it is the rule…Neizche

ok. i’ll pick one example (probably a bad one.) I’m pro-life. Just because some pro-life dillweed is screwing some girl other than his wife, doesn’t change my opinion on the matter.

That’s because the majority of society is unable to lead individually. They are born followers. So the group follows the crazy one.

Yes, Kate, good example, actually. And the reverse would apply also? Some girl copulating with a man (men) not her husband?

I guess. Not really sure what you’re saying.. but the personal life of any person should not change my entire political party. right? Maybe, i’m reading into your question differently than what you meant it.?

This is why I don’t identify with a certain political group

Kate said

‘Most are unable to lead individually, the group follows the crazey one..’

There is some truth in this, this is why we have ethics, religion, etc..to have a framework by which we can understand the character and motivations of leaders. Also, Many are capable of leadership, it is typically an exclusive minority group that is well-financed, well-educated, and with plenty of time that commands the masses, the leader is merely a figurehead. Though, according to Socrates, the Philosopher King is the best form of leadership, committies rand much lower..

With money, usually comes a better education. Better educated people make better leaders, but this doesn’t make them any more or less ethically or morally inclined, does it?

Kate,

I was simply referring to pro-life positions position you took for individuals engaged in pre-marital sex and concieving and still supporting pro life-applying to both genders.
Also, the topic is addressing a macro-theme of inherent corruption and the few who benefit, if, due to conscience sake, you would abandon those ill-gotten gains, for the sake of justice for the many? (and switch allegiences)

All poltical parties and politicians lie and are corrupt. What is your point?

I don’t vote Republican because the entire party has a few things in their platform that I am 100% against. If a Repub. comes up for office and they happen to be a social liberal, but economic conservative I still would not vote for that person. I can’t fathom how someone could put money over people.

And who is Neizche?

It is folly to presume that one only has two choices. I would support neither and keep looking until I found something better.

That is Nietzsche, correction on the name.
Also, That which is done out of Love is beyond Good and Evil.

Keybo,

I agree wholeheartedly, three, preferably five viable political parties would be much more representative.

Beyong Good and Evil was never actually complied by Nietzsche. It was compiled from his writings, after his death, by his sister. Many of these essays were never meant to be considered as one text, and many philosophy professors do not include Good and Evil in Nietzsche’s philosophy.

Tiny,

said, ’ I would not put money over people’
Well liberals put everyones money opportunities over the so-called ‘majority’ social conservatives, (generally, but not exclusively white males.) Also, Republican, when not co-opted by neo-cons extremists, are more accountable with finances and generally produce better results, without racial/sexual identity profiling.

Tiny,

Your response is academic, but it is merely a quote from the compolations relevant to the thread, please try to keep the posts relevant to the thread.

@Crusader: The best way to address people’s specific quips in a thread is to put @username, which will make a link back to their quip so other flutherites can see to what you’re referring (or just who, in an organized manner). Just a tip.

Thanks, @TitsMcGhee, Good advice.

@Crusader: Even though we may be at opposite ends of this answer -that made me laugh.

@kate1746, Glad to be of amusement..: ) Yes, and as far as money lending itself to better education-that is an American system, not one I would advocate, education for all is the best way, yet in America many groups are rewarded for lack of accountability, again, certain ‘minority’ groups prosper. And as to this education responsible for better leaders? Not necessarily, it depends of the quality and type of education. Is it balanced? It is agenda driven? Also, a balanced education with a socially conservative, financiall moderate framework is, I believe, the most inclusive and effective for all.

Public school, middle-class, honest- sounds just wonderful, really. But more than likely, no matter what political party we’re talking about, it’s gonna be private school, upper mid- upper class morally corrupted douches… So, i still feel the same. Everyone’s corrupted.. you can only vote for what they say they are going to vote for.

You asked if my political party was dishonest, etc.? Dude, it’s politics. They are either dishonest or non-existant.

that which is done out of love is not above good and evil. there are many people who love what is wrong – they love to do harm, go against accepted social behavior.

love tempers other qualities, but if that love is based on something unreliable or wrong, then it’s pointless.

@eponymoushipster…kinda like masturbation?

@Blondesjon no angry masturbation!~

@eponymoushipster…but sometimes rosie likes it a little rough.

@Blondesjon well, everyone likes it with a bit of mustard every now and then.

i don’t think this is applicable to me, as my beliefs define my ‘political party’ association, and not the other way around.

Epony,

Perhaps I should have been more specific about Love,I assumed all would be aware it is not the ‘like very much’ catagory, the love I am referring to is Loving the Lord thy God and thy Neighbor as thyself. Granted, if you Hate yourself that is not a beneficial version of love. I am referring also
to Agape love.

If you have to discover that your political party is “dishonest, malicious, and cruel”, then please don’t vote.

@Crusader agape. fantastic. you’re one to talk about loving the unloveable.

wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite, then, since you call people of a certain political view “demon-crats”? just because their views verge from yours, shouldn’t you still afford people the respect that you want, and claim to show?

fyi, i’m neither a republican nor a democrat. but to think that you a) have the right to judge someone, or b) think that you’re better than anyone shows that your Bible probably has been resting on a shelf somewhere, while you’re watching the 700 Club.

I’ll say it again, if you claim to be Christian, yet participate in political bs, you’re not. you’re lying to yourself.

give it up, dude.

Ok, demon-crats may have been somewhat an extreme catagorization, and I retract it. I had campaigned for democrats for Kerry, and discovered both parties were hypocrites, just that Repubs generally less so, a lesser of two evils.

‘Love, faith, and Hope, of the three, love is the strongest.’
‘all prophesy can fail, all knowledge can fail’
At times liberal vitriol is difficult to suppress when there is so much conservative vitriol openly espoused, we are not perfect, only He was.

@Crusader ; I think your question may explain why there has been such a max exodus from the Republican party.

@Crusader are you at all capable of making it through ONE THREAD without telling us how perfect your god is? Ever? You ask questions, but they always just result in you telling us how great your god is. Why is that even relative to this question?!

@adreamofautumn he’s even got that wrong. Jesus != God.

Read.The.Bible.Crusader.

Pat Robertson doesn’t have all the answers.

@eponymoushipster

Jesus is Man and the Son of God. I am Not a Pat Robertson Evangelist, though he does some good, I believe he is more politician than ever he was a prophet or preacher, it is the nature of things in modern times.

@Crusader if you believe he was God’s son, then you don’t need to capitalize he when you are speaking about Jesus. Jesus didn’t put himself above God, why should you?

I guess the name is “crusader” which tells me that you fancy yourself on a crusade to tell everyone the word of god..so I suppose I shouldn’t be that surprised that it comes up in EVERY thread. I was still just wondering how you felt it was relevant when you asked a political question to bring jesus/god and your opinions about it in as soon as you saw an opening.

@eponymoushipster

Capitalization of the name Jesus is simply a grammatical device in this case, as it is a both proper noun and begins the sentence. And, yes, Jesus did not put himself above God, or equal to. ‘Into thy hands, father, I commend my spirit…’

you’re never going to answer me about whether or not you joined fluther just to proselytize are you?

@adreamofautumn

Not true. In the thread I write most often, yes. And nearly always as a response to another introducing or continuing the posting in proselytizing for/against. Otherwise, I have written several secular threads about current geo-political situations, many of which have be removed, so you would probably not see them, (like the Taliban of Pakistan gaining control of the Capitol and its Nuclear weapons arsenal for example.)

@Crusader read my post, all-star. I said “he”, not the name Jesus. Yes, I know the difference between a pronoun and a proper pronoun.

I’m not much of a follower. I was a Republican because I believed in most of its principles. That changed when I watched the convention and was dismayed at the narrow minded prejudiced people there. The next day I switched to Democrat, not because that party was so much better but because of where I live. If you register as independent you don’t have anyone to vote for during the primaries. I’ve been thinking of switching to the Republican party because they need a few sane people. I’m not that sane but nowhere near as crazy and as poorly informed as the Tea Party people.