Posters becoming politicans

[MarkDel]

So mark, you gonna vote in Fantasy politics or what?

Oh, do I have to do it tonight or can I wait until tomorrow?

Mark, if you Register in the New register thread this should be the post..

MarkDel
Southern Republican Party
Florida

States,

Why are so many Republicans not Republicans in the Fantasy Elections? And is there an actual Democratic Party there?

[TeePee4Prez]

Mark, you never really hit on my strengths.   Just thought I'd point that out.

God, you didn't ask for those either...LOL

I would say that you're biggest strength is your passion for making a difference. People can tell when a politician is just going through the motions or when he really, truly cares about the issues and his job. Your passion and enthusiam would be your biggest strength. You're not as "up" on the issues as someone like John Ford or Supersoulty, but you THINK you are, and that is often enough in modern politics, especially in your party where your base is less educated and less involved in daily politics. You have a real confidence that what you are saying is right...even if you do have a tendency to take a different position only a few hours later...LOL

Thanks.  Thing is you didn't answer why you think I'm whimsical?  It seems like that word or "flip-flop" is becoming casually used to describe someone that doesn not agree with them.

Handzus,

OK, here's just one example. A few weeks ago, you spent several posts telling me how the extreme social leftists were ruining the Democratic Party and how the Democratic Party would be much better off if it went back to its "blue collar" roots rather than than today's "green roots"

I AGREED WITH YOU...then a few hours later, you are practically fellating Migrendel (actually that might be a poor choice of words where he's concerned) and telling him how great his social leftist wing of the party is. THAT IS A FLIP FLOP....then when I pointed it out to you, you went into the "2+2=5" routine that Democrats use these days to try and tell me that I didn't see what I really saw. That's just one example.

I think he is too socially left even for me, but I am generally left wing and being such is what I agree witha s well.  As you can see with regards to my score I'm more socailly left than economci as well, but my ROUGH formula is .65 economic + .35 social = how i view things!  I'll be a little more concrete.  I'll still stick with economcis beings in a lrger tent for teh Dems, but social can not be scrapped.  

[MarkDel]

Mark, you never really hit on my strengths.   Just thought I'd point that out.

God, you didn't ask for those either...LOL

I would say that you're biggest strength is your passion for making a difference. People can tell when a politician is just going through the motions or when he really, truly cares about the issues and his job. Your passion and enthusiam would be your biggest strength. You're not as "up" on the issues as someone like John Ford or Supersoulty, but you THINK you are, and that is often enough in modern politics, especially in your party where your base is less educated and less involved in daily politics. You have a real confidence that what you are saying is right...even if you do have a tendency to take a different position only a few hours later...LOL

Thanks.  Thing is you didn't answer why you think I'm whimsical?  It seems like that word or "flip-flop" is becoming casually used to describe someone that doesn not agree with them.

I AGREED WITH YOU...then a few hours later, you are practically fellating Migrendel (actually that might be a poor choice of words where he's concerned)

OMG!! LOL That is the funniest thing (besides FreedomBurns posts) that I have read all night.

My wife and her friends have been trying to get me to do "open microphone" night at one of the local comedy clubs. In real life, I dish out harsh one-liners ALL DAY LONG.

[MarkDel]

Mark, if you Register in the New register thread this should be the post..

MarkDel
Southern Republican Party
Florida

MarkDel
UAC
Florida

John,

Obviously I instinctively lean towards the Republicans, but I assume your party is pretty close to my views as well. Tell me, is there a roster of party members for the various parties?

[??????????]

Mark, you never really hit on my strengths.   Just thought I'd point that out.

God, you didn't ask for those either...LOL

I would say that you're biggest strength is your passion for making a difference. People can tell when a politician is just going through the motions or when he really, truly cares about the issues and his job. Your passion and enthusiam would be your biggest strength. You're not as "up" on the issues as someone like John Ford or Supersoulty, but you THINK you are, and that is often enough in modern politics, especially in your party where your base is less educated and less involved in daily politics. You have a real confidence that what you are saying is right...even if you do have a tendency to take a different position only a few hours later...LOL

Thanks.  Thing is you didn't answer why you think I'm whimsical?  It seems like that word or "flip-flop" is becoming casually used to describe someone that doesn not agree with them.

I AGREED WITH YOU...then a few hours later, you are practically fellating Migrendel (actually that might be a poor choice of words where he's concerned)

OMG!! LOL That is the funniest thing (besides FreedomBurns posts) that I have read all night.

My wife and her friends have been trying to get me to do "open microphone" night at one of the local comedy clubs. In real life, I dish out harsh one-liners ALL DAY LONG.

Me too, I am the king of comedy where I work. I am much much more of a smarta** in real life then on this forum. I am very toned down here out of respect for trying to keep things peaceful.

[??????????]

Mark, if you Register in the New register thread this should be the post..

MarkDel
Southern Republican Party
Florida

MarkDel
UAC
Florida

John,

Obviously I instinctively lean towards the Republicans, but I assume your party is pretty close to my views as well. Tell me, is there a roster of party members for the various parties?

The UAC is a mix of socialists, moderates and conservatives. In reality it makes no sense. **Insert BossTweed quote here.**

[MarkDel]

Well, I simply MUST go to sleep now...daughter gets up early.

I need to get a good night's sleep and decide whether or not I want to tell you guys the INSIDE INFORMATION on the Sandy Berger situation....I called my source in DC who works for a well known Democratic Senator (same guy who gave me the scoop about Edwards being VP nominee) and I got the REAL SCOOP on Berger...but the bastard made me promise not to say anything, so I'm probably obliged to keep that promise as much as I'd like to tell you guys what I know.

[??????????]

Well, I simply MUST go to sleep now...daughter gets up early.

I need to get a good night's sleep and decide whether or not I want to tell you guys the INSIDE INFORMATION on the Sandy Berger situation....I called my source in DC who works for a well known Democratic Senator same guy who gave me the scoop about Edwards being VP nominee) and I got the REAL SCOOP on Berger...but the bastard made me promise not to say anything, so I'm probably obliged to keep that promise as much as I'd like to tell you guys what I know.

Mark Del,

I am tired of email and posts can I give you my phone # so we can chat?

[JohnFKennedy]

Mark, if you Register in the New register thread this should be the post..

MarkDel
Southern Republican Party
Florida

MarkDel
UAC
Florida

John,

Obviously I instinctively lean towards the Republicans, but I assume your party is pretty close to my views as well. Tell me, is there a roster of party members for the various parties?

The UAC is a mix of socialists, moderates and conservatives. In reality it makes no sense. **Insert BossTweed quote here.**

Hey hey hey, no socialists here.

Mark, I am the UAC Party Chairman.

[JohnFKennedy]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

Having read through all your posting on the strengths and weaknesses of all, I am curious as to mine, I think they will most likely be different from the other posters here, I have quite a good deal of confidence, especially when speaking (that is what doing nine years of drama will do to you), I am a pretty good debater (debating society helps ), I have reasonably good issue knowledge I reckon which is helped along here and by the fact that I am a member of a politics society.

I am curious as to my weaknesses, apart from the extreme arrogance .

[ilikeverin]

I'm also curious to my strengths and weaknesses, especially since MarkDel called me an almost-idiot-but-I'll-pardon-you-because-you're-young!

[muon2]

States,

I did not realize that. The "preppy" thing would help you immensely when it came time to get support from party leaders and donations from the people who write the checks. That said, you might indeed have a real chance in that part of Polk County...what's the recent Hispanic Immigration like there? Is it changing the demographics of the county over the long haul?

Hispanics are moving in. But I wouldn't say it's a flood but its a rural farming community where I live as you may already know. The Democrats are almost "unheard" around here. Its a battle of the most right conservative. And yes I do wear a lot of khakis and such as long as jeans and such..I mix and match. I was voted most likely to become a politician in H.S. for whatever that means. My wife says I'd make a d*mn good representative so maybe she may be on to something. I really really want to hold a position. Not just some passing desire but a burning passion in my gut (I know it sounds weird) to represent Americans at whatever level. I wish I knew where to start and what to do because I would be on it in a New York minute. I am bored with my job and am looking to start into politics but I am concerned about the money. Ok, now that I've rambled on I'll let you respond.

StatesRights,

Do you know anyone involved in local politics? That would be the best place to start. Call the County Republican Office and tell them that you are interested in doing some volunteer work or being a Committee Rep....then start charming people...LOL

StatesRights,

MarkDel is exactly right on this. Too many people think that they should just start with an elective office. Those folks jump in and can't figure out why their message seems to fall on deaf ears, even if they're advertising it in a dozen ways.

An organization is critical to elective success, and the best way to get one is to get to know the organizations that already exist in your community. Party offices are always in need of volunteers, and there's plenty of good contacts made by starting at the bottom. Hard work is recognized in volunteer organizations, and if your interest becomes known after a group knows you, you have support ready to go.

[MarkDel]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

Having read through all your posting on the strengths and weaknesses of all, I am curious as to mine, I think they will most likely be different from the other posters here, I have quite a good deal of confidence, especially when speaking (that is what doing nine years of drama will do to you), I am a pretty good debater (debating society helps ), I have reasonably good issue knowledge I reckon which is helped along here and by the fact that I am a member of a politics society.

I am curious as to my weaknesses, apart from the extreme arrogance .

JFK,

I would say you are an intelligent, confident young man who is an excellent debater. You have a bright future. Your weakness is that you are so convinced of your education and native intelligence that you are prone to being a little bit loose with the facts from time to time, and also commenting on things which you have limited knowledge, like the discussion we had about Israeli history a few months back. That sort of thing can get you in a lot of trouble. Learn to keep your mouth shut when you aren't sure of the answer. Only ask questions where you are certain of the answer, and fairly confident what the other person's response will be. When improvising where you are less than certain on a topic, keep it vague, sound thoughtful and then subtly change the subject to a related subject in which you DO know what you're talking about. That's a tool that makes a politician effective in tight spots...ie...Bill Clinton for example.

[migrendel]

I wish I had known what you were getting me into, MarkDel and Hanzus. If I had, I would have worn a prophylactic.

[MarkDel]

I'm also curious to my strengths and weaknesses, especially since MarkDel called me an almost-idiot-but-I'll-pardon-you-because-you're-young!

Ilikeverin,

Hmmm...you are a tough case because of your youth. I will say this, you are a bright guy (though not nearly as bright as you think you are) and you have some definite knowledge of history and politics. However, your weaknesses are very significant. First, someone or something has convinced you that being a Leftist is the same thing as being an intellectual, so you feel free to make all sorts of opinionated statements about the Right and right wing issues with no factual or logical base other than the sub-moronic implication of "Republicans are stupid, etc, etc..."

Second, you disagree with someone (based on their politics) just for the sake of disagreeing. If a Conservative says, "Water is blue" we are likely to hear you come in and explain why it's not really blue, but more of a greenish blue. This is childish behavior that might be attributed to your youth, but it seems to pervade the younger Democrats I encounter, so perhaps it is part of the package the Left has to offer in the 21st Century...sort of the Clinton dividend.

Also, you are essentially devoid of objectivity. Having an opinion is one thing, but if you cannot rationally argue the opposition's view point with equal aplomb, you are incapable of having the skills needed to be an actual politician.

Also, you are essentially what we used to call in the 1980's "A Rebel without a Clue" You seem to believe that merely opposing the establishment (which in your view is racist, while male Republicans) on a reflexive basis is not only a duty, but you do it with a smirk on your face. Again, this may change with maturation.

[MarkDel]

I wish I had known what you were getting me into, MarkDel and Hanzus. If I had, I would have worn a prophylactic.

Migrendel,

Thanks for being a good sport about my comment. I truly did not mean it as an insult. I was trying to illustrate Handzus' inconsistency on certain issues, and I often use sexual metaphors to describe political behavior...I only realized while I was typing that the opportunity was there for a rather funny joke.

[JohnFKennedy]

Mark, if you want my response to your comments I posted it in the other thread, forget which one now, LOL!

By the way, I am glad to see you agree with me that John Ford has the best chance.

He is articulate, intelligent and has a great grasp of issues. Plus he is already making contacts by working fo a politician.

He clearly has the best chance.

[JohnFKennedy]

Here is my response from the education thread.

JFK,

Yeah, that's about right. By the way, I gave you the no bullsh*t assesment of your strengths and weaknesses in the other thread, but have seen no response from you...what did you think?

I read it and agree, I do have a lack of knowledge on many issues, I am pretty good at bullsh*tting my way through it sometimes .

That is my fatal flaw for going into politics.

I am a pretty decent public speaker and pretty confident which really stems as a result from nine years of drama in Saturday classes and being a member of the leading UK Drama organization, the National Youth Theatre along with being a member of debating society at school.

I also am not despicably unattractive . A lot of people think I look like Keanu Reeves for some reason, I disagree, heh but I think I could be electable, depending on which party I choose of course. Besides, over here it doesn't matter too much apart from progressing through the ranks of the party, most people vote for the leader of the party and the party itself more than the individual candidate here who normally has little effect on the campaign unless he is a very popular figure locally.

But hey, I am 16, I will accumulate the knowledge I need for a political career if I so choose to follow that path, I plan to go into law first though and maybe move on to politics depending on how I feel about it by then. By the time I do go into politics I reckon I will know enough about the issues to get through and if I don't, well, there are always assistants who can research things for you .

[Gustaf]

Is that all you have to say for me, though?

Supersoulty,

No, far from it, but you just asked for the negatives. The positives are that you have an outstanding grasp of the issues and you have this natural demeanor that makes people want to like you. You would find a lot of support from those in your own party, and would even have crossover appeal if you were able to express yourself in person the way you express yourself on paper. Seriously, the only thing holding you back would be that self-confidence issue.

I think that your words have helped.  

Supersoulty,

And it's a real gift that you have when I say that people "want to like you"

That's a great positive in life. I have a variation on that in my personality...people either LOVE me or HATE me...and there are generally very few people in between. I was literally the most POPULAR person AND most HATED person in my entire High School...both at the same time.

Funny, I always thought of myself as a love me/hate me person too.  But I have an old paranoia about people pretending to like me, but then talking behind my back.  Comes from high school

I recognize that feeling...I always thought of myself as a disliked person.

[Gustaf]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

I think you're wrong, but please tell me of my limitations...and o avoid the mistakes of all the others, I'm gonna sve my ego by asking you to list the postitives at the same time...

[The Duke]

Gustaf,

I can think of one limitation: Sweden is too liberal for you.

[Nym90]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

Wow, thanks. What do you think my strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks in advance.

Nym90,

Your strengths are that you make intelligent and coherent arguments that would play well with most people. Your politics are left wing, but not so left wing that you would be unable to secure a nomination. You would have little or no problem securing votes within your own party, and would have a good chance to earn a nomination based on your "loyal Democratic soldier" approach to every issue, even when you know you're party is wrong. As for your weaknesses, you have a tendency to assume certain levels of knowledge on the part of your audience....this is not a good thing when dealing with the general public. You need to explain WHY you arrive at a conclusion better rather than just WHAT that conclusion may be. And while your partisan approach would aid you in securing a nomination, it would seriously alienate moderate and conservative voters if you were placed in an awkward situation by a fellow Democrat or an issue which is potentially negative for the overall party. Like most modern Democrats, you are prone to ignoring or rationalizing factual data when it doesn't suit your political agenda. You're part of what I like to call the "2+2=5" crowd who continue to argue their message even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now you will counter by saying that BOTH parties do this, blah, blah, blah, but the truth is that Democrats do this FAR more often than Republicans, and this is a big factor on why Republicans made so many Congressional gains over the last 10 years. Democrats have lost because of their POLITICS more than their POLICY, and you definitely fall into the "2+2=5 and it depends on what the definition of is is" crowd. THAT KILLS YOU in a general election unless you are in a very, very safe district.

Well, for one thing, I don't always support my party. I'm more moderate than probably most in my party on abortion, and I oppose race based AA. I'm also passionate about reducing waste and inefficiency in government; "reinventing government" and the like, as well as renaissaince zones for urban areas. I realize you don't know that, because most of those haven't really come out in my posts. But just thought I'd point it out.

Yes, I'm partisan, and not objective. I like how you say it's the "truth" that Democrats rationalize away their views more than Republicans...not your opinion, or merely based on your experience, but the "truth". I'm sorry, but you are, like me, blinded by your partisanship and aren't objective. I know that I'm not objective, which is why I don't usually trust my first emotional reaction to issues; I try to think about them logically and take into consideration my own personal bias before I open my mouth. I know my opinions are biased, so I don't try to say that they aren't. But I try as best I can to set that aside when I analyze.

Anyway, if I knew my party was wrong, I would speak out against them. I would not defend a position that I thought was wrong. I am partisan, but that's because I strongly believe in the values of my party. I don't agree with all of my party's views, but I agree with its goals and core values. But I don't defend my party right or wrong. If I feel my party is wrong, I do speak out against them.

When have I continued to argue a message even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Or when the facts were against me? (Forgive me, but your interpretation of what is "fact" and "truth" isn't always the same as mine. Of course, you are ALWAYS objective, and I'm a blind partisan, right, so that makes yours more valid...)

Now, that being said, I tend to view things logically rather than emotionally, and I do tend to be somewhat of a moral relativist (note: somewhat, not completely by any means, so don't jump to conclusions), and I believe in doing what works, regardless of ideology. I'm open to compromise in the name of pragmatism, and that would probably hurt me, because I wouldn't be viewed as someone with strong convictions. I'd be a "flip-flopper", because I actually think through my positions and sometimes change them in the face of logical, rational analysis and convincing arguments.

Regarding your statement that I assume too much knowledge on the part of my audience...I do that on this Forum because I know that most people here do have high levels of knowledge, so I prefer not to waste my time explaining things that I don't need to. In making a speech to the public, I would change my style in that regard to match my audience.

I appreciate your insights though. It does make me think, which is something that I greatly enjoy doing.

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

LMFAO...thanks for presenting a very clear demonstration of why my critique of you was right on target!!!

Everyone else took my comments for what they were...constructive criticism....you instead turn into a referendum on partisanship and MY political beliefs.

I said your partisanship would HELP you in the primary and HURT you in a general election...your answer...but you're partisan too...LOL...what the hell does that have to do with the point I made?

You then explain that "truth" and "facts" are different depending on one's political perspective...yeah, that's a really defensible position...proof of what I meant with the 2+2=5 comment. You then ask for examples of where you ignore facts to remain loyal to the Democratic Party....welll...

On numerous occasions you have defended Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and a host of other Democrats who have made outrageous, despicable comments that cannot be proven factually and are clearly poison in the political discourse. Your response? "Ann Coulter is just as bad...Rush Limbaugh is just as bad..." The when I ask you to show me examples of Ann Coulter LYING like Michael Moore did, you clam up and say, "You're clearly partisan..." You did the same thing to John Ford in his rather detailed dissection of Michael Moore...rather than deal with the FACTS posted by Ford, you dismissed him as a legitimate critic because he's a Republican. This is classic Clintonista behavior....your response...Republicans do it too and the fact that MarkDel says it's more prevalent among Democrats means that he's biased, so his criticism can't be taken seriously. Contrast this with John Ford's review of Moore where he mentions Moore's bias, but in no way, shape or form is it central to his overall argument.

And if you notice, I listed you as one of the people who COULD have an actual political career.

But I'll give you another chance to prove that you are not what I know you are....

If Sandy Berger actually removed classified records from the National Archives, was he guilty of a felony and should he be prosecuted?

[MarkDel]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

I think you're wrong, but please tell me of my limitations...and o avoid the mistakes of all the others, I'm gonna sve my ego by asking you to list the postitives at the same time...

Gustaf,

Your positives FAR outweigh your negatives and you could definitely be a politician, in fact, I rate you as "second most likely" behind John Ford. You are extremely intelligent, you argue very well and you possess a trait that is all too rare in today's world...OBJECTIVITY...which is an undeniable positive in the world of politics. You are confident without coming across as arrogant, you have a good grasp of the issues and you have a knack for dismissing the tertiary aspect of an argument and getting right to the point. You are easy to like and difficult to dislike. The potential problems (two) I see with you are both easily fixed if you could turn some of that objectivity inward. One, I think you are somewhat stubborn once you've made your mind up. This can be a strength as well, and there is a fine line between changing your mind when presented with new evidence, and being a flip flopper. An example of what I mean is your insistence on keeping that Red Avatar. At some point in your life, you convinced yourself that "Republican equals bad" and so you insist on self-identifying as a Democrat....but in the months you have been at this site, I have seen you side with the Republicans FAR more than you side with the Democrats, and the disparity seems to be increasing, not decreasing. Realistically, you should call yourself an Independent, but to do so would be to admit you were wrong about something....and I don't think you'd be too good at that once you've made your mind up. But that stubborn streak is easily fixed if a person has the mental tools...which you CLEARLY possess in my opinion. The second, even more minor issue, is that you are so objective that you sometimes fail to even reach a conclusion or consensus on an issue. While it's good to play Devil's Advocate in your own mind BEFORE you reach a conclusion, it can be a major hindrance to your political career if you let anyone know that you are the prototypical Devil's Advocate. Party leaders do NOT apreciate someone who reflexively points out the weakness in their own team's argument and then points out the strength of the other team's argument. This is a TERRIFIC trait....but keep it to yourself unless you are more interested in being an advisor than an actual candidate.

[© tweed]

Markdel,

You just love to judge everybody don't you?