The Always Popular Never Boring Political Test To Tell You Who To Vote For!

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Always interesting to see the actual agreement with the Libertarians.

Libertarian is Latin for "normal person".

We will never enact governmental change because we are lazy and not motivated by the dogma that motivates the D's and the R's to the polls.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Libertarian is Latin for "normal person".

We will never enact governmental change because we are lazy and not motivated by the dogma that motivates the D's and the R's to the polls.

Maybe more true than I'd like.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Libertarian is Latin for "normal person".

We will never enact governmental change because we are lazy and not motivated by the dogma that motivates the D's and the R's to the polls.

It isn't laziness. In fact, I'd say both your average (D) and (R) voter are far more lazy, because rather than attempt to educate themselves on the issues individually, most of them take at face value their preferred party's talking points and fall right in line with them en masse. You don't have to look very far to find people engaged in politics who obviously have never even considered any viewpoint but their own.

No, Libertarians have a different problem. They've come to their own belief structure based on an overall sense of importance of personal freedom, and the belief that government exists primarily to protect it. It is that inherent belief, that prioritization, that is the obstacle to massive Libertarian action. Think about what drives politicians - the primary motivation, whether they acknowledge it or not, is a desire for power; power over others. Most Libertarians inherently only desire power over their own fates. There is little incentive to join the ranks of a government if you seek to minimize it.

Most Libertarians I know are frustrated with our current course, but the overall attitude is "well, best to tune it out, and just do what I can within my own power to shield my own interests from it. My responsibility is first and foremost to myself and my family. If the collective desires to erode freedom, they will have to live with those consequences as much as anyone else will, but I will do what I can to minimize the damage here at home". We often try to live in the world that we desire it to be. The "fight" simply isn't interesting to many, as there are far more important things in life.

So laziness, no. You can say selfishness, but not in the sense of the way the word has been so demonized. It's a trait we all have; one that drives every single action that we take. It has enabled us to survive, evolve, and what made us the dominant species on this planet.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Always interesting to see the actual agreement with the Libertarians.

And yet, I'd bet of this group, the (L) may, MAYBE, get one or two votes total. And thats being generous.

Why would I vote for a person that has no chance of winning? I agreed with the Libertarian most but Romney was close behind. When I look at a choice between someone that I agree with Obama (according to that poll)45% of the time and someone I agree with (Romney via the poll) 82% of the time, or someone else with no chance of winning that I agree with (Johnson)85% of the time my choice is clear. A vote for Johnson helps Obama by default.

You being in Virginia (one of the tightest swing states this cycle) and choosing to withhold your vote is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

You being in Virginia (one of the tightest swing states this cycle) and choosing to withhold your vote is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I see it as being morally and intellectually consistent with my own belief system. Or as they say, voting ones conscience. My vote for Johnson, should I cast it, helps Johnson and the cause of Libertarianism first and foremost. How it effects Obama and Romney is of little import to me, I reject the "lesser of two evils" idea.

I don't see it in the pragmatic way you do. As I see it, my beliefs lose under either an (R) or (D) almost equally, albeit in different ways. My nose is fine either way.

I respect that you feel differently.

[Brooklyn Jet]

88% Ron Paul on immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, social, foreign policy, environmental, and economic issues.

84% Mitt Romney on healthcare, immigration, environmental, domestic policy, and economic issues.

82% Gary Johnson on domestic policy, healthcare, foreign policy, social, environmental, and economic issues.

87% Libertarian
84% Republican
61% Democratic
59% Green

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Why would I vote for a person that has no chance of winning? I agreed with the Libertarian most but Romney was close behind. When I look at a choice between someone that I agree with Obama (according to that poll)45% of the time and someone I agree with (Romney via the poll) 82% of the time, or someone else with no chance of winning that I agree with (Johnson)85% of the time my choice is clear. A vote for Johnson helps Obama by default.

You being in Virginia (one of the tightest swing states this cycle) and choosing to withhold your vote is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This is the other reason the Libertarian Party will never succeed, even having already won people like you over.

By the way, using this same line of thinking, there simply is no reason for you to be a Jets fan.

[jpoppy7]

Paul 92%
Romney 89%
Goode 66%
Obama 64%

Repub 89%
Libertarian 86%
Dem 64%
Green 28%

Lots of answers lacked nuance I would give for my opinion, and lots of issues are unimportant to me. These results do not reflect my actual preferences (though maybe they will give me more to think about my actualy preferences)

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I see it as being morally and intellectually consistent with my own belief system. Or as they say, voting ones conscience.

It's also a statement against the establishment Republican and Democratic machines, a statement against the status quo.

If enough people make this statement, it WILL be heard in one way or another.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

It isn't laziness. In fact, I'd say both your average (D) and (R) voter are far more lazy, because rather than attempt to educate themselves on the issues individually, most of them take at face value their preferred party's talking points and fall right in line with them en masse. You don't have to look very far to find people engaged in politics who obviously have never even considered any viewpoint but their own.

No, Libertarians have a different problem. They've come to their own belief structure based on an overall sense of importance of personal freedom, and the belief that government exists primarily to protect it. It is that inherent belief, that prioritization, that is the obstacle to massive Libertarian action. Think about what drives politicians - the primary motivation, whether they acknowledge it or not, is a desire for power; power over others. Most Libertarians inherently only desire power over their own fates. There is little incentive to join the ranks of a government if you seek to minimize it.

Most Libertarians I know are frustrated with our current course, but the overall attitude is "well, best to tune it out, and just do what I can within my own power to shield my own interests from it. My responsibility is first and foremost to myself and my family. If the collective desires to erode freedom, they will have to live with those consequences as much as anyone else will, but I will do what I can to minimize the damage here at home". We often try to live in the world that we desire it to be. The "fight" simply isn't interesting to many, as there are far more important things in life.

So laziness, no. You can say selfishness, but not in the sense of the way the word has been so demonized. It's a trait we all have; one that drives every single action that we take. It has enabled us to survive, evolve, and what made us the dominant species on this planet.

Great post.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by parafly

It's also a statement against the establishment Republican and Democratic machines, a statement against the status quo.

If enough people make this statement, it WILL be heard in one way or another.

That we're all "crypto-libs"?

[parafly]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

That we're all "crypto-libs"?

Sounds like a statement made by a crypto-intellect.

[brady's a catcher]

Dr. Paul 82%
Mittens 81%

[quantum]

(R): 92%
(L): 64%
(D): 30%
Green: 13%


that last one surprised me.

[Ernie]

Mitt Romney 98%

[IHATEDOLPHINS]

The Pres 77%
Gary Johnson 68%
Jill Stein 67%
Ron Paul 65%
Romney 53%

I agree with Ron Paul on 96 percent of foreign policy

looks like I agree with Obama on immigration,and economic issues
I agree with Romney on Domestic Policy

[acepepe]

Attila the Hun 100%
Paul 90%
Romney 88%

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

This is the other reason the Libertarian Party will never succeed, even having already won people like you over.

By the way, using this same line of thinking, there simply is no reason for you to be a Jets fan.

Our government was set up as a 2 party system by the founders. There are parliamentary systems in other countries that give lots of small groups a voice. I tend to believe that those systems require even more pandering by pols to bring small interest groups in to their coalitions. The best we can do is play within the system and elect people that agree with our POV.

Personally I value limited government and fiscal responsibility. I have found that Republicans particularly now tend to agree with that position. Worse I have observed that Democrat Politicians do not. for me the choice is easy when its broken down in to a simple format.

I have hope that the TEA Party will act as an enforcer calling out R's that don't stick to those two basic principals.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Chance 92%
Emerson 77%