this is such bullshit. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
You're the problem, not the solution.
What YOU don't understand is that you are no different that those "many Conservatives[/b] , who are disgusted by the positions of the Left[/b] and would gladly pull the lever on any random Republican[/b] against any random Democrat[/b].
People like you perpetuate an "If your not with us your against us" mentality when what this country really needs is Unity[/b] .
this is such bullshit. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
You're the problem, not the solution.
What YOU don't understand is that you are no different that those "many Conservatives[/b] , who are disgusted by the positions of the Left[/b] and would gladly pull the lever on any random Republican[/b] against any random Democrat[/b].
People like you perpetuate an "If your not with us your against us" mentality when what this country really needs is Unity[/b] .
And THAT is why Barack has people excited.
did you read what i wrote? stop suckling from obama's nipple for a minute, you're like a broken record, regardless of the subject matter. part of the reason we have a 2 party system is because there are democratic and republican principles - and people can be uninformed about the candidates, yet still make a relevant choice when at the polls. if there were no parties, you'd not only have a lot less people voting, but only the most informed voters would actually be casting a relevant ballot. i mean - you edit my post to show my personal opinion about right wing policies - okay - but that is not the justification for the 2 party system. And btw, what was your position on partisanship during slavery, jim crow, etc.?
this is such bullshit. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
You're the problem, not the solution.
What YOU don't understand is that you are no different that those "many Conservatives[/b] , who are disgusted by the positions of the Left[/b] and would gladly pull the lever on any random Republican[/b] against any random Democrat[/b].
People like you perpetuate an "If your not with us your against us" mentality when what this country really needs is Unity[/b] .
And THAT is why Barack has people excited.
did you read what i wrote? stop suckling from obama's nipple for a minute, you're like a broken record, regardless of the subject matter. part of the reason we have a 2 party system is because there are democratic and republican principles - and people can be uninformed about the candidates, yet still make a relevant choice when at the polls. if there were no parties, you'd not only have a lot less people voting, but only the most informed voters would actually be casting a relevant ballot. i mean - you edit my post to show my personal opinion about right wing policies - okay - but that is not the justification for the 2 party system. And btw, what was your position on partisanship during slavery, jim crow, etc.?
this is such bullshit. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
You're the problem, not the solution.
What YOU don't understand is that you are no different that those "many Conservatives[/b] , who are disgusted by the positions of the Left[/b] and would gladly pull the lever on any random Republican[/b] against any random Democrat[/b].
People like you perpetuate an "If your not with us your against us" mentality when what this country really needs is Unity[/b] .
And THAT is why Barack has people excited.
did you read what i wrote? stop suckling from obama's nipple for a minute, you're like a broken record, regardless of the subject matter. part of the reason we have a 2 party system is because there are democratic and republican principles - and people can be uninformed about the candidates, yet still make a relevant choice when at the polls. if there were no parties, you'd not only have a lot less people voting, but only the most informed voters would actually be casting a relevant ballot. i mean - you edit my post to show my personal opinion about right wing policies - okay - but that is not the justification for the 2 party system. And btw, what was your position on partisanship during slavery, jim crow, etc.?
Dude...please stop.....being passionate about a candidate is "suckling from their nipple" unless of course it's Hillary and then it's just "making the right choice".....uninformed voters making relevant choices based on a party line.....you must be kidding......who's suggesting NO parties...how about MORE parties.
Certainly you know that some of the biggest proponents of the two party system is the Far Right.....figure out why and then look in the mirror.
I believe that this Presidential Election will bring more voters to the polls than any other.....and those voters will be the INDEPENDENTS that you don't think exist or first time voters who FINALLY feel that there is a candidate they can get behind.
Most of those people will stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate....get that into your Hillary coated skull.....it's just the way it is.
It's sad not everyone can be as smart and as informed as you.
And while I am older than you, I was not around during Slavery days.
Get all your vitriol out now, you'll be suckling from Obama's nipple soon enough.
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
this is such bullshit. there is no "independents" position on any issue. we use the terms liberal and conservative interchangeably with democrat and republican for a reason. party lines are in fact very important in elections, because they allow people to cast votes based on principles of a party - as opposed to spending an extraordinary amount of time to learn what each candidate's position is on every issue.
You're missing the point in your rush to hatred and bile. The point is that in the primary campaigns, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are roughly splitting the people who are self-identifying as Democrats. Check your exit poll data. If anything, Clinton has a slight advantage among Democrats. But she's not winning primaries because independents, i.e. those people who choose to cast votes not based on principles of a party, are pulling the lever for Obama 2 to 1. Those people may be liberals, but I think that the liberals are much more likely to be subsumed among the Democrats. The more likely inference is that they are people whose allegiances are not bound to the principles of a party, and they are voting for Obama, not for Clinton. Whether they will vote for Clinton in a general election remains to be seen, but I think the poll data shows that they are less likely to support her than they are to support McCain.
Does that make sense to someone wedded to party ideology? No. Does it make sense as a matter of general policy? No. But does it make sense as an expression of political culture in the U.S.? Yes. There is a small but significant segment of the electorate that casts votes based on idiosyncratic reasons divorced from politics and policy. All the idiosyncracies flow towards Obama in a battle against Clinton, but I'm afraid that they all flow towards McCain in a battle against Clinton.
You gotta look past it and think for a minute. Peace, JRoot
That blog entry is a very superficial look at each of these bills and it is pretty clear that she has no idea what she is talking about. Using the titles of the bills as demonstrations of how one is more effective or pointed than another = flaming poptart status revealed.
Also, this quotation of hers:
And the list of co-sponsors showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others.
Is an absurd assertion.
BTW- I'm an Obama supporter.
i think its obv shes coming from an angle of unfamiliarity but i think the piece is still very useful for showing 1. hillary's lack of cosponsors on bills is suspect and 2. that obama is dealing w/ a wider breadth of issues
Dude...please stop.....being passionate about a candidate is "suckling from their nipple" unless of course it's Hillary and then it's just "making the right choice".....uninformed voters making relevant choices based on a party line.....you must be kidding......who's suggesting NO parties...how about MORE parties.
Certainly you know that some of the biggest proponents of the two party system is the Far Right.....figure out why and then look in the mirror.
I believe that this Presidential Election will bring more voters to the polls than any other.....and those voters will be the INDEPENDENTS that you don't think exist or first time voters who FINALLY feel that there is a candidate they can get behind.
Most of those people will stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate....get that into your Hillary coated skull.....it's just the way it is.
It's sad not everyone can be as smart and as informed as you.
And while I am older than you, I was not around during Slavery days.
Get all your vitriol out now, you'll be suckling from Obama's nipple soon enough.
i haven't injected hillary into this, your talking about obama as if his favor among independents is evidence that our 2 party system is antiquated or dysfunctional - but your argument doesn't make any sense. there will always be partisan issues - that's how they become issues in the first place. the terms liberal and conservative go back thousands of years. i don't disagree that people can be both on various issues, but that doesn't change the usefulness of the dem/liberal - gop/conservative system. again, as far as partisanship goes, i'll live with people saying i'm "stupid" for being partisan. you sound like lawyers i deal with who are afraid to try a case and always want to settle. sometimes you have to fight.
Dude...please stop.....being passionate about a candidate is "suckling from their nipple" unless of course it's Hillary and then it's just "making the right choice".....uninformed voters making relevant choices based on a party line.....you must be kidding......who's suggesting NO parties...how about MORE parties.
Certainly you know that some of the biggest proponents of the two party system is the Far Right.....figure out why and then look in the mirror.
I believe that this Presidential Election will bring more voters to the polls than any other.....and those voters will be the INDEPENDENTS that you don't think exist or first time voters who FINALLY feel that there is a candidate they can get behind.
Most of those people will stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate....get that into your Hillary coated skull.....it's just the way it is.
It's sad not everyone can be as smart and as informed as you.
And while I am older than you, I was not around during Slavery days.
Get all your vitriol out now, you'll be suckling from Obama's nipple soon enough.
i haven't injected hillary into this, your talking about obama as if his favor among independents is evidence that our 2 party system is antiquated or dysfunctional - but your argument doesn't make any sense. there will always be partisan issues - that's how they become issues in the first place. the terms liberal and conservative go back thousands of years. i don't disagree that people can be both on various issues, but that doesn't change the usefulness of the dem/liberal - gop/conservative system. again, as far as partisanship goes, i'll live with people saying i'm "stupid" for being partisan. you sound like lawyers i deal with who are afraid to try a case and always want to settle. sometimes you have to fight.
and as far as supporting obama? why wouldn't i?
Serious question, what is the benefit of being partisan?
Not only is this true, I believe it's one of the most encouraging things to happen in the U.S. in a long while.
Voting a "party line" is absolute bullshit. The fact that people will support Obama for who he is and not what party he belongs to is a big step in a direction that this country needs to move forward in.
It's a sign that the two party system has run it's course.
The more free thinking Indepenedents we have the better off we'll be.
this is such bullshit. there is no "independents" position on any issue. we use the terms liberal and conservative interchangeably with democrat and republican for a reason. party lines are in fact very important in elections, because they allow people to cast votes based on principles of a party - as opposed to spending an extraordinary amount of time to learn what each candidate's position is on every issue.
perhaps that is okay for a presidential election, but i live in a city where there is about 30 different offices to fill each election - including judgeships. i try to read up on city politics but when it comes down to things like city council, i'm not exactly well versed in what separates the individual candidates. that is why we have party lines. i'll gladly pull the lever on any random democrat against any random republican. you just don't seem to understand that many liberals, including myself, are disgusted by the positions of the right.
I can agree with this in principle, but it doesn't apply in most city council situations. By and large, candidates from the same party are going against one another for seats on the city council. At least in Illinois, where the council seats in most cities and towns are determined by ward or neighborhood, which more often than not have similar demogprahics.
KVH....I can deal with you calling me any name in the book....but PLEASE don't compare me to a Lawyer.
The two party system is antiquated and dysfunctional....and yes, Barack has exposed that moreso than any other candidate in recent history.
One anecdote I like about the two party system is one about when Jesse Ventura shockingly won the Minnesota Governors race and BOTH parties immediately tried to recruit him.
Why....because they are BOTH deathly afraid of free thinking voters.
And as a Dem sheep I would certainly expect you to support Barack.
Serious question, what is the benefit of being partisan?
A lot of my friends don't follow politics whatsoever, to say nothing about exercising their right to vote. I'd rather have a friend who has a party that aligns with most of their principles and votes along those lines, than one who doesn't vote at all.
Serious question, what is the benefit of being partisan?
You can be right or you can get left.
what are you even talking about? in the current 2 party system what is the importance of partisanship? as opposed to compromising on issues. i dont know, go read brown v. board of education. our laws and policies don't always mesh with what is right, sometimes they border on disgraceful. should we have compromised on segregation or voting rights for women? should dems compromise on abortion? healthcare? welfare?
should we have compromised on segregation or voting rights for women? should dems compromise on abortion? healthcare? welfare?
As for segregation, I think that Brown II was a compromise.
Women's suffrage - it's either up or down. I suppose they could have just let propertied women vote, but the property restrictions had already been thrown out by the time we let women punch ballots.
Democrats compromise on abortion? If by this you mean allow for it to become illegal outright, there will be no such compromise. But on just about every other aspect of this issue -- parental notification, waiting periods, spousal consent, ultrasound and other counseling requirements -- the Democrats have been lining up with the Republicans by and large for the last two decades.
Democrats compromise on welfare? Why compromise, when you can just co-opt the entire policy of the other side and corporatize the entire thing? Senator Clinton's husband is responsible for that principled stand.
We'll see what happens with health care, but I assure you that whatever solution passes the legislature will look an awful lot like a compromise.
It's pretty clear what KVH is saying here. If you haven't been mindlessly pulling the lever for Democrats for years, you're probably a moron, and as Democrats, we are not interested in your vote. Its called uncompromising principles, or ideological purity, take your pick.
We Democrats will do just fine leaving independents and moderate republicans on the table, just like 2004.
Edit: Btw, I stay mindlessly pulling the lever for the Democrats, but this is just comedy...
should we have compromised on segregation or voting rights for women? should dems compromise on abortion? healthcare? welfare?
As for segregation, I think that Brown II was a compromise.
Women's suffrage - it's either up or down. I suppose they could have just let propertied women vote, but the property restrictions had already been thrown out by the time we let women punch ballots.
Democrats compromise on abortion? If by this you mean allow for it to become illegal outright, there will be no such compromise. But on just about every other aspect of this issue -- parental notification, waiting periods, spousal consent, ultrasound and other counseling requirements -- the Democrats have been lining up with the Republicans by and large for the last two decades.
Democrats compromise on welfare? Why compromise, when you can just co-opt the entire policy of the other side and corporatize the entire thing? Senator Clinton's husband is responsible for that principled stand.
We'll see what happens with health care, but I assure you that whatever solution passes the legislature will look an awful lot like a compromise.
you are missing the point. if you never had malcolm x, would the effectiveness of mlk jr. been as significant? you need partisanship, and even extreme partisanship, to sway public opinion, which has a lot to do with how laws and policies are shaped.
furthermore, when it comes to selecting supreme court and federal judges, partisanship is EXTREMELY important. judges shape the laws. get a conservative bench and you have conservative laws. take a look at the decisions that have come out of the supreme court over the past few weeks. not so good if you are either a detainee in guantanamo or a patient who dies because of a poorly manufactured medical device that happened to get fda approval.
you are missing the point. if you never had malcolm x, would the effectiveness of mlk jr. been as significant? you need partisanship, and even extreme partisanship, to sway public opinion, which has a lot to do with how laws and policies are shaped.
Neither Malcolm nor Martin was a politician - they were social organizers and leaders of social movements. There is a big difference. Who in mainstream politics would you compare to either one of them? No one.
furthermore, when it comes to selecting supreme court and federal judges, partisanship is EXTREMELY important. judges shape the laws. get a conservative bench and you have conservative laws. take a look at the decisions that have come out of the supreme court over the past few weeks. not so good if you are either a detainee in guantanamo or a patient who dies because of a poorly manufactured medical device that happened to get fda approval.
I think what you are saying is that ideology is important, and politics are important, and I totally agree. But where you and I part ways is on the fallacy that it is all that matters, or that those people who are willing to vote for Senator Obama but are not willing to vote for Senator Clinton are somehow idiots.
There are legitimate policy differences between the two of them and, more importantly to the non-partisan segment, there are salient differences in their approach to issues. Obama's approach appeals to more independents, and even to some Republicans.
Daughter's up from the nap now, so you'll have to carry on without me.
i get what you are saying, but to me, i think and "us verses them" approach is often inescapable...unless you are willing to compromise, which is fine on some issues, but not on others. my problem with obama is that i think he will try to hard to reach middle of the road positions. again, thats okay for building highways or picking a postmaster, but if your talking about selecting a supreme court justice - i'd rather have a candidate like Edwards, or to an extent even Hillary.
despite all this, my instincts are that Obama will be a great president and much more liberal than he has revealed during the campaign.
Serious question, what is the benefit of being partisan?
A lot of my friends don't follow politics whatsoever, to say nothing about exercising their right to vote. I'd rather have a friend who has a party that aligns with most of their principles and votes along those lines, than one who doesn't vote at all.
Yeah, I can understand that although it's less than ideal. I really meant the question for someone like KVH who is informed and seemingly passionate, but follows herd/gang mentality by following party edict.
Comments
You're the problem, not the solution.
What YOU don't understand is that you are no different that those "many Conservatives[/b] , who are disgusted by the positions of the Left[/b] and would gladly pull the lever on any random Republican[/b] against any random Democrat[/b].
People like you perpetuate an "If your not with us your against us" mentality when what this country really needs is Unity[/b] .
And THAT is why Barack has people excited.
did you read what i wrote? stop suckling from obama's nipple for a minute, you're like a broken record, regardless of the subject matter. part of the reason we have a 2 party system is because there are democratic and republican principles - and people can be uninformed about the candidates, yet still make a relevant choice when at the polls. if there were no parties, you'd not only have a lot less people voting, but only the most informed voters would actually be casting a relevant ballot. i mean - you edit my post to show my personal opinion about right wing policies - okay - but that is not the justification for the 2 party system. And btw, what was your position on partisanship during slavery, jim crow, etc.?
Only 2 sides to any issue?
GTFOHWTBS!
Dude...please stop.....being passionate about a candidate is "suckling from their nipple" unless of course it's Hillary and then it's just "making the right choice".....uninformed voters making relevant choices based on a party line.....you must be kidding......who's suggesting NO parties...how about MORE parties.
Certainly you know that some of the biggest proponents of the two party system is the Far Right.....figure out why and then look in the mirror.
I believe that this Presidential Election will bring more voters to the polls than any other.....and those voters will be the INDEPENDENTS that you don't think exist or first time voters who FINALLY feel that there is a candidate they can get behind.
Most of those people will stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate....get that into your Hillary coated skull.....it's just the way it is.
It's sad not everyone can be as smart and as informed as you.
And while I am older than you, I was not around during Slavery days.
Get all your vitriol out now, you'll be suckling from Obama's nipple soon enough.
Nah, seriously explain yourself.
You're saying there can only be a Rep or Dem side to an issue? And that all candidates fall within their respective party's unspoken issue guidelines?
Now you just sound stupid.
You're missing the point in your rush to hatred and bile. The point is that in the primary campaigns, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are roughly splitting the people who are self-identifying as Democrats. Check your exit poll data. If anything, Clinton has a slight advantage among Democrats. But she's not winning primaries because independents, i.e. those people who choose to cast votes not based on principles of a party, are pulling the lever for Obama 2 to 1. Those people may be liberals, but I think that the liberals are much more likely to be subsumed among the Democrats. The more likely inference is that they are people whose allegiances are not bound to the principles of a party, and they are voting for Obama, not for Clinton. Whether they will vote for Clinton in a general election remains to be seen, but I think the poll data shows that they are less likely to support her than they are to support McCain.
Does that make sense to someone wedded to party ideology? No. Does it make sense as a matter of general policy? No. But does it make sense as an expression of political culture in the U.S.? Yes. There is a small but significant segment of the electorate that casts votes based on idiosyncratic reasons divorced from politics and policy. All the idiosyncracies flow towards Obama in a battle against Clinton, but I'm afraid that they all flow towards McCain in a battle against Clinton.
You gotta look past it and think for a minute.
Peace,
JRoot
i think its obv shes coming from an angle of unfamiliarity but i think the piece is still very useful for showing 1. hillary's lack of cosponsors on bills is suspect and 2. that obama is dealing w/ a wider breadth of issues
i haven't injected hillary into this, your talking about obama as if his favor among independents is evidence that our 2 party system is antiquated or dysfunctional - but your argument doesn't make any sense. there will always be partisan issues - that's how they become issues in the first place. the terms liberal and conservative go back thousands of years. i don't disagree that people can be both on various issues, but that doesn't change the usefulness of the dem/liberal - gop/conservative system. again, as far as partisanship goes, i'll live with people saying i'm "stupid" for being partisan. you sound like lawyers i deal with who are afraid to try a case and always want to settle. sometimes you have to fight.
and as far as supporting obama? why wouldn't i?
Serious question, what is the benefit of being partisan?
I got this one. Knowing which lever to pull when you don't know anything about either of the candidates.
I can agree with this in principle, but it doesn't apply in most city council situations. By and large, candidates from the same party are going against one another for seats on the city council. At least in Illinois, where the council seats in most cities and towns are determined by ward or neighborhood, which more often than not have similar demogprahics.
You can be right or you can get left.
The two party system is antiquated and dysfunctional....and yes, Barack has exposed that moreso than any other candidate in recent history.
One anecdote I like about the two party system is one about when Jesse Ventura shockingly won the Minnesota Governors race and BOTH parties immediately tried to recruit him.
Why....because they are BOTH deathly afraid of free thinking voters.
And as a Dem sheep I would certainly expect you to support Barack.
A lot of my friends don't follow politics whatsoever, to say nothing about exercising their right to vote. I'd rather have a friend who has a party that aligns with most of their principles and votes along those lines, than one who doesn't vote at all.
what are you even talking about? in the current 2 party system what is the importance of partisanship? as opposed to compromising on issues. i dont know, go read brown v. board of education. our laws and policies don't always mesh with what is right, sometimes they border on disgraceful. should we have compromised on segregation or voting rights for women? should dems compromise on abortion? healthcare? welfare?
As for segregation, I think that Brown II was a compromise.
Women's suffrage - it's either up or down. I suppose they could have just let propertied women vote, but the property restrictions had already been thrown out by the time we let women punch ballots.
Democrats compromise on abortion? If by this you mean allow for it to become illegal outright, there will be no such compromise. But on just about every other aspect of this issue -- parental notification, waiting periods, spousal consent, ultrasound and other counseling requirements -- the Democrats have been lining up with the Republicans by and large for the last two decades.
Democrats compromise on welfare? Why compromise, when you can just co-opt the entire policy of the other side and corporatize the entire thing? Senator Clinton's husband is responsible for that principled stand.
We'll see what happens with health care, but I assure you that whatever solution passes the legislature will look an awful lot like a compromise.
It's pretty clear what KVH is saying here. If you haven't been mindlessly pulling the lever for Democrats for years, you're probably a moron, and as Democrats, we are not interested in your vote. Its called uncompromising principles, or ideological purity, take your pick.
We Democrats will do just fine leaving independents and moderate republicans on the table, just like 2004.
Edit: Btw, I stay mindlessly pulling the lever for the Democrats, but this is just comedy...
you are missing the point. if you never had malcolm x, would the effectiveness of mlk jr. been as significant? you need partisanship, and even extreme partisanship, to sway public opinion, which has a lot to do with how laws and policies are shaped.
furthermore, when it comes to selecting supreme court and federal judges, partisanship is EXTREMELY important. judges shape the laws. get a conservative bench and you have conservative laws. take a look at the decisions that have come out of the supreme court over the past few weeks. not so good if you are either a detainee in guantanamo or a patient who dies because of a poorly manufactured medical device that happened to get fda approval.
Neither Malcolm nor Martin was a politician - they were social organizers and leaders of social movements. There is a big difference. Who in mainstream politics would you compare to either one of them? No one.
I think what you are saying is that ideology is important, and politics are important, and I totally agree. But where you and I part ways is on the fallacy that it is all that matters, or that those people who are willing to vote for Senator Obama but are not willing to vote for Senator Clinton are somehow idiots.
There are legitimate policy differences between the two of them and, more importantly to the non-partisan segment, there are salient differences in their approach to issues. Obama's approach appeals to more independents, and even to some Republicans.
Daughter's up from the nap now, so you'll have to carry on without me.
despite all this, my instincts are that Obama will be a great president and much more liberal than he has revealed during the campaign.
Yeah, I can understand that although it's less than ideal. I really meant the question for someone like KVH who is informed and seemingly passionate, but follows herd/gang mentality by following party edict.