Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 I don't know why I care, but I do: Republican Ric Flair The McMahons Bill Watts Democrat ???? Independent Jesse Ventura I'm drawing a blank on any others that we know for sure, or can reasonably assume based on comments, should be lumped in with a specific political party. (And feel free to take this thread totally off the rails, if you wish, by using past promos or out-of-the-ring misdeeds to affiliate certain wrestlers with certain political parties) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Real-life Democrat: Mick Foley. Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 JBL, Joey Styles and Matt Striker are vocal republicans. Warrior too, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster. Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard. IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 What do CM Punk and Daniel Bryan identify as? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 I don't know about their party affilitation, but what we know about their personal positions on issues tends to be pretty liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteF3 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster. Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard. IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem. I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side). IRS was a joke answer, but he did hang out with "Bill Clinton" at WMX and gave him praise for his tax hike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm going to guess, if we're considering all wrestlers, their white males, nominally Christian, many of whom are above thirty five, and from the South. That's a recipe for a Republican voter if I've ever heard one. Throw in relatively high salary (at one point) plus the fact their independent contractors, and again, I wouldn't be shocked if 70-80% of the WWE & WCW roster since 1990 voted Republican. OTOH, with the WWE roster being more diverse, younger, and with more women in it, I'd actually guess Romney only won 60-40 among the locker room. After all, even with their pay, I doubt either Punk or Bryan is voting for Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 What do CM Punk and Daniel Bryan identify as? I would guess Bryan is solidly liberal, or to the left of liberal, and will remain that way through thick and thin. Punk seems like the type of who would support some type off-the-wall candidate that nobody has ever heard of, then if that candidate ever begins to get somewhat popular or mainstream, he'd ditch him and find someone else to support that nobody has ever heard of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster. Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard. IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem. I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side). Struck me as Steiner playing "face", and that was the "face" position in the country at the time. Cheap heat spot, and forced Chris to be anti-war because it was the heel spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy. This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster. Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard. IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem. I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side). Struck me as Steiner playing "face", and that was the "face" position in the country at the time. Cheap heat spot, and forced Chris to be anti-war because it was the heel spot. I still love the idea of ANY political movement/position selecting Steiner as their mouthpiece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Inoki is a neocon (no shit, is anyone surprised) and Hase is a Lib-Dem. For those in the UK, there’s a distinction between our Lib-Dems and the Japanese ones who are more towards centre-right and not centre-left.Onita ran in the same party as Hase though he was booted out of politics after he used government funds to book hotels to have threesomes with a porn star and some other chick. What a guy.Mil Mascaras has spoken politics several times on interviews and surprisingly he’s more towards the left than I’d have ever imagined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Wasn't Pillman a hard-core Republican? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats. Yeah he is strictly anti-Republican (right wing ones for sure). Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Democrat although he is a very vocal supporter of Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats. Yeah he is strictly anti-Republican (right wing ones for sure). Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Democrat although he is a very vocal supporter of Obama. Cornette mentioned in one of his podcasts that he never paid a lot of attention to politics when he was active because he was too deep in the wrestling bubble. He only started hating republicans in the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy. This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP Yeah, dude has writings up on Lew Rockwell's website. He's pretty close to as philosophically into it as it gets. Which is funny since Bryan at least used to be a total Chomsky reading commie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Yeah, Bryan is a pretty hardcore left-winger. Recall his "down with capitalism" speech on NXT. I don't really think Inoki qualifies as a neocon. His Sports Peace Party was at least nominally left-wing and formed an alliance in the Diet with the Democratic Socialist Party. Of course, he's currently affiliated with the far-right Japan Restoration Party. The impression I get is that he's basically an opportunist with no deep-seated principles beyond his own advancement. It should be noted that the real-life John Layfield isn't nearly as conservative as the JBL character. I remember seeing an interview with him from the 90s where he said he was a centrist who voted for Clinton. And after the 2012 election, he said on Twitter that Obama and Romney both sucked and that his ideal candidate was someone like Bloomberg. Some of you may be surprised to know that Kevin Nash is an Obama supporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Nash formed his own rogue collective bargaining group to ensure that he and his friends got paid what they thought they deserved. It doesn't surprise me that he's a pretty staunch Democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy. This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP Oh, I know his stuff about Austrian economics. But having read his framing of it relative to Keynes, it tends to come across much more as Tea Party / Paulian view of Austrian econ than truly deep philosophical and thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others. Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy. This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP Yeah, dude has writings up on Lew Rockwell's website. He's pretty close to as philosophically into it as it gets. Which is pretty much what I mean. Rockwell is a classic Paulian version of Libertarian: on the econ side where/when they care for it, and slide over to social conservatism when they care for it, and end up with a melting pot mish-mash. The Gov is evil... except when we want the Gov to quash out what we don't like. Granted, you'll get the same mish mash over on the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Speaking of which, Kevin Von Erich is/was a Ron Paul supporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Which is pretty much what I mean. Rockwell is a classic Paulian version of Libertarian: on the econ side where/when they care for it, and slide over to social conservatism when they care for it, and end up with a melting pot mish-mash. The Gov is evil... except when we want the Gov to quash out what we don't like. Granted, you'll get the same mish mash over on the other side. Rockwell and the Mises Institute guys are pretty pragmatic (they were all about Buchanan in the 90s too) but they're very different from the Tea Party type. The Tea Party was 95% pure rebranding with the 5% being a slight de-emphasis on aggressive foreign policy. Even the more "dedicated" Tea Partiers would be more interested in reading the Federalist Papers than Human Action. Actually, I'd be interested to know how much Kane is into the founding fathers reverence stuff. For fun though, here is Kane's incredibly poor argument (even on his own terms) against equal pay: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/fallacy-equal-pay-equal-work/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.