• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

You would rather vote for:

  • A fighter who will fight for you

    Votes: 13 48.1%
  • A compromiser who will work with their opposition

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Unsure/Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Total voters
    27
The avatar picture is a joke... (if you ever pay attention to my stuff, you will see I have a huge sense of humor)

Actually, what motivates the majority of people is comfort and security. Sad but true, people tend to not to do much else but pay lip service to higher principals. Plus nobody ever agrees on what the higher principals aught to be anyway. I believe this is why all societies inevitable end up taking a middle path between the stronger ideologies inherent within that particular culture.

Society is constantly changing. Both for the better and worse. People can be taught the truth.
 
Society is constantly changing. Both for the better and worse. People can be taught the truth.

heh, yeah, good luck with that whole truth thing.

Society is obviously changing, as ideologies change, and society is always trending towards that ever changing middle.
 
Society is obviously changing, as ideologies change, and society is always trending towards that ever changing middle.

This sounds a bit like an oxymoron in the fact our whole economic system has changed quite a bit in the past 50 or so years. I agree this was done slowly, but the two economic systems are far from a middle ground. They are quite extreme, ideology speaking, from one another.
 
Then you will not respect me - but that's alright because I stand up for what I believe in and would rather be hated for that than liked for what I'm not. I don't cave in to pressure to "compromise" what I believe in - what is right and wrong. Liberals really do hate freedom and it's obvious from everything. They also want to turn America away from God.

Then it is probably a good thing if you didn't run for political office! Your statements about liberals hating freedom are baseless as you give zero reasons, more like what a teenager does when asked to explain something. it is always EVERYTHING...

I have found most diehard CONs want the freedoms they value but not so much the freedoms others want. They want in regards to the 2nd A but also want to step in between a doctor and his patient when it comes to a woman's right to chose.

Remind me who put us on the NSA into everything path? I didn't realize BushII was a liberal...

Your victimization of God is nothing new in here. Well worn and BS. I'd say the CONs are trying a silly desperate last gasp attempt to put religious symbols in places they never were before. Here in Oklahoma the Speaker wants a chapel built into the state house. Never had one before, can't say we need to spend that sort of money now.
 
That's one of the biggest lies I have ever heard. The evil one doesn't get to decide anything.

The 'evil one' decides things all the time. But then again this wasn't about 'evil ones' but the far right, far left, or those in-between.
 
Then it is probably a good thing if you didn't run for political office! Your statements about liberals hating freedom are baseless as you give zero reasons, more like what a teenager does when asked to explain something. it is always EVERYTHING...

I have found most diehard CONs want the freedoms they value but not so much the freedoms others want. They want in regards to the 2nd A but also want to step in between a doctor and his patient when it comes to a woman's right to chose.

Remind me who put us on the NSA into everything path? I didn't realize BushII was a liberal...

Your victimization of God is nothing new in here. Well worn and BS. I'd say the CONs are trying a silly desperate last gasp attempt to put religious symbols in places they never were before. Here in Oklahoma the Speaker wants a chapel built into the state house. Never had one before, can't say we need to spend that sort of money now.

1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

4- We need God in America.
 
1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

4- We need God in America.

So let me get this KEY-rect, you held an unopposed administrative position for one term. Thinking 'more people like you' was a big part of the problem with government of late. Refusing to do anything until you got your way, but in the end the TPs had to back down.

I agree people have a right to own and carry firearms but as the Supreme Court has said, not right in unlimited. There your extremism shows and by all means be VERY offended- the fetus isn't a baby yet, not viable, can't live on it's own and has been ruled repeatedly as legal to have aborted before a certain stage of development. but CONs are not trying to overturn the LAW, they are trying to step between a doctor and his patient in a LEGAL procedure. Now once that fetus develops to viable and pops the chute then it is murder and punishable by law.

Odd that you say both Bushes were very liberal. I don't recall the voters being liberals who voted for both men a total of three times. I have noticed the extreme radical right calls everyone a liberal, but themselves of course. :roll: neither was very liberal, BushI was an old school moderate conservative and BushII a COn with very poor management skills and a rudderless agenda.

But we get to your core belief, you think CONs want a balanced budget, no most want far less social spending and the same or more in the DoD. balancing the budget is a very secondary goal.

Never said we should kick God out of America, I am inclusive. What we don't need is this CON attempt to push religious symbols into places they never were before.
 
But we get to your core belief, you think CONs want a balanced budget, no most want far less social spending and the same or more in the DoD. balancing the budget is a very secondary goal.

I'm not convinced that they necessarily want less social spending (even though they use that slogan). I think they want to privatize it and to continue to let government subsidies it. Many Democrats do too. But, to your point, the budget is secondary. Past Republican Presidents have a far worse record balancing the budget than past Democratic Presidents.
 
I want somebody who will fight for what is best for America and is willing to compromise to achieve this goal, even it means not getting everything he/she wants America is not one belief but a melting pot of beliefs. America is not a political party, but Americans. We have strayed form this and like to separate ourselves into conservative, liberal. We are Americans who deserve a voice and we were founded on compromise, so why not stick to what works and gets real results. I'm not saying compromise to the point that your views are no longer represented btw
 
My soul asks fighter. But my brain understands that the country on the edge of civil war and we need a leader who can reconcile the irreconcilable. So I'm voting for the fighter and pray for compromiser who will work with their opposition.
 
1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

4- We need God in America.

Are you a "David Duke style" republican?
 
I'm not convinced that they necessarily want less social spending (even though they use that slogan). I think they want to privatize it and to continue to let government subsidies it. Many Democrats do too. But, to your point, the budget is secondary. Past Republican Presidents have a far worse record balancing the budget than past Democratic Presidents.

If I could refine it a bit more, Republicans are all for milking the government for DoD and 'privatizing' all they can. The CONs are a subset, they are like the OP, a real Scrooge McDuck who's answer for everything that doesn't fit their agenda is 'liberal'. Small in number we have seen their worst and now hopefully the GOP can find a way out of the TP Bog.

I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story. :peace
 
If I could refine it a bit more, Republicans are all for milking the government for DoD and 'privatizing' all they can. The CONs are a subset, they are like the OP, a real Scrooge McDuck who's answer for everything that doesn't fit their agenda is 'liberal'. Small in number we have seen their worst and now hopefully the GOP can find a way out of the TP Bog.

I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story. :peace

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
 
I'd prefer someone who's pragmatic. You should never compromise just for the sake of compromise, but when you can compromise a little bit to get a lot of what you want you do that. If you have somebody standing up for 10% of what you want in a way that assures you won't get the other 90% that is not a good thing, and I think that's what some politicians get stuck on.
 
I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story. :peace

This is a hard one for me to decide. On one hand, I don't think the special interest that push the message "taxes bad" really believe it because they like the subsidies they receive. They just hate taxes going toward "public" programs. Special interest view themselves in competition for that money. Politicians are their puppets and the public is their audience to sway. Sad to think that many libertarians/conservatives think the Republicans (or TP for that matter) are really looking out for them to pay less taxes. You'll more often see a transfer from public hands to private. Also, a shift from pooling risk to individualizing them is fairly new. In my opinion, a dangerous trend.
 
I want one who can do both and knows when to fight and when to compromise. Just doing one or the other all the time completely fails to represent one's constituents or the American people as a whole.
 
I want one who can do both and knows when to fight and when to compromise. Just doing one or the other all the time completely fails to represent one's constituents or the American people as a whole.

Fair point. And I'm guessing you voted the third option and I can respect that - especially considering the good explanation you gave.

Just out of curiosity though, IF hypothetically you had to pick one or the other - which one do you tend to favor more?
 
It's a little confusing, because liberals don't actually care about freedom.

Well, there's an annoying distinction between what Americans think of as 'liberal' and what the rest of the world (plus political science major Americans) think the word means. In America, liberal is (an odd choice of) byword for progressive, which is used somewhat interchangeably. In politics, a liberal is someone who IS concerned with personal, social and economic liberties, and it's not juxtaposed against 'conservative' the way 'progressive' is.

So if you're saying that American liberals, as in progressives, don't actually care about freedom -- that's sort of true. Now, that's an incendiary statement, and it's also false, but you're correct in saying that an inherent part of progressive doctrine isn't necessarily increasing negative freedoms (though I think most would argue quite rightly that progressive do favour positive freedoms, which are in general better for a society anyway).

But you're also just dead wrong if you're using that term in the political terminology sense, where being a 'liberal' is literally all about freedom.
 
Well, there's an annoying distinction between what Americans think of as 'liberal' and what the rest of the world (plus political science major Americans) think the word means. In America, liberal is (an odd choice of) byword for progressive, which is used somewhat interchangeably. In politics, a liberal is someone who IS concerned with personal, social and economic liberties, and it's not juxtaposed against 'conservative' the way 'progressive' is.

So if you're saying that American liberals, as in progressives, don't actually care about freedom -- that's sort of true. Now, that's an incendiary statement, and it's also false, but you're correct in saying that an inherent part of progressive doctrine isn't necessarily increasing negative freedoms (though I think most would argue quite rightly that progressive do favour positive freedoms, which are in general better for a society anyway).

But you're also just dead wrong if you're using that term in the political terminology sense, where being a 'liberal' is literally all about freedom.

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.
 
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)
Kind of a silly question...and I get where you are trying to go with this obviously loaded question. The reality is that in life it is rarely that simple or cut and dry. For instance, I'm an attorney. I hear it all this time .... "I want someone who is going to fight for me". And I agree that often this is important. But sometimes the most effective thing that an attorney can do for their client is find a way to negotiate and compromise....because sometimes, you can fight as hard as you can and you come up empty handed...and in those cases, I often hear "I should have taken your advice......."
 
Back
Top Bottom