Political Compass test
Santorum's dead if Obama gets him in a debate.
Romney has a small-to-decent chance.
Paul will rock Obama's world. Remember, Paul's only actual problem is the near-media blackout he has.
Romney has a small-to-decent chance.
Paul will rock Obama's world. Remember, Paul's only actual problem is the near-media blackout he has.
Reply
0
0
Don't kid yourself, that is important to a lot of the voting populace. Also, I think we often underestimate the number of Americans who hold views apart from our own. I think it is natural to subconsiously assume most people think like you do. I often subconsiously assume all intelligent, educated Americans reject the premise of organized religions whether they go through the social motions of attending church/temple/mosque or not.
That is obviously a false assumption as there are a lot of Americans who take their faith in a defined higher power and their associated texts and tenets very seriously (even if they do so selectively).
Plenty of people think that legalizing drugs, getting the government out of marriage, abolishing various Federal programs like the Department of Education and fixing the economy by possibly making it way worse in the short-term are bad ideas.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Reply
0
0
Ron Paul is not a bible thumping, war mongering, buzz-word factory, therefor has no chance as a republican candidate. Even if he stands for everything the republican party is supposed to stand for.
All these douche bags are throwing around terms like "free-market" and "capitalism" simply because republicans like those words. They have no real meaning other than improving their popularity.
They'll get into office and it will be business as usual, just like the last 4 years, and the years before that, and the years before that.
"Republican, Democrat. Thats just Pepsi and Coke. Same ----, different can."
-Christopher Titus
All these douche bags are throwing around terms like "free-market" and "capitalism" simply because republicans like those words. They have no real meaning other than improving their popularity.
They'll get into office and it will be business as usual, just like the last 4 years, and the years before that, and the years before that.
"Republican, Democrat. Thats just Pepsi and Coke. Same ----, different can."
-Christopher Titus
Reply
0
0
Ron Paul is not a bible thumping, war mongering, buzz-word factory, therefor has no chance as a republican candidate. Even if he stands for everything the republican party is supposed to stand for.
All these douche bags are throwing around terms like "free-market" and "capitalism" simply because republicans like those words. They have no real meaning other than improving their popularity.
They'll get into office and it will be business as usual, just like the last 4 years, and the years before that, and the years before that.
"Republican, Democrat. Thats just Pepsi and Coke. Same ----, different can."
-Christopher Titus
All these douche bags are throwing around terms like "free-market" and "capitalism" simply because republicans like those words. They have no real meaning other than improving their popularity.
They'll get into office and it will be business as usual, just like the last 4 years, and the years before that, and the years before that.
"Republican, Democrat. Thats just Pepsi and Coke. Same ----, different can."
-Christopher Titus
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
The Republican insiders prefer Obama for prez to Paul, because the former will continue their gravy train while the latter will try to stop it.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Here's a good analogy I found:
Only the neocons and their allies in Israel want war with Iran. Politically, the elite are in a rift. CFR Team A vs CFR Team B
Think of it like the Godfather.
David Rockefeller is Don of the Corleone Family.
Team A:
Brzezinsky is "Tom Hagen", Vito Corleone's consiglieri. He is old school. He prefers to operate behind the scenes out of the limelight via backroom deals, buyouts, and covert operations. Those he speaks for do not want war with Iran. Bad PR, and destructive to their global aims. They don't need Luca Brasi yet.
The Neocons are Team B, with numerous mouthpieces. They are the "Sonny" wing of the Corleone family. They are hotheads who would destroy the family.
They grew up within the Family but never learned tact. Their governance, like "Sonny's" was brief. The policies they instituted and the wars they started, like Sonny's, must be cleaned up.
CFR Team A and Brzezinsky, the "Tom Hagen" of the Corleone Family, have gotten cozy with Obama. This angers the Neo-cons and threatens their fast track, scorched earth approach to the revamping of the middle east.
Obama is a young "Michael", He will come of age in his second term. The Neo-cons have no "Michael", only "Fredo". We know what happens to Fredo.
Brzezinsky has made his mark on Obama on foreign policy. Obama's second term will undo much of the damage done by the NeoCons. Events however have been set in motion making it more difficult for Brzezinsky and Team A. Their methods are to tweak events to steer into the light of "American Interest".
Team A for now has the reigns. Let's hope the in-fighting becomes more public.
Think of it like the Godfather.
David Rockefeller is Don of the Corleone Family.
Team A:
Brzezinsky is "Tom Hagen", Vito Corleone's consiglieri. He is old school. He prefers to operate behind the scenes out of the limelight via backroom deals, buyouts, and covert operations. Those he speaks for do not want war with Iran. Bad PR, and destructive to their global aims. They don't need Luca Brasi yet.
The Neocons are Team B, with numerous mouthpieces. They are the "Sonny" wing of the Corleone family. They are hotheads who would destroy the family.
They grew up within the Family but never learned tact. Their governance, like "Sonny's" was brief. The policies they instituted and the wars they started, like Sonny's, must be cleaned up.
CFR Team A and Brzezinsky, the "Tom Hagen" of the Corleone Family, have gotten cozy with Obama. This angers the Neo-cons and threatens their fast track, scorched earth approach to the revamping of the middle east.
Obama is a young "Michael", He will come of age in his second term. The Neo-cons have no "Michael", only "Fredo". We know what happens to Fredo.
Brzezinsky has made his mark on Obama on foreign policy. Obama's second term will undo much of the damage done by the NeoCons. Events however have been set in motion making it more difficult for Brzezinsky and Team A. Their methods are to tweak events to steer into the light of "American Interest".
Team A for now has the reigns. Let's hope the in-fighting becomes more public.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Wouldn't republicans have a better chance of winning the presidency if they elected a candidate that democrats could agree with? An authoritarian on one side of the spectrum would never get a vote from anyone on the other side of the spectrum, but I would suspect that a libertarian on one side of the spectrum would attract the votes of everyone on his side of the spectrum as well as a strong number of voters in the middle and from the other side of the spectrum.
Reply
3
3
+1 props.
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Few voters are "educated and rational". <edited>
That is the problem with democracy.
In a democracy the psychopathic megalomaniacs just need to propagandize the people to allow the gov't to do this or do that for "the common good". All this does is increase gov't power.
The answer is de-centralization of power and for people to realize that a free society solves numerous problems which they think only gov't can solve.
That is the problem with democracy.
In a democracy the psychopathic megalomaniacs just need to propagandize the people to allow the gov't to do this or do that for "the common good". All this does is increase gov't power.
The answer is de-centralization of power and for people to realize that a free society solves numerous problems which they think only gov't can solve.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; Mar 7, 2012 at 02:16 AM.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
We'll accept as read that "No (or few) voters are educated and rational."
Given that, is it realistic to expect those same ignorant and irrational people to suddenly "realize that a free society solves numerous problems which they think only gov't can solve"?
I'm being totally serious here. How can a population which is too ignorant to democratically elect a leader within the constraints of a mature and well-defined electoral system be expected to suddenly become enlightened as to the vast and manifold benefits of a "de-centralized" system of government, especially given that many would be functionally incapable of distinguishing such a proposal from actual anarchy, and that this belief would undoubtedly be reinforced by the more sensationalist elements of the mainstream media?
In other words, I predict that the first "leader" who proposes that America's government be "de-centralized" will likely find himself at the working end of a hangman's noose, and I am genuinely curious to hear a contrarily point of view which describes how such a policy might actually be implemented in a practical manner.
Reply
0
0
