Political Blindness...

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Simplification can be evil, but it's basically always a necessary evil. In order to do anything in an efficient fashion you're going to have to sacrifice substance for speed. However, the biggest problem with blurbs is that they fail to actually answer when they quite easily *could*.

EX:

"I believe that the government is responsible for the safety of the people"

v.s.

"I have and will, if elected, endeavor to protect the rights of gun owners while keeping weapons out of the hands of violent criminals."

One says nothing, could go either way, and is often mistaken for a germane comment. The other, while not specific, DOES adequately outline the politicians intent such that the average person can draw a real and reasonably accurate conclusion.

Otherwise we'd need a breakdown of each and every issue and it's individual components issues (ex 2nd amendment rights -> regulation -> 'assault weapons')

[smileyeagle1021]

To me, it doesn't matter which political party someone belongs to. I tend to vote either way depending on the issues. But, I will *not* vote for a Democrat in Allegheny County elections. Why? Those idiots have been in power since the 1930s, and are largely responsible for the majority of the city and county's current fiscal problems.

And what if the democratic candidate had a workable solution to the fiscal problems?

I have never voted republican, but that is because I have yet to have seen one that I can agree with in the elections I've been voting on.

And as far as single issue, I can understand single issue voters to some extent. Gay rights is my deal breaker issue, I don't care if I agree with everything else, I refuse to vote for someone who is going to make me a second class citizen.

And for the record, I likely will not vote in the 2010 election, because in Utah the elections have remained fixed for the last 30 years. The governor will be Republican, the county mayor will be a democrat, the senator will be republican, the congressional district I'm in will have a democrat (despite the republicans best efforts to gerrymander the fuck out of Salt Lake to insure their Mormon values are represented in Congress), and my district for the state legislature is a crap shoot, but at the end of the day, 80% of the legislature will be Mormon Republicans and will march lockstep with a veto proof majority. Whether or not I vote, the course of events will keep going as they have, unchanged.

[protege]

And what if the democratic candidate had a workable solution to the fiscal problems?

Considering that the democratic candidate is an *incumbent* 99.9% of the time...

[jackfaire]

Considering that the democratic candidate is an *incumbent* 99.9% of the time...

Which if they have a "workable" solution would severely hurt their credibility. Cuz then's it like why haven't you used it yet or why not now why tell us you will use it if reelected.

[Skunkle]

My annoyance is mainly that hardcore Republican-supporters act and talk as though any and all Democrat-supporters (think, right now, Obama supporters) are not only incorrect politically, but that everything. EVERYTHING. They say, think, do, and in fact ARE as a person, is wrong.

And Democrat supporters pull the same shit about Republican-supporters. I'm ready to clock 'em on the head. Both sides.

I voted for Obama. I generally tend to prefer moderate Democrats. I don't like far-lefties. I don't like all Dems. And I don't, by any stretch, like everything our Pres does or says. But there's no candidate, anywhere, ever, than I can or even would say I support 100% in everything they say and do. It's simply, in my opinion, not possible.

Incidentally, it's semi-on-topic, so I might as well pop it in here. If it's deemed really OT, feel free to ignore it, or mods, please do edit my post.

My way of explaining why I consider Fox News to be inherently biased: Anyone here who's a steadfast Conservative, and in fact one who supported George W. Bush, am I correct that you probably didn't like EVERYTHING he said/did, even if perhaps you liked most of it? Okay, I support Obama, but I don't like EVERYTHING he says/does. Now look at Fox. They NEVER say a single bad word about W. NEVER. They also never say a single good word about Obama... okay, maybe a few backhanded compliments. So, to my point: If you can agree that, like me, you can't support your side in absolutely everything at all times... and your favored news provider never, ever does anything but support them unconditionally and bash the other side unconditionally...

...somethin' is fishy there.

[aurelemsrealm]

People on this board were saying things like "I'm registered Y and always vote Y. If I can't, I'll vote for the X Party. I'll never vote for Z." I heard a lot of talk like this when I was a bartender, even though it's supposedly one of the "Forbidden 3."

I'm trying to think of what are the "Forbidden 3" topics? Politics and religion come to mind immediately, but I can't think of a third. I worked until late last night, and have only had two cups of coffee so far this morning. The third is just not coming to mind right now.

I've always kind of envisioned a voting machine that, instead of asking for what candidate, instead invited voters to choose one of two or more quotes expressing a position on a series of issues with no name or party affiliation displayed. When all of the questions were either passed or answered the voter would be shown, all at once, a breakdown of their answers for all the candidates.

That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it could be implemented for practical purposes since politicians always seem to be so wishy-washy in terms of saying what will ensure their votes instead of actually representing the will of their constituents. At least, that's my observation. I think I'd like that idea myself since I have a hard time keeping up with which politician is saying and doing what. I can tell you what I believe should be done, and TRY to stay current with what's going on, but it gets damned confusing at times trying to find what's credible and what's total bullcrap.

I won't vote for a Chicagoan in a Gubernatorial election, unless it is down to Chicagoan vs Chicagoan. Downstaters seem to be just a bit more rational, and understand there are more than 10 counties in Illinois.

I have to laugh in agreement with this comment. I currently live in northeastern Tennessee, but I grew up in southern Illinois. In a more general sense, I always hate when people identify my hometown as being anywhere near Chicago when it's really much closer to St. Louis. My opinion is that the Chicago area really should be a separate state from the rest of Illinois.