Guest MormonGator Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 32 minutes ago, mirkwood said: You mean like all the backroom deals we currently have going on? In fairness, if you are looking for purity go to religion, not politics. Even in religion it's a good thing to remember that the apostles and prophets are human and will make mistakes and do things we disagree with. In politics-well let's just say they don't have the same morality as the apostles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Koalemus said: I agree with this in principle, but I think if we get away from the two-party system we risk becoming like Italy or Great Britain. Many political parties, each vying for representation, and no one having a majority. That leaves the door open for all sorts of political scheming, temporary party alliances, and in general lots of confusion. I think that as bad as our current two-party system is, a European-style party split would make things much, much worse for our country, and hinder any decision-making processes. The intent of the Constitution was to have it that way. The Federalist Papers indicate that we would have multiple factions (parties) who each had some representation in the House. With all the variety of states and several factions in each state, there would have to be some concessions made to each of the smaller factions for the bigger factions to have any power. They expected enough overlap and criss-crossing in ideologies that the smaller factions could side with any of the various larger factions and switch loyalties with each vote. So, yes, we've usually had two large parties that controlled everything. But several since the founding have come and gone. Ever since the Reps and Dems came to power, we haven't noticed any sign of them going anywhere. And the people have come to accept that this is a two-party nation. That was never the intent of the Founders. Edited March 20, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 15 minutes ago, Carborendum said: So, yes, we've usually had two large parties that controlled everything. But there several since the founding have come and gone. Ever since the Reps and Dems came to power, we haven't noticed any sign of them going anywhere. And the people have come to accept that this is a two-party nation. That was never the intent of the Founders. Intent doesn't matter. For the foreseeable future we are a two party system, and the best way to change things is to work for reforming them. The democrats have gone from a center-left (Carter, Bill Clinton) party to a left one after the Obama years. In the other view, the republicans have gone from a center-right party (Ford, Nixon) in the Reagan years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 @MormonGator, My response was to Koalemus' post stating that such would be a bad thing. I disagree that it would be a bad thing. It SHOULD be that way. But I agree that we do not have that today. And that is part of the problem with our political system. The two primary parties have not only become clones of each other, but they have to make concessions to no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Carborendum said: The two primary parties have not only become clones of each other, but they have to make concessions to no one. You think the democrats and republicans are clones of one another? Edited March 20, 2016 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Not the general population, but the politicians in power. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Not the general population, but the politicians in power. Yes. Oh. Last time I checked Harry Reid doesn't have much in common with Mitch McConnell. One being pro-life, pro-gun, anti tax, anti gay marriage. One being pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-tax and pro gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 On 17/03/2016 at 1:02 PM, mirkwood said: "If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil and you will be judged for it. You should always vote for the best possible candidate, whether they have a chance of winning or not, and then, even if the worst possible candidate wins, the Lord will bless our country more because more people were willing to stand up for what is right." ~ Ezra Taft Benson So what happens when the best possible candidate is also the lesser of the two evils? Do we vote for them and be judged for it, knowing that the Lord will still bless our country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Vort and theSQUIDSTER 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, MormonGator said: Oh. Last time I checked Harry Reid doesn't have much in common with Mitch McConnell. One being pro-life, pro-gun, anti tax, anti gay marriage. One being pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-tax and pro gay marriage. What they say and what they do are very different. How has any of that which you mentioned affected any votes or deals or funding they've approved of? Further, none of these things really has much to do with the most important issue: How much power should government have? Edited March 20, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Carborendum said: What they say and what they do are very different. How has any of that which you mentioned affected any votes or deals or funding they've approved of? Further, none of these things really has much to do with the most important issue: How much power should government have? Exactly. One side wants more wars, defense spending and involvement overseas, one side was more social spending and government involvement at home. Two sides of the same coin. In fact, by generally any standard measure of votes that are in accordance with the Constitution, Ds are generally less bad than Rs but Rs aren't exactly the pillars of strength in defending the constitution. I can name off the top of my head the Rs that actually stand on principle and defend the Constitution. Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and a few others. The JBS publishes a "Freedom Index" and while by no means perfect can give a pretty accurate reflection of whether your Congresscritter actually votes in line with the Constitution. In that index only ~40 individuals have above a 75% rating and only maybe a half-dozen have above 90%. So the Rs control the entire house and senate yet less 10% of them actually vote for the Constitution 75% of the time. That is pretty pitiful and shows you how little difference there is between R and D. Edited March 20, 2016 by yjacket LeSellers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Carborendum said: What they say and what they do are very different. How has any of that which you mentioned affected any votes or deals or funding they've approved of? Further, none of these things really has much to do with the most important issue: How much power should government have? Both have vastly different political think tank ratings, meaning they vote differently on bills they like and dislike. That's how views affect votes. Pro-lifers get low scores from the ACLU. Pro-chociers get a low score from the Heritage Foundation. Harry Reid gets a high score from the ACLU. Mitch McConnell gets a high score from Heritage. Therefore, they vote differently on different bills. If the two were the same, their ratings would be the same. Government should have as little power as possible. Coin money, national defense, and enforce contract law. Sadly though, not everyone agrees with me. That's how government works. People who disagree fundamentally have to come to agreements. Like many people here, I'd like government to do nothing all day because they wouldn't be harming us-but again, others disagree. Edited March 20, 2016 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 3 hours ago, MormonGator said: Both have vastly different political think tank ratings... Not even 100 years ago, much of the US understood that the important thing in politics wasn't party vs. party. It was citizen vs. government. All the other petty disagreements we have in politics really are just that... petty. The biggest political problem is not whether we have a politician who is pro-this or pro-that. It is whether the politician wants to take the decision out of the hands of the people. It is that quality that makes both parties pretty much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Carborendum said: It is whether the politician wants to take the decision out of the hands of the people. It is that quality that makes both parties pretty much the same. I use this analogy: The socialists want to deal the cards from the left side of the table. The other side from the right. But they both want to deal. Lehi Edited March 20, 2016 by LeSellers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I can see the argument for the wasted vote when voting for a third-party candidate in a two-party system. But the OP was about the primaries when there's a plurality of candidates. I'm struggling to see the argument that the vote is wasted in that case. Especially with the current Republican primary where you can vote for Trump, contested convention, or P(Cruz | contested convention). How is any of that wasted (unless the OP is doing a write-in, in which case I can see the argument that it's a wasted vote)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 True, my OP was about the primary at the time. But I stand by my primary point even in the main election. My primary point being about standing on principle rather than the lesser of two evils. I admit that it would be rare indeed, if not impossible, to find the perfect candidate. But everyone needs to define what it is they're willing to compromise on and what is important to them in a candidate. The final question is: On his own, is he a bad enough candidate that I just can't bring myself to vote for him? If so, that statement should not change simply because the alternative is even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 53 minutes ago, Carborendum said: ]=The final question is: On his own, is he a bad enough candidate that I just can't bring myself to vote for him? If so, that statement should not change simply because the alternative is even worse. I'm not sure that's the final question. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage (Socially I'm liberal on everything but guns), so this doesn't apply to me. However if I was a conservative (Not pejorative, just descriptive) here is how I would think: What candidate is more likely to put someone I agree with on the supreme court? If I stay home, it can be argued that it's a vote for the other side. Third party voting and staying has unforeseen consequences. If the democrat gets voted in and Breyer or Ginsburg retire-do you want Hillary picking that choice? For me? I don't care. But It's a good question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 In 2008 and 2012 conservatives were asked to vote for moderates. The argument was that a moderate is better than a liberal. I get that. This year, if all I had to look at were policy position, the answer would seem to be clear. HOWEVER, this is a year when other factors may weigh as heavily as current policies. I'm stuck wondering if "the lesser evil" may be more dangerous than the one who so clearly opposes my policy positions. Ah well...it's a good year to pray! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said: In 2008 and 2012 conservatives were asked to vote for moderates. The argument was that a moderate is better than a liberal. I get that. This year, if all I had to look at were policy position, the answer would seem to be clear. HOWEVER, this is a year when other factors may weigh as heavily as current policies. I'm stuck wondering if "the lesser evil" may be more dangerous than the one who so clearly opposes my policy positions. Ah well...it's a good year to pray! If conservatives voted for the "moderate" in 2012, Than Romney would be choosing the replacement for Scalia not Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Many of us did...though not all, to be sure. If the moderates would get on board with this year's conservative, our conversation late summer might become significantly more optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Oh we agree totally on that. I don't blame conservatives at all for feeling ignored. Though "that guy" is NOT the answer for that. I'd vote for the remaining republican senator even though I don't agree with him on much. Just because he isn't you-know-who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/21/2016 at 7:03 PM, prisonchaplain said: Many of us did...though not all, to be sure. If the moderates would get on board with this year's conservative, our conversation late summer might become significantly more optimistic. This is funny. In 2012, lots of people stayed home guaranteeing an Obama win because Romney is "not Christian". Today, people are going to stay home or scheme for 3rd party guaranteeing a Hillary win because Trump is "not Christian". I swear... religious people just love shooting themselves in their own foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/21/2016 at 7:29 PM, MormonGator said: Oh we agree totally on that. I don't blame conservatives at all for feeling ignored. Though "that guy" is NOT the answer for that. I'd vote for the remaining republican senator even though I don't agree with him on much. Just because he isn't you-know-who. Jeff Sessions, poster child of the Tea Party is as conservative as you can get. He sure does believe "that guy" is the answer for that. No, he doesn't claim to believe that "that guy" is conservative. Rather, he believes that "that guy" is the best facilitator for conservatism. Because, he believes "the other guy" who is touted to be the most conservative of them all and who Sessions worked side-by-side with in the Senate, will not be able to get anything done because of his extremely idealistic stance on everything - it will be gridlock just like it is now with the extremely idealistic Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 41 minutes ago, anatess2 said: it will be gridlock just like it is now I love gridlock: when they're not doing anything, they're not hurting us. Lehi anatess2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 55 minutes ago, anatess2 said: This is funny. In 2012, lots of people stayed home guaranteeing an Obama win because Romney is "not Christian". Today, people are going to stay home or scheme for 3rd party guaranteeing a Hillary win because Trump is "not Christian". I swear... religious people just love shooting themselves in their own foot. I could have voted for Bush, Rubio, even Kasich--even if they were observant Pagans. If I cannot vote for the Republican nominee this year it will be because his character/temperrment are so disturbing that I will settle for someone that I agree with about 20% of the time. The frail straws I would grasp at are that the first husband could help moderate her somewhat. It's just an incredibly sad election cycle... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.