My quest for politcal views

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

My quest for politcal views

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

MegaMatt wrote:
and if you don't talk politics to anyone, you'll never offend people.

I went to the same school Matt... but I found out that that idea is actually a lie... You CAN STILL offend LOTS of people without talking politics! Hubby calls me the official -conservative-independent-antagonist... I am one of those people that skew the pre-voting polls cause I am undecided until the day before the election... and THEN... I have been known to change my mind about who to vote for while standing in a line of 2 people!!!

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Oh, I don't know I kind of agree with Polly on this one. You CAN offend people talking politics.
I've observed plenty of political discussions get pretty lively on this forum alone. Particularly when there are people who are pretty passionate about their views and when it seems they want to convince you that their views are correct. I've seen people take offense when no offense was intended.
So it is definitely a good idea to search out your own political views without relying on someone else's. Though I usually always vote republican, I would say that my political stance is apathetic as well, because I can't stand politics in general. It's interesting to observe the goings on with all the political issues, but it gets frustrating every so often, because it seems that political campaigns have resorted to just bashing another's oponent. That's all you ever hear it seems.

arbilad · Head Chef

There's no quick way to getting a set of political views. And they will change over time anyway. Mine have.
One useful exercise for you would be to research all sides of an issue (and this isn't a two dimensional object; there are always more than two sides to an issue), including the extreme views. Pick a few positions on a subject and argue for or against them. For instance, just to pick an issue, try writing something down, even if it isn't public, but for and against the following positions on illegal immigration:

Illegal immigration is necessary for our country's economy
Illegal immigration is a drain on our country's economy
Allowing illegal immigrants to come into our country is the kind and moral thing to do.
Allowing illegal immigrants to come into our country is unethical and immoral.
We should shut down illegal immigration, but make legal immigration much easier.
We should simply open the borders wide open and not care about whether someone is legal or not.

You see, when you start expressing arguments for or against, you put thought into the validity (or lack thereof) of the arguments themselves. Others expressing an opinion on a subject will rarely tell you about the drawbacks of their opinion. You will tend to think about it more if you study all side of an issue then try out being "devil's advocate" by arguing all sides of an issue.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Bible provide excellent guidance that can and should be used to form political views. This has been supplemented by Prophets, Apostles and other LDSs in their speeches and writings.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

MegaMatt wrote:
So my official political stance on my facebook is and has been "Apathetic" since I started my account when I came home from my mission. But since then I've known in the back of my mind that it's important to have an opinion.

Oh, I give you more credit than that. I'm guessing you already have opinions, you've just not thought much about them. Here's a quick way to tell whether you're on the left side or right side of the fence:

Americas Judeo-Christian Identity
Left: Regards as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and do not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving.
Right: Regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.

American Patriotism
Left: Regards as dangerous, and is more comfortable celebrating world citizenship and prefers that America follow the lead of international organizations such as the United Nations.
Right: Celebrates American nationalism, distrusts world organizations, prefers that America lead humanity and regards the United Nations as largely a moral wasteland.

Boy Scouts
Left: The Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society.
Right: The Boy Scouts continue to be one of the greatest moral institutions in the country.

Capitalism
Left: Impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country.
Right: The legal system, particularly trial lawyers, lawsuits and judges who make laws, is the greater threat to American society.

Christianity vs. Islam
Left: Criticism of Christianity is important and that criticism of Islam is bigoted.
Right: Criticism of Islam is important and that most criticism of Christianity is bigoted.

Crime
Left: Poverty, racism and psychopathology cause violent crime.
Right: A lack of self-control, lack of religious practice and lack of good values are the primary causes of violent crime.

Cultural Identity
Left: Multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and for government policy.
Right: Americanization of all its citizens is indispensable to the survival of the United States.

Danger
Left: The greatest danger to mankind, as former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance," is the threat to the environment.
Right: The greatest danger to humanity is, and always has been, human evil.

Equality vs. Liberty
Left: Believes in equality more than in liberty. For example, the Left believes that for the equality's sake, men's clubs must accept women.
Right: Believes more in liberty. Believes that for liberty's sake, associations must be free to choose their own members.

Health vs. Morality
Left: Leftist parents are more likely to believe that it is preferable that their teenager cheat on a test than smoke.
Right: More likely to believe that it is better that their teenager smoke than cheat.

Marriage
Left: Marriage should be redefined and that judges alone are entitled to do so.
Right: The millennia-old definition of marriage as between members of the two sexes is inviolable and it can't be redefined by jurists.

Minority vs. Majority
Left: Sensitivity to minorities' feelings trumps the majority's will. For example, because some employees do not celebrate Christmas, the Left believes that organizations should rename their Christmas party the "holiday party."
Right: When not immoral, the majority's will trumps that of the minority. Believes that because the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, the party should be called a Christmas party.

Moral Leadership
Left: Identifies with the values of most university professors in the liberal arts and values their insights.
Right: Regards most of these professors as moral idiots.

Parenthood
Left: All a child needs is love, whether that love comes from a single parent, two men, two women or some other adult.
Right: Children do best with the love of two married parents of the opposite sex.

Racism
Left: Opposing race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses or professional organizations is racist.
Right: Race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses and professional organizations are racist.

Responsibility for War
Left: Just as America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for Middle East violence.
Right: Just as the Soviets were responsible for the Cold War, the Arab enemies of Israel are responsible for Middle East violence.

Taxation
Left: A high rate of taxation of people who earn more money is a moral imperative.
Right: Allowing people to keep as much of their money as possible is a moral imperative.

Teen Sex
Left: When schools give out condoms to teenagers, they are promoting safe sex.
Right: When schools give out condoms, they are promoting more sex.

Terrorism
Left: Attacking world poverty will greatly reduce Islamic terror.
Right: Poverty is largely unrelated to Islamic terror.

The 2nd Gulf War
Left: George W. Bush attacked Iraq mostly for economic gain.
Right: George W. Bush attacked Iraq to protect America and to change the Arab world for the better.

Using the word Evil
Left: Labeling any enemy of the United States "evil" is wrong. It was wrong when Right: Right: President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," and it was wrong when President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil. Not labeling such regimes "evil" is a sign of moral confusion and appeasement.

War
Left: "War is not the answer."
Right: War is often the only answer to governmental evil.

Womens Choice
Left: A woman must have an unrestricted right to choose an abortion but no right to choose a silicone breast implant.

Right: Society must decide when abortions are moral and legal but a woman has the right to choose to have a silicone breast implant.

LM

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

WOW... that's a LOOOOOONG list LM...

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

Let's just make it easy....ask me and I'll tell you what to believe and who to vote for.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

beef, what should I believe and who should I vote for???

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

The problem with LMM's survey is that it imposes a false dichotomy. The only choices available are left or right, liberal or conservative as defined by American politics. There is at least one (and sometimes many) more perpective(s) to each issue presented. Health vs. morality, for example. I believe smoking is a health and a morality issue. And I would have my children choose neither. 2nd Gulf War (which should appropriately be called Operation Iraqi Freedom) for another example. We conducted the operation because it was in our national interest. That interest includes establishing a democratic presence (in addition to Israel) in a part of the world known for growing terrorism. That interest also includes protecting our access to Persian Gulf oil. War is another example. War is foreign policy by violent means. It is only one tool of foreign policy, and should be the last one used, only when all others have failed.

Overall, the survey seems as though it's written by a conservative with at least two agendas-- to bias the answers to the conservative side by the use of emotionally charged terms, and to imply through the manipulative structure of the questions that those who choose liberal answers are unpatriotic.

-- Edited by Roper at 19:06, 2007-09-25

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

In high school debate, I learned a little about the rules of evidence and argument. In graduate research methods courses, I learned a fair amount about data collection and analytical methods. In my career in intelligence, I learned a whole lot about reliable/unreliable sources and the value of primary sources vs. editorials.

When it comes to politics, I don't even listen to the talking heads anymore. I decide which issues are most important to me and I do my research in primary sources as much as possible. I don't need an editorializing idiot from any party telling me what my opinion should be, thank you very much.

I feel the same way about gospel topics, btw. I own very few books published by Deseret Book, and I have no "gospel commentaries." I'll spend my time and resources with primary sources--the words of Jehovah and his prophets ancient and modern, the sacred symbols and rituals of the temple, and communication with God through prayer and the Holy Spirit.

That's not to say that the scholarship of others in any field is without merit. Much of it is of great value. When it comes to politics and religion however, where the opportunities for misinformation are boundless, I've adopted the approach of one of my philosophy professors: Sorry, I'm from Missouri (the "show me" state.)

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Roper wrote:

I own very few books published by Deseret Book, and I have no "gospel commentaries." I'll spend my time and resources with primary sources--

Amen, brother!

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

Thanks a ton, I certainly have some good places to start.

Let me practice with Arbilad's method.

--Reading and posting on Bountiful is a good form of entertainment and personal enrichment
--Reading and posting on Bountiful distracts me from doing my lengthy homework assignments

--I should devote at least 3 hours to Bountiful a day
--I should block Bountiful in my brower's security options

Wow, I really can see both sides! And if I have to look at both left and right sides...
ctr

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Once a person establishes what kinds of principles and policies he/she wants to support, the next trick is to determine which candidates espouse them, and which oppose, ignore, or just give lip service to them. Everything one hears them say, or reads and hears about them, is usually a combination of truth, half-truth, error, and outright lies. Often key pieces of information are left out, which if known, would significantly change one's opinion about what is being presented. This has been quite noticeable in the current campaigning. It is important to consider carefully a candidaate's record, and not just what a candidate says. And even that can be falsified to some extent. Most people rely on the establishment media, with its "talking heads" and "editoralizing idiots". Filtering out the truth involves finding reliable sources, and carefully scrtinizing sources known to have a specific bias. And it is extremely important to realize that even people who are to any extent involved in or controlling an event can be deceived. I believe that only after one has done one's homework as thoroughly as reasonably possible can one expect divine guidance on these kind of decisions.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with the advice of reading the Book of Mormon. I also think you should try your best to be optimistic. Not foolhearty, but if someone's constantly negative about the society, then they probably can't affect the type of change that gets people to really support it such that it lasts...

It's easy to be a Cromwell, but he didn't fair well once he had power.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Roper wrote:
Overall, the survey seems as though it's written by a conservative with at least two agendas-- to bias the answers to the conservative side by the use of emotionally charged terms, and to imply through the manipulative structure of the questions that those who choose liberal answers are unpatriotic.

AFAIK, the survey was assembled from someone reading Dennis Praeger, so Roper is probably mostly correct. I still figure it's semi-useful for someone trying to figure out where he currently stands on the map of public opinion.

LM

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I only have a couple of things to add:

Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise is necessary and not necessarily bad.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. If a politician or party is acceptable to you on most issues, you are doing pretty well. There is no perfect candidate or political party.

Third-party voting in our system is a waste of your vote. Third parties CANNOT win. Don't bother.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

fear of shiz wrote:
If a politician or party is acceptable to you on most issues, you are doing pretty well. There is no perfect candidate or political party.

Third-party voting in our system is a waste of your vote. Third parties CANNOT win. Don't bother.

The above two statements contradict each other.

There are many things more important than winning. Integrity is one.

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got. As long as people pontificate about the righteousness of a two-party-only system and try to convince others that it is the One True Way, we'll always be stuck with only two viable choices.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

It's not about the "rightness" of the Two Party System. It is simply the way the way that our system is structured. Because our elections are "winner takes all" where the person with the most votes wins, the system encourages voters to coalesce into coalitions that can get 51% or more. There is a disincentive to vote for a third party because your candidate is unlikely to perform better than the two major parties, and will only draw support away from whichever party he is more like. So if you vote for Libertarians, for instance, you are unlikely to get enough votes to overcome the established parties, and you are likely to take your support away from the Republicans, who are more closely aligned to Libertarians. You end up giving aid to the Democrat candidate, which is probably the one you feel the least affinity to.

Ross Perot was the most successful and most popular third-party candidate in recent memory, and he received not one electoral college vote. This is a striking example of the way the system is set up against third parties.

There are those who want to change this system, and adapt the proportional representation prevelent in other parts of the world. I would argue that the two-party system actually discourages extremism. We hear all the time about a Democrat who is acceptable to the "more lefty" elements of the party, but who would not be electable by the general electorate. This applies to the Right as well. Candidates cannot be too extremist, one way or the other, because they have to be able to get that 51%. This is an element of the system that discourages rapid, drastic change, and encourages moderation and compromise. And I think that is a good thing.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I disagree that I am contradicting myself, Roper. If one accepts that the Republicans or Democrats are the only viable electoral options, then one can seek the candidate from those two parties who more closely aligns to your personal desires. If you find one that is suitable to you on most issues, then you are doing well.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with Shiz. We nudge the political process a little at a time, you don't force reform upon a whole country as diverse as ours all at once. We need to work within the party closest to our values and personal beliefs, and then try to work within the system.

I am sure there are lots of other governmental institutions and forms of government which could work better if the world were made of poo, but it's made of what it's made of... and as a result, we work with the government we've got...

I'm pretty sure I could find a D&C scripture supporting that too... :)

--Ray

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

My mind has wandered down that path before too. My last roommate before Glumirk was a strong libertarian. He said the best reason to vote libertarian is that you didn't have to wash your hands after leaving the polls. I took that to mean that if you vote for a third party and stand for your integrity, then no matter what party wins, you can know you did the right thing.

But I thought to myself the extreme case, where perhaps Hitler and Joe Schmo were running against each other and neither really mirrored your political views as well as the third party. Lets say that poles were split 49% Hitler, 49% Joe Schmo, 1% third party.

Do you vote for your ideals and say that you did everything you could to promote those ideals, or do you vote against Hitler, knowing that you do have power to stop something that is obviously bad?

MegaMatt · Veteran Member

-- Edited by MegaMatt at 09:33, 2007-09-27

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

MegaMatt wrote:

Do you vote for your ideals and say that you did everything you could to promote those ideals, or do you vote against Hitler, knowing that you do have power to stop something that is obviously bad?

It's very unlikely that there would be a candidate who supports and holds ALL of my ideals. So personally I think it is better to vote against a person who I know to be bad and evil.

arbilad · Head Chef

MegaMatt wrote:

My mind has wandered down that path before too. My last roommate before Glumirk was a strong libertarian. He said the best reason to vote libertarian is that you didn't have to wash your hands after leaving the polls. I took that to mean that if you vote for a third party and stand for your integrity, then no matter what party wins, you can know you did the right thing.

But I thought to myself the extreme case, where perhaps Hitler and Joe Schmo were running against each other and neither really mirrored your political views as well as the third party. Lets say that poles were split 49% Hitler, 49% Joe Schmo, 1% third party.

Do you vote for your ideals and say that you did everything you could to promote those ideals, or do you vote against Hitler, knowing that you do have power to stop something that is obviously bad?

Try another possibility: What if Hitler were running against Stalin, and you were told to choose the one who matched your views the closest, and that it would be a waste of your vote to vote third party?

BTW, I love that Simpsons clip. I quote it all the time when talking to people about third party voting.

arbilad · Head Chef

Third-party voting in our system is a waste of your vote. Third parties CANNOT win. Don't bother.
This is historically inaccurate. The GOP was a third party at one point. The same system which you claim makes it impossible for a third party to win allowed the GOP to not only win but become a major party. It is still possible today. There is a huge number of people who don't vote because they don't see the point. That's a crying shame. If they could be made to care about the process, for instance, by being presented with a candidate that they like, then you could very realistically see a third party candidate win. In fact, third parties have won in many local elections.
BTW, just for the record, I am dead set against changing the electoral college system. I think that it is one of the things that has made this country great.

Pt314 · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Third-party voting in our system is a waste of your vote. Third parties CANNOT win. Don't bother.
This is historically inaccurate. The GOP was a third party at one point. The same system which you claim makes it impossible for a third party to win allowed the GOP to not only win but become a major party.

Not entirely true.
The Whig party had self-destructed right before the Republican party was formed. The GOP was always one of the two major parties.
(Interestingly enough, the Whig party was only able to gain power because the Federalist party disintegrated.)

If enough people abandon the two major parties, then one of these other parties may take the place as one of the new two major parties. Which I am not sure would be such a good thing.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

The Simpsons clip missed the best part - After the election, all the humans are chained to massive stone blocks, making a statue of Kang, the guy who won. Marge is griping, and Homer says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos!"

Roper wrote:

fear of shiz wrote:
Third-party voting in our system is a waste of your vote. Third parties CANNOT win. Don't bother.
As long as people pontificate about the righteousness of a two-party-only system and try to convince others that it is the One True Way, we'll always be stuck with only two viable choices.

Hi Roper,

From what I can gather, you have a sufficiently thick skin, so I'm sure you can take what I'm about to say. (And I am offering it lightheartedly.)

As long as every third pary-supporter does nothing besides sling snot about everyone being too dumb to vote for them, nobody will ever vote for them. You don't win elections without votes, and you don't get votes by insulting voters. Yeah - 2 party realists lack integrity - right. Let's just convince them how full of moral cowardice they are, and they'll flock to us in droves. That tactic appeals to adult children from dysfunctional families who can't make choices without being manipulated, but it just turns the rest of us off. Every time I hear one of you crying on your soapbox, I get more proof that you guys don't deserve an office. Because you don't pass legislation or fix problems by crying and moralizing.

You're smart enough to realize the "lesser of two evils" system is flawed, and most of you realize that the majority of thinking Americans agree with you. You have to do more than give us a viable candidate and a good argument. You have to persuade me I'm not going to get the next liberal elected by splitting the conservative vote.

Because otherwise, I'm voting for whoever will keep fighting the war on terror and stock the supreme court with non-liberals.

LM
(p.s. If you're a Nader supporter, please ignore everything I said. You guys are doing fine!)

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

LoudmouthMormon wrote:

Because otherwise, I'm voting for whoever will keep fighting the war on terror and stock the supreme court with non-liberals.
(p.s. If you're a Nader supporter, please ignore everything I said. You guys are doing fine!)

Bravo! That is why I will hold my nose and vote for Guiliani if it comes down to him and Hillary.

And

to that last part.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Good old Ralph Nadar. The candidate for folks that already thought drugs were legal.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Wow, this is interesting.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Love the Simpson's clip! Way to go on posting it, Matt! YOu definitely belong here in Bountiful...

The best (and worst) thing about the Simpsons is that they take the truth and mock it mercilessly...

Here's a classic:

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=-4LVDWPoFZM]

--Ray

Organist · Senior Member

The American Medical Association is the only politically active group with whom I agree enough to support them monetarily. I was surprised when I realized this, because while I've been very politically active and informed since about age 16, I've never found another group I could give this much support to. http://www.ama-assn.org/

-- Edited by Organist at 18:00, 2007-09-28

zealia · Profuse Pontificator

MegaMatt, I am mixed up a bit in politics. There are things on the right that really big me such as how greedy and loving of corporations they seem. And the Left has special interest groups that bother me. I do feel strongly about some issues. And even if I am not sure of my opinion deep down, I have been known to debate some for sport. I end up feeling guilty though when I go too far!