US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

Bollocks.

To begin with, your first six paragraphs seem to take issue with the fact that I'm advocating democracy instead of a republic... and then you noticed that I said nothing of the sort!

It IS a warped system. By it's very definition, it's warped. Some votes have more impact than others. I'm calling a spade a spade, but you're saying that it's OK to screw over some people in favor of others in the name of seeking balance.

You're right about the President being President of a federal system, picked by the states. But I don't need an explanation for WHY it is what it is. I know WHY it was invented in the first place. My view is that it should not be this way at all. Not any more. Probably not since the Civil War. The President should be the President of one nation, not of fifty states. Hence the utility of a true popular vote instead of a system where one voter is more influential than three of his cousins in another state.

Does it look like I'm only seeing the top millimeter worth of the issues? Oh please.

Doing away with the EC does not mean that a candidate could merely win a few populous states and ignore the rest. That's theoretical hogwash. It would only be true if all the voters in whichever number of states total 51% of the US population all vote for him. The states themselves wouldn't vote for anybody - there would be no winning of states, only people. If 51% of California voters all select for Candidate A, then Candidate B would still get 49% of California's vote. No winner-take-all setup, except with the ultimate popular vote. Candidates would not even look at maps showing state lines. THAT is what I envision.

Maybe I could reduce the scenario to a more local vision: suppose the governor of Florida won election not by popular vote, but by winning over the electors of the different counties. Miami-Dade County would give 24 electoral votes all to one candidate, Collier County would give 6 votes, etc. Except that Collier County isn't 1/4 the size of Dade - it's less than 1/7 the size of Dade! But to be fair to the smaller counties, they get more electors, and the Governor is elected by the county votes instead of directly by the people of Florida. Sound fair? Go ahead and say yes, I'm sure you want to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bollocks.

To begin with, your first six paragraphs seem to take issue with the fact that I'm advocating democracy instead of a republic... and then you noticed that I said nothing of the sort!

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, because you claim to be advocating democracy and then at the same time you acknowledged that a true democracy doesn't exist. Every other country in the world has some form non purely representative system, a system that either denies individuals the right to vote for certain candidates or is in some ways not completely proportion.

My beef is not that you advocate a different system. I've been quite clear that the US system is not the only good system, and that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that it's not the best. The problem is that you go straight from criticizing it to characterizing as "idiotic" and "warped." It's not. It's very reasonable, and reasonable minds can differ on its efficacy. Just because people disagree doesn't mean the opposition are idiots.

It IS a warped system. By it's very definition, it's warped. Some votes have more impact than others. I'm calling a spade a spade, but you're saying that it's OK to screw over some people in favor of others in the name of seeking balance.

I don't characterizing it as screwing over. However, I certainly see it as reasonable to seek a balance based on the nature of the political system.

People get "screwed over" in similar ways in every other country. I gave you many examples of how it's not purely proportional votes in Germany, the UK, Canada, France and other countries as well.

You're right about the President being President of a federal system, picked by the states. But I don't need an explanation for WHY it is what it is. I know WHY it was invented in the first place. My view is that it should not be this way at all.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE SYSTEM IDIOTIC! Just because you "don't think that it should [] be this way at all," doesn't mean it's a stupid, idiotic, warped system, as you've characterized it. Just because you think a different system would be more reasonable doesn't warrant your shrill wails against the current one, and there are, quite simply, good reasons for it. And, "why" a system is the way it is is very important, since the "whys" are what constitutes the rational basis for the system being the way it was.

Switching to a different system would be warranted if the REASONS for switching outweigh the REASONS for keeping it the way it is. Changing it just because you think it sounds better, would be silly. There should be very good "whys" [reasons] for doing things, and not just emotional knee-jerks.

Not any more. Probably not since the Civil War. The President should be the President of one nation, not of fifty states.

That is certainly a reasonable position to take. I'll, of course, credit the idea that times have materially changed and I am open to the idea of someone explaining how they would arrange a new system based on the President being a President of one nation, not of fifty states. Once I hear the details, then I'll decide if there are better reasons for what you suggest than the current system. At present, I see some of the good things about the EC, like the slight shift of voting power (for the President and the Senate only, not the House of Representatives), as creating a better system.

I see it as a different mechanism to achieve a similar balance between a House of Commons, and House of Lords, and Prime Minister in the UK or the Commons/Senate/PM in Canada.

Frankly, the Constitution in the US doesn't even require a popular vote for the Presidency (not in the text of the Constitution, anyway). Conceivably, a State could create a system whereby the state legislature votes on who the Electors will be, or the State could set up some other system for picking electors. And, there's nothing "idiotic and warped" about such an eventuality - just look to MOST Parliamentary systems, where the PM is chosen in a similar fashion, by the majority of the House of Commons. It's not democratic, since the PM wields many of the powers of a "President" in our system, but it isn't "idiotic and warped." Having a fucking Monarch in this day and age would seem to be something worth complaining about in those terms, but since the Monarch in most Parliamentary systems is basically a figurehead it's more of a waste of money than a serious injustice.

Does it look like I'm only seeing the top millimeter worth of the issues? Oh please.

Doing away with the EC does not mean that a candidate could merely win a few populous states and ignore the rest. That's theoretical hogwash. It would only be true if all the voters in whichever number of states total 51% of the US population all vote for him. The states themselves wouldn't vote for anybody - there would be no winning of states, only people. If 51% of California voters all select for Candidate A, then Candidate B would still get 49% of California's vote. No winner-take-all setup, except with the ultimate popular vote. Candidates would not even look at maps showing state lines. THAT is what I envision.

And, like I said, that's not an unreasonable position to take. I disagree with it, for many of the reasons I've already stated. Our main difference appears to be our assessment of the value and dignity of the state borders. Until they aren't important anymore, then I think we need our federal system to reflect that federalism, and the state borders do have meaning and importance.

However, if we want to redraw our country and eliminate the states, we'd want to allocate and separate powers in some meaningful way. I am wary of centralizing all national power in Washington DC. There are quite a lot of good reasons for diffusion and non-centralization of power. I am suspicious of authoritarianism, and even though pure democracy seems on the surface seems non-authoritarian, it's not necessarily so. Liberty is more important than democracy.

Maybe I could reduce the scenario to a more local vision: suppose the governor of Florida won election not by popular vote, but by winning over the electors of the different counties. Miami-Dade County would give 24 electoral votes all to one candidate, Collier County would give 6 votes, etc. Except that Collier County isn't 1/4 the size of Dade - it's less than 1/7 the size of Dade! But to be fair to the smaller counties, they get more electors, and the Governor is elected by the county votes instead of directly by the people of Florida. Sound fair? Go ahead and say yes, I'm sure you want to.

I've already said that I see good reasons for an electoral system. The reasons underpinning an electoral collection system for a large, disparately and varyingly populated nation are not equally important for a smaller unit, like a single state. The distances aren't as great, and the social differences throughout the state are not as great - Florid is Florida, Colorado is Colorado. There are differences within those states, to be sure, but they aren't as great as the differences between the states themselves, so shifting a small bit of electoral power to Citrus County, instead of Dade County, doesn't seem quite as important. Tallahasee is not as likely to ignore one part of the state over another, in my view (although I've never given it all that much thought, since you're the first person ever to ask me if I'd advocate an EC system in the states for the governors' elections).

However, since it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a parliamentary system for the election of the governor ,in the sense that the party with the majority in the legislature could appoint the governor in much the same way as the Prime Minister is appointed by the majority of a Parliament, I don't see why a different system, other than a purely proportional vote, has to be the way to go. If we could adopt the British system, why would it be worse to adopt the EC system? Or... is the British Parliamentary system "idiotic and warped" too?

Why do you always have to end your posts with sarcastic snark? Oh, I know....you're a liberal. People who don't agree with you either have evil motives or are stupid/idiotic, or both, right? No such thing as reasonable disagreement - gotta make sure you give a little sneer and snark. Why should you be different? It's that way with the liberal pundits and commentators.

[Hermit]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, because you claim to be advocating democracy and then at the same time you acknowledged that a true democracy doesn't exist.

There is no contradiction in saying that "a perfect democracy doesn't exist" on the one hand, and regarding a democracy where every vote is of equal value as a preferable form of democracy to one vote can be worth as much as three others on the other.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, because you claim to be advocating democracy and then at the same time you acknowledged that a true democracy doesn't exist.

There is no contradiction in saying that "a perfect democracy doesn't exist" on the one hand, and regarding a democracy where every vote is of equal value as a preferable form of democracy to one vote can be worth as much as three others on the other.

Sure, one may say that. But, one must also acknowledge that there is no system where in all instances one vote is worth the same as another.

Take the vote for PM in Canada.

Citizens vote for their member of parliament - like an American representative. Members of Parliament and Representatives represent "ridings" and "districts," respectively, and those ridings and districts have varying populations. So, one member of Parliament may represent 1,000,000 people and another may represent only 500,000, just picking numbers for argument's sake. So, the party with the majority in parliament votes on a Prime Minister. So, an MP representing 1,000,000 people has the same vote for Prime Minister as the MP representing 500,000.

So, it's analogous to the Electoral College system in that sense. In Canada, the individual citizens don't vote for the PM. They vote for their MP, who in turn casts one vote for PM. Each MP's vote represents a different number of citizens, so each citizens' vote for PM is thus weighted differently. And, of course, there is no option for a citizen to vote for an MP of one party and a PM from another party. If you vote Tory for your MP, then that's your vote.

So, when we look at all systems, we're going to find "instances where one vote is not worth the same as another," and where democracy is not a pure democracy or votes are not wholly proportional. It's not a bad thing, either.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama the snob
By Michael Gerson
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; A15

After a series of ineffective public messages -- leaving the political landscape dotted with dry rhetorical wells -- President Obama has hit upon a closing argument.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Let's unpack these remarks.

Obama clearly believes that his brand of politics represents "facts and science and argument." His opponents, in disturbing contrast, are using the more fearful, primitive portion of their brains. Obama views himself as the neocortical leader -- the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains -- the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.

Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president.

The neocortical presidency destroys the possibility of political dialogue. What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away.

It is ironic that the great defender of "science" should be in the thrall of pseudoscience. Human beings under stress are not hard-wired for stupidity, which would be a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. The calculation of risk and a preference for proven practices are the conservative contributions to the survival of the species. Whatever neuroscience may explain about political behavior, it does not mean that the fears of massive debt and intrusive government are irrational.

There have been several recent attempts to explain Obama's worldview as the result of his post-colonial father or his early socialist mentors -- Gnostic attempts to produce the hidden key that unlocks the man. The reality is simpler. In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are "hard-wired not to always think clearly." Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 78_pf.html

This opinion piece illustrates a point I've seen for decades. Liberals view themselves as smarter and more enlightened, and those that don't agree are stupid. Every Republican President since I was old enough to have a long term memory has been called stupid, without fail: Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.

There seems to be a real resistance on the part of Liberals to allow their opponents on issues the courtesy of having an honest, reasoned disagreement. Reasonable minds can't differ. If you differ, you're not being reasonable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama the snob
By Michael Gerson
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; A15

After a series of ineffective public messages -- leaving the political landscape dotted with dry rhetorical wells -- President Obama has hit upon a closing argument.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Let's unpack these remarks.

Obama clearly believes that his brand of politics represents "facts and science and argument." His opponents, in disturbing contrast, are using the more fearful, primitive portion of their brains. Obama views himself as the neocortical leader -- the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains -- the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.

Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president.

The neocortical presidency destroys the possibility of political dialogue. What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away.

It is ironic that the great defender of "science" should be in the thrall of pseudoscience. Human beings under stress are not hard-wired for stupidity, which would be a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. The calculation of risk and a preference for proven practices are the conservative contributions to the survival of the species. Whatever neuroscience may explain about political behavior, it does not mean that the fears of massive debt and intrusive government are irrational.

There have been several recent attempts to explain Obama's worldview as the result of his post-colonial father or his early socialist mentors -- Gnostic attempts to produce the hidden key that unlocks the man. The reality is simpler. In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are "hard-wired not to always think clearly." Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 78_pf.html

This opinion piece illustrates a point I've seen for decades. Liberals view themselves as smarter and more enlightened, and those that don't agree are stupid. Every Republican President since I was old enough to have a long term memory has been called stupid, without fail: Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.

There seems to be a real resistance on the part of Liberals to allow their opponents on issues the courtesy of having an honest, reasoned disagreement. Reasonable minds can't differ. If you differ, you're not being reasonable.

[Trolldor]

Do you believe in individual freedoms?

If yes, you are a liberal.

Thank you and goodbye.

[Ian]

Coito - You assume so much about liberals... that we think we're so much smarter and more enlightened, and that we're snarky and condescending towards conservatives.

Y'know what? I'm going to go ahead and agree a bit. There's a very big kernel of truth there.

Now... you might want to examine WHY it is there in the first place. Where are the more educated and affluent places in the US? Blue states, that's where.
Conservatives can have the old South and the western plains states (i.e. the Bible Belt) for all I care.
Conservatives can have their new idol Sarah Palin, and they can have the entire half of the Republican Party who thinks Obama is a muslim.
Conservatives can have the NRA nuts who stocked up on guns and ammo after the 2008 election, despite Obama never saying a damn word about gun control.
Conservatives can have their doomsday talk about cutting debt without raising taxes, though they said virtually nothing about it during Bush's eight years.
Conservatives can have the ignorant rubes who think evolution and global warming are just liberal hoaxes.

Much as I'm sure you hate to admit it - those people are not only your fellow conservatives, they're the ones leading the Republican Party nowadays.

I quote Karl Rove, the GOP guru of American demographics and electioneering: "As people earn more money, they tend to vote Republican... unless they're highly educated."

Feel free to make your list about how liberals are less intelligent than conservatives. I'm sure you'll scrape together a few talking points. Just spare us one thing - don't theorize about how Democrats just love to spend and rack up debt, please save us from having to make the historical rebuttals. You've got the most recent two years of Obama dealing with the aftermath of the 2008-9 recession. Otherwise that theory is historically innacurate; you'd have to go back to the New Deal for it to be true.

The Electoral College is a different matter. Nowhere did I say that those who disagreed with my view that it ought to be done away with are stupid. I really don't like it, but my bringing up the EC was an entirely academic discussion. And naturally you got defensive and thought I was calling you an imbecile for disagreeing with me. That is not the case. If we were discussing evolution or the Earth being 6000 years old and you disagreed with me, THEN I would have called you stupid. There's nothing dumb about defending the Electoral College - it's just less democratic than the opposing viewpoint.

Now... is the reverse not true? Do conservatives generally treat liberals with more respect than they receive? The very notion that this is the case is ridiculous. Have you never watched Fox News? Or listened to those paragons of modern conservative thought known as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Savage? Did you notice Rand Paul's "I won't even shake my opponent's hand" whine at Kentucky's Senate debate? I think that incident speaks volumes. And I think it speaks volumes that Kentucky's backwater voters are likely to elect this grossly unqualified jerk, even more likely than they were before that debate.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you believe in individual freedoms?

If yes, you are a liberal.

Thank you and goodbye.

Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians, Socialists - all of them - they all claim to believe in individual freedoms.

Liberals, with a capital L, however, don't always support individual freedom, particularly in the economic realm, where they have no problem depriving individuals of freedoms to own and deal with their property, freedom of contract, freedom to hire and fire at will, etc. - on the civil rights issues, they will often advocate the denial of the right to say what one pleases, if it is "offensive" to certain races, colors, national origins, etc. Many Liberals I've talked to oppose, for example, Geert Wilders' individual freedoms to say what he wants about Islam, and many Liberals I've talked to even supported his prosecution.

So, you are oversimplifying it a bit.

I do not doubt that Liberals believe they advocate individual freedoms; however, every conservative I've talked to thinks that's what they support too.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - You assume so much about liberals... that we think we're so much smarter and more enlightened, and that we're snarky and condescending towards conservatives.

Many Liberals are, including you.

Y'know what? I'm going to go ahead and agree a bit. There's a very big kernel of truth there.

Then we are in agreement.

Now... you might want to examine WHY it is there in the first place. Where are the more educated and affluent places in the US? Blue states, that's where.
Conservatives can have the old South and the western plains states (i.e. the Bible Belt) for all I care.
Conservatives can have their new idol Sarah Palin, and they can have the entire half of the Republican Party who thinks Obama is a muslim.
Conservatives can have the NRA nuts who stocked up on guns and ammo after the 2008 election, despite Obama never saying a damn word about gun control.
Conservatives can have their doomsday talk about cutting debt without raising taxes, though they said virtually nothing about it during Bush's eight years.
Conservatives can have the ignorant rubes who think evolution and global warming are just liberal hoaxes.

So, you do think Liberals are smarter. Check.

Much as I'm sure you hate to admit it - those people are not only your fellow conservatives,

I'm not a conservative. I hold very few conservative views by and large. You call me conservative, yet I support gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military, and I oppose state Defense of Marriage Acts. You call me conservative, but I am an atheist, a staunch one. You call me a conservative, but I am prochoice on abortion, strongly so, pro birth control, pro-morning after pill, etc. I am pro-equal rights for women. I am a staunch supporter of separation of church and state, and I take the position that it is Constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. I am in favor of anti-discrimination laws. I would not eliminate the minimum wage. Those are just some examples. I disagree with the standard Liberal position on most economic issues. That's where I will often come down in agreement with conservatives.

I accept your statement when you call yourself a liberal, which you have. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me? I am neither conservative nor liberal overall. I can only be described - in those terms - as independent, since I am not represented by either label. So, I will ask you, politely, to stop calling me a "Conservative." Yes?

they're the ones leading the Republican Party nowadays.

I don't care who is leading what. I don't feel I need to join a team, or wear a jersey cheering for one side or the other.

Feel free to make your list about how liberals are less intelligent than conservatives.

Why would I do that? I've not made that assertion. I don't believe that liberals are less intelligent than conservatives, statistically speaking.

I'm sure you'll scrape together a few talking points. Just spare us one thing - don't theorize about how Democrats just love to spend and rack up debt, please save us from having to make the historical rebuttals. You've got the most recent two years of Obama dealing with the aftermath of the 2008-9 recession. Otherwise that theory is historically innacurate; you'd have to go back to the New Deal for it to be true.

What are you on about? Once again, I've not made the claim that liberals are less intelligent. I pointed out that Liberals like to point their fingers at their opponents (which would include but is not limited to Republicans), and call them stupid. Far from actually taking issue with that, you illustrated my point quite clearly and succinctly. Thank you.

[Ian]

What are you on about? Once again, I've not made the claim that liberals are less intelligent. I pointed out that Liberals like to point their fingers at their opponents (which would include but is not limited to Republicans), and call them stupid. Far from actually taking issue with that, you illustrated my point quite clearly and succinctly. Thank you.

You're welcome... like I mentioned above, I agree with your assessment: liberals like to point fingers and call conservatives stupid. Plenty of us do, and when I get on the politics threads of this forum, I do too. (IRL, my best friend is a rather diehard (though at least not very religious) conservative Republican.)

As do conservatives towards liberals obviously... and a strong case can be made that they are more inclined towards such anger and disrespect than are liberals. Why would I say this? Well, take a look at the conservative talking heads in media: Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Beck, etc. Their ratings absolutely dwarf those of the left's jabbering partisans, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann being the most representative. Bill Maher is arguably a lone exception (and I definitely wouldn't include Stewart/Colbert on this point). Conservatives love their loudmouth firebrands on the right, but numbers show that liberals don't tune in much to the few loudmouth firebrands on the left.

So what am I on about today? Frustration at having half of America dominated by the likes of those morons, that's what. I'll be attending the "Rally to Restore Sanity" in two weeks.

I'm happy to not call you a conservative in the sense that you're clearly smarter and more independent than most people who warrant the label. I wouldn't want to be lumped in with creationists, truthers, evangelicals, homophobes, Tea Partiers, etc. either. I suppose I could refer to you as a socially-moderate/fiscally-right-leaning independent, but your ceaseless jabbing at anything and everything Obama and his party does makes it kinda difficult.

[Coito ergo sum]

What are you on about? Once again, I've not made the claim that liberals are less intelligent. I pointed out that Liberals like to point their fingers at their opponents (which would include but is not limited to Republicans), and call them stupid. Far from actually taking issue with that, you illustrated my point quite clearly and succinctly. Thank you.

You're welcome... like I mentioned above, I agree with your assessment: liberals like to point fingers and call conservatives stupid. Plenty of us do, and when I get on the politics threads of this forum, I do too. (IRL, my best friend is a rather diehard (though at least not very religious) conservative Republican.)

As do conservatives towards liberals obviously... and a strong case can be made that they are more inclined towards such anger and disrespect than are liberals. Why would I say this? Well, take a look at the conservative talking heads in media: Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Beck, etc. Their ratings absolutely dwarf those of the left's jabbering partisans, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann being the most representative. Bill Maher is arguably a lone exception (and I definitely wouldn't include Stewart/Colbert on this point). Conservatives love their loudmouth firebrands on the right, but numbers show that liberals don't tune in much to the few loudmouth firebrands on the left.

So what am I on about today? Frustration at having half of America dominated by the likes of those morons, that's what. I'll be attending the "Rally to Restore Sanity" in two weeks.

I'm happy to not call you a conservative in the sense that you're clearly smarter and more independent than most people who warrant the label. I wouldn't want to be lumped in with creationists, truthers, evangelicals, homophobes, Tea Partiers, etc. either. I suppose I could refer to you as a socially-moderate/fiscally-right-leaning independent, but your ceaseless jabbing at anything and everything Obama and his party does makes it kinda difficult.

I've not seen other groups do it to the degree of Liberals. Liberals really do, in my experience, tend more toward being unable to view the opposition as having in any way a reasonable position. Reasonable minds can't differ. I don't see it, by and large, from conservatives. While there are firebrands on the right, like Limbaugh and Hannity (Limbaugh I can take in small doses - Hannity I utterly despise) - neither of them call Liberals "stupid." They strongly disagree with Liberal policies - they'll say strong things like "liberals are treasonous" or "destroying the country" - they'll call them communists and socialists and all that. But, I never get the sense that they are calling the Liberals "stupid."

Plus - I'm referring not to the public figures - but more to the population in general. Those that I've encountered in discussions, on the message boards, among my friends and coworkers, etc. For as long as I can remember, the one most consistent point made by Liberals is that conservatives are stupid. Idiots. Idiotic. I see it every day on facebook - liberal after liberal friend of mine posts articles railing against the "idiot" conservatives and the "morons" on the right. It's quite common. I do not see it from conservatives. And, I've spoken to many folks who say exactly the same thing.

I think that ultimately does a disservice to Liberals, because I it solidifies the opposition. That's why you see Palin smart enough to latch on to this, from a marketing standpoint....you know the lines -- "they call us idiots...", etc.

From a personal perspective, I may argue aggressively, and I may engage in verbal sparring and I never shy away from some good rhetorical fisticuffs - but, in a debate I never call my opponent stupid. I never question their motive. I always assume that no matter how much I disagree with them, I assume they are somehow reaching a reasoned conclusion with the desire to achieve a good result. That allows me to try to see how they reach their conclusions, all the better to kick out their underpinnings, and demonstrate where the opposition has it wrong. As soon as you label your opponent either stupid, or harboring an evil motive, or clinging to irrationality, you lose the ability to see where they are coming from. You've just waved them off.

Regarding Obama - I am the opposition, on this website. Someone needs to do the jabbing relative to Obama, because the VAST majority of those on this website are ceaseless Obamaphiles who drool over his every comment, and refuse, almost religiously, to admit to one failing of the fella. It is near impossible to find a person here who will say, even remotely, that "hey I like Obama overall, but I disagree with him on X." It's as if there is this reticence to vocalize a disagreement, lest one contribute to the opposition - after all, what Obama is doing is too important to risk....

That's the sense I get.

[Robert_S]

Huh?

I said before and I'll say again that I fundamentally disagree with Obama on both his approach to health care and the economic recovery.

On health care, he should have asked for a government run system and compromised on single payer.

For the economy, he should have done little, if anything, for the banks and alot more in terms of direct job creation and financial aid for college and technical training.

[Warren Dew]

Do you believe in individual freedoms?

If yes, you are a liberal.

Not by the U.S. definition of "liberal". In the U.S., the term for that is "libertarian".

[Trolldor]

Do you believe in individual freedoms?

If yes, you are a liberal.

Not by the U.S. definition of "liberal". In the U.S., the term for that is "libertarian".

The U.S. definition is fucking retarded.

Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians, Socialists - all of them - they all claim to believe in individual freedoms.

Liberals, with a capital L, however, don't always support individual freedom, particularly in the economic realm, where they have no problem depriving individuals of freedoms to own and deal with their property, freedom of contract, freedom to hire and fire at will, etc. - on the civil rights issues, they will often advocate the denial of the right to say what one pleases, if it is "offensive" to certain races, colors, national origins, etc. Many Liberals I've talked to oppose, for example, Geert Wilders' individual freedoms to say what he wants about Islam, and many Liberals I've talked to even supported his prosecution.

So, you are oversimplifying it a bit.

I do not doubt that Liberals believe they advocate individual freedoms; however, every conservative I've talked to thinks that's what they support too.

1) Believing that Geert van wilders should be prosecuted isn't a 'liberal' position, it is in fact a conservative position. It is trying to keep the status quo by not rocking the boat. So yes, they aren't being liberal they're being conservative in that instance.

2) Liberal with a capital "l" necessitates an official political body to which they must belong. Like the "Australian Liberal Party" - which, funnily enough, is full of reactionary conservative pricks. If you want to rail against "liberals" as a political ideology then you oppose an ideology specifically centred around individual freedoms and rights. If you want to rail against individuals then stop using blanket term 'liberal' for a political position.

3) The freedom of the individual. A corporate entity is not an individual. The point of developing regulated workplace laws is to ensure we don't get a repeat of the fucking Reagan years where Worker's Comp, occupational health and safety, the regulator ombudsman and quality control are stripped away all for the 'good of the economy'.