Thread: Who Should I Vote For?

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

Have I not repeatedly proven myslelf in the face of your ridiculous statements?
[/b]

Yes, you totally did. Reading this exchange was pretty funny. I really don't think he got it.

I apologize. I really didn't know what else to say; I have said everything else.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

I apologize. I really didn't know what else to say; I have said everything else.
[/b]

Most Democrats don't when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Do you considwr yourself to a party?

I can go into greater detail, it would be in vain.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Most Democrats don't when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Do you considwr yourself to a party?

I can go into greater detail, it would be in vain.
[/b]

I don't think you know what "objective" or "fact" means. I have not taken any side, republican or democrat. I have used reason to show you that your statements are biased and propagandist. I am not taking any side at all, objectivity takes no sides. That's the point. And that is also the problem: I am banging your face into the answer, but you have your eyes closed. Even that statement that you just made, right there, is a blatent generalization, first of all, and second of all has no logic to back it up. You have not provided any examples, no reasoning, no logic, nothing.

Even if I say, for the sake of argument, that I agree with you, that doesn't make that sentence true.

What are you trying to say? I want to follow you, but it doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "nitty gritty?" "Get" what? These words are ambiguous and therefore meaningless in our quest for objectivity. Do you know what logic is? I am being perfectly clear. I have responded to your every statement with objective reasoning, and yet you sit there and say "democrats don't get the nitty gritty." I don't know how to respond to that, because I have already responded to that exact type of statement about five times. I'm not trying to be mean, but you just don't seem to understand what the words both you and I are using actually mean. That's it. I am trying to help you understand that the language of politics basically IS propaganda, so it is important to know how to unpack it and get to actual substance. When you get to actual substance, you can make an informed decision about actual issues by evaluating each parties' actual beliefs regarding these issues.

I will say it again:

Premises:

1. This thread is about helping someone determine who to vote for.

2. We want to help them make an objective, informed decision.

3. Information about party beliefs is an important factor in deciding who to vote for.

4. Objective statements provide information about actual beliefs.

5. Subjective statements do not provide information about actual beliefs.

6. Words like "steadfast" and "down-to-earth" are subjective and not objective.

7. Conclusion 1, following from premises 4-6: Words like "steadfast" and "down-to-earth" do not provide information about actual beliefs.

8. Conclusion 2, following from premises 1-3 and 7: "The republican party is more down to earth and steadfast than the democratic party" is not helpful to this discussion.

Further premises:

9. Propagandist statements entail statements that present something other than objective fact as fact in order to sway opinion.

10. Your statement "I'm sure you'll find the republican party is more down to earth and steadfast than the democratic party" was meant to sway opinion.

11. Conclusion 3, following from premises 6, 9, and 10: "I'm sure you'll find the republican party is more down to earth and steadfast than the democratic party" is a propagandist statement.

Feel free to disagree with any of the premises.





And no, I don't consider myself to be a part of any party.


EDIT: For the fun of it, I'm going to attack my own argument if you don't want to, or can't.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

Wow. This is retarded. How am I generalizing? I am stating facts. You are not. What you are saying is stupid. It just is. There is no way around it. You are being completely and unadulteratedly ridiculous. What you just said was the most pathetic attempt to defend the republican party I have ever seen, let alone your point that you are not spouting propaganda. Sorry, this conversation is over, and you have nothing worthwile to say. Trust me, I want you very much to have something fun to say, maybe something coherent, but "1.The Rebulican party recognizes the rigths of the second emmedment.
2.The Rebublicans sponser guns." is in no way an adequte response to what I said.

Are you so goddamn fucking retardedly stupid as to think the statement "the republican paty is more down to earth than the democratic party" is a fact, let alone a coherent response to my challenges? Have I not repeatedly proven myslelf in the face of your ridiculous statements? I've had enough of this, give up, it is clear to anyone that can think rationally that "putting a spin" on terminology in propagnda. Don't you even know what your beloved republican party believes in? Don't you know that I was compleley objecitve and entirely right in answering your challenge? Don't you even know what "objective" means?

EDIT: I guess you don't, or else you wouldn't be such a goddamn moron.[/b]

As an informed voter, as any voter should be, shouldn't he/she realize the entire scope of the political system?
You are bogging down what could be a productive post with your scrutinizing over a subjective word that either party can and has used. Steadfast for example, firmly established, as an institution or a state of affair. Is it so misleading to believe your party fits that category? Is it not only misleading to the uniformed, uneducated voter that I had addressed earlier?

• How I feel you are generalizing

An entire unbiased objective view. Think about that. Think about that < Then see below

*How I am, in care of... SUBJECTIVLEY pointing out influential manners of political phrasing and sentence structureing.

What facts have you brought to the table? That some adjectives are subjective? So be it. You win.
If that is the case I suggest we move on for the sake of a good topic.
If you wish to take up such a position against wording that can be misleading such as down to earth, nitty gritty and slang.

In a perfect system we could all rely on a "Politics For Dummies" books for a reference guide.
As I pointed out earlier, which you may have misunderstood, sentencing can be very well manipulated without using "hard to understand words" as you put it.
1.The Republican party recognizes the rights of the second amendment.
2.The Republicans sponsors guns.
~ You can clearly see how each party could restructure this political stance in multiple ways to
fit their parties needs.

We happen to live in a world that uses negative campaigning, below the belt advertising, mud slinging and very complex wording. More over how these words, adjectives and nouns alike, can be used in a manner that is befitting for political interest groups.

Now taking into account all that I have said, where do you stand 3FLryan? What lexicon do you follow as you navigate through this personal and often biased thing we call politics?
An entire unbiased objective view. In the middle. With your facts. Without any subjectively input of your own. You may wish to ask yourself who is the Moron. I am confident that many politicians love your objective opinion..

You cannot hide behind the darker side of politics. You are dumbing down a system that is already established and in place.
In a complex world of politics and the politicians that use this complexity in their favor, I suggest one frequents themselves with the terminology that goes along with the territory.

Perhaps the initial question is not as easy as many would like. Perhaps that is what scares so many away form politics in general. Why so many do not vote.

- juroara,
Sorry I don&#39;t have a simple answer to your question.
What I do suggest:
1. Get involved in local politics.

2.Take 3FLryan&#39;s argument to heart. The savvy nature of wording.

3. Take a look at your own views, and compare which party stands behind a good portion of them.

4. It is not a marriage. You can change parties or not even belong to a party.
In regards to voting... I suggest to not vote a straight ticket, that is to say unless the unlikely event that the entire ballot falls in favor of your party.
Good luck juroara.


Howetzer

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Is it so misleading to believe your party fits that category?[/b]

No, it is misleading to present your beliefs as the truth when you provide no evidence or reasoning to back it up, which is what you did in your initial post.

That&#39;s what this whole argument has been about. That is the reason I keep on posting. Because your string of adjectives did nothing but provide a vaguely positive image of the republican party. Someone else called you out on it, and I interjected, then you disagreed.

Your first post was BS, and you have just conceeded that, so I am glad. That took a while.

As for the rest of it, I have a hard time following your points. Sentences like these: "*How I am, in care of... SUBJECTIVLEY pointing out influential manners of political phrasing and sentence structureing," really throw me off. That sentence doesn&#39;t seem to make any sense. Is it part of your argument? A question for me? Or what? Some key nouns/pronouns/verbs/whatever seem to be missing.

And: "An entire unbiased objective view." This misses the point. A "view" is, by definition, bias and subjective, because it implies someone&#39;s opinion. Of course my view is bias, it&#39;s MY VIEW. But that&#39;s fine, as long as I discuss facts with other people and try to persuade them of something using solid reasoning (i.e. facts, data, etc. "Heroin is a bad thing" is not an objective statement, but "Heroine has effects such-and-such" is an objective statement I can use to back up my opinion, and then you can agree or disagree). "View" implies someone&#39;s opinion, and we, here in the land of logical reasoning, are not dealing with opinions, we are dealing with statements that have a truth value.

Also, just because we live in a world were there is negative campaigning and propaganda doesn&#39;t mean we should use those things as well, right? By your reasoning, since there are people that murder others to further your own interests, you think we should be okay with this and even try to understand and be a part of it? Or do you think we should try to stop it and act more fair and sensible?

You ask: "Now taking into account all that I have said, where do you stand 3FLryan? What lexicon do you follow as you navigate through this personal and often biased thing we call politics?"

I thought this was clear. I look at positions politicians take on various issues, decide if these positions are, in general, going to promote the welfare and development of whatever it is I may be voting on/in, and then I vote accordingly. I am baffled by your "lexicon" question...as if there is some secret objective language I am hiding from everyone in the hopes of being the only informed voter. I am not interested in explaining my views on everything, because that would be pointless. I grant that it is not possible to be entirely objective in deciding which policies you think are best, because everyone has certain dispositions that lead them to favor, for example, anti-gay marriage laws over making gay marriage legal, but, to make an actual informed decision, you need objective facts and actual positions, not vague adjectives. Also, it is still possible to express your opinions without making them seem like fact (which is what the whole argument was about, FYI). For example:

I am pro-choice.
I support the second amendment.
I support all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, who doesn&#39;t (besides Bush)?
I think most tariffs on most goods should be very nearly if not completely abolished.
I don&#39;t make vaguely positive comments about my views and present them as pseudo-facts such as "I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll find that being pro-choice is the down-to-earth way to go." That would be bias and propagandist.
I think more money should be put towards public education systems.

You also state: "I am confident that many politicians love your objective opinion."

It&#39;s comments like this that leads me to believe this conversation isn&#39;t going, and will never go, anywhere. Would you please explain this? Politicians do not love people who question everything and don&#39;t buy into their propaganda BS. Politicians hate people who see an add saying, "The repblican party: Defending America&#33;" or "For a smarter America, vote Hillary in 2008&#33;" and ask, "Well, why the hell should I believe that?" They love people like you, who wave the banner and rally the troops with comments like in your first post. I don&#39;t care whether you reasoned through everything yourself, your still waved the banner with that first post. I am trying to service the people here, not a party. Politicians don&#39;t like that, understand? Politicians don&#39;t like it when you make up your own mind.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("3FLryan")</div>

Also, just because we live in a world were there is negative campaigning and propaganda doesn&#39;t mean we should use those things as well, right? By your reasoning, since there are people that murder others to further your own interests, you think we should be okay with this and even try to understand and be a part of it? Or do you think we should try to stop it and act more fair and sensible?[/b]

I believe this is where your objective opinion is clouding your judgment. This is a ridiculous statement. Both you and I know that.
If you insist on objectively viewing, without regard for subjective reasoning, you will be lost. Or in that case... murdered.
You will be ill equipped. You will objectively realize there is murder and it is wrong. But you will not have the tools needed to compile anything comprehensive to combat it.

I Insist in pertaining to a characteristic of an individual, such as a President, Governor, Judge, etc.. That a personal and individual subjective evaluation is needed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("3FLryan")</div>

You also state: "I am confident that many politicians love your objective opinion."

It&#39;s comments like this that leads me to believe this conversation isn&#39;t going, and will never go, anywhere. Would you please explain this?[/b]

Yes. Absolutely. Derived from the same reasoning as above, I feel that your objective outlook is one sided.

Example.
-"I support the second amendment."
Is this where you objective consensus stops? If a politician knows what a particular group wants to here this will be his/hers objective statement.

This is where I ask you what lexicon you use. For if you are going to cast aside the political jargon that is used in politics, then it would be like trying to navigate through the ocean without a compass.

As you begin to dig deeper, the adjectives must be comprehended on some level, no?
-I believe the right to bare arms is a fundamental right one should be used with ideals and modesty.

Hmmmm. OK. This politician supports the second amendment. Great so do I.
However in a limited or moderate in amount.
Can you see where I am going?
Your subjective view of my opinions has clouded your own argument.

whatever you do, dont vote for BUSH&#33;

Originally Posted by long

whatever you do, dont vote for BUSH&#33;[/b]

Why, Is he running for a third term?

i&#39;m too young to vote but im a very liberal person. America was made to be strong enough to work but weak enough that people aren&#39;t ultimately ruled by the government. Republicans want to make the government as strong as posible while democrats want to keep americans happy.

Originally Posted by xcrissxcrossx

i&#39;m too young to vote but im a very liberal person. America was made to be strong enough to work but weak enough that people aren&#39;t ultimately ruled by the government. Republicans want to make the government as strong as posible while democrats want to keep americans happy.[/b]

I have to disagree with you xcrissxcrossx.
As an overview the Republicans favor a smaller Government.
They do generally want to see the Federal gov. let the states mange their own issues.

you can always vote for me&#33;&#33;&#33; just kidding.. but seriously. if i ever run for president be sure to vote for me&#33;

(not that I really want to run, but you know, whatever&#33

i would vote democratic, because they have most of my views, but some of the repulicans have my views too.. so id say im 3/4s democratic.. i guess.. *shrugs* i dont plan on not voting, but it would take some serious thinking&#33; which i guess is why alot of ppl dont vote, because they&#39;re too lazy and dont want to get up and wait in line. apparently they dont care how the country is run

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div>

I don&#39;t vote, out of principle. I do go to the voting booth though, I just spoil the ballot paper.[/b]

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic now, but why don&#39;t you vote Meanie? Is voting compulsory in NZ like in Aus?

I hope you spoil it by drawing a big fat penis, the gentleman&#39;s way

Roller: Yeah, the law in Oz is weird. I believe you MUST go to the voting booth in Oz, but you can spoil your paper. In NZ, there is no such law. I *think* we have to register to vote, but we don&#39;y have to do anything else. We don&#39;t have to go to the voting booth on election day/weekend, for instance.

As to why I don&#39;t vote - I don&#39;t wanna drag this off-topic. In short, though, I&#39;m not a supporter of representative "democracy". Not quite an anarchist, but close.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div>

As to why I don&#39;t vote - I don&#39;t wanna drag this off-topic. In short, though, I&#39;m not a supporter of representative "democracy". Not quite an anarchist, but close.[/b]

Ah ok, fair enough.

Originally Posted by The

As to why I don&#39;t vote - I don&#39;t wanna drag this off-topic. In short, though, I&#39;m not a supporter of representative "democracy". Not quite an anarchist, but close.[/b]

What is your biggest issue with that form of Gov., TBM?
Do you feel the people can&#39;t be good judges for themselves? I often think so. Unfortunately the Government is often made up of a class of even worse people.

I do think that people need to be governed. With that in mind anarchy would not work.
What do you think would?

I see no rebuttle from 3FLryan???

Hello

republicans believe that the average person isnt always that smart and that the government should make the decisions so the regular people dont fuck up. democrats think that everyone should decide things for themself, whether they are wrong or not. that is a basic description of both.

Originally Posted by xcrissxcrossx

republicans believe that the average person isnt always that smart and that the government should make the decisions so the regular people dont fuck up. democrats think that everyone should decide things for themself, whether they are wrong or not. that is a basic description of both.[/b]

Im afraid youve got it the wrong way round
Republicans beleive in the policy of non-invovlement, they beleive in "Rugged Individualism" that people reap what they sow
Democrats bleieve in hand outs and such, they beleivwe in the governments duty to step up and look out for the citizen, to take care of him/her, to give them homeless sheltering and a welfare check

obviously under the cloak of shit, they stand for the same thing

Free Market Capitalism, the rest doesnt matter. They beleive in a wrold stiched up by giant corporations. They bleeive i na an agressive foreign policy of "policing the world". They bleeive in America&#39;s superiority. They beleive in treating the third world with disdain and injsutice. Keeping ethnic minorities poor. The overall opression of the proletariat.
Its a bouregoise society, and the above are simply features of such a society.

Imran

Originally Posted by imran_p

Im afraid youve got it the wrong way round
Republicans beleive in the policy of non-invovlement, they beleive in "Rugged Individualism" that people reap what they sow
Democrats bleieve in hand outs and such, they beleivwe in the governments duty to step up and look out for the citizen, to take care of him/her, to give them homeless sheltering and a welfare check

obviously under the cloak of shit, they stand for the same thing

Free Market Capitalism, the rest doesnt matter. They beleive in a wrold stiched up by giant corporations. They bleeive i na an agressive foreign policy of "policing the world". They bleeive in America&#39;s superiority. They beleive in treating the third world with disdain and injsutice. Keeping ethnic minorities poor. The overall opression of the proletariat.
Its a bouregoise society, and the above are simply features of such a society.

Imran[/b]

Thaks you Imran. Very well put.
I wanted to say something but I battle weary.