The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Hawkeye]

I bet France has the best government cheese.

Maybe the Dutch.

Swiss?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Still not voting Democrat. Not until they can demonstrate enough sanity to raise them above the Trump administration. Low as that bar is, they can't seem to rise above it.

I'm only voting for the person that best represents my ideals. I'm done with the less of two evil.... and I like to complain.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Swiss?

You don't get your money's worth with all dem holes.

 

[PaulF]

Still not voting Democrat. Not until they can demonstrate enough sanity to raise them above the Trump administration. Low as that bar is, they can't seem to rise above it.

Isn't that a bit of a catch-22?

If more people like the "Average INGOer" ran for office as Democrats there would be more Democrats worth voting for. More pro-gun, pro-liberty, budget-minded Democrats could only be a good thing, right?

People like you (and me, too) would actually have to vote for them, though, and you have illustrated precisely the reason that isn't likely to happen.

Democrats don't present themselves as pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty, because it doesn't get them votes...and it is (at least somewhat) up to conservatives and independents to change that.

 

[The Stig]

I don't care what anyone says, that block stuff is good.

 

[ghuns]

Swiss?

Pfft, not even top 10.

 

[jamil]

Isn't that a bit of a catch-22?

If more people like the "Average INGOer" ran for office as Democrats there would be more Democrats worth voting for. More pro-gun, pro-liberty, budget-minded Democrats could only be a good thing, right?

People like you (and me, too) would actually have to vote for them, though, and you have illustrated precisely the reason that isn't likely to happen.

Democrats don't present themselves as pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty, because it doesn't get them votes...and it is (at least somewhat) up to conservatives and independents to change that.

If I didn't know better I'd think you're trying to argue that if more conservatives voted democrat, more democrats would be conservatives. I know that's stating it backwards from how you said it. Look at the practicality of what you're saying. If I ran as a democrat, maybe I could get by with it at a local level. I doubt it, but maybe. Once the party found out how evil I am, there'd be zero support. I just don't think that dog hunts.

The real problem--apart from social media which provides a positive feedback loop towards the rails--as far as I see it is that every election, at least on a national level, is a binary choice. One of exactly two candidates will win. Also the primary system often helps set up perfect storms for more radical candidates running in partisan areas. Roy Moore?

I'd be more inclined to vote for the person if the system didn't play humans against themselves. With our voting system, it can't work any other way than it does. This is how humans are programmed. Put the current inputs into a state machine and it spits out predictable results.

Relatively few people are wired to vote principles like Kut regardless of outcome. I used to do that. But I've come to see what the game is, and I now play by the inevitable rules. Maybe I'd have felt more principled if I'd have voted for Al Bundy. But for the game we're playing the rules, one of exactly two is elected. And maybe it's okay to take yourself out of the game. Look how close to Hillary we came. I think I made the right choice. It was a horrible choice to make. But given the game, it's really the only one.

 

[Birds Away]

Isn't that a bit of a catch-22?

If more people like the "Average INGOer" ran for office as Democrats there would be more Democrats worth voting for. More pro-gun, pro-liberty, budget-minded Democrats could only be a good thing, right?

People like you (and me, too) would actually have to vote for them, though, and you have illustrated precisely the reason that isn't likely to happen.

Democrats don't present themselves as pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty, because it doesn't get them votes...and it is (at least somewhat) up to conservatives and independents to change that.

That is a mythical creature. It does not exist in real life.

 

[dugsagun]

I remember gov'ment cheese growing up, it was good cheese. Or maybe i was always hungry. Or both. I bet the swiss to make the best cheese, however getting the government involved would probably lower the grade of said cheese, not improve upon it. I also like really sharp chedder.

 

[Indyhd]

Isn't that a bit of a catch-22?

If more people like the "Average INGOer" ran for office as Democrats there would be more Democrats worth voting for. More pro-gun, pro-liberty, budget-minded Democrats could only be a good thing, right?

People like you (and me, too) would actually have to vote for them, though, and you have illustrated precisely the reason that isn't likely to happen.

Democrats don't present themselves as pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty, because it doesn't get them votes...and it is (at least somewhat) up to conservatives and independents to change that.

I voted for Evan Bayh twice for governor, and once as a moderate senator. Kinda seems as though people change when they get the establishment Washington people involved.

 

[BugI02]

I remember gov'ment cheese growing up, it was good cheese. Or maybe i was always hungry. Or both. I bet the swiss to make the best cheese, however getting the government involved would probably lower the grade of said cheese, not improve upon it. I also like really sharp chedder.

You don't perhaps see a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance here? The government was actually involved in providing the government cheese you remember as good, yet you feel that getting the government involved (again) in government cheese will inevitably ruin it

 

[Alpo]

Isn't that a bit of a catch-22?

If more people like the "Average INGOer" ran for office as Democrats there would be more Democrats worth voting for. More pro-gun, pro-liberty, budget-minded Democrats could only be a good thing, right?

People like you (and me, too) would actually have to vote for them, though, and you have illustrated precisely the reason that isn't likely to happen.

Democrats don't present themselves as pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-liberty, because it doesn't get them votes...and it is (at least somewhat) up to conservatives and independents to change that.

Hasn't worked so far.

 

[indiucky]

I always thought Jim Webb could possibly pull it off....

And a big MAYBE with Tulsi Gabbard...I would like to see her run...Down a beach....In a bikini....

OMG she's got that whole Emmylou Harris just going grey thing going on now...Be still my Conservative heart...Don't fall for her feminine wiles.....

 

[bwframe]

No such thing as a pro 2A Dem anymore.

 

[indiucky]

No such thing as a pro 2A Dem anymore.

Blue Dog Democrats went extinct about 10-15 years ago or so I am afraid...Most of of my Pro Union Democrat customers and buddies all voted Trump...

 

[jamil]

Hasn't worked so far.

Part of it is trust. What policies have democrats pushed the hardest? Really the only sane Democrat in the 2016 primary, and the only one I could have seen myself voting for, was Jim Webb. They laughed his ass off the stage. That's what democrats do to sane people now. In today's world, to be democrat, at least at the national level, you have to be a social justice warrior, and at least a little Marxist. You have to sufficiently denounce everything the hierarchy disagrees with, to the satisfaction of the hierarchy.

Democrats are the party of collectivism. Republicans are the party of self-interest. And it's not that I'm looking for a candidate to support who's in the middle of that. I want candidates who advocate the Western values of individual freedom and personal responsibility. It's hard to say that I'd find many Republican politicians who actually support that in deed rather than just in words. But it's impossible to find Democrats who openly advocate that. And it may be that there are Democrats who still believe in individuality, which necessarily includes personal responsibility. But democrats have to tow the line with the progressives or they get mob shamed.

Given all that. I have to settle for the closest theoretical outcome, which is not_democrats. That, unfortunately, makes Republicans and all the things that implies, the current default.

 

[jamil]

No such thing as a pro 2A Dem anymore.

As a practical matter, I find that to be untrue. I work with some people who are progressive in all other areas but support the 2A. They disagree with other democrats about guns.

 

[bwframe]

After the last election and current dem anti-gun climate, there is no way any self respecting pro 2A person could possibly associate with the democratic party.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No such thing as a pro 2A Dem anymore.

You'd be wrong. Like really, really wrong. Not counting my pop, but I have some in my family, in the sticks of Alabama/Arkansas that are darker shade of "Deliverance" and would stick you in a hole in a cotton field if you tried to take their guns.

 

[Birds Away]

You'd be wrong. Like really, really wrong. Not counting my pop, but I have some in my family, in the sticks of Alabama/Arkansas that are darker shade of "Deliverance" and would stick you in a hole in a cotton field if you tried to take their guns.

I think they were referring to candidates on the national stage.