Sexism

[StupidNation]

Would the New Deal have happened with a Republican in the White House?

 

Would all those tax cuts and deficits have happened had Carter won in 1980?

 

Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?

 

I don't buy the argument it just doesn't matter. Environmental issues, taxes, spending on defense, apponiting judges, all sorts of things. I don't agree with the Democrats on everything but I think they represnt my interests a little better than Republicans.

 

And the idea that we can just go off and organize around some other candidate, who has little funding, is just not realistic. Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, any libertarian, the alternatives, seem like nut bags to me. Anbd not just to me, actually. The political parties suck, in many ways, because you have so many people with opinions that its hard to be affective.

 

Would we have $53 trillion owed to Medicare and Social Security pay-outs?

Would 4 million children be alive today?

Would Americans not be strung up by the "New Deal" which has destroyed the nation long-term?

Would we have the Federal Reserve which is destroying the dollar? Or the income tax which enslaves 1/3 of your income?

Would we have had justices that find criminals insane rather than in prison?

Would our legal system be indoctrinated with psychologists who victimize the criminal rather than punish him?

Would we have homosexual marriage when the bill by the people of California voted the proposition down?

 

Both parties don't work for the welfare of the people anymore. They work for the Institution and it's prolonged attack on wealth of its citizens, and a republic in which the power of the democracy has been lost to elitism on both sides.

 

Like Al Gore would have lowered the debt with his trillion dollar plans to sell carbon credits to idiots everywhere.

[molson_golden2002]

Would we have $53 trillion owed to Medicare and Social Security pay-outs?

Would 4 million children be alive today?

Would Americans not be strung up by the "New Deal" which has destroyed the nation long-term?

Would we have the Federal Reserve which is destroying the dollar? Or the income tax which enslaves 1/3 of your income?

Would we have had justices that find criminals insane rather than in prison?

Would our legal system be indoctrinated with psychologists who victimize the criminal rather than punish him?

Would we have homosexual marriage when the bill by the people of California voted the proposition down?

 

Both parties don't work for the welfare of the people anymore. They work for the Institution and it's prolonged attack on wealth of its citizens, and a republic in which the power of the democracy has been lost to elitism on both sides.

 

Like Al Gore would have lowered the debt with his trillion dollar plans to sell carbon credits to idiots everywhere.

Your inane liberal bashing is just proving my point

[KD in CA]

Your inane liberal bashing is just proving my point

 

 

You have a point? Other than the one on the top of your head?

 

 

It gets comical when you start suggesting Carter would have been a better choice in 1980.

[John Adams]

Your inane liberal bashing is just proving my point

 

Someone else pointed out irony in this thread. This is a better example.

[molson_golden2002]

You have a point? Other than the one on the top of your head?

 

 

It gets comical when you start suggesting Carter would have been a better choice in 1980.

I'll type slower so you understand. It's not that Carter would have been better, or worse, but he would have not followed Reagan's policies. There is a difference between the parties

 

You can understand that, right? If not maybe someone else can try and explain it to you

[John Adams]

Ok: "YOU ARE A COWARD." Feel better? Maybe you're ready to stand up for something other than your own superiority?

 

I don't care if you are a D, an R, a communist or a member of the anti-American Alaska Party. But a good start would to stand for something other than standing on the sidelines telling others how stupid they are. The Founding Fathers would be proud of you.

 

Beleive it or not, I have some sympathy for the position that building something is harder and more important than tearing something down. My own namesake had that criticism of Thomas Paine. That said, people like Darin and I are hard-pressed to find a politician worth voting for.

 

I am willing to vote for someone who is a compromise on many issues (no one is perfect except me), in the hope that my vote goes to building a better country. For me, Obama really doesn't fit that mold. Maybe I could swallow the Drano and vote McCain but it won't be easy. I have an easier time voting my conscience and dropping a throwaway vote for a guy I agree with on more issues: Ron Paul.

 

If we all made less compromises, we might end up with fewer party shills and a handful of candidates with guts.

[Max Fischer]

Beleive it or not, I have some sympathy for the position that building something is harder and more important than tearing something down. My own namesake had that criticism of Thomas Paine. That said, people like Darin and I are hard-pressed to find a politician worth voting for.

 

I am willing to vote for someone who is a compromise on many issues (no one is perfect except me), in the hope that my vote goes to building a better country. For me, Obama really doesn't fit that mold. Maybe I could swallow the Drano and vote McCain but it won't be easy. I have an easier time voting my conscience and dropping a throwaway vote for a guy I agree with on more issues: Ron Paul.

 

If we all made less compromises, we might end up with fewer party shills and a handful of candidates with guts.

 

Actually, I don't have a problem with anyone voting for the candidate closest to their conscience. If that's what they believe and back it up then so be it.

 

However, I do believe compromise is the essence (and a strength) of democracy. Most problems begin when a candidate, party, official will not compromise at all - despite the fact we will collectively get nowhere, despite the evidence against them and despite the will of the electorate. But what really stops progress is when people defend their positions by attacking the other side. I don't mean to say we should "compromise our principles" but many people don't see the difference and then set out to demonize their opponents and offer no compromise at all. For me, when someone says I'm a "traitor" and "terrorist-sympathizer" because I oppose invading Iraq, where do we go from there? When someone is accused of being a "racist/nazi" because they believe in police profiling then it's hard to blame them for not coming to the table to discuss.

 

It's pretty dangerous and not healthy to stand on the sidelines, keep your mouth shut and pretend it all doesn't matter. But, hey, if they don't complain then so be it. But they are no worse than those who criticize but offer no alternatives and don't take a stand either way.

[Chilly]

Actually, I don't have a problem with anyone voting for the candidate closest to their conscience. If that's what they believe and back it up then so be it.

 

However, I do believe compromise is the essence (and a strength) of democracy. Most problems begin when a candidate, party, official will not compromise at all - despite the fact we will collectively get nowhere, despite the evidence against them and despite the will of the electorate. But what really stops progress is when people defend their positions by attacking the other side. I don't mean to say we should "compromise our principles" but many people don't see the difference and then set out to demonize their opponents and offer no compromise at all. For me, when someone says I'm a "traitor" and "terrorist-sympathizer" because I oppose invading Iraq, where do we go from there? When someone is accused of being a "racist/nazi" because they believe in police profiling then it's hard to blame them for not coming to the table to discuss.

 

Essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have an issue with the marketing tactics that political parties in the US use.

 

Most evidence shows that the American electorate is much more compromising than polarizing.

[DC Tom]

Most evidence shows that the American electorate is much more compromising than polarizing.

 

Problem is that the vocal portion of the electorate is just the opposite. The 5-10% who set the tone are extremists that vilify the opposition as evil incarnate.

 

Even if the electorate isn't polarizing, they end up being viewed through a polarizing lens.

[Chilly]

Problem is that the vocal portion of the electorate is just the opposite. The 5-10% who set the tone are extremists that vilify the opposition as evil incarnate.

 

Even if the electorate isn't polarizing, they end up being viewed through a polarizing lens.

 

So it's a marketing problem.

[DC Tom]

So it's a marketing problem.

 

It's politics.

 

So...yeah. What's politics but marketing?

[Chilly]

It's politics.

 

So...yeah. What's politics but marketing?

 

Well, part of it is marketing to convince people of your side, and part of it is manipulating rules.

[DC Tom]

...and part of it is manipulating rules.

 

Which requires...? All together now:

 

Marketing.

[finknottle]

It gets comical when you start suggesting Carter would have been a better choice in 1980.

 

It pains me to say it, but Molson is right - he's only saying that Carter would have embarked on a much different course. He wasn't being judgemental.

 

Nevertheless, I'd point out that a Republican *would* have eventually embarked on his own version of the Neal Deal if he were to last more than one term. And I'd also argue that we might very well have found ourselves at war with Iraq under Gore - we were in a low-grade aireal conflict when he was VP. Given the same intelligence, continued provocations, and the pending lifting of sanctions, full-blown conflict is not inconceivable (though probably not with the overthrow of Saddam in mind, and not so quickly).

 

The currents of history run deep. Missteps are why we have one-term presidents.

[Max Fischer]

Essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have an issue with the marketing tactics that political parties in the US use.

 

Most evidence shows that the American electorate is much more compromising than polarizing.

 

I don't know. I think it's more complex than that. I tend to think the electorate may be more polarizing than compromising. Marketing only works when there's a willingness to buy. How else can you explain that so many people believed John Kerry or Obama are unpatriotic socialist babykillers? (or Republicans are racists, or whatever the opposite example is). The electorate so easily grabs onto those simplistic and, I would say, hateful, labels. I mean, how to come to the table after someone accuses you of being a traitor to your country?

 

This board is a great example of "gotcha." It's nearly impossible to admit a fault in your ideas or your candidate without being jumped on as an idiot for backing the position or candidate.

[Max Fischer]

The currents of history run deep. Missteps are why we have one-term presidents.

 

"Currents" or bad luck/timing. Carter never would have been elected if Nixon wasn't a, well, criminal. I say Nixon was a decent president on the issues and leadership skills but he was paranoid and lacked a moral center. Ford never would have been president and Carter never would have won (ran on "reform"). Carter may have survived a second term but the country was racked by inflation, gas prices and of course the Iran hostage crisis. You can argue he lacked the skills to deal with it but he didn't cause those problems.

 

Maybe Reagan would have eventually been president in 1976 or 1980 - but everything broke his way in 1980.

 

GHWBush probably shouldn't have won in 1988 - Democrats basically imploded and nominated one of the worst candidates ever. I always thought Hart (if he kept his dick in his pants), Gore or Biden could have won in a landslide.

 

Though after winning I don't think Bush was all bad - and much more respectable than his son. Bush was hampered by Republican fatigue and vacillated between doing what he thought was right (tax increases, reforms) and the Buchnan wing. In the end there was no there there. Plus, he was unlucky to run into a flawed Democrat who was also the best campaigner in history.

[Chilly]

Which requires...? All together now:

 

Marketing.

 

Not necessarily. Could be as simple as not nominating anyone to the FEC.

 

I don't know. I think it's more complex than that. I tend to think the electorate may be more polarizing than compromising. Marketing only works when there's a willingness to buy. How else can you explain that so many people believed John Kerry or Obama are unpatriotic socialist babykillers? (or Republicans are racists, or whatever the opposite example is). The electorate so easily grabs onto those simplistic and, I would say, hateful, labels. I mean, how to come to the table after someone accuses you of being a traitor to your country?

 

"So many people"? How many is that? I can't say I've ever heard anyone describe Kerry or Obama as a "babykiller" before your post.

 

This board is a great example of "gotcha." It's nearly impossible to admit a fault in your ideas or your candidate without being jumped on as an idiot for backing the position or candidate.

 

There's a difference between fault (e.g. I don't agree with the candidate's policy on this issue) and missing reality (e.g. I support so and so even though reality doesn't match the rhetoric).

[Max Fischer]

I can't say I've ever heard anyone describe Kerry or Obama as a "babykiller" before your post.

 

Seriously? Anyway, do you see the point when you don't argue they're called socialists and unpatriotic?

[molson_golden2002]

"Currents" or bad luck/timing. Carter never would have been elected if Nixon wasn't a, well, criminal. I say Nixon was a decent president on the issues and leadership skills but he was paranoid and lacked a moral center. Ford never would have been president and Carter never would have won (ran on "reform"). Carter may have survived a second term but the country was racked by inflation, gas prices and of course the Iran hostage crisis. You can argue he lacked the skills to deal with it but he didn't cause those problems.

 

Maybe Reagan would have eventually been president in 1976 or 1980 - but everything broke his way in 1980.

 

GHWBush probably shouldn't have won in 1988 - Democrats basically imploded and nominated one of the worst candidates ever. I always thought Hart (if he kept his dick in his pants), Gore or Biden could have won in a landslide.

 

Though after winning I don't think Bush was all bad - and much more respectable than his son. Bush was hampered by Republican fatigue and vacillated between doing what he thought was right (tax increases, reforms) and the Buchnan wing. In the end there was no there there. Plus, he was unlucky to run into a flawed Democrat who was also the best campaigner in history.

I think you missed his point. He wasn't talking about winning elections, he was talking about what the people do after elected. No matter who wins they have to deal with a certain situation. So even though they advocated different policies reality sets in and dictates as much or more so than ideology. I agree with this to a point, but different people see different solutions.

 

As to Carter, he actually was responsible for the high interest rates. He appointed Paul Volker to the Fed to raise rates so as to ring inflastion out of the economy. It hurt Carter in the election, but it was the right thing to do and led to "Morning in America." Reagan benefited tremendously from Carter's policies and kept Volker in his position.

[Chilly]

Seriously? Anyway, do you see the point when you don't argue they're called socialists and unpatriotic?

 

In a way, yes, but I don't see it as all that prevalent outside of the media and the extremes.