Obama will probably be the Dem Nominee: What now?

[Calibron]

I said I liked their proposals on different issues, not both their proposals on the same issue or issues; obviously they have major differences on most things. A person doesn't have to have purely conservative or purely liberal views.

[Crissa]

Okay, Prak: A few lessons. The second place in the Democratic Primary? They never go on to be nominated again. Nominees that don't get elected President? They also don't get nominated again. The Democratic Party has a very low tolerance to failure.

I'm not one to hold grudges, so while I'll call you an idiot one minute doesn't mean I won't talk to you again later. Or even help you. I'm like and unlike Frank in that matter... I actually have a higher tolerance for poor behavior, but I call it out sooner.

Yes, their one vote (that they both cast differently) was on a bill that contained ethanol subsidies. One for, one against. One from a state that had no crop-to-ethanol industry, the other from a state with a large agribusiness lobby. The rest of cast votes which differ are procedural, and are therefor difficult to actually count.

I'm really, really sorry you have grown up with a right-wing view of the Clintons. And it really pains me to need to defend them. I didn't vote for either in the Primary, and yet... I have to point out that they're more liberal (which is good) than the other choice.

Which proposals, Caliborn, so I may disabuse you of any incorrect assumptions?

[Calibron]

Maybe later, I don't keep notes on this stuff, just form opinions and check them against the facts every once in a while.

[Prak]

Being liberal isn't a good thing, being conservative isn't a bad thing, and vice versa, these are just personal choices about how to view issues, and through them, the world. Saying that being liberal or conservative is good or bad is like saying being a specific religion is good or bad. I don't like Hillary Clinton, I think she's a powermonger who would be bad for the country, which is ironic because I actually wouldn't mind Bill getting back in office. Obama is young and idealistic, and I think he would be good for this country.
I actually once summed up what this country needs in a president in particularly nerdy terms. We need a paladin. I'm not talking the smiting and detecting of evil, I'm talking about the idealism, the courage, the view that one must look out for everyone, etc. Which of the three presidential candidates seems most like this ideal? Hillary? no. McCain? no. Obama? Well, while I don't know much about the man, he seems a hell of a lot closer to the ideal than the other two.

[JonSetanta]

Both Clintons are bitches. Bill was a lazy bitch, and Hillary is a harpy bitch. And her eyes scare me.

But in all seriousness I spent a week last winter analyzing the stances and objectives for all candidates, and Obama matches my own desires for the next presidential term. That's my method, not public opinion, not racial/sexual obligations, not because he has the "youth vote".

[Crissa]

So, yeah. Nevermind what the aged woman has done in her life?

Umm, I think I'll save that conservatism-liberal question for later. Another thread.

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

Saying that being liberal or conservative is good or bad is like saying being a specific religion is good or bad.

Look, I'm all for tolerance, but you know what? Some religions are bad. The ritual cannibalism of the Fore caused a prevalent kuru infection in the population. Aztec ritual sacrifice murdered tens of thousands of people a year. Right now, Christian Scientists are denying their children simple life-saving medicines and Mormons are pursuing an agenda to bring about the end of the world. That shit is seriously not okay.

In the United States, the conservative agenda of the last fifty years a) panders to religious fundamentalists teaching the Bible in science classrooms and hating on the orgasm of every person on earth, b) using the federal government almost solely as a mechanism to funnel tax dollars to corporations, and c) endowing the Executive with powers that King George III did not claim when the colonies rebelled. That shit is seriously not okay.

[Maj]

...saying 'I don't care their record, I just care [what the media says about them]' means you're just being a tool of those with money.

Thank you for substituting your interpretation of what I said in for what I actually said. Because they're totally the same thing.

I like Obama because he does stuff like give impromptu speeches to people who couldn't get into the arena where he was speaking. I like Obama because I've been reading his blog since 2004, and I thought it was really cool the way he reached out to normal people. I like Obama because during debates, he says things like he's willing to talk to Raul Castro and open up negotiations with Cuba. I like Obama because he's able to inspire a younger generation of voters to actually get out and vote. I like Obama because he acknowledges that stuff like the media paying attention to flag pins is asinine.

I don't like Hillary because I don't like her mannerisms - she can say something totally warm and fuzzy and make it sound insincere and robotic. I don't like the more hardline approach I've heard her express towards foreign policy. I don't like how polarizing she is. And I don't like her husband. She may have more experience, but a lot of people don't want same-old, same-old. They want energetic and new, because seriously... Can Obama mess this country up more than Bush?

Mormons are pursuing an agenda to bring about the end of the world.

Would someone clue me in on how? I'd really like to know.

[Calibron]

Bah, everyone knows that the "Church of Christ, Scientist" is insane.

[Draco_Argentum]

Voting McCain as second preference to whichever Dem you like is nuts. No matter who gets in they are stuck listening to their party.

Does anyone seriously think the Bush GOPpers will leave with him? No chance in hell. McCain is a vote for keeping them around, anyone opposed to them who votes Republican needs to think harder.

[fbmf]

Umm, I think I'll save that conservatism-liberal question for later. Another thread.

-Crissa

You mean Prak? He didn't ask a question of you, oh Wise One. He just gave his opinion. Which he is entitled to.

Game On,
fbmf

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]

Calling people "idiots" and such is not conducive to a thread staying unlocked. Happy Posting.

[/TGFBS]

[Maj]

Voting McCain as second preference to whichever Dem you like is nuts.

It's also not something I'd personally ever do. Contrary to what's advertised, we do have more than two political parties on the US.

[Crissa]

You mean Prak? He didn't ask a question of you, oh Wise One. He just gave his opinion. Which he is entitled to.f

No, I mean, I said something i my post that would derail the thread, by replying to that comment.

I'm sorry, fbmf, but if someone says they're an idiot, who am I to argue with them? They just said two very easily falsifiable statements - one, that Democrats (specifically a candidate) are no different in office than Republicans; and two, that it doesn't matter what a candidate has done instead relying solely upon their 'feelings' of how a candidate looks in the media.

If one bought food with the same level of concern, would you chastise me for calling them an idiot?

-Crissa

[Maj]

If one bought food with the same level of concern, would you chastise me for calling them an idiot?

If one flagrantly ignored the posted rules of this messageboard and the warnings of the moderators by personally attacking people and questioning moderator decisions, would I get chastized for calling them an idiot?

[Crissa]

If I can't question moderators, I don't want to post there.

-Crissa

[Prak]

Saying that being liberal or conservative is good or bad is like saying being a specific religion is good or bad.

Look, I'm all for tolerance, but you know what? Some religions are bad. The ritual cannibalism of the Fore caused a prevalent kuru infection in the population. Aztec ritual sacrifice murdered tens of thousands of people a year. Right now, Christian Scientists are denying their children simple life-saving medicines and Mormons are pursuing an agenda to bring about the end of the world. That shit is seriously not okay.

Okay, religion might have been a bad example, or not, beacause you chose the examples that you did specifically to call out the problem with my statement, and I'll admit that, yes, I spoke poorly, what I should have said is that calling liberalism good and conservatism bad is like calling Christianity good and (LaVeyan) Satanism bad. It's looking at your own little vilifying perspective and not what the ideologies, or at least their founders, actually say.

In the United States, the conservative agenda of the last fifty years a) panders to religious fundamentalists teaching the Bible in science classrooms and hating on the orgasm of every person on earth, b) using the federal government almost solely as a mechanism to funnel tax dollars to corporations, and c) endowing the Executive with powers that King George III did not claim when the colonies rebelled. That shit is seriously not okay.

Yes, because all conservatism is the agenda of the last fifty years... just like all of democracy is the exact same as whiny celebrities giving money to the homeless because they feel bad/want to look like they give a fuck.

...oh, wait... it's not... there are a grand variety of outlooks in liberalism, and conservatism... didn't some bleeding heart say it was bad to judge intire institutions by the actions of the vocal? hmm... fairly sure some one said that, somewhere...

I'm not trying to say conservatism is the best thing in the world, I'm not saying Liberalism is the worst, I'm just saying that, like Boccob and Farlanghan, to earn my nerd points for the day, they're neutral, and their adherents are fairly diverse.

It's also not something I'd personally ever do. Contrary to what's advertised, we do have more than two political parties on the US.

very true... anyone have any clue who else is running yet? I'd seriously like to know... I've never liked the feeling that we have to choose between just two people who really have the same agenda every four years... and that's how it always feels.

that it doesn't matter what a candidate has done instead relying solely upon their 'feelings' of how a candidate looks in the media.

I didn't say that, I said that it's common practice in voting to place more weight on who one likes than what they do.

[Maj]

anyone have any clue who else is running yet? I'd seriously like to know... I've never liked the feeling that we have to choose between just two people who really have the same agenda every four years... and that's how it always feels.

Check it out, courtesy of Wikipedia. My husband and I have a "Voting Day" party where we discuss issues and candidates and decide who we're going to vote for. We don't always agree, and I don't personally vote along a single party's lines, but I do tend to find myself voting Libertarian fairly often.

[PhoneLobster]

Okay, religion might have been a bad example, or not, beacause you chose the examples that you did specifically to call out the problem with my statement, and I'll admit that, yes, I spoke poorly, what I should have said is that calling liberalism good and conservatism bad is like calling Christianity good and (LaVeyan) Satanism bad.

So a choice between the religion of lunatics who nail themselves to crosses and try to prevent life saving immunisation against STDs or the religion of violent drug dealing bike gangs. I know that you are arguing that, well, EVERYTHING is equivalent but if you want to argue a range of equivalency rather than the lame old equivalency of evil argument then really you should pick a religion with some equivalent good in it (not that you can).

Yes, because all conservatism is the agenda of the last fifty years

Oh I SEE. You were going to travel back in time and vote for conservatives back when they did GOOD things. Like fighting desegregation, voting rights for women, voting rights for the unlanded, democracy itself, etc...

Conservatism RIGHT NOW is very much the product of its last fifty years. To pretend it has some mystical link to an imagined past golden age that maintains its "neutral" purity is ridiculous. And even if you do it's pretty damn hard to find a period in recorded history that conservatism hasn't been demonstrably vile.

just like all of democracy is the exact same as whiny celebrities giving money to the homeless because they feel bad/want to look like they give a fuck.

That... just doesn't even make any sense. Where is the comparison here.

there are a grand variety of outlooks in liberalism, and conservatism

See now liberalism DOES have some variety of outlooks, I wouldn't call it grand, because frankly the term is just short of meaningless.

John Howard and Hillary Clinton might both be called liberal but its NOT because there is a great "big tent" liberalism movement they both belong to, its because you can just add the word "liberal" to anything in politics and it really doesn't mean shit.

Next time. Try leftist or socialist or something those are actual political traditions.

Just as conservatism is a narrow and specific political tradition. There are branches but they share a great deal in common. You can go to conservative parties across the world and they hold similar ideals, implement similar policies and descend from similar sources and influences.

they're neutral, and their adherents are fairly diverse.

Uh, no. See we aren't in magical pixie land where every single fringe opinion of anyone prepared to pretend to belong to one group or the other actually counts.

We are in the real world where a massive political movement actually DOES stuff. And the stuff they do does NOT just magically get drawn out of a hat that adjusts to ensure that the full range of opinions gets represented with an equal random chance.

The "vocal" or more accurately the powerful or majority within the political movements control those actions. So when someone says "everything that the conservative movement does is evil" and you say "but my seventh cousin bob is real sweet and heals sick squirrels with the power of jeebus and he seems to think he is a magical "squirrel" conservative" you aren't refuting shit.

crissa wrote:
that it doesn't matter what a candidate has done instead relying solely upon their 'feelings' of how a candidate looks in the media.

I didn't say that, I said that it's common practice in voting to place more weight on who one likes than what they do.

OH, I see. You don't make your decision because you emotionally like or dislike the media image you are presented.

You actually know these people personally and interact with them in person. And depending on who is elected your personal relationships with them will be affected. Right...

He didn't ask a question of you

But he presented one. Crissa worded it politely, I'd not have called it the "Conservate, Liberal" question, I'd have called it the "What the hell crazy batshit thing did that guy just say?" question.

[Draco_Argentum]

It's also not something I'd personally ever do. Contrary to what's advertised, we do have more than two political parties on the US.

Theres more than two here too. Voting for the ones that won't get elected needs to be done very carefully lest your vote end up meaning nothing. Unless the preferences go from who you vote for to whichever of the two major candidates you favour you've wasted your vote. The electoral college appears to be first past the post which makes the choice even more stark. A vote for someone who has no hope of winning is gone. It will in effect help the most opposed candidate to yours by splitting the support base of their enemies.

...oh, wait... it's not... there are a grand variety of outlooks in liberalism, and conservatism... didn't some bleeding heart say it was bad to judge intire institutions by the actions of the vocal? hmm... fairly sure some one said that, somewhere..

Who cares what the possible members of the set {conservative policy} are? The only relevant thing to know is what your vote actually goes to. Its no good claiming you're voting conservative because you like whatever policy conservative policy. If the particular conservatives you're voting for don't support what you want then you haven't voted for what you want.

[Crissa]

Prak, if you said [voting on feeling rather than deeds] was a common practice, than I'll say I said it wasn't a well thought out practice.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Your vote always means something.
But the outcome will probably lean towards 'undesirable' if you vote Green party, since an overwhelming majority of America does NOT want them in office.

[Koumei]

John Howard and Hillary Clinton might both be called liberal but its NOT because there is a great "big tent" liberalism movement they both belong to, its because you can just add the word "liberal" to anything in politics and it really doesn't mean shit.

John Howard ran the Liberal party. As in, it was called the Liberal party. Liberal is actually conservative, and Labour is liberal (or at least "less conservative"). So Howard was the conservative one, who happened to run a party that called itself Liberal.

I don't think anyone would consider him to actually be liberal.

[PhoneLobster]

and Labour is liberal

Labour is no more liberal than the Liberal party is liberal.

The only reason you THINK Labour was liberal is due to a rather odd tendancey of layman American politics and current conservative spin (designed for an audience ignorant of actual political ideology) to apply the label "liberal" to the left in general.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any actual liberal political tradition.

You CAN'T label the Australian Labour Party as more liberal than the Liberal party because the term liberal doesn't even MEAN anything anymore. I mean would you label either of those parties as against individual freedom, or even in favour of it?

You might as well declare that one of the two parties was the "Australian" party and the other wasn't. It'd be just as meaningless.

[Koumei]

Well we do have the National party. I can only assume that the others are all international. Likewise the existence of the racist "One Nation Party" suggests the others want to split Australia into different nations.

Anyway, fine, "Labour is less conservative, or more left wing or something" if it's that important. Liberal these days seems to mean "left wing/the opposite of conservative" (with conservative meaning "right wing/grumpy old religious fascist dictators"). I happen to not care very much.