Quote:
Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002  Why, because I used recent examples which it just so happens that Republicans have been in charge of? Sorry if I don't feel like 60 years ago isn't as relevant. |
Well, you hit on half of it. Yes, because you're doing the same thing as the hyper partisan Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years. For example, with this thread, go back 7 years and it'd be some hyper partisan republican interjecting Clinton into a thread where he had no purpose, simply out of some misguided thought that "If i can equate it to [person] then naturally it means his argument is bad because [person] is bad".
Quote:
|
You are missing my point. Dems are the most pragmatic choice for change right now. They are electable. Sure, people could vote for the Socialist party, but how pragmatic would that be? Yes, socialists would be a greater change. But they have zero chance of getting elected. So, in reality, they would not be change.
|
No, I get your point. You're missing mine. What your describing isn't voting for someone because they'll bring "Change", its voting for someone you think will win and is a bit different then the other guy. If what people REALLY cared about was change, they'd vote for something that is a major change from the standard Dem/Repub control, but they're not.
Quote:
|
Yes, this is true. But of the two bandwagons, which is more likely to bring change?
|
Doesn't change the fact (no pun intended) that all these saps talking about how they're voting for Obama "cause we need change" are just sheep that got sucked into a marketing campaign because if they really gave a crap about "Change" they'd be voting for someone that was even a bigger change.
Quote:
|
It was illustrating my point that people vote likes it's a horse race and not on principles or issues. And your question plays exactly into my point. You asked it from the premise that it's an either/or situation. Why didn't they vote libertarian? Just as with your objection to "change" voters not voting socialist, you should chide conservatives for not voting libertarian. But I am the partisan here huh?
|
Because "conservatives" are a numerous branching ones. For example, SOCIAL conservatives are a far cry from the conservatives you'd find within the Libertarian party, who in general are more "liberal" in modern terms on their social views. Its not hypocritical at all for Social Conservatives to not vote for the liberatarian party.
But, to go further into my point, its not the fact that people vote for the likely person to win. It bothers me, but I understand it. Its the fact that these idiots have been able to be deluded to such a point that they don't think they're doing that at all, that they're really voting on a principled issue of "Change" when in reality that's not their reason for choosing who to vote for at all. Not their main one at least.
Quote:
|
No, I don't agree with Paul voters on much or libertarians either. Keep trying to paint me as taking a partisan stance here though.
|
Are you a Hockey Goalie? Because you are awfuly deft at deflecting things. What the hell does Paul voters have to do with this? Here, let me make the comment very, very, basic and simple for you so you can't really twist it.
You stated that anyone that are critical thinkers can see that by voting in bush, the terrorist succeeded. Thus, essentially stating, that if anyone disagree's with you on THIS issue, they are not able to be critical thinkers. I disagree.
You're not accusing ME of being partisan on this? Lets see...one of us is saying that through a proper examining of the situation you could easily come to either conclussionions. That the terrorists "won" because some conservatives allowed the attacks to make national security their prime concern even if they must sacrifice on their staunch desire for other conservative issues. Or, that because of such an attack it forced one portion of the conservative mindset, strong security, to the forefront just as a sagging economy juts forward another portion of the conservative mindset, and in no way did voting for Bush show that the "terrorists won". Instead, ALLOWING them to have done it and doing nothing would've been "allowing them to win".
Frankly, I can see how both of those can logically and correctly be argued using critical thinking.
On the other side, we have you, that basically just says there one way, and one way only, and if you don't agree you're not a critical thinker.
Yep, I'm the partisan one.
Quote:
Perhaps people aren't looking for radical change. Are you denying that Obama is more of a change from Bush than McCain is? Maybe they are voting for "change" and not "radical change".  |
Change is a subjective thing. But beyond that, my issue was with "Change", espicially as a FAKE reason, being the reason you're voting for a politician. If it's "Change" based on specific policies and differences, alright. If its just "Change" that means nothing. I think most of Obama's could be completely off the wall, unfeasible, or otherwise flawed and he'd still garner tons of votes simply out of his charisma and his campaigns amazing selling of this gimmick of "Change"