View Poll Results: You would rather vote for:

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • A fighter who will fight for you

    14 42.42%
  • A compromiser who will work with their opposition

    11 33.33%
  • Unsure/Other (Please explain)

    8 24.24%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Would you rather support a candidate who will really take on their opposition and stand up for the things you believe in?

    Or would you rather have someone more diplomatic and working with the other party?

    Unsure/Other (Please explain)
    One, I do'nt think one excludes the other. Two, I think it greatly depends on the context of the election and country at that time.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    01-13-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    511

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Would you rather support a candidate who will really take on their opposition and stand up for the things you believe in?

    Or would you rather have someone more diplomatic and working with the other party?

    Unsure/Other (Please explain)
    Neither. I don't need a "fighter" like Bush/Obama/Clinton who never fought in their lives (other than perhaps for a prestigious job or a BJ) to do any fighting for me, and I do not need a compromiser like Bush/Obama/Clinton to compromise my freedom. Put Mr. Nobody on the ballot and I will vote for him and he will win.

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    most things were privatized for more than half our country's history. now we have runaway debt, massive intergenerational welfare, and poverty really hasn't been beaten
    Don't forget a massive wealth concentration at the very top, that increases more and more but somehow our nation doesn't profit from it- so much for trickle down!. can't forget that in the poverty/generational welfare (though past a few articles on a single family or two there is no study to show this) little is being done to shift employment into the once industrious areas.

    But the big prizes are still dangling infront of the CONs- social security, medicare, and public assistance in food and housing.

    And speaking of privatized, the constant drumbeat of the CONs is let business run business- they want the keys to the henhouse and for us to gather the wood for breakfast!

  4. #54
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    57

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    To separate 'Fighter' politicians against 'Compromising' politicians as if they're mutually exclusive fictionally creates two sides of thought in politics.

    Political responsibility requires those in positions of authority to both fight for their constituents and also compromise, as no constituent-base all agree on any topic, and consideration must also be factored in for Municipal, Provincial/State, and Federal levels of responsibility when making decisions and fighting/compromising.

    A side cannot be taken as the original question has been asked, for both sides are necessary; however, one could ask: "would you rather your political representative be bullheaded and stubborn before being knowledgeable enough to consider all facets of an issue and understandably compromise (while smartly fighting for priority issues) rather than being bullheaded?"

    Clearly, the question I have posed just above is rhetorical, as it's obviously mockingly sarcastic.
    Last edited by shelphs; 12-26-13 at 01:07 PM.

  5. #55
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    I don't need to vote.

    The group I represent always makes sure they have the right person to do their bidding.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  6. #56
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    14- We need God in America.
    We need gods out of America.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  7. #57
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Don't forget a massive wealth concentration at the very top, that increases more and more but somehow our nation doesn't profit from it- so much for trickle down!. can't forget that in the poverty/generational welfare (though past a few articles on a single family or two there is no study to show this) little is being done to shift employment into the once industrious areas.

    But the big prizes are still dangling infront of the CONs- social security, medicare, and public assistance in food and housing.

    And speaking of privatized, the constant drumbeat of the CONs is let business run business- they want the keys to the henhouse and for us to gather the wood for breakfast!
    And let me add public education too.

  8. #58
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Would you rather support a candidate who will really take on their opposition and stand up for the things you believe in?

    Or would you rather have someone more diplomatic and working with the other party?

    Unsure/Other (Please explain)
    As Ronald Reagan pointed out: half a loaf is better than no loaf.

  9. #59
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    I want a fighter with the common sense judgment to know when he is in a losing battle and compromise before it is lost completely. Unlike our current collection of legislative baboons. I use the word specifically because it is a gaggle of geese, a herd of cattle, and a CONGRESS of baboons. They're a bunch of pussies.

  10. #60
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    No. I know that it is not entirely all about that. There are 4 aspects of the political spectrum. Top, Bottom, Left, and Right. The top represents Libertarians. The Bottom represents authoritarians. The Left represents liberals (they start using the word "progressive" because it sounds better than their tainted word of "liberal") and the Right represents conservatives.

    You can have leftist libertarians which favor gay marriage and the freedom to murder unborn babies. Then you have conservatives who tend to favor traditional values. the Tea Party is the more conservative libertarians who favor gun rights and are pro-life (favoring freedom of unborn babies to live), and then conservative authoritarians who believe in being strict about their conservative values. The bottom left would be more socialist.

    Liberal values you see equality BUT usually in the sense of what sounds nice in theory, but not always in practice. For example, liberals will try to make sure that they have at least 1 black, 1 woman, and 1 hispanic person - one type of every type of people, so that no type of person feels misrepresented. For example, there's even some Republicans in the Obama Cabinet.

    Republicans would just rather choose the qualified individuals, regardless of what color or gender they are. But if it's all white men, then some people might think that they're being too exclusive. This isn't always the case anymore like it used to be, due to the ambitiousness of women and minorities.

    But, I understand that that's how the 'general idea' of the mindset works.
    I understand that in the US media, the term 'liberal' has come to refer to the left, but really that's not what the term means, in a political philosophy sense. That's what I was trying to explain -- someone who is for stem cell research, gay marriage, stricter seat-belt laws or gun control is a progressive -- that is, his political philosophy is based around pursuing (presumably positive) change. The opposite of a progressive is a conservative, or, someone who favours less or slower change.

    A liberal is outwith that spectrum entirely: A liberal would be opposed to an authoritarian. Liberal and libertarian are, you might be annoyed to find out, essentially derived from the same political stance: More freedoms, less control. In America, I understand, the term liberal has been appropriated by the left and used instead of progressive, because back in the first half of the 20th century, America was getting scared of the Communists, who really loved that 'progressive' word, and so the left-party switched to something that would resonate with the American public: Liberal.

    In political terminology, though, a liberal would be someone who favours more freedoms: Less gun control, less bans on abortion, less regulation of the school system, less prohibition of scientific research, etc. The word you use is not analogous to what a 'liberal' is.

    You claimed that liberals will try to include people of different ethnicities, sexes and orientations, but that's not really true: A progressive would try to do that. A liberal would say that everyone ought to have the same chance -- less regulation.

    So, my message for you is this: You evidently consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like regulation from the government, but you do like the idea of equality and equal opportunity for everyone, instead of government-mandated quotas.

    Guess what? You're a liberal.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •