Which campaign has done more to divide the country?

2

Comments

  • g under p
    g under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,237
    That's funny I can clearly remember when Clinton was first elected, a citizen in Georgia being interviewed said..."I don't like Clinton he's too much for the Blacks". Many today maybe will think the same way too.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    josevolution wrote:
    sorry for assuming you didn't but all of the red states don't :eek: like you said the ignoramuses believe that he is a terrorist ...


    No worries. I am often surprised by what people still don't know about Obama.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    saveuplife wrote:
    Politics is about motivating your base. In a sense, what you are describing (which is exactly the way I interpret the media to describe it, if they were ever asked) is doing just that. A politician CAN NOT make someone hate someone else. Only that specific person can decide to hate someone. That's my point, the country is always divided around 50/50. The politicians certainly do a good job of motivating their base. But, that's all they do.

    We ARE a divided country all the time and always have been. The term divided is not the right term. You can't get more divided than 50/50.

    I'm sorry the term just really bothers me because it's used so often and it's obviously not used correctly.

    We are divided and this thread is basically asking which side is playing on it more. With comments like "real america", i'd say the mccain campaign is focusing on it more.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    saveuplife wrote:
    Politics is about motivating your base. In a sense, what you are describing (which is exactly the way I interpret the media to describe it, if they were ever asked) is doing just that. A politician CAN NOT make someone hate someone else. Only that specific person can decide to hate someone. That's my point, the country is always divided around 50/50. The politicians certainly do a good job of motivating their base. But, that's all they do.

    We ARE a divided country all the time and always have been. The term divided is not the right term. You can't get more divided than 50/50.

    I'm sorry the term just really bothers me because it's used so often and it's obviously not used correctly.
    Didn't politicians divide the country leading up to the civil war?

    Divide or Polarize... Either way it's happening right now. Is it a complete divide? I'd say no, but there are strong emotions coming out that we haven't seen for decades.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Open wrote:
    We are divided and this thread is basically asking which side is playing on it more. With comments like "real america", i'd say the mccain campaign is focusing on it more.


    We are always divided. It's alwasy around 50/50. It's a politicians job to motivate people to vote for him/her, so that they'll get 51/49. Saying that it's bad to do motivate doesn't make any sense.... because it's competitive. So, they use words like divided and polarized. I just think they should say "negative".


    Now, if you are saying who's more negative, that's another story. And I think that's a reasonable question. But, the whole divided or polarized thing bothers me. We are divided and polarized on issues and will be regardless if Obama or McCain wins. Every election year people become more motivatedto support their issues of interest.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Didn't politicians divide the country leading up to the civil war?

    Divide or Polarize... Either way it's happening right now. Is it a complete divide? I'd say no, but there are strong emotions coming out that we haven't seen for decades.


    I guarantee you said that in 2004 and in 2000. The idea that the country is more polarized or divided today is silly and inaccurate.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    I don't think we're ever 50/50.
    It's more like 35 left
    And 35 right
    And 30 swaying.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    I don't think we're ever 50/50.
    It's more like 35 left
    And 35 right
    And 30 swaying.


    Even if that's true, then the argument that dividing the country... going from your sides 35 to 40 or 43 is bad.... is crazy. The point is to seal up voters.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    saveuplife wrote:
    I guarantee you said that in 2004 and in 2000. The idea that the country is more polarized or divided today is silly and inaccurate.

    No you're completely wrong.

    There wasn't such strong hatred for Kerry or Gore and the real hatred for Bush didn't come forth until the insurgence in Iraq almost 2 years after the 2004 election.

    The right wing is spewing vile hatred this election to the degree we haven't seen since the 60's.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    No you're completely wrong.

    There wasn't such strong hatred for Kerry or Gore and the real hatred for Bush didn't come forth until the insurgence in Iraq almost 2 years after the 2004 election.

    The right wing is spewing vile hatred this election to the degree we haven't seen since the 60's.


    No, I'm not wrong at all. There was a lot more hate last go around for Bush. And there was some serious negativity towards Kerry (swift boat ads).

    This is like a walk in the park.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    saveuplife wrote:
    Even if that's true, then the argument that dividing the country... going from your sides 35 to 40 or 43 is bad.... is crazy. The point is to seal up voters.

    Sorry, I'm completely missing your argument my friend.
    Is this a discussion of syntax or theory?

    What is your definition of a nation divided? If you were to use it.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Sorry, I'm completely missing your argument my friend.
    Is this a discussion of syntax or theory?

    What is your definition of a nation divided? If you were to use it.

    It's more syntax, I suppose. But, I think there's a bit of theory.

    My definition would be...

    -50% Republican
    -50% Democrat

    That's as divided as you can get. The point that it's bad to be divided is silly.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    saveuplife wrote:
    It's more syntax, I suppose. But, I think there's a bit of theory.

    My definition would be...

    -50% Republican
    -50% Democrat

    That's as divided as you can get. The point that it's bad to be divided is silly.

    But it is bad when hatred is used to divide us.

    Sure we are divided when it comes to many issues but many peeps are born followers of emotions.
    Calling another fellow American a terrorist based on unfounded ideology is pure and simple hatred that stirs emotions. Same can be said of the race issue. Combine them and keep stirring the embers every day at rallies is very divisive
    We didn't have this with the swiftboaters because it didn't stir up as much hatred as it was simply mudslinging that didn't cause violent reactions.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Calling another fellow American a terrorist based on unfounded ideology is pure and simple hatred that stirs emotions. Same can be said of the race issue. Combine them and keep stirring the embers every day at rallies is very divisive

    Here you are allowing a few individuals to encompass an entire party. To be accurate, there were also people wearing and selling shirts about Palin at Dem rallies. I'm not going to get all worked up over a few idiots.

    Regardless, there's always and there will always be some who take it too far. That's another story. But, divided we are and will remain. Nothing changes that.... regardless of what the media tries to force down our throats.
  • jasonw
    jasonw Posts: 435
    saveuplife wrote:
    Here you are allowing a few individuals to encompass an entire party. To be accurate, there were also people wearing and selling shirts about Palin at Dem rallies. I'm not going to get all worked up over a few idiots.

    Regardless, there's always and there will always be some who take it too far. That's another story. But, divided we are and will remain. Nothing changes that.... regardless of what the media tries to force down our throats.


    No, he is allowing the people involved in a specific campaign to encompss that specific campaign, which is what the thread was about in the first place, not the entire party. And I think you know what I was getting at with this thread, and I don't understand why you keep harping on the definition of "divided".
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jasonw wrote:
    No, he is allowing the people involved in a specific campaign to encompss that specific campaign, which is what the thread was about in the first place, not the entire party. And I think you know what I was getting at with this thread, and I don't understand why you keep harping on the definition of "divided".

    No, the people involved in the campaign are those working for McCain and Obama. The people in the crowds at rallies are supporters. Your thread was about which campaign has divided the country (voters). Those couple idiots at each rally (Obamas and McCains) don't speak for the rest of the country.

    I keep harping on the definition of divided because it's stupid to say that this nation is more divided now than it has been. It is not.

    As for the negativity of this campaign, I'll admit it's negative. But, I believe 2004 was much worse.
  • jasonw
    jasonw Posts: 435
    saveuplife wrote:
    No, the people involved in the campaign are those working for McCain and Obama. The people in the crowds at rallies are supporters. Your thread was about which campaign has divided the country (voters). Those couple idiots at each rally (Obamas and McCains) don't speak for the rest of the country.

    I keep harping on the definition of divided because it's stupid to say that this nation is more divided now than it has been. It is not.

    As for the negativity of this campaign, I'll admit it's negative. But, I believe 2004 was much worse.


    No, I meant actions by people involved in the campaign, not the nut jobs at rallies.....they might be the product of the campaigns. And i also never said the country was more divided than ever, i just asked a question.

    And I didn't mean divided in the sense that i'm a repub and you're a dem...i meant divided in the sense that I will not even tolerate your political views and you will not tolerate mine.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jasonw wrote:
    i meant divided in the sense that I will not even tolerate your political views and you will not tolerate mine.


    OK. Well, with that definition, I still don't think there's any change. I mean look around on this site. You may be able to go back and read threads from '04. I think things are actually a lot more civil atleast here.

    As for now verses an election in the 40s or 50s. Yes, it's more "divided" (your definition). But that's simply because there's more ways to debate now. Like message boards. Also, there's more sources of information in order for one to form an opinion.

    I think the question is one typically posed by the media.... and honestly, no offense to you at all, but I dislike it. IMHO it's always been a filler question that offers no real objective answer. It's kind of, a meaningless question.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    so we are divided anyway all the time but the campaigns don't have anything to do with that at all? they don't contribute? and the 2004 election was more hatefilled than this?

    I don't get it, I don't agree at all

    No one shouted "kill him" to cheers at a Bush rally 2004 for starters.
    the Minions
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    so we are divided anyway all the time but the campaigns don't have anything to do with that at all? they don't contribute? and the 2004 election was more hatefilled than this?

    I don't get it, I don't agree at all

    No one shouted "kill him" to cheers at a Bush rally 2004 for starters.

    Yes; all campaigns do is get messages out about platforms of each party and candidate quality of each party. Regardless of what each campaign does, the voter base is still split.... hence, divided. Yes, the 2004 election was much much more hatefilled than this.

    As for the "kill him" crap. So a few idiots this go around make it more devisive in aggregate? That argument is very very weak.

Categories