Objective Thread
saveuplife
Posts: 1,173
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.
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
This is a good post...I've wondered the same thing.
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.
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
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.
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.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
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.
Yes, Divisive Lies.... both sides....
Like Giuliani saying Obama has never led anything... total crap
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.
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.
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.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
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.
I agree, but we have only ourselves to blame for this.
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.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
it seems the dems like to nominate people with grand ideas but seem to lack any real policy or sense of steadfastness. Kerry had decent ideas but was afraid to put off anyone; Obama keeps saying "change" and "different" but won't really get specific on how...he'll say I want to lower "x" raise "x" change "x"...but he's careful not to get too specific so that he doesn't offend someone who may be in his voting base. It seems the repubs are willing to say, here's what we'll do and we don't really care what the other side thinks...and frankly, there's something that people like about being firm in decisions.
The idea of a politics is to win elections. We can speak very objectively about the day in day out moves by each candidate in their attempt to win the election.
Platforms are not objective.... political science can be.
I mean, speaking objectively, did anyone think gay marriage was going to be one of the deciding influences of the 04 election till the Republicans made it one?
So if we're talking about the Republican Party of Eisenhower, even of Nixon to a degree (although he was a crook)...if we can get back to that, I think we'd have some great debates on our hands.
beyond that, it IS a question of subjectivity...what YOU personally believe is the right course of action for the country...and therefore the candidates that best support your personal pov.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't know what people are looking for....I only know what I am looking for.
Obama is a good speaker and he obviously does connect with people, but being a good speaker doesn't mean his qualified to be president. It doesn't matter that he is young and charismatic and handsome...he is an easy sell based on those things but we aren't talking about electing a high school homecoming queen here. He is flatly not experienced enough to hold the position....I've fallen short of being objective I suppose, but I think even a dem -- one able to be objective -- wouldn't be able to deny that. I do hear he is one hell of a writer though
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
I'm not a fan of Obama but I have disagree with you. I have read Obama's economic policy and it is very detailed. I may not agree with it but he definitely lays it out there for everyone. If anything McCain has been the candidate who is being vague and throwing out grand ideas with no support.
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
Forty-two percent of unaffiliated voters (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media's double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree.
The findings, nevertheless, are troublesome for the embattled news industry and parallel what voters said in surveys earlier this summer. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters now believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 49% believe reporters are trying to help Obama this year. Only 14% think they are trying to help McCain. In another survey, 55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations.
Women voters by a 48% to 35% margin believe the coverage of Palin reveals a double standard in the media.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
christ...this shit is infuriating. how about voters focus on ISSUES, and not simply how they perceive media coverage?
and damn, i wish i remembered what thread it was....but i think raindog? posted a link that actually showed that obama got more negative coverage than mccain, even if he did get more coverage overall.....but this was back around the time of his speech in germany.
none the less....way NOT to focus on what's important.
and btw - as a woman, i really don't find any 'double-standard' towards palin, at ALL. anyhoo...if she weren't a female, she wouldn't even BE on the podium, so that right there is a double-standard in action.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
fair enough. I guess here's where I'm coming from. If you look at each candidates position, in the media on a superficial level (as many do) then you'll get the left saying change and we'll give you more and the right saying war and we won't tax you as much as the other guy (very stereotypical, but you get my point). If you do your homework and read the websites etc... you'll get good information. I was thinking back to a news video I saw where people said they liked Obama b/c of change but couldn't really say one thing about the change. Granted, those could have been the only people who couldn't say what change they were excited about.