I Think You're An Idiot If You Only Vote For One Party

[GimmeThat]

well,

who the hell is going to go watch all the sports game and purchase luxury goods then?

[DwnShft2Xcelr8]

To be fair, you just "figured (him) out" based on one sentence, so...

No, I've figured him out for a while. He's one of those posters, like Deuce Wallace, who don't offer anything to the forum except bashing everyone if they disagree with them in any way, shape or form.

[Dresta]

contrary to popular opinion most GOP candidates vote/advocate for a set of values and polices, and most DNC candidates do the same for their party's platform.

You have a few people that break the mold, Eg. Rand Paul will be anti war, anti military spending, anti government contracts/pork barrel spending (stuff like defense spending that many congressmen love because it creates jobs in their home districts), supports legalization of drugs, etc.

and you will have a few dems that break with the party on certain issues, Eg. warren. you will have some independents like bernie sanders.

But in large part the typical democrat votes like a robot for the policies his party leaders push for, and the exact same thing is true for the average republican.

Voting for a single party is often the only logical policy. The average GOP candidate agrees with each other on most issues. the same is true for the average democrat. If you were voting for both you would at one time probably be voting for contradictory policy.

In a lot of cases having certain beliefs should dictate you towards voting exclusively for one party if you are being logical. This doesnt mean that you agree with all the policies of that party, however most people know what stuff they care about the most, what stuff they need, vs what stuff the would prefer/want. Logically you should vote for the party whose platform is most desirable towards you. This will often result in voting exclusively for the GOP or the DNC.

Eg. if you have very high income or are set to inherit an estate with a huge value, and you prioritize your own financial condition above that of the nation, if you want intelligent design/creationism taught in schools, if you want a more assertive foreign policy/more military spending/strong national defense, if you want a more Christian nation, more gun rights, etc you would be behaving wildly illogically by not voting for the GOP

vice versa

if you dont want voter ID laws and or biased gerrymandering (state level elections) or depend on any form of welfare (social security, medicare, etc) or care about civil rights of minority groups or etc, want a less assertive/more cooperative foreign policy, no religion in schools, more gun restrictions, etc you are also behaving illogically by not voting for the DNC

America has pretty consistent political platforms across the 2 parties. Regional differences do occur, Eg. the GOP in california is not the same as the GOP in texas or other southern states. Blue dog democrats are not the same as those in the progressive caucus

And why exactly are those views grouped together? There is nothing logically congruous about them; you are simply constructing an artificial ideal and using it to interpret the world in a way that fits your inclinations. You've literally grouped all the things you think are good under the Democratic category (no surprise there) and everything you dislike under the Republican one. In reality, the differences between the parties are inconsequential as they both work to preserve and uphold the status quo, and politicians are perennially bent on expanding their power and influence.


Not only have you reduced the political world to a binary platitude, but you've also provided a perfect example of the kind of thinking that has made contemporary democracy the farce it is today: a landscape completely devoid of principle, where political parties govern instead through the granting of favours to particular groups. You admit it yourself in your post that it is about either protecting one's property or using the force of government to take property from others. Political parties should have coherent and congruous principles, not simply be representatives of particular interests who have cobbled together a majority vote by using the power of government to grant political favours. People were never supposed to vote for particular policies (the founders saw enough examples in the ancient world attesting to the dangers of this kind of democratic rule), they were meant to vote for parties that adhere to concrete principles (that they shared), and then for those better informed representatives to properly uphold these principles. American democracy was instituted as a check on power, not a means of dictating policy (something the majority should never do).

[MavsSuperFan]

do you consider Social Security welfare?

i dont consider welfare necessarily a bad thing, and yes

[DukeDelonte13]

it depends on what office.

Judge, mayor, council person, etc, most municipal positions party affiliation means nothing in terms of policy.


party affiliation matters when voting for sate rep/state senate and fed. house and senate.

[MavsSuperFan]

And why exactly are those views grouped together? There is nothing logically congruous about them; you are simply constructing an artificial ideal and using it to interpret the world in a way that fits your inclinations. You've literally grouped all the things you think are good under the Democratic category (no surprise there) and everything you dislike under the Republican one. In reality, the differences between the parties are inconsequential as they both work to preserve and uphold the status quo, and politicians are perennially bent on expanding their power and influence.


Not only have you reduced the political world to a binary platitude, but you've also provided a perfect example of the kind of thinking that has made contemporary democracy the farce it is today: a landscape completely devoid of principle, where political parties govern instead through the granting of favours to particular groups. You admit it yourself in your post that it is about either protecting one's property or using the force of government to take property from others. Political parties should have coherent and congruous principles, not simply be representatives of particular interests who have cobbled together a majority vote by using the power of government to grant political favours. People were never supposed to vote for particular policies (the founders saw enough examples in the ancient world attesting to the dangers of this kind of democratic rule), they were meant to vote for parties that adhere to concrete principles (that they shared), and then for those better informed representatives to properly uphold these principles. American democracy was instituted as a check on power, not a means of dictating policy (something the majority should never do).

And why exactly are those views grouped together? There is nothing logically congruous about them; you are simply constructing an artificial ideal and using it to interpret the world in a way that fits your inclinations.

those views are grouped together because that is the reality of the situation in 2014 america. Name one thing i listed that the GOP supports (relative to the DNC) that they dont and name one thing I listed that the DNC supports (relative to the GOP) that they dont?

I have constructed nothing merely stated policies of the 2 relevant american parties.

You've literally grouped all the things you think are good under the Democratic category (no surprise there) and everything you dislike under the Republican one.

1. is anything you feel i have grouped wrong? what in that grouping is inaccurate?
2.your wrong. there are issues i agree with the GOP on.

Personally I like an assertive foreign policy. and while I dont mind cooperation with allies, america's interests should always dominate.

I think america's high military spending yields far more benefits than most Americans appreciate. Eg. in diplomacy and international trade.
The opinion of Washington is disproportionately relevant to world leaders around the world. our military strength is a huge factor in this.

I own guns.

I support the death penalty

And selfishly I would benefit with the GOP's economic preferences.
there are issues that I would be ok with the GOP winning, despite the damage to the nation and the world. eg. I am invested in hydraulic fracturing

In reality, the differences between the parties are inconsequential as they both work to preserve and uphold the status quo, and politicians are perennially bent on expanding their power and influence.

there are clear differences between the GOP and DNC.
the status quo in america is fine imo. Personally would be totally against radical change.

Not only have you reduced the political world to a binary platitude, but you've also provided a perfect example of the kind of thinking that has made contemporary democracy the farce it is today:

there is no law preventing 3rd parties. go ahead big guy start one.
if you get enough people to support your party then perfect. you are just mad that not that many people agree with you

a landscape completely devoid of principle, where political parties govern instead through the granting of favours to particular groups.

your opinion.

what if my principles is to provide social security to old people? what if my principles include providing health care to the poor? what if my principles including providing a quality education regardless of wealth? What if my principle is to allow all consenting adults to marry as they wish? what if my principles are to allow women to have easy access to abortions?

Nothing wrong with advocating and helping groups of people imo. if you get enough people to support it and elect you, thats democracy. government should do stuff for the people.

who are you to say what principles are appropriate?

Political parties should have coherent and congruous principles, not simply be representatives of particular interests who have cobbled together a majority vote by using the power of government to grant political favours.

Why? seriously what advantage is there in ideological rigidity? if a group of people find each other views acceptable (even if somewhat distasteful) combine as a voting block and work to enact their policy preferences, whats wrong with that, as long as it doesnt infringe on another parties civil rights?

and also nowhere on earth does your ludicrous hypothetical exist.

ople were never supposed to vote for particular policies (the founders saw enough examples in the ancient world attesting to the dangers of this kind of democratic rule), they were meant to vote for parties that adhere to concrete principles (that they shared), and then for those better informed representatives to properly uphold these principles. American democracy was instituted as a check on power, not a means of dictating policy (something the majority should never do)

**** the founders. why would i care that much about the opinions of men that are by modern standards so incredibly immoral.

it wasn't until 1850 that white men got universal suffrage. the founders intended the nation to be ruled by property owning/rich white men.

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

unless its explicitly stated in the Constitution it should have no effect on modern legislators. and even then the constitution can be amended.

Eg the constitution was amended

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution

17th amendment giving us the right to elect senators rather than them being appointed or selected by state legislatures

[Horde of Temujin]

What about voting only for two? Stupid, stupid, stupid

[MadeFromDust]

Some people are just way too wordy for a hoops forum tl;dr

[GimmeThat]

it depends on what office.

Judge, mayor, council person, etc, most municipal positions party affiliation means nothing in terms of policy.


party affiliation matters when voting for sate rep/state senate and fed. house and senate.

in Italic, we have the kids who skips school

in Bold, we have the people who *cough* *cough* have obligations

[Stempel, HERB]

No, I've figured him out for a while. He's one of those posters, like Deuce Wallace, who don't offer anything to the forum except bashing everyone if they disagree with them in any way, shape or form.

Your brilliant argument was dismantled quickly and easily. Old Kevin didn't even have to use one full paragraph on you. And here we have your insecurity shining through. Really surprised you didn't quit the forum like you did the last time someone undressed you as an idiot.