The Couch

Who Do You Mostly Side With?

Comments on Who Do You Mostly Side With?

cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
Posted 08/30/12 - 10:56 PM:
Subject: Who Do You Mostly Side With?
http://www.isidewith.com/results/74756366

http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 08/31/12 - 9:05 AM:

As both are used car salesmen: I side with neither.

Mediocre men with mediocre intelligences and mediocre ideas.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/31/12 - 11:12 AM:

I will be voting for Obama myself, as I see him the lesser of two evils. A symbolic gesture more than anything, since I live in a blue state anyway. How about you cripes?

Who do you all think will win the election?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 08/31/12 - 12:51 PM:

The lesser of two evils: is still evil.

I take Spooner's position: to vote is give approval to the winner, even if he or she is some one you oppose.

Since I cannot support Left or Right, Obama or Romney; since I will not give approval to the results of an election that is simply *Hobson's Choice, I won't vote.

As I think I mentioned elsewhere: put a binding NONE OF THE ABOVE on every ballot, of every election, from the federal down to the municipal and maybe then I'll step into a voting booth.









*or, Morton's Fork for those persnickety types...wink
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
1 of 1 people found this comment helpful
Posted 08/31/12 - 12:58 PM:

Like Henry, I don't vote, perhaps I will never vote.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:01 PM:

So, if a NOTA option were to win an election, who would you have hold office pending a new election? The incumbent, I presume?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:20 PM:

by the way cripes, i've taken that quiz before and was told i side with jill stein too. unfortunately i wouldn't ever vote for her unless i thought a 3rd party had any chance of winning.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:23 PM:

quirk wrote:
The lesser of two evils: is still evil.

I take Spooner's position: to vote is give approval to the winner, even if he or she is some one you oppose.

to be honest, i think obama has done alright given the mess he inherited. he's done some things i don't agree with, but i would easily still choose him over having romney as president.

thinker wrote:
Like Henry, I don't vote, perhaps I will never vote.

an understandable sentiment.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:31 PM:

"who would you have hold office pending a new election?"

Ideally: no one.

Put the office into abeyance till the voters get another shot at whatever crap the parties foist up.

Say neither Romney nor Obama gets the vote (NONE OF THE ABOVE winning the election) then the presidency goes unfilled for four years. If this happens enough times, from the federal all the way down to the municipal, 'governance' would be so spare as to be nonexistent.

Folks would be left to their own devices (as they should be).

It would be: sink or swim...it's ALL on YOU.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:37 PM:

So in other words, anarchy.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:40 PM:

The idea of voting for anarchy is pretty funny.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#12 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this comment helpful
Posted 08/31/12 - 1:59 PM:

"The idea of voting for anarchy is pretty funny."

Yep: a kind of twisted poetry at work (or play)... wink
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/31/12 - 2:03 PM:

Thing is: folks could 'vote' for something other than the lesser of two evils (or incompetents)...perhaps this might force parties to offer up a better grade of asshole.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#14 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this comment helpful
Posted 08/31/12 - 2:12 PM:

I've always said the less the gov. does the better, and 'None of the Above' might do just that. The other problem is that the people who could really do a good job will not put up with the grief that comes with office, and those who want the office are not necessarily the best suited to fill it.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/31/12 - 3:19 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
Thing is: folks could 'vote' for something other than the lesser of two evils (or incompetents)...perhaps this might force parties to offer up a better grade of asshole.

The problem is that there are so few people voting for independents that voting for them gives people like Romney a better chance of winning. "Throwing your vote away" as the expression goes.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/02/12 - 10:58 AM:

libertygrl wrote:
by the way cripes, i've taken that quiz before and was told i side with jill stein too. unfortunately i wouldn't ever vote for her unless i thought a 3rd party had any chance of winning.
I've come to think lately that it might be best (for me) to accept the fact that it's party one votes for.

The overall shift over the past 35 years or so has been to the right. The Democrats of today are no different than the Republicans of the 90s while the republican party appears to be going so far right it's frightening. That's the nature of the two party system; one or the other is pushed to it's extremes because they're both moving in the same direction. The funny thing about all that is that it's not actually a line, that's an illusion, it appears to be a circle.

My brain doesn't allow me to accept the lesser of two evils concept because one is a known liar and murderer (Obama) and the other's promises are painting him as a self-proclaimed liar and murderer. So, six of one - half dozen of the other.

Rather I'm thinking that if people vote for non-establishment candidates it will send a message to either party to move either right or left of their current positions. The Tea Party movement has forced the republican party to go further to the right than it would have otherwise done. So there's evidence of what I'm saying.

I've been seriously thinking about voting for the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. not because I'm a libertarian (I'm not) but because if by some miracle he was to pull off an upset he'd be so lame duck from day one due to a uniting of the two establishment parties that not much at all would get done. However, he would be in a position to make a few very important albeit small changes to the office in military funding and executive orders to cause some ripples.

All that said above about voting for Johnson I'm now thinking of voting for Stein with the hope that enough others will do the same in order to send the message I stated two paragraphs ago to the democratic party. As it now stands, Obama and Romney are merely two sides of the same coin.

You know what "they" say: fool me once....
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/02/12 - 3:21 PM:

Here's a conversation between John Cusack and Jonathan Turley, two liberals on Obama. It's worth the time.
truth-out.org/opinion/item/...ley-on-obamas-constitution
CUSACK: I would just love to know your take as an expert on these things. And then maybe we can speak to whatever you think his motivations would be, and not speak to them in the way that we want to armchair-quarterback like the pundits do about "the game inside the game," but only do it because it would speak to the arguments that are being used by the left to excuse it. For example, maybe their argument that there are things you can't know, and it's a dangerous world out there, or why do you think a constitutional law professor would throw out due process?

TURLEY: Well, there's a misconception about Barack Obama as a former constitutional law professor. First of all, there are plenty of professors who are "legal relativists." They tend to view legal principles as relative to whatever they're trying to achieve. I would certainly put President Obama in the relativist category. Ironically, he shares that distinction with George W. Bush. They both tended to view the law as a means to a particular end — as opposed to the end itself. That's the fundamental distinction among law professors. Law professors like Obama tend to view the law as one means to an end, and others, like myself, tend to view it as the end itself.

Truth be known President Obama has never been particularly driven by principle. Right after his election, I wrote a column in a few days warning people that even though I voted for Obama, he was not what people were describing him to be. I saw him in the Senate. I saw him in Chicago.

CUSACK: Yeah, so did I.

TURLEY: He was never motivated that much by principle. What he's motivated by are programs. And to that extent, I like his programs more than Bush's programs, but Bush and Obama are very much alike when it comes to principles. They simply do not fight for the abstract principles and view them as something quite relative to what they're trying to accomplish. Thus privacy yields to immunity for telecommunications companies and due process yields to tribunals for terrorism suspects.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.