Know thy Enemy, Know thyself

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TMPadmin

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TMPadmin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


You really expect the Religious Right Wing Radicals to answer your question???

They can't, people that can't think for themselves because they are brainwashed are no longer capable.

Forget about it.

A perfect example of a leftist liberal Radical. How would you like it if I called you a communist? Why do you generalize all republicans (or all those who voted Bush regardless of party affiliation) a "Religious Right Wing Radical"?

Can it be because all those who voted for Bush supported the Radical Religious Right :roll:

If you think about your statement and step out of your bubble I think you will realize you are wrong.

How so? Bush himself is Radical, Right and Religious.

 

[TMPadmin]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TMPadmin

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TMPadmin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


You really expect the Religious Right Wing Radicals to answer your question???

They can't, people that can't think for themselves because they are brainwashed are no longer capable.

Forget about it.

A perfect example of a leftist liberal Radical. How would you like it if I called you a communist? Why do you generalize all republicans (or all those who voted Bush regardless of party affiliation) a "Religious Right Wing Radical"?

Can it be because all those who voted for Bush supported the Radical Religious Right :roll:

If you think about your statement and step out of your bubble I think you will realize you are wrong.

How so? Bush himself is Radical, Right and Religious.

Okay I'll give you that, President Bush is radical to some who believe isolationism is the answer to everything. I trust he is correct in many of his decisions given the information he had to work with and the resources at his disposal. And I admire him for being Religious and being proud of it! But just because someone is religious doesn't make them a bad person.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Right wingers here keep referring to the "ultra left" of the democratic party when I do not think there actually exists an ultra left in US politics.

Short answer, if there is an "ultra right, there is by definition an "ultra left"

Playing with semantics does not make the bell curve go away, as much as you may want it to...

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: GrGr

Right wingers here keep referring to the "ultra left" of the democratic party when I do not think there actually exists an ultra left in US politics.

Short answer, if there is an "ultra right, there is by definition an "ultra left"

Playing with semantics does not make the bell curve go away, as much as you may want it to...

Surely there is a Communist party in the US?

Lookie the Communist Party USA

Surely they qualify as Ultra Left?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Gravity
Also, there are single issues that polarize large groups of voters like abortion, gay marriage and gun rights. Peeps take sides based on one of those and almost regardless of the rest of the stances, cast their ballot.

For example, I like rudy guilani but because he's pro-choice, I'd never vote for him. Same with Swatzenager, like him but he's too far left and pro choice.

Other's that might be centrist could be considered but if they waffle on the right to life, large blocks of voters won't support them.

So, I'm not so sure it's a definition you want or need, it's a look at stances on key issues that sway masses, and a smaller number of peeps that look at a broader issue with no single issue automatically determining their vot.

This is interesting. I also think it is more typical of the way right wing voters think when they vote. Right wingers vote on issues while left wingers vote on policies. Is that a fair assessment?

It seems to me that the dems can not do much to influence single issue voters. They will vote their issue regardless unless some real crisis forces these voters to abandon the single issue and look at the larger picture. Is that correct?

policies stem from issues. if we can discern where someone stands on an issue, we can infer where their policies might take us.

i have two criteria for a candidate to get my vote:

[1] Stance on the 2nd Amendment.
If a candidate is pro-gun restrictions, then they are fundementally against the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that we have the right to bear arms. There are no stipulations as to what type, caliber, or rate of fire weapons we may own are, it just states that we are allowed to bear them.
Now then, if a candidate is willing to meddle with a fundemental right [remember, the Amendments were listed in order of greates importance], then in my mind, there is no limit to what they [a candidate] can meddle with.

[2] Defense [military and itelligence agency] Spending
If a candidate is willing to slash defense spending, then they are no good for us. We need a strong military for our defese. Our Constitution wont matter much to an invader, therfore we need a strong defense to ward off any thoughts or notions of invasion or hostile takeover.

 

[IEC]

For the Democrats to win elections, they need to be more centrist and more in line with the majority of Americans.

To this end, they *should*:

1) Drop the gay and lesbian marriage argument completely, most Americans are sickened by the very image of homosexuals kissing.

2) Emphasize economic reform and fighting for the "poor" and middle-class Americans who make up the vast majority of voters.

3) Emphasize traditional family values.

4) Emphasize the environment and that we must protect it if we are to continue to live in a safe, clean environment.

5) Emphasize that we are not alone in the world and must rejoin the international community.

6) For God's sake, don't use big words most Americans don't understand, and try to be a bit more down-to-earth.

My 2c.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Gravity
Also, there are single issues that polarize large groups of voters like abortion, gay marriage and gun rights. Peeps take sides based on one of those and almost regardless of the rest of the stances, cast their ballot.

For example, I like rudy guilani but because he's pro-choice, I'd never vote for him. Same with Swatzenager, like him but he's too far left and pro choice.

Other's that might be centrist could be considered but if they waffle on the right to life, large blocks of voters won't support them.

So, I'm not so sure it's a definition you want or need, it's a look at stances on key issues that sway masses, and a smaller number of peeps that look at a broader issue with no single issue automatically determining their vot.

This is interesting. I also think it is more typical of the way right wing voters think when they vote. Right wingers vote on issues while left wingers vote on policies. Is that a fair assessment?

It seems to me that the dems can not do much to influence single issue voters. They will vote their issue regardless unless some real crisis forces these voters to abandon the single issue and look at the larger picture. Is that correct?

policies stem from issues. if we can discern where someone stands on an issue, we can infer where their policies might take us.

i have two criteria for a candidate to get my vote:

[1] Stance on the 2nd Amendment.
If a candidate is pro-gun restrictions, then they are fundementally against the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that we have the right to bear arms. There are no stipulations as to what type, caliber, or rate of fire weapons we may own are, it just states that we are allowed to bear them.
Now then, if a candidate is willing to meddle with a fundemental right [remember, the Amendments were listed in order of greates importance], then in my mind, there is no limit to what they [a candidate] can meddle with.

[2] Defense [military and itelligence agency] Spending
If a candidate is willing to slash defense spending, then they are no good for us. We need a strong military for our defese. Our Constitution wont matter much to an invader, therfore we need a strong defense to ward off any thoughts or notions of invasion or hostile takeover.

1. Ok you are pro gun, fine

2. Goodness. And where would that invader come from? Outer space? None out of China, Russia, the Eurozone, Canada or Mexico are in any way shape or form even close to militarily strong enough to invade the US. The only thing weaker than their military might is their willingness to attempt to invade the US.

The only real possibility of a "hostile takeover" is through a domestic enemy. Incidently that takeover is well on it's way now.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
For the Democrats to win elections, they need to be more centrist and more in line with the majority of Americans.

To this end, they *should*:

1) Drop the gay and lesbian marriage argument completely, most Americans are sickened by the very image of homosexuals kissing.

2) Emphasize economic reform and fighting for the "poor" and middle-class Americans who make up the vast majority of voters.

3) Emphasize traditional family values.

4) Emphasize the environment and that we must protect it if we are to continue to live in a safe, clean environment.

5) Emphasize that we are not alone in the world and must rejoin the international community.

6) For God's sake, don't use big words most Americans don't understand, and try to be a bit more down-to-earth.

My 2c.

1. Who cares? But it is probably good advice.
2. Agreed.
3. Debatable but why not if we agree on those values
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Probably very good advice. Kerry's style probably did not do him any favors in the red states.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: ariafrost
For the Democrats to win elections, they need to be more centrist and more in line with the majority of Americans.

To this end, they *should*:

1) Drop the gay and lesbian marriage argument completely, most Americans are sickened by the very image of homosexuals kissing.

2) Emphasize economic reform and fighting for the "poor" and middle-class Americans who make up the vast majority of voters.

3) Emphasize traditional family values.

4) Emphasize the environment and that we must protect it if we are to continue to live in a safe, clean environment.

5) Emphasize that we are not alone in the world and must rejoin the international community.

6) For God's sake, don't use big words most Americans don't understand, and try to be a bit more down-to-earth.

My 2c.

1. Who cares? But it is probably good advice.
2. Agreed.
3. Debatable but why not if we agree on those values
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Probably very good advice. Kerry's style probably did not do him any favors in the red states.

Or in the swing states for that matter