All Things Pro-Hillary

[Balta1701]

So the "they all do it" excuse for the candidate for "Change". Do you really wonder why there is a growing group that doesn't believe the hype?

"They all do it" was not the message I was trying to get across. "Show me where it mattered" was.

[kapkomet]

The answer to your 2nd question is that, quite simply, it's been the business of some really well paid conservatives over the past 25-30 years to turn the word liberal in to a dirty word in this country. That has been one of the most subtle and perhaps the most important effects of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox news work, every time something bad happens, blame it on those evil "liberals".

"Liberal" or "Conservative" has to do with whether you want to control your own desitiny with things. Get a government handout, expect it, want it, make sure that there's equality for all, and you'll see liberals more often then conservatives in the crowd. Understanding that there has to be a fair share, but there should be limits to what government can do for us, you'll see conservatives more often then liberals in the crowd.

 

There's some damn good, hard working people here, but life's about choices, and everything being equal, I want control of my own destiny, thank you. I don't want my government telling me where to go for health care, and how they're going to pay for all Americans (welfare, health care, social security, etc.). I would rather work my ass off and know I'm taking care of me, and not expect a handout. Those are conservative values. I'm not one for "redistribution of wealth nanny state bulls***" like "liberals" are. Why do people deserve things, what "right" do they have for it? It's a "right" to sit on one's ass and get handed welfare. Gotta love America for that, right?

 

(Note: some of this is the traditional "Kaperbole", and some of it isn't, but I'm trying to make a point that there's too much extreme values put on liberal and conservatism).

 

[kapkomet]

"They all do it" was not the message I was trying to get across. "Show me where it mattered" was.

It only matters if it's against your guy (or gal), right?

 

 

[Balta1701]

It only matters if it's against your guy (or gal), right?

I'll still note that none of you have stepped up to my challenge of showing me a single vote where it mattered like I did with the opposition, and now both of you have tried to attack by changing the subject.

[lostfan]

In my eyes, liberal is a dirty word. It has been since I was in 7th grade and had a liberal Social Studies teacher that tried to influence the thinking of the class. It worked just opposite with me. Stupid ass b****.

I am incapable of having a serious discussion with anybody who thinks like this. They never amount to anything and immediately go downhill. Ridiculously polarized arguments are good for no one.

Edited May 12, 2008 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

I'll still note that none of you have stepped up to my challenge of showing me a single vote where it mattered like I did with the opposition, and now both of you have tried to attack by changing the subject.

 

I'm not making that point. That's your point, right?

 

I think if we all dug enough, we could find instances of where things mattered to certain people. It's a tactic they all use, but the tag of "it doesn't matter" doesn't fly with me, because if it was important enough for a vote, it mattered to SOMEONE, regardless of party.

[bmags]

It only matters if it's against your guy (or gal), right?

 

No, it doesn't matter if the whip is worth a damn. If there is going to be a close vote everyone will come and vote. BUt for all these present votes they don't matter. Criticism against three senators missing all this time in the Senate campaigning is silly, as any political scientist will tell you it doesn't matter. A large majority of bills, after everything is final, pass with smoothly after the minority party shows they fought against it a little bit.

[lostfan]

So all those votes Obama missed or voted present on while in Illinois were because he was campaigning?

Not that this is really the point or anything, but McCain has missed more votes than both Obama and Hillary. For the important ones they've all gone back to Washington to vote. Yes, campaigning is a big, big deal.

[bmags]

 

I'm not making that point. That's your point, right?

 

I think if we all dug enough, we could find instances of where things mattered to certain people. It's a tactic they all use, but the tag of "it doesn't matter" doesn't fly with me, because if it was important enough for a vote, it mattered to SOMEONE, regardless of party.

 

what are you talking about? It didn't AFFECT THE PASSAGE OR NON PASSAGE of the bill. NOt whether how he voted mattered to someone of the millions in IL. If it mattered look at the party.

[kapkomet]

what are you talking about? It didn't AFFECT THE PASSAGE OR NON PASSAGE of the bill. NOt whether how he voted mattered to someone of the millions in IL. If it mattered look at the party.

I'm not talking about Obama's "present" vote. We all get that. He's a saint and did exactly what the procedures called for.

 

[Balta1701]

 

I'm not making that point. That's your point, right?

 

I think if we all dug enough, we could find instances of where things mattered to certain people. It's a tactic they all use, but the tag of "it doesn't matter" doesn't fly with me, because if it was important enough for a vote, it mattered to SOMEONE, regardless of party.

Of course it mattered to someone. I'm not saying the vote wasn't important...i'm asking for an example where the specific vote of the candidate was potentially the deciding vote where he chose not to be counted in that case.

 

I really don't care about a politician making a statement by voting present on something or missing a vote to illustrate a specific point if the vote is decided without his or her presence. It's actually sometimes nice in my eyes to be able to not cast a vote on something to illustrate a point. I was on the Union Board at Indiana and I did exactly that a few times, just abstained from a vote for some reason because I wanted to make a point to the other people in the room. But if the vote wound up being decided by 1 vote, there was no way I was abstaining from that.

[bmags]

I don't understand how you can type something like that and think it's at all constructive to any type of entertaining debate.

[lostfan]

"Liberal" or "Conservative" has to do with whether you want to control your own desitiny with things. Get a government handout, expect it, want it, make sure that there's equality for all, and you'll see liberals more often then conservatives in the crowd. Understanding that there has to be a fair share, but there should be limits to what government can do for us, you'll see conservatives more often then liberals in the crowd.

Even still, as you even alluded to in this paragraph, there's a lot of gray area where people differ on those overall ideologies. It annoys me to no end that there are only 2 major political parties in this country. I guess technically I'm a "liberal" but half the stuff the Democratic party does I can't really stand.

[BigSqwert]

I don't understand how you can type something like that and think it's at all constructive to any type of entertaining debate.

The new filibuster rules do not apply to certain people.

[kapkomet]

Even still, as you even alluded to in this paragraph, there's a lot of gray area where people differ on those overall ideologies. It annoys me to no end that there are only 2 major political parties in this country. I guess technically I'm a "liberal" but half the stuff the Democratic party does I can't really stand.

I agree, but that's the hardest part - I don't think many Americans would like the idea of their "leader" being elected by 20% of the vote (multiple parties - parliamentary system).

 

It's a weird balance.

 

I hate the fact that both parties veer as hard as they can toward their respective corners.

[Balta1701]

I agree, but that's the hardest part - I don't think many Americans would like the idea of their "leader" being elected by 20% of the vote (multiple parties - parliamentary system).

 

It's a weird balance.

 

I hate the fact that both parties veer as hard as they can toward their respective corners.

But here's the other issue...a lot of the countries with those multiple party systems wind up hating them even more than you guys do, for a number of reasons. The most important almost always winds up being that you can't run the government without the extreme parties there, because you need a coalition to form a governing majority, and those 5% or so that vote for whatever extreme party winds up wielding an inordinate amount of power for their size for that reason. Could you imagine, for example, if the difference between the vote count for, let's say, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader decided the next leader of the U.S., and McCain/Obama needed to bring in one of those 2 guys to form a governing coalition? Hell, in 2000 we would literally have had that result, Gore or Bush would have needed to deal with either Nader or Buchanan to decide the White House.

 

A lot of countries that start with parliamentary systems and a ton of parties wind up rapidly whittling down the number of parties and sort of establishing a de facto 2 party system just because the system becomes ungovernable otherwise.

[lostfan]

I agree, but that's the hardest part - I don't think many Americans would like the idea of their "leader" being elected by 20% of the vote (multiple parties - parliamentary system).

 

It's a weird balance.

 

I hate the fact that both parties veer as hard as they can toward their respective corners.

I agree. When a politician, either Democrat or Republican, is campaigning he/she tries to promise a certain set of values and says they'll represent certain things while they're in office. Once they get elected they immediately get influenced by the lobbyists that are basically their life's blood as a politician, and more often than not vote in lock step with their parties.

 

This is what makes me wonder about these "special interest groups" McCain and Obama seem to be railing against. It's nice to think about but without some major changes to the way we conduct campaigns, it's just not realistic. The Dems and GOP have basically cemented that in place and aren't going to volunteer to change it anytime soon.

[kapkomet]

But here's the other issue...a lot of the countries with those multiple party systems wind up hating them even more than you guys do, for a number of reasons. The most important almost always winds up being that you can't run the government without the extreme parties there, because you need a coalition to form a governing majority, and those 5% or so that vote for whatever extreme party winds up wielding an inordinate amount of power for their size for that reason. Could you imagine, for example, if the difference between the vote count for, let's say, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader decided the next leader of the U.S., and McCain/Obama needed to bring in one of those 2 guys to form a governing coalition? Hell, in 2000 we would literally have had that result, Gore or Bush would have needed to deal with either Nader or Buchanan to decide the White House.

 

A lot of countries that start with parliamentary systems and a ton of parties wind up rapidly whittling down the number of parties and sort of establishing a de facto 2 party system just because the system becomes ungovernable otherwise.

You're right... the fringes get a lot of power because of the "coalitions". Ick. Our system's not great, but it's better then most.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The new filibuster rules do not apply to certain people.

Just because you disagree with him (as I do), and may find his stance a bit absurd (as I do), that does not mean he can't post it. He's not attacking any person or poster. He's attacking views on issues, and that is within the rules, as far as I am concerned.

 

[YASNY]

Sort of makes it difficult to engage in discourse with someone when they think anything described as left of center should be labeled with a dirty word.

 

To quote Popeye: I yam what I yam. I don't need discourse and I don't need liberals.

[kapkomet]

I don't understand how you can type something like that and think it's at all constructive to any type of entertaining debate.

 

 

The new filibuster rules do not apply to certain people.

 

To respond in kind if this was for my benefit, my whole point is it always matters to those on the other side of (insert name here)'s political persuasion. I've seen post after post after post knocking (mocking) both parties dirty underwear and even the infighting on the Democrat side ad naseum here. To say "it doesn't matter" or whatever blowoff you want to make, to someone, it's always significant enough to merit some sort of poitical s***ball heaving.

 

But, of course, that point all gets missed because we're all too busy looking out to defend "our guy" (or gal, as the case may be). Gotta love politics.

[Balta1701]

I agree. When a politician, either Democrat or Republican, is campaigning he/she tries to promise a certain set of values and says they'll represent certain things while they're in office. Once they get elected they immediately get influenced by the lobbyists that are basically their life's blood as a politician, and more often than not vote in lock step with their parties.

 

This is what makes me wonder about these "special interest groups" McCain and Obama seem to be railing against. It's nice to think about but without some major changes to the way we conduct campaigns, it's just not realistic. The Dems and GOP have basically cemented that in place and aren't going to volunteer to change it anytime soon.

One particularly great thing about this campaign...the Obama camp might actually be the first one in a long, long time that has the ability to genuinely change the way major campaigns are being conducted. I certainly can't guarantee he won't fall in to the "Sell out the lincoln bedroom" camp as soon as he gets in office, but the Obama campaign is truly revolutionary so far in its ability to raise absolutely huge amounts of money from small donors online. They've taken the ability that Howard Dean and Ron Paul built up to a lesser extent and refined it so much that its entirely possible that they could run an entire Presidential campaign on small donors without having to worry about reaching out and sucking up to too many big donors or opting in to the bankrupt public financing system.

 

I think it's pretty much at this point acknowledged by everyone who's not a lobbyist for a major corporation or union that the current financing system is broken. Even people who used to be advocates for reform are gaming the system to try to get more power. The rise of the Democratic small donor is, at least on the left, a potentially important way to break this deadlock. Think about all those Hillary big donors who keep threatening that if Pelosi or Dean don't do something to placate them, they'll stop giving. Why hasn't something been done to placate them, like giving Hillrod a bunch of delegates from FL or MI? Quite simply, because those donors aren't the biggest money pool in the party any more. Obama's email list is.

[lostfan]

It's only certain types of politicians that can do that though. Obama is one obviously. Paul would've been another and had his campaign caught on he would've been rivaling Obama for the stacks of money they're raising. In order for a campaign to do that they it has to get the candidate's base fired up at the grassroots level, and they have to be organized and highly motivated the way Obama's and Paul's supporters are/were. Only a select few have that ability and there's no guarantee the next election will be like that.

[Balta1701]

It's only certain types of politicians that can do that though. Obama is one obviously. Paul would've been another and had his campaign caught on he would've been rivaling Obama for the stacks of money they're raising. In order for a campaign to do that they it has to get the candidate's base fired up at the grassroots level, and they have to be organized and highly motivated the way Obama's and Paul's supporters are/were. Only a select few have that ability and there's no guarantee the next election will be like that.

Interestingly though...the right has had a similar system for 20+ years, and its held together through the leaders of the system and not through the people running it. They've been pulling in big sums of money bundled through their direct mail system since the 80's, a system that was built around some of their important interest groups (i.e. the religious groups) which has given extreme power to its leaders within the party and kept them on top in fundraising for a long, long time. Obama himself might not be always around to raise that kind of money, but there's an infrastructure that's been growing up for years now focused on the lefty blogosphere and its other outlets that has been able to do some of these things at a smaller scale.

[bmags]

 

To respond in kind if this was for my benefit, my whole point is it always matters to those on the other side of (insert name here)'s political persuasion. I've seen post after post after post knocking (mocking) both parties dirty underwear and even the infighting on the Democrat side ad naseum here. To say "it doesn't matter" or whatever blowoff you want to make, to someone, it's always significant enough to merit some sort of poitical s***ball heaving.

 

But, of course, that point all gets missed because we're all too busy looking out to defend "our guy" (or gal, as the case may be). Gotta love politics.

 

I wasn't defending Obama, I was taking odds with this claim that comes up every election when a senate member is involved, where they bring up present and missed votes as a negative that they are skipping out on their job. People in the Senate would say it doesn't matter they aren't there, and political scientists would reiterate that. It's not the same as not showing up for a 9-5 job over and over again. So your response "Oh whatever Obama can do no wrong blah blah" is overly simplistic and responding to an argument I wasn't making.