2012 Election thread

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I actually agree with barnette to an extent. To me, calling yourself independent is just another way of saying you're 1.) ignorant 2.) easily persuaded either way 3.) completely apathetic (which is the worst) or 4.) a liar. Now, that doesn't mean you have to be a Democrat or Republican, but if you're a liberal thinking person, you're not exactly doing back flips when you hear Republican rhetoric and vice versa.

 

To get back on the apathy thing: you can be apathetic towards the process or the system (it's a fixed game, my voice isn't heard, they're all crooks, it's stupid etc.), I get that. But you should have opinions, and those opinions more often than not are going to line up with a certain ideology. That doesn't mean you're always going to think the same way on everything. For example: I'm a liberal, but I'm much more hawkish on terrorism than the usual left leaning person.

 

I don't think you have to actually like politics at all to be political.

 

The problem with that way of thinking is that it assumes that all possible sets of political opinions can be put into one of two categories, and that's just not the case. Libertarianism alone has enough flavors to shatter that idea.

 

The word "independent" as it's commonly used may be bull****, but the idea that everyone has a sort of default alignment with one of the two parties or their ideologies is also bull****. It's probably counterproductive as well, since it promotes an "us and them" mentality instead of recognizing that there can be vast differences of opinion even between people who would both categorize themselves as liberal or both as conservative.

 

You can say Osprey is a conservative. You can also say Rick Santorum is a conservative. But what does that actually tell us? Is it really useful to categorize them both under the same label? The only thing it does is foster assumptions until you talk to Osprey and find out what he actually thinks about different issues. Why not just skip that first part?

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

I absolutely agree with Jackie. The "You're either left or right" way of thinking is a false dichotomy.

 

I can't stand people with preconceptions (Just to be clear, I'm not referring to you, Berto). The average person thinks they know everything about you the moment you state what your political affiliation is. If you're conservative you're devoid of human compassion, and if you're liberal you're devoid of reason; It's absurd. It's as if you're forced to adhere to every generalized partisan trait or else be labeled a moderate (God help you, then).

[Berto 338]

I don't think you have to be 100% of something to actually be labeled it. I think something like liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever, is just a broad starting point. It's kind of silly to go over a 100 things to explain how you think, when you could just simply say you're fiscally conservative but socially liberal, or something like that. Sure, it's fair to say assumptions would be made, but people are assholes. That's what happens with everything.

 

The word "independent" as it's commonly used may be bull****, but the idea that everyone has a sort of default alignment with one of the two parties or their ideologies is also bull****. It's probably counterproductive as well, since it promotes an "us and them" mentality instead of recognizing that there can be vast differences of opinion even between people who would both categorize themselves as liberal or both as conservative.

 

I agree, but I'm not trying to claim any kind of default alignment. Liberal ≠ Democrat. Conservative ≠ Republican. Liberal ≠ XYZ. Conservative ≠ZYX. And of course it's used as a divider. Everything imaginable is split down political lines. People who are incapable of talking about things rationally will always resort to those kinds of tactics. That doesn't mean someone like you or me have to play that same game.

 

If I say I'm liberal, it's just giving you the wide lens look. If it was something specific, we would discuss it. We're rational and honest. We're not Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann.

[Berto 338]

I absolutely agree with Jackie. The "You're either left or right" way of thinking is a false dichotomy.

 

I can't stand people with preconceptions (Just to be clear, I'm not referring to you, Berto). The average person thinks they know everything about you the moment you state what your political affiliation is. If you're conservative you're devoid of human compassion, and if you're liberal you're devoid of reason; It's absurd. It's as if you're forced to adhere to every generalized partisan trait or else be labeled a moderate (God help you, then).

 

Again, I agree. I just don't bother with people like that.

 

If I say I'm a sports fan, it doesn't necessarily mean I like baseball. I don't object, however, to being labeled said sports fan. That's how I look at this topic. I'm okay with the generalization (liberal/conservative) as long as it's a starting point, as opposed to the beginning and end of the discussion.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

In that case, I'm not sure I understand why you object to someone self-identifying as independent.

[Berto 338]

In that case, I'm not sure I understand why you object to someone self-identifying as independent.

 

Because I don't think it's a real thing. If it's a person's way of displaying open-mindedness, fine. But I'm not sure I understand what the independent position is on abortion. Usually, people describe themselves as 'Independent' as its own form of a political party. I just think that's complete nonsense. If it's a question of political affiliation, just say none.

 

And sure, you can apply the word independent to what I said about broad starting points, but I would have absolutely no clue what that person felt about anything.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I would think that if you were going to say that in that instance, "independent" would serve the same purpose on a Republican/Democrat scale that "moderate" serves on a Conservative/Liberal scale: to establish your position as being somewhere in the middle.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Because I don't think it's a real thing. If it's a person's way of displaying open-mindedness, fine. But I'm not sure I understand what the independent position is on abortion. Usually, people describe themselves as 'Independent' as its own form of a political party. I just think that's complete nonsense. If it's a question of political affiliation, just say none.

 

And sure, you can apply the word independent to what I said about broad starting points, but I would have absolutely no clue what that person felt about anything.

 

And you would also have no clue what that person felt about anything if they told you they were liberal or conservative. You could make assumptions based on that, but you wouldn't know anything. That's why your labels are nonsense.

[Berto 338]

And you would also have no clue what that person felt about anything if they told you they were liberal or conservative. You could make assumptions based on that, but you wouldn't know anything. That's why your labels are nonsense.

 

This is nonsense. If you tell me you're a conservative, I know you hate black people. If you tell me you're a liberal, I know you hate freedom. Get your head out of your butt.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

This is nonsense. If you tell me you're a conservative, I know you hate black people.

 

Wow. This is just an ignorant statement.

 

It isn't that black/white. We equally hate Indians, MexiCans, and Arabs.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

The first four "post-primary" polls were released yesterday, and they're absolutely all over the place:

 

Rasmussen has Romney +3

Gallup has Romney +2

Reuters has Obama +4

CNN has Obama at +9

 

Meanwhile, It looks like Obama and the DNC outraised their opponents more than 2 to 1 last month.

 

That's significant, because Obama can use the extra money to do **** like this:

 

PHOENIX — President Obama’s re-election campaign is dispatching workers across Arizona’s college campuses and Latino neighborhoods this spring, registering as many new voters as they can in an organized, three-month effort to determine whether they can put this unlikely state into play for Democrats this November.

By any measure the obstacles are considerable: Arizona has voted for precisely one Democratic president since Truman was in the White House. Yet Mr. Obama’s aides said in interviews that they thought it was possible they could move the needle of history by winning in 2012 a state that analysts believe is heading Democratic in national elections, but may not be there yet.

Obama strategists are simply following the same techniques they used in 2008 when putting states like North Carolina and Indiana into play. Then, too, there was much initial skepticism, though both states ended up going for Mr. Obama.

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...izona.html?_r=1

[Cactus 83]

Romney will lose handily, id be willing to make a sig/avatar bet on it