Political Party Quiz

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-18-2015, 11:52 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If more people voted for their candidate instead of voting for the popular (D) or ®, then we wouldnt have the two party system we have now. It's just easier for regular people to lump themselves in with the Democrats or Republicans than it is to actually think, they just want to say "Close enough". That's the way the Democrats and Republicans like it too.

Never forget what Hitler said, "What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think".

How scary is that?

If you vote for a candidate based solely on their political party, you don't deserve a vote.

As for me, I don't think I'll vote for individuals again. Maybe on a local level. I'll definitely vote on local issues, and probably in national elections as well.

I don't like voting knowing that I don't really have a say in the matter. It's like a tease.

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 12:40 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If you vote for a candidate based solely on their political party, you don't deserve a vote.

As for me, I don't think I'll vote for individuals again.  Maybe on a local level.  I'll definitely vote on local issues, and probably in national elections as well.

I don't like voting knowing that I don't really have a say in the matter.  It's like a tease.

By not voting you have even less of a say in the election. Someone told me a few years ago that you should vote for the person you would like to see in office, and if there is no candidate that you like, always vote a write-in. When you don't vote there is nothing counted for you on the ballot in that category. So, an example.

Candidate A and Candidate B for a House race. Both suck, but A is the incumbent. There is a minority, maybe 12% that do not like either one. Here is how things look if...

They do not vote:
Candidate A - 75%
Candidate B - 25%

They vote a write in:
Candidate A - 65%
Candidate B - 23%
Write-ins - 12%

Because of the change in those numbers it makes a statement that people are tired of the same old crap. Yeah, it may not make any difference to the two major party candidates that suck, but there may be an Independent or third party type sitting there noticing this that decides to throw money into the next race. If people don't vote in this situation then no one sees that there is frustration because no votes are counted in that way. All Candidate A sees is a huge win, not the 12% that are dissatisfied.

[xxlt]

(05-18-2015, 11:17 PM)Wyche Wrote: Agree wholeheartedly.  The main issue I have with the Libertarian Party is the free trade stance.  I am more for fair trade policies, but otherwise, I obviously share a lot of their views.  People can say I threw my vote away, but I say voting for "the lesser of two evils" is throwing my vote away.....because, at the end of the day, it's still an evil.  As long as I can sleep well at night knowing I voted the way I feel, and not just because, I'm good.  Isn't voting for something you don't believe in whatsoever REALLY throwing your vote away?  

Hey, I'm used to not going the popular route.....I am, after all, a Bengals fan!  

Well, my buddy has a PhD in Philosophy and he agrees with you, that voting for an unelectable candidate is absolutely the right thing to do. He'd vote for fictional characters Norm Peterson, Duff Man, or Billy Jack before he would vote for the Democratic or Republican nominee. He is fully cognizant that Peterson, Man, or Jack could never be elected. So, I guess you brilliant guys have your club, and I salute you. However, I am more of a pragmatist. If A is 96% evil and B is 95.75% evil and I am condemned to live under rule of A or B I would vote B every time under the principle that I had chosen less evil and if enough people did the same thing cycle after cycle we could in the short term and the long reduce the evil under which we were living.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-19-2015, 07:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: By not voting you have even less of a say in the election. Someone told me a few years ago that you should vote for the person you would like to see in office, and if there is no candidate that you like, always vote a write-in. When you don't vote there is nothing counted for you on the ballot in that category. So, an example.

Candidate A and Candidate B for a House race. Both suck, but A is the incumbent. There is a minority, maybe 12% that do not like either one. Here is how things look if...

They do not vote:
Candidate A - 75%
Candidate B - 25%

They vote a write in:
Candidate A - 65%
Candidate B - 23%
Write-ins - 12%

Because of the change in those numbers it makes a statement that people are tired of the same old crap. Yeah, it may not make any difference to the two major party candidates that suck, but there may be an Independent or third party type sitting there noticing this that decides to throw money into the next race. If people don't vote in this situation then no one sees that there is frustration because no votes are counted in that way. All Candidate A sees is a huge win, not the 12% that are dissatisfied.

I have written in so many candidates and the occasional "no confidence", it's not even funny at this point.

(05-19-2015, 09:14 AM)xxlt Wrote: Well, my buddy has a PhD in Philosophy and he agrees with you, that voting for an unelectable candidate is absolutely the right thing to do. He'd vote for fictional characters Norm Peterson, Duff Man, or Billy Jack before he would vote for the Democratic or Republican nominee. He is fully cognizant that Peterson, Man, or Jack could never be elected. So, I guess you brilliant guys have your club, and I salute you. However, I am more of a pragmatist. If A is 96% evil and B is 95.75% evil and I am condemned to live under rule of A or B I would vote B every time under the principle that I had chosen less evil and if enough people did the same thing cycle after cycle we could in the short term and the long reduce the evil under which we were living.

I hear ya man, I really do.....but I'm so disgusted by the duopoly, I just can't, in good conscience, vote for them.

However, by your rationale, if everyone just voted third party instead of watching campaign ads, couldn't we strike down the tyranny even sooner?

A prime example of this is the past gubernatorial races in my state. I can't count the times I heard, "I wish they would have given Gatewood a shot" (an independent candidate extraordinaire), or "I voted for Gatewood". It seems that had these folks actually cast those votes, the outcome may have been quite different. If everyone who said "I'd vote for so and so, but they don't stand a chance" would just vote for so and so.....what would happen?

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 01:33 PM)Wyche Wrote: I hear ya man, I really do.....but I'm so disgusted by the duopoly, I just can't, in good conscience, vote for them.

However, by your rationale, if everyone just voted third party instead of watching campaign ads, couldn't we strike down the tyranny even sooner?  

A prime example of this is the past gubernatorial races in my state.  I can't count the times I heard, "I wish they would have given Gatewood a shot" (an independent candidate extraordinaire), or "I voted for Gatewood".  It seems that had these folks actually cast those votes, the outcome may have been quite different.  If everyone who said "I'd vote for so and so, but they don't stand a chance" would just vote for so and so.....what would happen?

I'm right there with you, and I am forever trying to recruit people on this. I mean, think about the approval rating of Congress, yet how many incumbents are reelected? It's because people are having the attitude of "what can ya do?" In reality, the answer is a lot. Vote your actual favorite and spread the word for others to as well. Maybe, just maybe, we will make some traction to break down the "duopoly" which is more like a monopoly.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2015, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then you're not understanding what classical liberalism is about. This isn't uncommon because most people don't think about the base ideals as applied to modern day issues. It's a bit more difficult to look through that lens.

But to be fair, there is a thread of classical liberalism through all parties in the U.S. because our country was founded upon those ideals.

Classic Liberalism is not single payer health care, it's not taxing the rich, it's not class warfare, it's not socilal justice. Heavy regulation, These are all progressive ideals.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2015, 10:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Gary was more qualified than most GOP candidates in 2012, but they left him out and he went libertarian. He'd be the most qualified candidate in 2016 if he ran as a republican, but no one knows who he is.

He would have had he not said legalize all drugs. He had a lot of success as governor. People just aren't ready to vote for the legalize all drugs guy yet

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Classic Liberalism is not single payer health care, it's not taxing the rich, it's not class warfare, it's not socilal justice.  Heavy regulation, These are all progressive ideals.

Equality is absolutely a classical liberal ideal, and I've already talked about the regulatory side.

The lines between these things are not as rigid as you'd like to believe. There is a lot of overlap and fluidity, grey areas.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2015, 09:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The classic brand names are now challenged by divisions within themselves.

Democrats ran away from classic liberalism 100 years ago. As far as the GOP goes they are having a classic conservative revival. Which ironically they are teaming up with classic liberals .

Dems just keep going more and more to socialism. What's crazy is that they are leaving the progressives behind lol. But progressivism is just a gateway to socialism.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-19-2015, 01:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm right there with you, and I am forever trying to recruit people on this. I mean, think about the approval rating of Congress, yet how many incumbents are reelected? It's because people are having the attitude of "what can ya do?" In reality, the answer is a lot. Vote your actual favorite and spread the word for others to as well. Maybe, just maybe, we will make some traction to break down the "duopoly"  which is more like a monopoly.

Couldn't agree any more good sir.....

[StLucieBengal]

The focus away from mainstream news has allowed grass roots candidates to come to power. With the internet and social media these fringe groups can make head way especially at the local and state level.

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 03:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The focus away from mainstream news has allowed grass roots candidates to come to power.  With the internet and social media these fringe groups can make head way especially at the local and state level.

Unfortunately it is only at the state and local level for now. However, I am all for it at those levels because that can make a huge impact. But money still runs the elections on the federal level, and that's not going to be changing any time soon thanks to Citizens United.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-19-2015, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Unfortunately it is only at the state and local level for now. However, I am all for it at those levels because that can make a huge impact. But money still runs the elections on the federal level, and that's not going to be changing any time soon thanks to Citizens United.

Agree with you there. Although the tea party has managed to win several Races in both the house and senate. They are absolutely killing it in the house. They have lost a few senate races because of progressive shenanigans in A few places. We should knock out McCain this go, but it will be tough.

freedomworks made a pac were they can push these grass roots candidates and push them over the top. They estimate several senate seats lost due to lack of funds at the end.

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 05:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agree with you there.   Although the tea party has managed to win several Races in both the house and senate.   They are absolutely killing it in the house.   They have lost a few senate races because of progressive shenanigans in A few places.   We should knock out McCain this go, but it will be tough.  

freedomworks made a pac were they can push these grass roots candidates and push them over the top. They estimate several senate seats lost due to lack of funds at the end.

PAC and grassroots don't go together.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-19-2015, 05:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: PAC and grassroots don't go together.

Sure they do.... Freedomworks is all small grass roots donors.

https://www.freedomworksforamerica.org

http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/239082-freedomworks-launches-pac

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-19-2015, 05:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: PAC and grassroots don't go together.

Right....

(05-19-2015, 06:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure they do....  Freedomworks is all small grass roots donors.  

https://www.freedomworksforamerica.org

http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/239082-freedomworks-launches-pac

Started by David Koch.....as the old saying goes, "follow the money".

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2015, 06:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure they do....  Freedomworks is all small grass roots donors.  

https://www.freedomworksforamerica.org

http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/239082-freedomworks-launches-pac

When you have a big, central organization funding things, that isn't grassroots. Especially when all of the donors behind the PACs don't have to be reported.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-19-2015, 07:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When you have a big, central organization funding things, that isn't grassroots. Especially when all of the donors behind the PACs don't have to be reported.

Well typically this is correct, but the progressive neo cons were trying to break this group... As well as the tea party groups. So if anyone is likely small donor base it would be here. At least in my opinion and from what I have seen.