Poll: Which U.S. political party do you most strongly agree with?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
The fundamental problem with American politics, society, etc. is that it is easier not to think. It is easier to follow a political party, or to look at that political compass grid and pick the candidate whose dot is closest to yours. What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you.

Voting along party lines, you mean.

How about the ones that vote for the candidate that they thing is the 'cool dude' because they have not researched the issues close enough?

There should be another choice 'None of the above'. When the number of people voting for 'None of the above' reaches a certain amount, or if the majority chooses 'None of the above', then the election for that office is considered postponed until the next election.

 

[Roger1]

Here is my political compass score.
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Dumb question: does this make me a democrat or a republican?

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Roger1
Dumb question: does this make me a democrat or a republican?

They have a page showing where the different political parties fall on the chart:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Edit: don't put too much weight into where your dot falls in relation to these parties -- Two people can disagree on most of the issues and still come out at the same place on the chart -- that happened with me and several of my buddies. We all came out in the left-libertarian quadrant despite differing on over half of the questions.

 

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you.

But the entire point of electing someone is to elect someone that represents you. Obviously, the elected person can't represent everyone 100%, but you should vote for whoever comes the closest. However, I think that should be moot if the person running is a buffoon *cough*W*cough*

 

[Datazoid]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
They have a page showing where the different political parties fall on the chart:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Edit: don't put too much weight into where your dot falls in relation to these parties -- Two people can disagree on most of the issues and still come out at the same place on the chart -- that happened with me and several of my buddies. We all came out in the left-libertarian quadrant despite differing on over half of the questions.

Just a note - those are British political parties, not American parties.

 

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Counterfit
But the entire point of electing someone is to elect someone that represents you. Obviously, the elected person can't represent everyone 100%, but you should vote for whoever comes the closest. However, I think that should be moot if the person running is a buffoon *cough*W*cough*

I agree, you are not going to agree with an elected official on everything. It is important to vote. Almost evveryone can agree on a political philosphy when it comes to the amount of government, freedom, and taxes.

 

[JDar]

Political parties are as web browsers:all of them suck in one way or the other.

 

[Gymnut]

Republican althought here in Hawaii it's predominantly Democrat.

 

[Sunrunner]

Soooooo many people that don't know the truth to things in this forum; I don't know where to start... I'll just say a couple things.

...to make a long story short, (and I know what I'm talking about) Iraq is not about oil, and don't believe idiodic spin comin from morons like moveon.org. Gov't officials generally really DO mean the things they say about the WHY of things.

... Gore probably would have been sitting in a corner of the White House with his thumb up his $%& after 9/11.

.... oh, and Clark is a fool who should have been dishonerably discharged after the things he did as nato commander during the Kosovo conflict, (as it was, he was basically fired); not one general will vouch for him, and for good reason.

 

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Sunrunner
Soooooo many people that don't know the truth to things in this forum; I don't know where to start... I'll just say a couple things.

...to make a long story short, (and I know what I'm talking about) Iraq is not about oil, and don't believe idiodic spin comin from morons like moveon.org. Gov't officials generally really DO mean the things they say about the WHY of things.

... Gore probably would have been sitting in a corner of the White House with his thumb up his $%& after 9/11.

.... oh, and Clark is a fool who should have been dishonerably discharged after the things he did as nato commander during the Kosovo conflict, (as it was, he was basically fired); not one general will vouch for him, and for good reason.

What part of "Do not make this into a person/party flamewar" didn't you understand?

 

[coolsoldier]

I just love it when people feel the need to state that "they know what they're talking about". If you do, it'll show in your argument. If you don't, that'll show too. But in general, if you have to say it...

I don't quite understand what you are saying, though. You say that gov't officials are generally honest and can be trusted, but then go on to name officials and hint at why they can't be trusted.

Politics should not be based on trust, because it only takes one untrustworthy individual to break a system based on trust. A system based on facts can be broken only by a universal conspiracy.

 

[Sunrunner]

Originally posted by Counterfit
What part of "Do not make this into a person/party flamewar" didn't you understand?

I guess that was a little inflamitory. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just expressing my viewpoint. I hope nobody is toooo offended... I posted my comments under the premise that we operate under at least a moderate level of assumed co-maturity.

 

[Sunrunner]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I just love it when people feel the need to state that "they know what they're talking about". If you do, it'll show in your argument. If you don't, that'll show too. But in general, if you have to say it...

I don't quite understand what you are saying, though. You say that gov't officials are generally honest and can be trusted, but then go on to name officials and hint at why they can't be trusted.

Politics should not be based on trust, because it only takes one untrustworthy individual to break a system based on trust. A system based on facts can be broken only by a universal conspiracy.

It is certainly very true that politicians lie, cheat, and the rest. However, large decisions such as the Iraq issue tend to transcend the smaller political bickering and are treated with much more seriousness. What I ment about trustworthiness of government officials was ment in that vein. They are mostly people like you and me, and generally really do have the intrests of the U.S. and the larger good at heart. Politics are based trust, but operational planning is not... thus, since there is no universal conspiracy, you can be assured that the Iraq issue was handled the way it was for valid reasons.

As for the General Clark thing, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing in Kosovo, but the fact is, he caused alot of unneccecary U.S. deaths with bad decisions, and repeatedly ignored his chain of command as well as orders given to him.

As for Gore, you saw all they would approve the military to do for going after UBL in AF while he was VP, just a couple cruise missiles aimed at a farm... He was too worried about diplomatic ramifications and politics. You know what that kind of light-handed approach got us.... it got us 9/11.

 

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Sunrunner
As for Gore, you saw all they would approve the military to do for going after UBL in AF while he was VP, just a couple cruise missiles aimed at a farm... He was too worried about diplomatic ramifications and politics. You know what that kind of light-handed approach got us.... it got us 9/11.

So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

 

[Sunrunner]

Originally posted by Awimoway
So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

How is hat a response? You still need a direct and RECENT reason to go and attack a country, to justify it. Otherwise, people with political leanings similar to what I think yours are would run around crying and screaming. The first WTC attacks were a reason, the embasy bombings in Africa were a reason, the 16 UN resolutions (in the case of Iraq) were a reason. Bush, only several months into his term, had no good and recent reason.

Lets also not forget the fact that clinton/gore were OFFERED UBL for extradition by Sudan and TURNED IT DOWN. They declined to take him into custody! I think it is clear that you can nearly directly blame UBLs freedom in 2001, and thus the 9/11 attacks, on the Clinton/Gore administration.

 

[coolsoldier]

bin Laden != Iraq

Let's stick to one topic here

 

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Awimoway
So that's why Pres. Bush launched a full-scale search and destroy mission against bin Laden within a month of becoming president.

What?!? You mean he didn't?

Actually no he didn't...
"Elected" December 2000
Inaugurated January 2001
September 11th 2001
Military actions in Afghanistan commence in October 2001.

 

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Sunrunner
I think it is clear that you can nearly directly blame UBLs freedom in 2001, and thus the 9/11 attacks, on the Clinton/Gore administration.

Perhaps the MASSIVE FUNDING of him by the United States during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan helped a bit?

 

[Sunrunner]

Originally posted by Counterfit
Perhaps the MASSIVE FUNDING of him by the United States during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan helped a bit?

You and your political cronies should read a history book instead of propaganda articles. The U.S. did NOT finance UBL. The U.S. financed the ISID (Pakistani Intelligince) who gave the arms and support to the people THEY chose. At the time, UBL was only a peon extremist who came to AF to fight after disagreements with his father in Saudi Arabia, as well as to answer calls by Shia mullahs for all good muslims to go to AF and fight the invading USSR. The U.S. is guilty of extremist support by proxy, yes, but the U.S. NEVER gave support directly to UBL.

The extremist problem for the west started to materialize after the russians left AF and all of these fighters were concentrated in the region without anyone to fight. al-Qaida becaime a viable organization efter it merged with Egyption Islamic Jihad (EIJ)-- more specifically when UBL and Zawahiri linked up. UBL has always been more of a figurehead; Zawahiri is the real operational planner and power, and HE had nothing to do with AF. Of course AQ would have never made it to the level they did in 2001 without either UBL or Zawahiri, which is why UBLs capture before then would have been such a crippling blow, because his financial and rallying support were essential to the organizations cohesiveness. Zawahiri was the real brains though, and the big schemer. In summary, it is apparent to me you don't have a clue...

The 9/11/ attacks were in final planning well before Bush was elected, nothing he realisticly could have done, (unless he was psychic) would have stopped those attacks.

Geeeez

 

[Counterfit]

Political cronies? I wish!

So our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama? Whatever. Just a few more posts like that from you, and it's off to the Wasteland for Mr. Thread...

 

[Sunrunner]

Originally posted by Counterfit
Political cronies? I wish!

So our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama? Whatever. Just a few more posts like that from you, and it's off to the Wasteland for Mr. Thread...

I am trying to find the spot were I said "our funding didn't do jack **** to help Osama", but I can't seem to find it. Our funding did nothing to help Osama directly, it did allow the ISID to create a resovoir of extremists which gave bin laden a group to draw from. Bin Laden was a millionare well before he went to AF, our money had nothing to do with that.

My point is that Bin Laden is not the key to AQ like some seem to think. His removal from the scene will not do much to change the operational threat picture for the U.S.. Some people need to pull their heads out of Osamas butt and look around at the truth of the threat.

 

[arn]

we've gone off topic.