How many right wingers vs left wingers on this forum?

[NightFox]

What ever happened to the premise that the more choices there are, the better it is? We LOVE to have more choices of consumer goods, services, schools, churches, content, etc.., etc.., why is it we’re so stubborn about limiting our choices in politics to just two, both of which are nothing but organized crime families?

Because of the idea that many of us vote to keep the other person out more so than get our person in. When you cast a vote for a third party candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell at winning, you also cast a vote that would allow the worst candidate to get the job.

It's not a matter of "If Trump wins, that would be great, but if Biden wins, that's okay too." Look at where our country is at today because he and the rest of the Nazis won. Fuel is up over 30% and likely only going higher, they are working on destroying the suburbs where many middle-class people could lose half their property value or more, they are the anti-police party and trying to take personal liability protection away from police so nobody will want to be a cop in the future, our inflation is out of control, and they're talking about spending another 6 trillion for more Democrat pork.

While I am a staunch Trump supporter, if Mickey Mouse would have run against Biden, I would have voted for Mickey Mouse to keep Biden out.

“Third Party” candidates don’t have a “chance in hell of winning” because the duopoly uses it’s power to make that the case, everything from restricting ballot access, to high barriers of entry for campaign finance to manipulating access to main stream media. The two crime families have all the power and will do everything they can to make sure it stays that way, actually they’re not TWO crime families, it’s ONE crime family with two different brand labels.

If, in a country of 330 million citizens, the best we can do is a Biden or Trump, we’re truly screwed and we deserve the horrible, corrupt and self serving government that we’re getting.

“We have met the enemy and they are ours” — Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry

 

[Lesh]

and on that very small data sample you make sweeping assumptions.

We are talking about this forum. Beyond that who cares?

 

[Rigby5]

You will quickly find 80 percent of the lefties all claim to be moderates.

You see them all over this forum. They claim they are moderates, who just happen to side with the Democrats over 90% of the time.

Ray, You don’t believe that there are many “moderate” Democrats?

Honestly as a libertarian, it’s hard to tell what “moderate” means anymore, it’s become a pretty murky term to nail down, however I suspect that most partisans from either party consider themselves “moderate” in one way or another. The Overton Window has moved so much from where it was just a decade ago, that what we once believed as “conservative” core principles or “liberal” core principles rarely seem to apply anymore.

There are. But if you vote Democrat, you are getting agendas that are Progressive Socialist and people like AOC's views are pushed. Two choices every election.

Nonsense.
I happen to like socialism, fairness, not starting wars of aggression, ending illegal laws like the War on Drugs, etc., and there are not two choices every election.
Like in the 2016 election, both candidates, Trump and Hillary were both right wing, pro-banks, anti socialist, pro war, pro business, pro drug laws, etc.
The left has never seen a candidate get to the actual election.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“Third Party” candidates don’t have a “chance in hell of winning” because the duopoly uses it’s power to make that the case, everything from restricting ballot access, to high barriers of entry for campaign finance to manipulating access to main stream media. The two crime families have all the power and will do everything they can to make sure it stays that way, actually they’re not TWO crime families, it’s ONE crime family with two different brand labels.

If, in a country of 330 million citizens, the best we can do is a Biden or Trump, we’re truly screwed and we deserve the horrible, corrupt and self serving government that we’re getting.

It's not some power machine that gives third party candidates no chance at winning, it's the voters who decide they don't want a third party candidate. Like I said, I'm voting for whoever will keep a Democrat out of office, and there are many, many voters like myself that use that same criteria. That's why a third party candidate will never stand a chance.

The only possible way for it to happen is if both parties at the same time get a spinoff from their party. Kind of like the Socialist party and the constitutional party, plus piss off many of their constituents at the same time.

 

[Rigby5]

We have met the enemy and they are ours” — Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry

I like the "Pogo" quote better.
"We have met the enemy and they are us."

 

[NightFox]

“Third Party” candidates don’t have a “chance in hell of winning” because the duopoly uses it’s power to make that the case, everything from restricting ballot access, to high barriers of entry for campaign finance to manipulating access to main stream media. The two crime families have all the power and will do everything they can to make sure it stays that way, actually they’re not TWO crime families, it’s ONE crime family with two different brand labels.

If, in a country of 330 million citizens, the best we can do is a Biden or Trump, we’re truly screwed and we deserve the horrible, corrupt and self serving government that we’re getting.

It's not some power machine that gives third party candidates no chance at winning, it's the voters who decide they don't want a third party candidate. Like I said, I'm voting for whoever will keep a Democrat out of office, and there are many, many voters like myself that use that same criteria. That's why a third party candidate will never stand a chance.

The only possible way for it to happen is if both parties at the same time get a spinoff from their party. Kind of like the Socialist party and the constitutional party, plus piss off many of their constituents at the same time.

The voters don’t decide, it’s the machinery that manipulates public opinion, the machinery that finances political campaigns and the partisan agenda manipulation machinery that decides. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get on a national ballot in all 50 states for a third party candidate? Or to finance a competitive campaign? Or to get any serious media attention? The duopoly has made barriers to entry nearly insurmountable to mounting a serious challenge to their entrenched power.

One need look no further than the statistics that clearly demonstrate the power of incumbency to recognize what’s going on. When was the last time we had a serious independent contender on the National Stage? 1992 Ross Perot and even then he was only able to garner 19% or so of the vote and that was only because he had the wherewithal to FORCE his way into the spotlight.

In the meantime, anybody that’s outside the acceptable postage stamp of opinion in the two parties gets torpedoed by THEIR OWN PARTY (e.g. Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders).

 

[Rigby5]

It's not some power machine that gives third party candidates no chance at winning, it's the voters who decide they don't want a third party candidate. Like I said, I'm voting for whoever will keep a Democrat out of office, and there are many, many voters like myself that use that same criteria. That's why a third party candidate will never stand a chance.

The only possible way for it to happen is if both parties at the same time get a spinoff from their party. Kind of like the Socialist party and the constitutional party, plus piss off many of their constituents at the same time.

Yes it is "some power machine" that prevent 3rd parties.
The primaries are controlled by the party, so anyone who does not strictly tow the party line, has no chance.
So the most popular candidates, meaning they would be easily elected by the majority of both parties combined, never make it past the primaries.
The primaries prevent candidates that have cross party appeal.
And the 2 main parties tie up all the funding and advertising.

The solution is to end parties by eliminating primary elections.
Just have everyone run in an open election, where you rate all the candidates.

The last 2 elections, with Trump, Hillary, and Biden, were the least popular of all the possible candidates.
Anyone else would have been better.
The election process is fatally flawed.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Just curious.

IMO count yourself as one leftist, due lack of cause & effect. How do you expect to determine how many with this thread?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Just curious.

IMO can't yourself as one leftist, due lack of cause & effect. How do you expect to determine how many with this thread?

^^ engrish

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Hmm
..2% rightwing, 68% moderate and 25% left leaning useful idiot morons. 5% left wing marxist skkkum.

Greg

Spoken like someone who has zero information and zero knowledge about what is left and what is right. Typical treasonous trumpscum

Hey Lillian, how come you never say anything of value? I can answer that if you like, just asking your opinion.

ALL of your posts say I'm right.

 

[pknopp]

I find people have a desire to put labels on people when they can't actually defend the things they say they believe in. They create these labels that they lump people into and argue that when they are unable to actually address the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

It's not just a "label" to call you a leftist, you always support the left. Why does that bother you since it's accurate?

When I support the 2nd Amendment I'm supporting the "left"?

When I note I am pro-life I am supporting the "left"?

When I argue to balance the budget I am supporting the "left"?

When I argued that Hillary was a horrible candidate I was supporting the left?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Dusty]

Just curious.

I put wing nuts on my nipples, does that count, that is why Hillary Cliton calls me a right wing nut conspiracy.

Actually I was flattered

 

[Rigby5]

There are very few conservatives on this board.
There are just a lot of republicans and government employees for some reason.
Most likely from the military, because this board seems very pro-military.

The reality is that conservatives actually are supposed to be against a professional military, and only support volunteer citizen soldiers.
Conservatives would also be against federal laws like the War on Drugs, sentence mandates, asset forfeiture, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

I find people have a desire to put labels on people when they can't actually defend the things they say they believe in. They create these labels that they lump people into and argue that when they are unable to actually address the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

It's not just a "label" to call you a leftist, you always support the left. Why does that bother you since it's accurate?

When I support the 2nd Amendment I'm supporting the "left"?

When I note I am pro-life I am supporting the "left"?

When I argue to balance the budget I am supporting the "left"?

When I argued that Hillary was a horrible candidate I was supporting the left?

Thanks for proving my point.

Good points. Worth repeating.

 

[Rigby5]

Define left and right?

For example, Hillary was pro-war, pro-banks, against public health care, pro-draconian laws like the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
To me that is so right wing as to be approaching Hitler.

 

[kaz]

I find people have a desire to put labels on people when they can't actually defend the things they say they believe in. They create these labels that they lump people into and argue that when they are unable to actually address the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

It's not just a "label" to call you a leftist, you always support the left. Why does that bother you since it's accurate?

When I support the 2nd Amendment I'm supporting the "left"?

When I note I am pro-life I am supporting the "left"?

When I argue to balance the budget I am supporting the "left"?

When I argued that Hillary was a horrible candidate I was supporting the left?

Thanks for proving my point.

"When I support the 2nd Amendment I'm supporting the "left"?"

What does supporting the 2nd Amendment mean. That's too vague to say you aren't left. Leftists all say they support the second amendment. Then they say things like the second amendment protects government (e.g., the national guard)'s right to guns, which is moronic. Be more specific what gun rights you support​

" When I note I am pro-life I am supporting the "left"?"

So you think all abortions should be outlawed? Again, be more specific​

" When I argue to balance the budget I am supporting the "left"?"

Yet again, Democrats believe taxes should be increased to infinity? HOW would you balance the budget? Is our spending insane? Why don't you ever mention this opposition to Democrats unlimited spending​

" When I argued that Hillary was a horrible candidate I was supporting the left?"

Lots of leftists admitted this. It's not really a right / left position, it's just obvious. McCain, Romney, W, HW and Dole were all horrible candidates​

 

[kaz]

I find people have a desire to put labels on people when they can't actually defend the things they say they believe in. They create these labels that they lump people into and argue that when they are unable to actually address the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

It's not just a "label" to call you a leftist, you always support the left. Why does that bother you since it's accurate?

When I support the 2nd Amendment I'm supporting the "left"?

When I note I am pro-life I am supporting the "left"?

When I argue to balance the budget I am supporting the "left"?

When I argued that Hillary was a horrible candidate I was supporting the left?

Thanks for proving my point.

Good points. Worth repeating.

It was not only 50K feet but many of those could be interpreted either way

 

[22lcidw]

You will quickly find 80 percent of the lefties all claim to be moderates.

You see them all over this forum. They claim they are moderates, who just happen to side with the Democrats over 90% of the time.

Ray, You don’t believe that there are many “moderate” Democrats?

Honestly as a libertarian, it’s hard to tell what “moderate” means anymore, it’s become a pretty murky term to nail down, however I suspect that most partisans from either party consider themselves “moderate” in one way or another. The Overton Window has moved so much from where it was just a decade ago, that what we once believed as “conservative” core principles or “liberal” core principles rarely seem to apply anymore.

There are. But if you vote Democrat, you are getting agendas that are Progressive Socialist and people like AOC's views are pushed. Two choices every election.

Nonsense.
I happen to like socialism, fairness, not starting wars of aggression, ending illegal laws like the War on Drugs, etc., and there are not two choices every election.
Like in the 2016 election, both candidates, Trump and Hillary were both right wing, pro-banks, anti socialist, pro war, pro business, pro drug laws, etc.
The left has never seen a candidate get to the actual election.

Then admit failures in social programs. This has been going on for a half century. There has to be morons in all ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not some power machine that gives third party candidates no chance at winning, it's the voters who decide they don't want a third party candidate. Like I said, I'm voting for whoever will keep a Democrat out of office, and there are many, many voters like myself that use that same criteria. That's why a third party candidate will never stand a chance.

The only possible way for it to happen is if both parties at the same time get a spinoff from their party. Kind of like the Socialist party and the constitutional party, plus piss off many of their constituents at the same time.

Yes it is "some power machine" that prevent 3rd parties.
The primaries are controlled by the party, so anyone who does not strictly tow the party line, has no chance.
So the most popular candidates, meaning they would be easily elected by the majority of both parties combined, never make it past the primaries.
The primaries prevent candidates that have cross party appeal.
And the 2 main parties tie up all the funding and advertising.

The solution is to end parties by eliminating primary elections.
Just have everyone run in an open election, where you rate all the candidates.

The last 2 elections, with Trump, Hillary, and Biden, were the least popular of all the possible candidates.
Anyone else would have been better.
The election process is fatally flawed.

That would never do anything. You are never going to eliminate the party voting system since it's been with us since our founding. It's not going to happen.

So the only way to make our election system better is if we made people take a simple test on current policies and federal government. They would be multiple choice questions, and you'd need 7 out of 10 to vote. If you fail the test, you can't vote until the next election.

Of course the Republicans would welcome this system with open arms. The Democrats would be having riots across every city in the US.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The voters don’t decide, it’s the machinery that manipulates public opinion, the machinery that finances political campaigns and the partisan agenda manipulation machinery that decides. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get on a national ballot in all 50 states for a third party candidate? Or to finance a competitive campaign? Or to get any serious media attention? The duopoly has made barriers to entry nearly insurmountable to mounting a serious challenge to their entrenched power.

One need look no further than the statistics that clearly demonstrate the power of incumbency to recognize what’s going on. When was the last time we had a serious independent contender on the National Stage? 1992 Ross Perot and even then he was only able to garner 19% or so of the vote and that was only because he had the wherewithal to FORCE his way into the spotlight.

In the meantime, anybody that’s outside the acceptable postage stamp of opinion in the two parties gets torpedoed by THEIR OWN PARTY (e.g. Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders).

Perot is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Many people still blame him for the election of Bill Clinton. As for his wife, she blamed the third party candidate for her loss, although she had a dozen other reasons she lost as well to Donald Trump. Do you think the people who hated Donald Trump that voted third party will ever vote for them again?