A fighter who will fight for you
A compromiser who will work with their opposition
Unsure/Other (Please explain)
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
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!
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 12:07 PM.
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
“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.”
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
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.
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.