To my fellow Buddhists, what is your political affiliation? (just for fun)

stingraygirl93

Political Affilition?
Religious background before Buddhism? Why change?

Vincenzi

anarchist > anarchist

vinlyn

Democrat with an open mind...I've voted for a number of Republicans over the years. Unfortunately, as the Republican party has continued to drift further right, I find far fewer Republicans I can consider voting for.

bravehawk

I usually just vote for people who are fighting for the right issues and have actually made some effort in to getting things done or at least made valid attempts.

Worse case scenario, I just vote for the nicest liar and hope for the best.

Mountains

Go as far left as you can go, then pack a bag and take an overnight train further left. With a capital "L". Unashamed, unrepentant tax-and-spend Liberal.

compassionate_warrior

Independent.

SherabDorje

I'm with Mountains, except maybe toward Social Democrat.

compassionate_warrior

. Unashamed, unrepentant tax-and-spend Liberal.

As America's prosperity between the end of WWII and the beginning of the Reagan era attests, tax-and-spend works. Don't-tax, -slash-social-services-and-education,-and-run-up-an-obscene-level-of-debt-on-wars doesn't work.

NOTaGangsta

Used to be a lefty, now more center left.

DaltheJigsaw

None.

Mind_Zenith

Libertarian (Or Anarchist) Socialist: my ideal would be that anyone who works (or has reason not to) has full access to what they need (food, electricity, entertainment, etc.), not just those whose occupations have been considered "better" in some way that others (e.g. a CEO of a company is somehow "better" than a taxi-driver). Also, the idea of Direct Democracy which is participatory is important to me as well.

Mountains

I forgot to add... my philosophy doesn't really work in America, since we don't HAVE any trains anymore.

StaticToybox

As I list on my Facebook profile: "a little bit left of liberal". I suppose my ideal society would be the sort of gentle anarchy of the hobbit's Shire, but I realize that in the world I dwell in that's not very realistic.

As far as existing political parties go I support the Green Party. Unfortunately you can't register as a Green in Illinois, and they aren't able to field candidates in many elections.

Mountains

Hell, in the state senate district in which I live in Virginia, we can't even get a DEMOCRAT to run for the seat! My choices last November were one right wing Republican whacko and two even more right wing whacko Tea Party Terrorists. I wrote in "Mickey Mouse" in protest.

Mountains

Libertarian (Or Anarchist) Socialist: my ideal would be that anyone who works (or has reason not to) has full access to what they need (food, electricity, entertainment, etc.)

While I agree with you wholeheartedly in principle, the problem is that in America (and much of the world) the word "need" has become unrecognizable. We "need" 6000 sq ft houses. We "need" four vehicles for two people, generally that get about 15 mpg. We "need" to go to Target three times a week to spend $500 on clothes and crap we have no use for.

Until we re-define "need" back to something more like the reality of what we all really "need", that idea just doesn't work.

StaticToybox

Here in Illinois we're had a Green candidate for governor, Rich Whitney, the last two elections. In '06 he did pretty respectably, for a 3rd party, at around 10%. Last November however he only got 3% of the votes (coincidently, maybe, his name was misspelled on ballots in majority black districts in Chicago as "Rich Whitey") and finished behind a sleazy pawnbroker who's campaign was "I did not hold a knife to that woman's throat, nor did I realize she was a prostitute".

Mind_Zenith

Libertarian (Or Anarchist) Socialist: my ideal would be that anyone who works (or has reason not to) has full access to what they need (food, electricity, entertainment, etc.)

While I agree with you wholeheartedly in principle, the problem is that in America (and much of the world) the word "need" has become unrecognizable. We "need" 6000 sq ft houses. We "need" four vehicles for two people, generally that get about 15 mpg. We "need" to go to Target three times a week to spend $500 on clothes and crap we have no use for.

Until we re-define "need" back to something more like the reality of what we all really "need", that idea just doesn't work.

Some Libertarian Socialists have created systems to address that problem: some would argue that anyone who works/is disabled has freedom to take whatever they think they need, with a very high limit (so as not to deprive others of the same right, and which does not include things such as electricity unless in extreme conditions). Others would say that any sort of work/allowable disability allows for basic human necessities, such as food, shelter, etc., and any additional items could be purchased by a salary based on hours worked. Of course, there's weaknesses for all such models, and for me it's probably more important to have an organic model born of the people, rather than having something imposed. In the extreme event that Libertarian Socialism does come... lol

CosmicGypsy

Social Anarchist, or Libertarian Socialist if you prefer.

Dakini

I'm not "affiliated", but often I notice that even "Left" articles and platforms seem unbearably conservative, so I'm not sure what that means. Compassion means addressing the roots of a problem, that's where the word "radical" comes from: root.

zombiegirl

if socialism were an option for america, i'd support it. but as of now, it's still a four letter word to most. i mostly end up voting democrat since i align with most of their social policies.

did anyone else happen to see the republican debate the other night? i think my jaw dropped when i realized ron paul is now attempting to run as a republican candidate. but what can i say? i kinda hope he wins the nomination. i doubt it would happen, but i'd rather see him in office than most of the other republican candidates.

vinlyn

Not quite clear why you would like socialism OR Ron Paul. Seems like an awfully big stretch.

zombiegirl

Not quite clear why you would like socialism OR Ron Paul. Seems like an awfully big stretch.

i think i misspoke on the socialist part. it would probably be better to say that i support social democracies like canada or sweden as an ideal. further out there than us, but not exactly falling off the edge.

ron paul has a lot more liberal social policies than probably all of the other candidates. it was interesting to me that he decided to run as a republican at all since so many seem to vote based on social/religious views instead of fiscal reasons. i am no exception.

zidangus

Usually depends on what's in the parties manifesto for the election. My family are all (left wing-centre) Labour voters, so I was brought up to despise the conservatives (right wing), which I did and still do. I vote for green party some times, but its a bit of a wasted vote as the way the UK electoral system is set up, my MP will always be Labour since it is a really big Labour strong hold where I live. So like I say its usually a choice between Labour, Lib Dems, or Greens.

natureofreality

N.D.P all the way

compassionate_warrior

Last November however he only got 3% of the votes (coincidently, maybe, his name was misspelled on ballots in majority black districts in Chicago as "Rich Whitey")

"Coincidentally maybe"?? Was his name misspelled on White ballots, too? Sounds like he needs to reach out to certain communities. He could do an educational lecture tour well before campaign time, on environmental racism, and other relevant concerns to those communities. (And people say there's no Republican conspiracy to hijack or neutralize votes. It's ALL a humongous conglomeration of coincidental errors...)

Mountains

a humongous conglomeration of coincidental errors

I like that phrase! Can I use it?

compassionate_warrior

a humongous conglomeration of coincidental errors

I like that phrase! Can I use it?

Why, are you writing a book? If I get a free copy

Dakini

(And people say there's no Republican conspiracy to hijack or neutralize votes. It's ALL a humongous conglomeration of coincidental errors...)

I'm in NM, where poor Hispanic communities and Native American communities received faulty voting machines. In the Native communities, the machines didn't register a single vote for President. The "president" section came up blank on all the ballots. Some coincidence.

Journalist Greg Palast somehow found out about this matter of targeting poor (predominantly Democrat) communities with faulty machines months in advance of the election, but couldn't get any media outlet to take his story, except for National Public Radio. Other outlets (readio, TV, press) told him they were owned by Republican corporations, and so couldn't run his story. He had been studying election scams in the US since the first GW Bush election, when he wrote the book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Recommended reading.

Mountains

I have a friend who is blind. When we first got electronic touch screen voting machines a few years ago here in Virginia, I went to assist her. The machine totally screwed up her vote, asking her to verify that she'd voted for people she hadn't voted for (I stood there and watched her do it, and I know she did it correctly). I have zero faith in electronic voting.

Dakini

Carter said he's observed 3rd world elections that were much more accurate than ours.

zombiegirl

Last November however he only got 3% of the votes (coincidently, maybe, his name was misspelled on ballots in majority black districts in Chicago as "Rich Whitey")

"Coincidentally maybe"?? Was his name misspelled on White ballots, too? Sounds like he needs to reach out to certain communities. He could do an educational lecture tour well before campaign time, on environmental racism, and other relevant concerns to those communities. (And people say there's no Republican conspiracy to hijack or neutralize votes. It's ALL a humongous conglomeration of coincidental errors...)

on a humorous point in a not so humorous topic, you have to admit, "Rich Whitey" is a pretty hilarious spelling error.

Mountains

Carter said he's observed 3rd world elections that were much more accurate than ours.

And yet sadly, not only do people in general not vote in America, even those that do don't seem to care one iota about this issue. When it comes up, it gets shut down almost immediately. I don't understand where the outrage is. I certainly have it...

zombiegirl

Carter said he's observed 3rd world elections that were much more accurate than ours.

And yet sadly, not only do people in general not vote in America, even those that do don't seem to care one iota about this issue. When it comes up, it gets shut down almost immediately. I don't understand where the outrage is. I certainly have it...

i think people refuse to believe that the american government can lie to us. we tend to think that america is infallible and these sorts of ideas are just that of conspiracy theorists.

vinlyn

I have to disagree with both Mountains and Zombiegirl.

Mountains, yes, it does pop up every now and then. But it doesn't necessarily seem to pop up and favor either political side consistently. And, we each have things that outrage each of us. Apparently this is not one of the biggies.

Zombie...I think you're wrong in that I think most people don't believe we get the whole truth and are sometimes out and out lied to by the government. And, there are quite a few failures Americans can point to over the course of our history. However, we elect our leaders. When America has failed, to some extent it is the failure of the people who have elected these people.

Mountains

Mountains, yes, it does pop up every now and then. But it doesn't necessarily seem to pop up and favor either political side consistently. And, we each have things that outrage each of us. Apparently this is not one of the biggies.

This issue has *nothing* to do with political affiliation. It has to do with a basic crime against the citizenry. I don't care whether the payoff is going to the left or the right, if voting is being adulterated, what's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? In point of fact, if voting *is* being adulterated, we *don't* have anything like a representative democracy. We have a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy. If a corporation that makes electronic voting apparatus is paying off someone(s) in the government to look the other way, and if the results of using those rigged machines is that democracy (the will of the voting citizenry) is thwarted, then we live in an authoritarian country.

Who could *not* be outraged by that? If I wanted to live in a dictatorship, I'd move to Cuba or China.

PS: I'll give you three guesses where any payoff or back-scratching is going on this issue. Hint: it rhymes with "Republican". The same folks who brought you the so-called 2000 presidential "election" results.

CosmicGypsy

Even beyond electronic voting, physical voting should be called into question. Are people really getting a fair vote if year on year, potentially through out their life, they're being indoctrinated with media propaganda?

Tom Ferguson and Noam Chomsky(guy who wrote Manufacturing Consent) showed in one of their books that close to 100% of the time you can conclude who'll become President based on investment patterns and backing from corporates and bankers. The same corporates and bankers who control media with their advertising dollars.

Whether we had a fair physical vote would in itself be debatable, I think.

riverflow

Far left, generally a supporter of the Greens. Living in the US, I find even most so-called liberal politicians far too conservative. But I've been that way for several years now (no change with Buddhism).