Objective Thread

saveuplife

Can anyone actually be objective here? Is it possible to discuss politics without entangling your specific beliefs?

What I mean is simple. Palin and Obama are good examples.

I know the heavy majority disagree with Palin on almost all issues. However, can't you admit that she was a smart political pick? Can you admit that it has bolstered the opposition? Can you admit that this may actually be a race now?

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

This thread is meant to get people speaking about the politics. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or political platforms. It has to do with politics.

BamaPJFan

saveuplife wrote:

Can anyone actually be objective here? Is it possible to discuss politics without entangling your specific beliefs?

What I mean is simple. Palin and Obama are good examples.

I know the heavy majority disagree with Palin on almost all issues. However, can't you admit that she was a smart political pick? Can you admit that it has bolstered the opposition? Can you admit that this may actually be a race now?

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

This thread is meant to get people speaking about the politics. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or political platforms. It has to do with politics.

Great post. I agree 100%. This board is filled with tons of folks who are firmly situated on the fringe on their respective parties and platforms. I started my post last night about Rudy's speech because I knew that it would get some of the extreme leftists stirred up over here. I'm an independent who supports candidates on both sides.

cincybearcat

saveuplife wrote:

Can anyone actually be objective here? Is it possible to discuss politics without entangling your specific beliefs?

What I mean is simple. Palin and Obama are good examples.

I know the heavy majority disagree with Palin on almost all issues. However, can't you admit that she was a smart political pick? Can you admit that it has bolstered the opposition? Can you admit that this may actually be a race now?

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

This thread is meant to get people speaking about the politics. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or political platforms. It has to do with politics.

This is a good post...I've wondered the same thing.

mammasan

For me the jury is still our on Palin. On one side it could win the election for McCain by suring up the Christian Right and bringing in some much needed money. On the other hand it can harm his chance by putting off the more moderate section of his party who maybe sick and tired of the Christian Right dominating their party. Her age and experience can also go either way. It's still to early to tell.

saveuplife

mammasan wrote:

For me the jury is still our on Palin. On one side it could win the election for McCain by suring up the Christian Right and bringing in some much needed money. On the other hand it can harm his chance by putting off the more moderate section of his party who maybe sick and tired of the Christian Right dominating their party. Her age and experience can also go either way. It's still to early to tell.

What do you think about the pick stealing some Hillary voters away from the Dems?

mammasan

saveuplife wrote:

What do you think about the pick stealing some Hillary voters away from the Dems?

Maybe some of Hillary's more conservative voters, if she had any. I don't think that Hillary's core female supports are going to vote for Palin simply because she is female. there is such a huge ideological gap when it comes to the two that I don't think gender is enough of a bridge between them.

I personally believe that McCain should have gone for a more true conservative. From many articles that I have been reading there is a large portion of the Republican party that is being ignored, your traditional Republicans. Those that believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government have long been overlooked and I believe that this election is the breaking point for them. I myself have talked to many here in New Jersey. I belong to the New Jersey Libertarian party and at many of our meeting we have discussed this very topic. Many libertarians are basically disgruntled Republicans who feel that their party has lost it's way and have abandoned it's core beliefs to cater to a small sect of it's base based on their ability to generate money. These Libertarian/disgruntled Republicans have the ability to play Ralph Nader to McCain's Gore. Had he selected a true conservative candidate he probably would have secured those votes. I mean the far right, as discontent as they may have been with McCain, was going to vote for him anyway. Hell would have froze over before they supported someone like Obama.

Strangest Tribe

saveuplife wrote:

Can anyone actually be objective here? Is it possible to discuss politics without entangling your specific beliefs?

What I mean is simple. Palin and Obama are good examples.

I know the heavy majority disagree with Palin on almost all issues. However, can't you admit that she was a smart political pick? Can you admit that it has bolstered the opposition? Can you admit that this may actually be a race now?

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

This thread is meant to get people speaking about the politics. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or political platforms. It has to do with politics.

Objectively speaking.....

one side wants change while the other side criticizes them for it while they themselves also want change.

one side has an inexperienced candidate while the other side has an inexperienced candidate and the both criticize each other for it.

both sides are so excited they slobber when they speak.

and the lies.... oh the lies

saveuplife

mammasan wrote:

Maybe some of Hillary's more conservative voters, if she had any. I don't think that Hillary's core female supports are going to vote for Palin simply because she is female. there is such a huge ideological gap when it comes to the two that I don't think gender is enough of a bridge between them.

I personally believe that McCain should have gone for a more true conservative. From many articles that I have been reading there is a large portion of the Republican party that is being ignored, your traditional Republicans. Those that believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government have long been overlooked and I believe that this election is the breaking point for them. I myself have talked to many here in New Jersey. I belong to the New Jersey Libertarian party and at many of our meeting we have discussed this very topic. Many libertarians are basically disgruntled Republicans who feel that their party has lost it's way and have abandoned it's core beliefs to cater to a small sect of it's base based on their ability to generate money. These Libertarian/disgruntled Republicans have the ability to play Ralph Nader to McCain's Gore. Had he selected a true conservative candidate he probably would have secured those votes. I mean the far right, as discontent as they may have been with McCain, was going to vote for him anyway. Hell would have froze over before they supported someone like Obama.

Yea, I see your point. I don't think she'll take away too many female voters that typically align with the Dems. However, I think she may have an ability to steal away some rural Dems/Indeps. I also think she was a pick to seal the base.

I understand what you are talking about here. I think McCain's philosophy was that he was the guy you are referring to in the second paragraph. Although, I too don't buy that, I think that's what his strategy was. Basically, he's the one who would appeal to those individuals you mentioned, she's the conservative who would appeal to the base.

May be off, but I think that's what he thought.

saveuplife

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Objectively speaking.....

one side wants change while the other side criticizes them for it while they themselves also want change.

one side has an inexperienced candidate while the other side has an inexperienced candidate and the both criticize each other for it.

both sides are so excited they slobber when they speak.

and the lies.... oh the lies

Agreed.

Lies, though? I don't think they are lies if you don't know that what you are promising can't be delivered. I think both individuals actually would like to deliver, but have no clue that they won't be able to.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Isn't separating beliefs from politics kinda like separating wet from water?

digster

I don't know, maybe I've just been going to the right threads, but I think overall this board does all right. People seem to at least be able to back up their arguments for the most part, which is something that's sorely lacking on other boards, especially other political boards. I haven't found a very good political discussion board, if anyone has any ideas. There's idiots, but there are going to be idiots everywhere.

But I agree, a great way to measure whether someone is truly non-partisan is to see whether they can break with the party line. There's certainly not alot of that in politics these days.

chopitdown

saveuplife wrote:

Agreed.

Lies, though? I don't think they are lies if you don't know that what you are promising can't be delivered. I think both individuals actually would like to deliver, but have no clue that they won't be able to.

i think both sides know they can't deliver, but both sides want to win...b/c after all, in American politics we want winners and we want to feel good.

Strangest Tribe

saveuplife wrote:

Lies, though?

Yes, Divisive Lies.... both sides....

Like Giuliani saying Obama has never led anything... total crap

mammasan

saveuplife wrote:

Yea, I see your point. I don't think she'll take away too many female voters that typically align with the Dems. However, I think she may have an ability to steal away some rural Dems/Indeps. I also think she was a pick to seal the base.

I understand what you are talking about here. I think McCain's philosophy was that he was the guy you are referring to in the second paragraph. Although, I too don't buy that, I think that's what his strategy was. Basically, he's the one who would appeal to those individuals you mentioned, she's the conservative who would appeal to the base.

May be off, but I think that's what he thought.

I agree that this was his strategy except that he has absolutely zero appeal to the more libertarian minded Republicans. If you haven't read it yet read It's My Party Too by Christine Todd Whitman. The book illustrates perfectly what I'm talking about here.

Ghetto Star

and feel like we can have a beer with the guy and girl. It occured to me...sometime after the 2004 election that American's fit into one of the following categories...ignorant, uninformed, just dumb, or complacent.

I don't know how 65 million people could have voted for GW Bush a second time...regardless of belief...it is absurd...I know people who did...and it make you think about their ability to make good decisions. So I have no idea what will happen this time...we'll see.

Anyway...the point is...you have a bunch of religiously devoted people running around pushing for the administration of their religion into the government...as if our whole drive for independence wasn't based on the ability to separate the two. And all anyone seems to care about...including both parties... are these social issues...when in reality...they are irrelevant...I mean you have these 'pro-life' people basing there vote solely on abortion...and nothing ever happens...but they just respond when that button is pushed every four years. I mean pro-life....right...nevermind the war and the death penalty....what a joke.

My point is...maybe if everyone stopped and took a look around and maybe took a moment to try to understand other people's despair...and based their vote on something other than what only benefits them..but what benefits everyone...that probably would be the start of something great.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

digster wrote:

a great way to measure whether someone is truly non-partisan is to see whether they can break with the party line. There's certainly not alot of that in politics these days.

I just listen to what makes sense, and consider the integrity of the person saying it.

left.... right.... it's a joke they play on people.

know1

I think it comes down to issues.

As in - the issues just do not matter anymore.

What apparently matters are the pregnancy status of a candidate's daughter, the racist ramblings of a candidate's pastor, the age/health of a candidate, etc., etc., etc.

Why can't we just talk issues?

I'm very disenfranchised and disheartened by it all.

chopitdown

Ghetto Star wrote:

I don't know how 65 million people could have voted for GW Bush a second time...regardless of belief...it is absurd...I know people who did...and it make you think about their ability to make good decisions. So I have no idea what will happen this time...we'll see.
.

there are a lot of people who weren't wild about Bush that voted for him b/c they didn't like the alternatives out there. It's not that people were overly excited, it's that the didn't like the alternatives nearly as much. I mean, John Kerry lost to George Bush who had a 50% approval rating and it was dropping at the time.

nfanel

chopitdown wrote:

there are a lot of people who weren't wild about Bush that voted for him b/c they didn't like the alternatives out there. It's not that people were overly excited, it's that the didn't like the alternatives nearly as much. I mean, John Kerry lost to George Bush who had a 50% approval rating and it was dropping at the time.

agreed. john kerry was a weak, weak, candidate. it was like trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

mammasan

know1 wrote:

I think it comes down to issues.

As in - the issues just do not matter anymore.

What apparently matters are the pregnancy status of a candidate's daughter, the racist ramblings of a candidate's pastor, the age/health of a candidate, etc., etc., etc.

Why can't we just talk issues?

I'm very disenfranchised and disheartened by it all.

I agree, but we have only ourselves to blame for this.

sweetpotato

saveuplife wrote:

Can anyone actually be objective here? Is it possible to discuss politics without entangling your specific beliefs?

What I mean is simple. Palin and Obama are good examples.

I know the heavy majority disagree with Palin on almost all issues. However, can't you admit that she was a smart political pick? Can you admit that it has bolstered the opposition? Can you admit that this may actually be a race now?

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

This thread is meant to get people speaking about the politics. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or political platforms. It has to do with politics.

i have no interest in being objective about an election as important as this one. we as a country have been fucked royally by the reigning party and we need to get them the hell out of office and get ourselves out of the ditch.

screw objectivity. i'm out for blood.