"I Vote For The Man" An Outdated Concept....

[jamil]

It's a HUGE secret that there are RINO's and nevertrumpers in the republican congress right? Same secret about the politics section of INGO right?

Can you at least start with step 1? No? Nothing?

 

[Birds Away]

Most often I am forced to vote against the man/party. There usually isn't a candidate and certainly not a party worth voting for.

 

[Expat]

Most often I am forced to vote against the man/party. There usually isn't a candidate and certainly not a party worth voting for.

I am firmly convinced that once the smear merchants kick into action, they could make us dislike anyone.

 

[JeepHammer]

Labeling your opponents "never trumpers" is a perfect illustration of the "my team can do no wrong; your team can do no right" mentality.

Actually that's not the way I read your comment...

What I see of 'Never Trump' is people saying they won't vote for Trump under any circumstances.
That's ONE PERSON at a time.

When I see 'Never Democrats' an entire block of the political process, no matter how qualified or capable are dismissed for no there reason than party affiliations.
That's dogma which can't be defended.

My question to myself was, would I leave Trump in charge of my money, children, general affairs?
The answer was no, so I can't vote for him simply on moral grounds.

Not that Hillary was any more or less corrupt...

 

[Birds Away]

Actually that's not the way I read your comment...

What I see of 'Never Trump' is people saying they won't vote for Trump under any circumstances.
That's ONE PERSON at a time.

When I see 'Never Democrats' an entire block of the political process, no matter how qualified or capable are dismissed for no there reason than party affiliations.
That's dogma which can't be defended.

Sure it can. Democrat majorities lead to more gun control.

 

[JeepHammer]

Sure it can. Democrat majorities lead to more gun control.

A constitutional granted right that will take a 2/3 super majority to encroach on, then will have to pass a president to sign it,
Then have to make it past several Supreme Court court challenges.

It's called 'Checks & Balances'.

While you single issue vote, you give away the rest of the farm.
Not a very balanced way to do things...

 

[bwframe]

...When I see 'Never Democrats' an entire block of the political process, no matter how qualified or capable are dismissed for no there reason than party affiliations.
That's dogma which can't be defended...

Wrong...



Democratic Party on Gun Control

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

...We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few...

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012






.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I am firmly convinced that once the smear merchants kick into action, they could make us dislike anyone.

I agree, they've honed their craft and they're really good at it.

I wonder if it's not as big a leap for us to hate someone than it is to believe in someone.

 

[Birds Away]

A constitutional granted right that will take a 2/3 super majority to encroach on, then will have to pass a president to sign it,
Then have to make it past several Supreme Court court challenges.

It's called 'Checks & Balances'.

While you single issue vote, you give away the rest of the farm.
Not a very balanced way to do things...

Oh, I spent most of my adult life fighting the cold war against the Communists. Now you want to vote them in here? No thanks. Voting for these Socialists (Communist-Lite) is "giving away the farm".

 

[Hohn]

I'm sympathetic to some of the thoughts expressed here, but have a contrary view on a few.

For example, the "qualifications" aspect. The key functions in office are somewhat simple. I would much rather take the chance on a someone of sound principles and philosophy than someone with all the right "qualifications."

Consider that Obama was supposedly a "constitutional law professor" Qualified? An expert on the Constitution? HARDLY. Either he didn't understand it (unlikely) or simply refused to be bound by it. Neither is acceptable.

AOC supposedly has an economics degree. Clearly, her degree is worthless because she learned absolutely nothing about economics. But on paper, she's "qualified" to lecture us on why our outdated fealty in individual rights and liberty is not valid.

Nothing is more overvalued than "experience" or "qualifications." So many people are qualified by the experiences that are either irrelevant or contrary.




The downside to having the Democrats go so far left is that the Republicans need not go any further Right to get votes. They don't have to be on the Right, just slightly less to the Left. So, if you are a Republican, you can support all manner of neo-con nation building, massive deficits, huge entitlement spending, and an ever-increasing size of government in terms of scope and cost. And you can still claim to be "conservative" because your slightly to the Right of Lenin and Cortezsky.

But such a person is not "Conservative" in the sense of wanting to Conserve the principles of our Founding embodied in our founding documents.

The I believe that Constitutional Conservatives are a tiny and dwindling minority of the more "conservative" of the two partys.

I expect that we are overdue for a realignment of parties similar to what happened when the Whigs were created and later dissolved.

 

[jamil]

Actually that's not the way I read your comment...

What I see of 'Never Trump' is people saying they won't vote for Trump under any circumstances.
That's ONE PERSON at a time.

When I see 'Never Democrats' an entire block of the political process, no matter how qualified or capable are dismissed for no there reason than party affiliations.
That's dogma which can't be defended.

My question to myself was, would I leave Trump in charge of my money, children, general affairs?
The answer was no, so I can't vote for him simply on moral grounds.

Not that Hillary was any more or less corrupt...

It's still tribe vs tribe though. By your definition "Never Trump" also refers to people who identify as republicans, and will never vote for Trump. It doesn't matter if it's tribe-D vs tribe-R, or tribe-never-trump vs tribe-never-not-trump. Of course, how you define "Never Trump" is not the tacit definition implied by the fiercely loyal Trump fans on INGO. It's much wider than that.

Another thing, I don't think the question you asked is adequate to decide whether you would vote for a person, and I strongly suspect you're inconsistent in applying it. It's not really all that relevant and is actually very difficult to be consistent with that question. Every president I've voted for in my entire life would have failed that question. I wouldn't trust any of them to be in charge of my money, children, or general affairs. Those things are more direct and local. People fail at integrety, and they can't be trusted, not at that level. The kinds of people you'd trust with that question aren't the kind of people who can rise to that power.

The question I ask myself make it impossible to vote for anyone if I'm intellectually honest enough to ask the question. So for me it's a question I can answer honestly and be able to vote for one of the two imperfect candidates. What is the most likely better outcome?

 

[Hohn]

Actually that's not the way I read your comment...


When I see 'Never Democrats' an entire block of the political process, no matter how qualified or capable are dismissed for no there reason than party affiliations.
That's dogma which can't be defended.

Not that Hillary was any more or less corrupt...

Yes, but since the Democrats have largely purged themselves of any hint of people that aren't rabidly foaming crazy, Democratic party membership is a useful shorthand for ruling out anyone that's not wedding to: 1) Environmental insanity 2) massive redistribution 3) SJW craziness 4) Statism, or some combination of the above.

There are no more Zell Millers. Manchin is the last of the kind, and will never again happen.

 

[jamil]

Sure it can. Democrat majorities lead to more gun control.

Yes. There are a few Democrats left who haven't completely lost their marbles. Like the few who dared to have some independent thought and voted with republicans. But even when there are such democrats running for office, when they have power they tend to write and pass bills which reduce personal liberty. Like the universal background check bill. While I'm not going to join team Trump and sign on to agree with the everything he does is good pact, on an individual level, I'm not likely to vote to give Democrats the gavel.

 

[jamil]

A constitutional granted right that will take a 2/3 super majority to encroach on, then will have to pass a president to sign it,
Then have to make it past several Supreme Court court challenges.

It's called 'Checks & Balances'.

While you single issue vote, you give away the rest of the farm.
Not a very balanced way to do things...

Checks and balances are a novel idea. We should try implementing them. Seriously. What you're saying is how it should work. But powerful people just make the things happen that they want to have happen. The only reason we still have gun rights is that there are some things contributing to having some powerful people by the balls. If that went away, don't matter of you're a democrat or republican, the 2A can effectively be nullified by fiat.

About single issue voting, I get it. But the sides are so divided that if you don't like the Republican message you have to vote for bat **** crazy. The republican party hasn't gone full bat **** crazy yet, but they're trying really hard to. The Democrats no longer care anything about individual rights. They've shifted to the party of group rights, which is a misnomer, because "group rights" is just another way of saying "group authority".

 

[Birds Away]

Yes. There are a few Democrats left who haven't completely lost their marbles. Like the few who dared to have some independent thought and voted with republicans. But even when there are such democrats running for office, when they have power they tend to write and pass bills which reduce personal liberty. Like the universal background check bill. While I'm not going to join team Trump and sign on to agree with the everything he does is good pact, on an individual level, I'm not likely to vote to give Democrats the gavel.

Amen.

 

[jamil]

I agree, they've honed their craft and they're really good at it.

I wonder if it's not as big a leap for us to hate someone than it is to believe in someone.

I think it's much easier to hate someone, though I don't really think I hate people. Maybe dislike, or distrust. Millions of years of developmental evolution around selective survival makes me think it's more instinctive not to trust someone unless you know them. We're kinda pre-wired for tribalism. It's hard to override the programming. And I don't think I want to override the trust/earned trust instinct. I don't really care for the wording "believe in someone". I know what you're saying, and maybe it's really saying this. With everyone I either trust or don't trust, or somewhere in between. I hold in contempt or high esteem, or somewhere in between. But as far as belief in, that just sounds too much like a Disney kids' movie.

Some programming that I think might be useful to override is the disgust instinct. Though I think it's useful to have a healthy instinct for distrusting people until you have enough information to decide rationally, I don't see much use in disgust, unless they're actually causing harm.

 

[Birds Away]

I think it's much easier to hate someone, though I don't really think I hate people. Maybe dislike, or distrust. Millions of years of developmental evolution around selective survival makes me think it's more instinctive not to trust someone unless you know them. We're kinda pre-wired for tribalism. It's hard to override the programming. And I don't think I want to override the trust/earned trust instinct. I don't really care for the wording "believe in someone". I know what you're saying, and maybe it's really saying this. With everyone I either trust or don't trust, or somewhere in between. I hold in contempt or high esteem, or somewhere in between. But as far as belief in, that just sounds too much like a Disney kids' movie.

Some programming that I think might be useful to override is the disgust instinct. Though I think it's useful to have a healthy instinct for distrusting people until you have enough information to decide rationally, I don't see much use in disgust, unless they're actually causing harm.

Even with the ones I trust a long life has taught me that they too may disappoint me.

 

[jamil]

Oh, I spent most of my adult life fighting the cold war against the Communists. Now you want to vote them in here? No thanks. Voting for these Socialists (Communist-Lite) is "giving away the farm".

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Birds Away again.

I think I've said elsewhere that there never really was all that much that would cause me to vote Democrat, even when Democrats were more moderate. Now, they're being taken over by socialists who really want to change the American economy. So even if some Democrats could adopt more policies that I like, until they show that they can successfully stand against the socialists in their party, ain't no ****ing way I'm voting for D's.

It's not just one issue. It's all of the above. These ****ing idiots think the world will end from global warming in 12 years. You can justify all kinds of oppression when nearly all of your base believes that. Of course there's a similar thing going on with the other side. But that has more to do with the President's "savior" cult-of-personality than anything as dangerous as an angry march towards socialism.

 

[Ziggidy]

When I first started voting, I was democrat, we all were. We worked hard but back then, it was a working man's party. Something happened, i voted republican and have ever since. The parties are not the same as they once were. The democrats of years ago are socialists. There may be a few good demos out there but not enough to change the party. The republicans of today are closer to the democrats of years ago. Parties change throughout time....the constitution doesn't. As the democrats move more towards socialism, it is critical (IMO) we vote against that party, regardless if there are a few god ones or not. It's the party ideology, the platform we vote for. The primaries allow us to select the best one to help get our platform in play.

Trumps qualifications fit perfectly with the party's platform and so he won. He's doing a great job. In spite of RINO's, the democrats, the left news media, the bogus scandals, the ridiculous investigation.....he is doing well. Would we like better? Sure, but considering all in all, he is doing great.

AT this time. he still has my support and will definitely get my 2020 vote. If he should not make it, I will vote whomever can keep the democrats from gaining more power. I would hope most American's would do the same. IMO, those who vote otherwise are questionable in their loyalty to the USA!

 

[Birds Away]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Birds Away again.

I think I've said elsewhere that there never really was all that much that would cause me to vote Democrat, even when Democrats were more moderate. Now, they're being taken over by socialists who really want to change the American economy. So even if some Democrats could adopt more policies that I like, until they show that they can successfully stand against the socialists in their party, ain't no ****ing way I'm voting for D's.

It's not just one issue. It's all of the above. These ****ing idiots think the world will end from global warming in 12 years. You can justify all kinds of oppression when nearly all of your base believes that. Of course there's a similar thing going on with the other side. But that has more to do with the President's "savior" cult-of-personality than anything as dangerous as an angry march towards socialism.

Sadly, I don't really feel all that much better about the Republicans. There are just a few "no freaking way" issues where they happen to be on my side of things.