Zyphlin

Hey, it'd be change!

Okay, no, I'm not seriously voting for the candidate running on the "American Fascist Union" ticket nor the "Socialist Party" ticket. However, I'm doing this to illustrate an absurdity with many Americans.

While listen to talk radio (supposedly drive time talk radio, not political talk radio) my local station's announcer has Dick Morris on. Naturally, it leads its way into a political discussion and he's drilling Morris one why he does not support Obama. Morris gives him three distinct policy issues that he feels are very important and tries to describe why he disagree's with Obama. At this point the host stops him, says he's not as versed in Policy as Morris so can't really speak on that, but isn't it just time for a Change. Isn't it better just to get something new in there to try.

This boggled my mind and made me sick to my stomach, because while he's a host and has an outlet, this is the mindset of a lot of people. Yes, Obama has policies...but most you have to actively go search for. Most of the electorate just see's his charismatic front and his amazing delivery of platitudes and has baught into this "Change" platform that, for many people, seem to be change for changes sake.

So why not the Socialist party? Why not the Fascist Party? Both are so much farther to the extreme's that it'd be a CHANGE from anything we've had in decades. If "Change" is really the key.

Change for the sake of Change is potentially disasterous. If I'm getting my arm sawed off, its a "change" to have it now move to my Neck...but is that really better?

This isn't a shot at most Obama supporters on this site. You all, for the most part, are informed voters. While I completely disagree with your feelings about his policies and beliefs, you at least know them and seem...most of you...to be voting for him because you actually agree with those beliefs. But the fact that it seems the vast majority of people simply are just "wanting chaaaaange" and are latching on to his platitudes just kind of sickens me about this country.

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

independent_thinker2002

You know Zyphlin, this is the product of a two party system. Yes, there are other parties, but the big two effectively squash their voice. People vote like it's a horse race. They generally want to say that they voted for the winner moreso than they want to vote on the issues. Conservatives weren't being very conservative when they re-elected Bush. They can try to use 9/11 as an excuse for abandoning their principles, but critical thinkers realize that is admitting the terrorists have succeded.

So since they look at the election as a horse race, the only viable option for change from column A is Column B. That is what it boils down to. If the republicans have been in charge and people don't like how they have done things, the dems are the obvious alternative. It's pure folly to believe that either party corrects it's behavior without losing elections and power.

__________________
==]:{o

Zyphlin

I swear you've become more and more blindly partisan in your statements every single month it seems.

And that is pertinent to the case how? My whole issue was the annoyance that people seem to be voting for someone on the simple and absolute basis of "Change". If that was REALLY the point, then why not fully go for change and break away from the two parties as well. Basically, what annoys me, is that most of these people that are saying they're doing it for Change aren't ACTUALLY doing it for Change, that's just what they've been sold.

Then once again, they're not voting for "Change", they're voting for a winner and have been selled a bill of goods to make them feel better about just bandwagon jumping.

That has to do with this discussion.........what exactly? And even with that in mind, Kerry would've been a better option for the conservatives?

Ahh, so by your astounding perfect logic "critical thinkers" = "anyone that agree's with me"

My issue is not that its not natural for people to do this. My issue is the fact it makes me sad to think that people have been so easily duped by this "Change" message to realize that if that was REALLY what they wanted, there are even bigger agents of change. You're right, its a bunch of people with no care to actually learn a damn thing about the candidate, but latched onto a bunch of platitudes to make themselves feel better about just voting or supporting the guy that's at the front of the bandwagon currently.

It makes me a bit sad and sick to my stomach to know that the amount of people that are actually likely well informed and have legitimate reasons for voting one way another outside of a simple abstract thought that doesn't even fit perfectly like "Change" are completely and utterly out numbered in almost any election by the vast amount of people that vote for stupid ass reasons.

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.

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.

Yes, this is true. But of the two bandwagons, which is more likely to bring change?

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?

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.

I agree with you here. Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd.

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".

Yes, it is sad and sickening.

I voted for Nader in 2000. He was kept off of the ballot in 2004 in my state. Two big reasons I support Obama is because he isn't beholden to special interests (a big Nader issue) and I will not allow another debachle like Bush and the GOP to happen. I will speak out about it. The two parties have been miserable at selecting candidates. If Clinton got the nomination, I wouldn't be voting for her. I have stated that numerous times. So if supporting Obama makes me a partisan, then I guess the meaning of the word has changed. If being opposed to Bush and the GOP's governing makes me a partisan, then 74% of the country is partisan.

Zyphlin

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

the makeout hobo

I think its interesting to look at Moore and Grimes, for a very different reason. It is inevitable in political debates that some blowhard will start calling the liberal candidate a socialist or the conservative candidate a fascist. It's good to look at real socialists and fascists to see how off those remarks are.

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

Indy

The first thing that popped into my mind when I read your post was "Why the hell did the host give his opinion of what we need if two seconds before that he said that he wasn't very well versed in politics?" I find that to be a bigger threat than a two party system, when people who are uneducated on the issues vote. Why vote if you don't even know what the hell you are voting for? A letter (R or D) is not something to vote for. Unfortuantely Zyphlin, people like the ones who frequent this forum and discuss issues with on another are definitely not the majority in this country.

__________________
Affiant further sayeth not.

independent_thinker2002

I should have been more specific about my Bush example. I said re-elected. My whole point was that Bush ran in 2000 on being against nation building, for small government, and bringing change because he was a Washington outsider. As it turns out he didn't govern that way. The excuse is because 9/11 changed everything. This was to illustrate my point that people really aren't concerned about the issues. It wasn't an attack on Bush. He just happens to be the most recent case of this. If you would like to point to liberals doing the same, be my guest. It will only help make my point.

You see, in order to see what would be change, you have to compare it to the current situation. Do you have a magical way to do that without looking at the current POTUS? After all, this is a Presidential election we are talking about. If you can show me one election where candidates weren't compared to a sitting President that wasn't running I would be surprised.

It's not an either/or dilemma. You can vote for the person most likely to bring change that has a chance of being elected. It seems to me that you are expecting anyone who wants to vote for change to vote for a radical. I see what you are saying about Dems and Repubs being the same monster wearing different hats. But to say that a voter can't really support change because they make a pragmatic decision about who to support.

How much do you think would get done with a third party President? Congress would still be Dem and Repub. They would guarantee that President's failure to insure it didn't happen again. You should read Jesse Ventura's book "Do I Stand Alone". He is a good example of how the Dems and Repubs can work together to oust an outsider. So, once again, electing an outsider wouldn't really bring change either. Change in D.C. only comes about in small increments. Unless something traumatic happens in the way of a financial depression, I don't think radical change is even possible. People have to truly suffer before they are motivated to enact a revolution.

Well, are they operating with the same definition of "change"? As I stated earlier, perhaps "change" for them is simply changing the party in control of the White House. While it isn't the sweeping "change" that you desire (once a new party takes over, how long before they are as corrupt as the current ones?), it is change. There are stark differences between the two candidates. But it is undeniable that Obama would be a change from the status quo.

Okay, so "change" only has one meaning but "conservative" has many. I run into definition games quite a bit here. If you can expect people to adhere to your definition of "change" why can't I use "conservative" as I please? What do you personally call someone who is socially conservative and liberal fiscally? I can't believe that it was only social conservatives that voted for Bush, twice.

What is their main reason then?

Yes, he originally ran on one platform in 2000. Everything supposedly "changed" Sept. 11, 2001. That was the rationale for his platform in 2004 being 180 degrees the opposite of 2000's. This means that those principles were abandoned because of the terrorists' attack. This is what I was talking about. If you can't see that the terrorists got our leaders to abandon their principles (on both sides of the aisle) through terrror, I am at a loss for words.

A critical thinker would realize that any candidate would have national security as the utmost concern. BTW, they also realize that a nation with unsecure borders can't be guaranteed security. Imagine all of the money pumped into Iraq being used on our borders. So, Bush equalling security is not a conclusion arrived at by critical thinkers. I know, he was better than Kerry. Well, Obama is the best change candidate. I know you can see the pragmatism in each situation.

Yes, "change" has more than one meaning. It is subjective. You do realize that our current President ran on "change" too, right? He was going to restore integrity to the office. In fact, every single non-incumbent runs on change in every election on both sides of the aisle. Tell me how that is partisan. IMO, if you ever really want the change you desire, there must be term limits. Until then, it's not going to happen. Who's that candidate?