Poll: Which political party do you identify with?

[Bowfinger]

Question for Cad:

How do you reconcile, "Buahahaha - what else do you expect here? This forum is decidedly leftist and/or hates Bush." with the results of this poll? Looks like a more conservative bias to me. Did you everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-commie-liberal-Bush-hater folks ever consider that we object to Bush on the merits of his abysmal performance, NOT his political affiliation? Something to think about.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Ornery
It doesn't matter one lick, Dissipate, if your candidate CAN'T get elected. That's the bottom line. Better to vote for a VIABLE candidate closer to your platform, than throw your vote away, and help the less desirable, viable one. Even fitzhue understands that!

Both sides agree we need jobs, first and foremost, but the Dems are hell bent on crippling businesses with red tape, regulations, and getting them to pay for more and more benefits etc. Hell, they're expecting businesses to foot the bill for their wondrous national health care system. Damn, that ought to REALLY help create more jobs! And, if they're not dicking businesses around, they're trying to bilk the people who fund businesses, out of more tax money. Great plan there!

It matters to me. I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected. Libertarians are working on this problem with something called the Free State Project. Its a project that is trying to get Libertarians to move to New Hampshire in order to exert more political influence over the state. If they manage to get enough Libertarians there they could get Libertarian senators elected etc. Free State Project

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Question for Cad:

How do you reconcile, "Buahahaha - what else do you expect here? This forum is decidedly leftist and/or hates Bush." with the results of this poll? Looks like a more conservative bias to me. Did you everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-commie-liberal-Bush-hater folks ever consider that we object to Bush on the merits of his abysmal performance, NOT his political affiliation? Something to think about.

I didn't make that comment here. You seem to want to pick something today so lets get it on.
This forums is decidedly leftist - if you can't see that then you are even more naive than I thought. So 30% of the respondants identify with the Republicans - and?
I guarantee that alot of leftists chose "Libertarian" or "Independent" but as it sits this is a "party affiliation" poll - not an ideology thread so my point(obviously from a different thread) has not been refuted and is probably fortified by the results of this poll.

Ever decide if you wanted to accept my challenge for you to buy me dinner next November yet?

CkG

 

[Ornery]

"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

I still think Perot would have done alright for the Country. Sure he was a bit kooky around the edges but those would have been kept in line by Congress. I think he would have set a great fiscal agenda for the nation instead of allowing the same old same old hide the money routines to take place. He would have been on TV every night with some graph - we'd probably be a better educated public as to the fiscal workings if he would have become President.

But as sad as it was to see Clinton slide into office because of the Perot effect - I think it was good overall for third party candidates because it showed they still had a chance. Now people like Buchanon and Nader don't help much because they are fringe "independents" and won't get mass support. We need another Perot to run - they'd mop things up.(ofcourse they'd need to be less kooky than Ol Ross was)

CkG

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

Hey, I'll vote for the GOP if the GOP says it will repeal the income tax, social security, the IRS and the Federal Reserve etc. Until then it's Libertarian all the way. If Bush or any other GOP candidate wants my vote they are going to have to cater to MY views, not the other way around. I'm not buying this "lesser of two evils" B.S. and I don't understand why anyone else does either. It's ridiculous, sacrificing your ideology because someone isn't electable is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

Hey, I'll vote for the GOP if the GOP says it will repeal the income tax, social security, the IRS and the Federal Reserve etc. Until then it's Libertarian all the way. If Bush or any other GOP candidate wants my vote they are going to have to cater to MY views, not the other way around. I'm not buying this "lesser of two evils" B.S. and I don't understand why anyone else does either. It's ridiculous, sacrificing your ideology because someone isn't electable is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Work for change from within

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Question for Cad:

How do you reconcile, "Buahahaha - what else do you expect here? This forum is decidedly leftist and/or hates Bush." with the results of this poll? Looks like a more conservative bias to me. Did you everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-commie-liberal-Bush-hater folks ever consider that we object to Bush on the merits of his abysmal performance, NOT his political affiliation? Something to think about.

I didn't make that comment here. You seem to want to pick something today so lets get it on.

No, you made it in the Bush vs Kerry poll thread. Re. "pick[ing] something," not at all. I just thought it was interesting that the results of the two polls are somewhat contradictory. Kerry is winning the other poll, so you (and others) blame it on the leftist bent of this forum. Yet this poll shows a fundamental conservative bias. How does one explain the difference? My contention remains that a lot of otherwise moderate and conservative people (such as yours truly) object to Bush specifically. Those objections are due to his performance, not his politics.

This forums is decidedly leftist - if you can't see that then you are even more naive than I thought. So 30% of the respondants identify with the Republicans - and?

If I can't see that ... how? Where is your evidence to back up this emotional claim? I think it's a lot like the cries about "liberal" media. You can't wrap your head around the idea that your hero has flaws. Therefore, every time someone legitimately points out one of those flaws, it's due to their bias. When people here criticize Bush, it's because the forum is leftist/Bush-haters. When the media legitimately and accurately raise issues conservatives don't like, it's because the media is liberal. It's just a form of intellectual dishonestly, emotionally rejecting facts with which you disagree.

I guarantee that alot of leftists chose "Libertarian" or "Independent"

Interesting premise since Independents tend to be moderates and Libertarians are conservative, at least in most areas.

... but as it sits this is a "party affiliation" poll - not an ideology thread so my point(obviously from a different thread) has not been refuted and is probably fortified by the results of this poll.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty. I could use a good laugh. Please explain how these results fortify you claim that this is a liberal forum. Let me grab some popcorn first.

Ever decide if you wanted to accept my challenge for you to buy me dinner next November yet?

CkG

Not yet, no hurry. As I said before, I'm not a Kerry fan, nor am I concerned about the cost of a dinner.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

I still think Perot would have done alright for the Country. Sure he was a bit kooky around the edges but those would have been kept in line by Congress. I think he would have set a great fiscal agenda for the nation instead of allowing the same old same old hide the money routines to take place. He would have been on TV every night with some graph - we'd probably be a better educated public as to the fiscal workings if he would have become President.

[ ... ] I think it was good overall for third party candidates because it showed they still had a chance. Now people like Buchanon and Nader don't help much because they are fringe "independents" and won't get mass support. We need another Perot to run - they'd mop things up.(ofcourse they'd need to be less kooky than Ol Ross was)

CkG

I agree. I voted for Perot, for several reasons. First, his pockets were deep enough he wouldn't be beholden to special interests. Second, as I often do, I wanted to send a message to Dempublicrants that I was not satisified with their performance and candidates. Third, because Perot was an outsider who would throw a monkey wrench into the business-as-usual machine in D.C. He would have shaken things up, and we need that.

 

[Ornery]

"It's ridiculous, sacrificing your ideology because someone isn't electable is a self fulfilling prophecy."

Here's ridiculous: My neighbor has the EXACT same ideology I do. I'll just write his name in on the ballot. That'll show 'em who has ideology!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"It's ridiculous, sacrificing your ideology because someone isn't electable is a self fulfilling prophecy."

Here's ridiculous: My neighbor has the EXACT same ideology I do. I'll just write his name in on the ballot. That'll show 'em who has ideology!

If your neighbor is running for office, then go for it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Question for Cad:

How do you reconcile, "Buahahaha - what else do you expect here? This forum is decidedly leftist and/or hates Bush." with the results of this poll? Looks like a more conservative bias to me. Did you everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-commie-liberal-Bush-hater folks ever consider that we object to Bush on the merits of his abysmal performance, NOT his political affiliation? Something to think about.

I didn't make that comment here. You seem to want to pick something today so lets get it on.

No, you made it in the Bush vs Kerry poll thread. Re. "pick[ing] something," not at all. I just thought it was interesting that the results of the two polls are somewhat contradictory. Kerry is winning the other poll, so you (and others) blame it on the leftist bent of this forum. Yet this poll shows a fundamental conservative bias. How does one explain the difference? My contention remains that a lot of otherwise moderate and conservative people (such as yours truly) object to Bush specifically. Those objections are due to his performance, not his politics.

This forums is decidedly leftist - if you can't see that then you are even more naive than I thought. So 30% of the respondants identify with the Republicans - and?

If I can't see that ... how? Where is your evidence to back up this emotional claim? I think it's a lot like the cries about "liberal" media. You can't wrap your head around the idea that your hero has flaws. Therefore, every time someone legitimately points out one of those flaws, it's due to their bias. When people here criticize Bush, it's because the forum is leftist/Bush-haters. When the media legitimately and accurately raise issues conservatives don't like, it's because the media is liberal. It's just a form of intellectual dishonestly, emotionally rejecting facts with which you disagree.

I guarantee that alot of leftists chose "Libertarian" or "Independent"

Interesting premise since Independents tend to be moderates and Libertarians are conservative, at least in most areas.

... but as it sits this is a "party affiliation" poll - not an ideology thread so my point(obviously from a different thread) has not been refuted and is probably fortified by the results of this poll.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty. I could use a good laugh. Please explain how these results fortify you claim that this is a liberal forum. Let me grab some popcorn first.

Ever decide if you wanted to accept my challenge for you to buy me dinner next November yet?

CkG

Not yet, no hurry. As I said before, I'm not a Kerry fan, nor am I concerned about the cost of a dinner.

*sigh* I see you want to play games today -well so be it.

It has been shown that identifying ideologically isn't the same as party affiliation. Few democrats actually call themselves Liberals even though they are on the left. So yes, I can honestly say that these polls can infact reinforce the fact that this forum is decidedly leftist or anti-Bush like I stated. Only 30% identify as Republican yet you seem to think that because only 19% say they are democrats that somehow means that this forum doesn't lean leftist. Like I said - you are even more naive than I thought if you can't see that this forum is decidedly leftist.

You also can't claim that ideology = party identification(which I thought I've heard you say before). Alot of leftists here claim they don't like "labels" so they claim they are "independent" or "Libertarian" but I'd contend that their ideologies(the ones on this forum who claim they are such) are more to the left than right.

So again since you wish to divert this party affiliation poll to an ideological one - how on earth do you think that this poll supports your claim that "Looks like a more conservative bias to me." ? Seems you are the one who is using intellectually dishonest means to argue Do you really think that "Independents" really are ideologically neutral? Libertarians?(keep in mind that I'm only talking about those here on this forum - not those groups as a whole)

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I will not sacrifice my political idealogy just because someone probably won't get elected."

You and the Nader voters. Well, good for you, good for them, and good for the GOP! I dropped that ish back in '92, when I helped Clinton into office by voting for Perot. Somebody kick me again... :disgust:

I still think Perot would have done alright for the Country. Sure he was a bit kooky around the edges but those would have been kept in line by Congress. I think he would have set a great fiscal agenda for the nation instead of allowing the same old same old hide the money routines to take place. He would have been on TV every night with some graph - we'd probably be a better educated public as to the fiscal workings if he would have become President.

[ ... ] I think it was good overall for third party candidates because it showed they still had a chance. Now people like Buchanon and Nader don't help much because they are fringe "independents" and won't get mass support. We need another Perot to run - they'd mop things up.(ofcourse they'd need to be less kooky than Ol Ross was)

CkG

I agree. I voted for Perot, for several reasons. First, his pockets were deep enough he wouldn't be beholden to special interests. Second, as I often do, I wanted to send a message to Dempublicrants that I was not satisified with their performance and candidates. Third, because Perot was an outsider who would throw a monkey wrench into the business-as-usual machine in D.C. He would have shaken things up, and we need that.

Yep - Hopefully soon we'll have a candidate who will attempt to steer the Feds to run the country more like a business. A non-profit one though

CkG

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - Hopefully soon we'll have a candidate who will attempt to steer the Feds to run the country more like a business. A non-profit one though
CkG

I dunno, a lot of things big businesses try nowadays would otherwise be suicidal. But the current situation is such that they pretty much can't lose.

"Business logic" is an oxymoron - ask any engineer...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - Hopefully soon we'll have a candidate who will attempt to steer the Feds to run the country more like a business. A non-profit one though
CkG

I dunno, a lot of things big businesses try nowadays would otherwise be suicidal. But the current situation is such that they pretty much can't lose.

"Business logic" is an oxymoron - ask any engineer...

Believe me I've heard that plenty (/me works for an Automation Engineering Firm) But our gov't needs to be reworked so that they only spend what we are willing to pay. A Business doesn't expand or provide more "services" without having consumers willing to pay for them. As it sits we have a gov't that just does things and then forces us to pay for them. One could jabber about "our vote...." well - that doesn't seem to be working now does it? Politicians haven't been very good stewards of our money - they need to be held to higher standards. The problem comes in when they are to ones who have to vote to limit their power. Chances of that happening?

CkG

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush is as opposite from Libertarian as you can get.

That's retarded. They both agree on:

• MINORITY ISSUES
  GAY RIGHTS
  GUN CONTROL
  HEALTH CARE
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  TAX POLICY...

Democrats are 180 degrees from Libertarians!

I'd say about 160 degrees