treehat

What's pissing me off is that most of these Democrats have won for the entirely wrong reasons: "Vote against this republican! Vote for me!"

The concept of simply getting votes because you encourage the populous to vote against someone else disgusts me. With that type of attitude, you're not saying that you can fix the issues, just that the other side has yet to do so.

All of the democratic ads on TV I've seen this year have been simply mudslinging. And frankly, that just made me want to vote Republican.

-.- If I had gotten to vote, frankly, thats how I would have voted, just based on the idea that what I heard the republican party talk about was actual ideas to solve problems, or at least addressing that there was a problem in an area the democrats weren't mudslinging at the republicans. Unfortunately had an unexpected ER visit, and follow up doctors appointments that took up a bit too much time...

All I want out of politics is for the republicans to ACTUALLY put up a true conservative, and the democrats to ACTUALLY put up a true liberal. The unfortunate truth is that its come down to this: The republicans are riding the middle, being conservative in some things, liberal in others... and then the democrats simply saying "Oh, you're wrong." without giving a dime for a nickel as to a reason why.

Thats my two cents, here... If the democrats actually do what true liberals should, I will be happy, and impressed. The same idea applies to the republicans.... ah, but I digress. The movie "Man of the Year" got it dead right in its message about current politics. We need a 'Robin Williams' to run for president, or any government office.

From:

The unfortunate truth is that its come down to this: The republicans are riding the middle, being conservative in some things, liberal in others...

Maybe it's due to the fact that US politics are skewed to the right, but I've yet to see a single liberal action from the Republicans. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this, or point out an example?

From:

I haven't heard of any liberal actions from the pachyderms either.

From:

Very good examples might be:

Expanding the federal involvement with the education system in the "No Child Left Behind" act...(fiscally liberal, and socially liberal) One of "Bush's brainchilds".

Amnesty for Illegal aliens who come forward. Thats actually a very liberal move, there. (which is a socially liberal idea, compared to 'shipping them back')

Expanded spending on research and military... (fiscally liberal. You don't go into debt being conservative.)

As it should be, Liberal politics should try to expand the governments influence, and aid those within its reach. A Conservative government would cut the governments power, leaving said benefits to become privatized by various companies and corporations, which is the idea of cutting back on some taxes, so that these companies can grow and continue to supply those benefits. Each should try to use these views to make life in America better for each citizen, and each citizen may think different ideas work better than others. Thats what Democracy is supposed to work towards, but currently politics are in the way, yes, and each news story has a 'spin' on it so that the right wing looks far right, the left wing far left.

One last thing I'll say; can people really say what is liberal and what is conservative in politics anymore? Or is that line so far blurred that its simply because one side or the other makes the choice... Of this, I am not certain. I haven't payed enough attention this time around. Sorry about the late response. been drowning in work.

From:

As it should be, Liberal politics should try to expand the governments influence, and aid those within its reach.

Funny, that's quite different from the definition I'm familiar with (emphasis mine):

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

From:

Out of curiosity, looks like thats quoted from somewhere. Could I get a link citing the source? Would you also know of the definition for Conservative from said source? (note: If you ever want clarification like this from me, please feel free to ask and I will be happy to oblige!)

And honestly, I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the way these things would be carried out. Free public education is about the only thing I can see directly linked to the liberal ideals I understand. The "limitations of power, especially of government and religion" seem conservative, in that something is being limited... Everything else seems like the fluff added in to make something look pretty that would equally exist on both sides of the equation, especially the last line "Where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed."

From:

Link? Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal (that can be pulled from the source code of my comment, sorry I forgot the link)

As for "Conservative", I get a disambiguation page, but like how Liberal redirected to Libreralism, I decided to look at Conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism):

Conservatism is a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values. The term derives from to conserve; from Latin conservāre, "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.

And since that definition really doesn't say much, lets look at the definition of American conservatism:

American conservatism is a constellation of political ideologies within the United States under the blanket heading of conservative. Included are fiscal conservatives, free market or economic liberals, social conservatives, and religious conservatives, as well as supporters of a strong American military, opponents of internationalism, and proponents of states' rights.

(For reference, economic liberalism is the school of liberalism that believes the "equal opportunity to succeed" is best represented by a completely free market.)

From:

...and now after looking over your entire response, I realise I shoul've also looked at the entry on American liberalism, if for no other reason than, as it's been demonstrated on the IRT forum, Liberalism means many different things, in many different places. In Wikipedia, American liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism) is explained as follows:

American liberalism—that is, liberalism in the United States of America—is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, from the existing class structure, or from multi-national corporations. Liberalism in America takes various forms, ranging from classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) to social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism)to neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism).

The United States was founded on classical liberal republican principles. The United States Declaration of Independence speaks of "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and asserts that government may exist only with the "consent of the governed"; the Preamble to the Constitution enumerates among its purposes to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"; the Bill of Rights contains numerous measures guaranteeing individual freedom, both from the authority of the state and from the tyranny of the majority; and the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War freed the slaves and (at least in principle) extended to them and to their descendants the same rights as other Americans.

The term liberalism in America today most often refers to Modern American liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_liberalism), a political current that reached its high-water marks with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It is a form of social liberalism, combining support for government social programs, progressive taxation, and moderate Keynesianism with a broad concept of rights, which sometimes include a right to education and health care. However, this is by no means the only contemporary American political current that draws heavily on the liberal tradition. Libertarianism is often said to be generally resembling, though not necessarily identical, to American classical liberalism, which advocates the laissez-faire doctrines of political and economic liberalism, equality before the law, indvidual freedom and self-reliance, which is in contrast to social liberalism's concern with state-provided equality of opportunity.

*gasps for air*

From:

Yo, Niner, I'd love to have a more real time discussion with ya, I have a feeling the information you could put forth may help me learn something, or broaden my political views (if not change them). I would hope that should you accept said discussion, you may be open to the same?

From:

Well, yeah. Sounds like a plan

From:

I'm not sure what races you're talking about, so I don't know just how bad things were over there.

If you're talking about races where neither candidate was incumbent, I'd agree with you. However, when running against an incumbent, you have to work really, really hard just to make a dent against them. Running on issues alone is political suicide - you have to tell the people why the incumbent needs to be booted. This is no different for any party. Plus, it's much easier to hit an emotional chord with voters using attack ads than simply stating your campaign. Essentially, it comes down to "I will rebuild the economy and here's how" versus "SENATOR ASSHAT EATS BABIES! HE MIGHT EAT YOU EVEN!" The former will have a much longer impression, but the second, though the impression will only last a few days, will be so strong as to override most rational issue-based thought. Which is why it's said that the last four days are the most important days in a campaign - you have to try to run interference against attack ads you haven't heard yet while convincing more swing voters over to your side.

I saw about a balanced amount of platform campaigning, mudslinging, and counter-mudslinging from both parties, at least here in MI. In particular, Granholm (the re-elected Democratic Governor) did a good job of defending herself while simply dismissing DeVos' (the challenger) attacks. About the nastiest they got was against DeVos was pointing out that as CEO of Amway, he'd outsourced a whole slew of jobs to China instead of actually creating jobs here. The fact that he donated several million dollars to his own campaign didn't go over well either. (I've casually joked that, had he won, we would have an Amway distributor as a Governor.)

Of course, I ignore the commercials anyway, if I even see them. The League of Women Voters asks questions of almost all candidated each election and makes the results publicly available - an easy-to-follow outline of agendas and platforms. I read that, take a brief look at the campaign finance records and also think about how things have been handled by current politicians. Based on that, I actually voted for a fair number of Republicans myself. All at local levels, but still.

I am, however, reminded of an old joke - "the Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas." Not that I agree completely, but there is a grain of truth buried deep inside it.

(Oh dear, I'm verbose tonight.)

From:

I'm gonna take some time to do a little research so I can cite some sources, once I get home tonight... that is if the overtime doesn't kill me =P. On top of that, I'll see if I can find any youtube vids of the ads that aired here.

and unfortunately, that last thought (not the verbose part) holds much more true seemingly these past few years, than I've ever seen. I'll respond with a much more intelligible format and layout once I have the chance. Glad to continue this later ^^.

From:

... not to mention in that first paragraph, you've proven my point, DESPITE, contrary to what you likely think, the fact that I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Thankyou.

From:

I never said you were a Republican, and I sure as hell don't know what gave you that idea.

Your point was that the Democratic ads were too negative. My point was that nearly all ads are negative, regardless of party. I simply outlined why ads take that path. I didn't even touch the "vote for me 'cause I'm not Republican" line. Because I honestly didn't see any of that here. How did this "prove your point"? Not to mention that the majority of my argument was not even contained in the first paragraph. I mentioned that the ads here by Democratic candidates did put forward ideas and were not limited to attacks. The only attack ads I saw by the Democrats were based on hard facts about the opponent - they did not strive for any emotion nor did they dig into the mud barrel. They simply showed that the opponent had outsourced jobs from a state with the second-worst economy in the nation.

Don't put words in my mouth.

From:

yo, ghostway, wasn't meant for you. And yes, I read your response, I haven't had a chance to formulate an educated response. My experience relates to only the ads around the Maryland, Virginia, DC area.

I did ask for time to retrieve the proof, as well as references, for my point. I'm still at work, stuck doing overtime, haven't had a chance too.

That comment was directed at DCS, because I felt he jumped to that conclusion about me, since in his opening argument, he didnt touch on the issue I had first remarked on, the negative ads.

As I said, I'd like to continue our discussion, but I really would rather not have a flame war, and if this is going to amount to that, then I withdraw my first statement. You know me, ghostway, I'm a levelheaded, openminded individual ... with a short attention span =P. I'll dig into some news articles from around the area I live in, so I can at least put some credence to my argument.... well, once I can actually get home =(.

From:

oops, I see what happened there, I clicked the wrong 'reply' button, that is entirely my mistake! =X sorry

From:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9GuHg5mkkpE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sjm_QfNAh8M&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=svzDQivKq8Y&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUX2ROfPanM&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FFp5NYVs-9g&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IPmHI2-_DYs&mode=related&search=

And see, here I have disproven myself. What I saw on television was apparently only a glimpse of what was actually being shown. From what I seem to be able to find online, it seems it's split about 50/50 between positive and negative campaigning. So on that note, I step down.

Now, would you like to continue the other issues brought up in the comments here, in a calm manor, whereby each point is backed up with a cited source? I'm game if you are, and if not, I can respect that too. I just dont want a flamewar on politics, not my thing. never has been. But that doesnt mean I dont like a good discussion to which my mind, or the other, might be swayed.

From:

I'm not interested in debating further as I'm terrible at it, I get ticked off way too easily with politics (as you probably saw), and I frankly don't have time for it. However, I am genuinely interested in the clause from the Gulf War treaty you mentioned.

From:

I will look for that, may have to stop off at the national archives (well, i guess thats ONE handy thing about being near DC....)

And as for the getting ticked off to easily: A lot of people do, many even to the point of reacting to politics dogmatically, both democrats and republicans. The only things I ever ask is that 1)If we ever (we as in anyone) have a debate, and you state an opinion, back it up. If you state fact, cite your source. Thats something you should learn to do in English class, during highschool... and 2) If you actually want to pursuade me, don't try to do it by insulting me. That happens to often, and is why I rarely discuss politics. Actually, though it doesn't apply to anything here, there's also a third thing I ask: Pay attention to whats ACTUALLY being said, not what you want to percieve being said. I once caught someone up on that, and he got so pissed off (never realizing what I was trying to point out had nothing to do with what he brought up and was trying to argue) that I haven't heard from that guy since. Ah, well....

The one thing I can say is my opinion here that needs no clarification; This is going to be interesting to see what the Democrates now do with the power they've earned here.

From:

bluerain.livejournal.com

Yes, the Republicans have fabulous ideas, which is why in six years of Republican dominance, we did not get mired in a horrible, pointless, illegal, dishonest, intractable war. Or run up an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Or alienate every ally we had in the world. Or lose a major American city to flooding because FEMA had been staffed by incompetent cronies and no one from the top down gave a shit. Or sit on our asses while problems like global warming, the increasingly awful American health care system, and the North Korean nuclear program metastasized.

Oh, I'm sorry...is this not opposite day? Well then.

It's one of the more annoying media myths that the Democrats don't have any ideas. The democrats have as many policy ideas as the Republicans do, the difference being their ideas have not yet resulted in unmitigated disaster. For a quick primer on what exactly the Dems want to do, policy-wise, here's Nancy Pelosi's plan for the first 100 hours.

But even if that myth were true, I also find it somewhat absurd to argue that having ideas is always better than inaction. I could just sit here in this chair, or I could go outside and beat myself with a shovel. The former is inaction, the latter is a specific plan of action. That doesn't make it the superior course.

And I very much dispute that the Republicans are "liberal" on any issue at all. Or that they're anywhere near the middle. The entire strategy of the GOP in the Rove era has been to placate and motivate the hard-right Republican base. Rove is very open and honest about this. And the fact is, the Democrats won this election, if exit polls mean anything, because they overwhelmingly won the votes of centrist, independent voters.

From:

Yes, the Republicans have fabulous ideas, which is why in six years of Republican dominance, we did not get mired in a horrible, pointless, illegal, dishonest, intractable war. Or run up an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Or alienate every ally we had in the world. Or lose a major American city to flooding because FEMA had been staffed by incompetent cronies and no one from the top down gave a shit. Or sit on our asses while problems like global warming, the increasingly awful American health care system, and the North Korean nuclear program metastasized.

Hey, sorry to say, the war was nit actually illegal. There was a clause in the treaty from the first gulf war that said if he had any contraband weapons, we had the right to move in. We know for fact that he had missiles that he signed the agreement to destroy, and not rebuild. On top of that, within the last year, we've found caches of chemical weapons that were also contraband.

Democrats are supposed to be 'fiscally liberal', ergo the national debt would ALSO increase with a democrat in power. That said, the solution to the current debt? raise the taxes. Care to explain another option? The republicans have been spending money liberally, not conservatively, as the party ideals would recommend.

The deal with New Orleans... *shrugs* I'll concede that one. But do you really believe if Kerry had been elected, that he would have staffed FEMA differently just because Bush wouldn't/didn't?

Both parties are contributing to 'global warming', and theres even evidence to discount part of that theory. It is just that right now, a theory. I don't see every democrat, though, driving around in 'green' cars, running on ethonal, or alchohal, or any other alternative fuel. Nor have I heard proposals for programs to increase the funds for these 'green' fuels.

And what solution would you suggest in dealing with North Korea? The way we could have made 100% certain that they did not attain nuclear weaponry would have been to send in the troops. That a good idea? well what if he were bluffing at the time, and didn't actually come close to developing nuclear weaponry, and we had gone in... oops, guess what, IRAQ.

After reading only your first paragraph, you've not only come accross as a blaring idiot, BUT you've also contradicted yourself on ideas of foreign policy, environmental protection, and economic ideals. IF you can reword your arguments to not be chastising, belligerent, and downright offensive, then I may actually read what you have to say. And no, this is not opposite day, that was yesterday.

From: