Thread: Who Should I Vote For?

I'm having trouble following what you just said, but I'll try to respond as best as I can.

All I was saying is phrases such as "steadfast" and "down to earth" are relative terms that can't be proved or disproved. Saying, "The republican party is more down to earth than the democratic party," doesn't do anything but give a vague positive sentiment to the republican party, whereas saying something like, "The republican party is more conservative than the democratic party," is a positive statement that can be helpful to a person deciding what party to vote for.

Vague words do work on ignorant people, because by definition of them being ignorant, they don't know anything else but those vague words, so of course they would vote for something that they are told is more "down to earth." That is why I want to fight ignorance by making positive statements to inform people of facts, then let those people decide what they want to do.

I'm not sure where you are going with the senator thing, or the politically correct thing.

I'm not trying to be politically correct, I'm trying to use facts, and "the republican party is more down to earth than the democratic party" is not a fact, whereas "the republican party is more conservative than the democratic party" is.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Here is the quiz where you can find out. I put it in the other quiz-thread but I don't think anybody but Keeper took it.
[/b]

Oh my, it turned out I am left-wing! I better start shooting some donkeys on my farm in Alabama, for I didn't expect that.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

Words like that are propagandist and confusing, because I could apply them to anything I believe in. To an anarchist, if she did her research, she would find that anarchism is "more down to earth and steadfast" than anything else.

A true, non-propagandist statement would say something about the actual beliefs of the republican party, such as "If you do your research, I'm sure you will find that Republicans support lower taxes than Democrats," instead of attatching a vaguely positive label to them such as "down to earth." That is why "conservative" as you used it did not sound propagnadist, because it actually has a measurable truth value.

Oh, and the above statement you asked about is clearly biased and doesn't give any actual reasons for voting democrat.[/b]

This may be why so many people do not vote or are not interested in politics. They do not know the lingo.

Well just like science talk Computer, weather or any other complex topic. Learn the lingo.

Exactly Neruo, That is why I hope many people do not go around stating what a test concludes them to be.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Oh my, it turned out I am left-wing! I better start shooting some donkeys on my farm in Alabama, for I didn't expect that.
[/b]

Must me an inside joke?

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Well just like science talk Computer, weather or any other complex topic. Learn the lingo.
[/b]

What?

Republicans aren't objectively more "down to earth." That is just an opinion. What if I happen to think democrats are more "down to earth?" I'm sure all democrats think democrats are more down to earth, and same goes for republicans. "Down to earth" implies "reasonable," and no one would believe in anything if they did not think it reasonable. When stated like a fact, it becomes propaganda. That's why saying "I'm sure you'll find republicans to be more down to earth" is a propagandist statement. It's just a vague way of saying "republicans are better or more reasonable than democrats." If "down to earth" is a technical term that actually describes something substantive, then please, tell me.

EDIT: I have participated in all elections I have been eligible to participate in. I highly doubt there is an obscure political lingo using phrases such as "steadfast" that I don't grasp that clouds my views on any issues.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

What?

Republicans aren't objectively more "down to earth." That is just an opinion. What if I happen to think democrats are more "down to earth?" I'm sure all democrats think democrats are more down to earth, and same goes for republicans. "Down to earth" implies "reasonable," and no one would believe in anything if they did not think it reasonable. When stated like a fact, it becomes propaganda. That's why saying "I'm sure you'll find republicans to be more down to earth" is a propagandist statement. It's just a vague way of saying "republicans are better or more reasonable than democrats." If "down to earth" is a technical term that actually describes something substantive, then please, tell me.

EDIT: I have participated in all elections I have been eligible to participate in. I highly doubt there is an obscure political lingo using phrases such as "steadfast" that I don't grasp that clouds my views on any issues[/b]

You seem to argue otherwise before. So what is your issue with wording?
Down to earth. Generally is a pretty good attribute, practical and realistic. A comprehensive approach.
- It can also be hard-headed, or pragmatic with a linear train of thought.

If you have followed politics there are some attributes that seem to follow suite with each party.
If I were to point them out I would likely be labeled as taking sides.

If you are involved, you should already know what these labels are. It is just the labels that each party would like to obtain that causes a ruckus.

"Like you blue meanie, if i was in the US id abstain
not for the same reasons as you, its a pathetic reason"
Imran

Numbers don't care what resons you
have for voting or not voting.
In the end, the reason you had to destroy your
ballot is another reason that one party won
over another.
It is flawed either way.

Here is a new ballot :


Fu**ed in the ass []

Treated like an idiot [] What do you prefer?

also, has anyone heard of the 15% Solution?

Freedom only arises when you use it.


Use all the metaphors, excuses or anything else you want. If you live in a society that gives a vote and you do not use that freedom. then you forfeit that freedom.

Put down the ballot and step aside.
Hide behind your cowradass view that you some how managed to conjure up a reason to find admissible.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Freedom only arises when you use it.
Use all the metaphors, excuses or anything else you want. If you live in a society that gives a vote and you do not use that freedom. then you forfeit that freedom.

Put down the ballot and step aside.
Hide behind your cowradass view that you some how managed to conjure up a reason to find admissible.
[/b]

Voting is an illusion of freedom..but i'll let my man George Carlin tell ya alllll about it

---------------------->http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com...to-people.html

Originally Posted by Conforming

Voting is an illusion of freedom..but i'll let my man George Carlin tell ya alllll about it

---------------------->http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com...to-people.html
[/b]

Don't think that I am not eluded to the fact that politics in general has many corrupt manners.
I live in Ohio---The swing state. That is how close the last election was. The closest in history. Don't you think if all the like mined people thank think voting is an illusion would have voted, it would not have made a difference.

Moreover , local politics is where it all begins. Where your vote can really count.
There is a lot more I can go on about this. If you don't believe in the system, it really is mute.

Don't limit your self to one source. IMO

I have not limited myself to one source, this source happens to be the most direct way of explaining such things to people who don't care to listen. Also, i would rather not post source after source for someone who is already set in their hope for the system.
If their voting would not have made a difference due to corruption then it is an illusion of change.If some would rather hope for the best, continue voting, and sleeping.

As for like-minded people voting although they believe it to be an illusion and thinking it makes a difference, the only difference it would make is on them ---becoming hypocrites. what are you really asking here?

And how much sway do you believe local politicians have in the grand scheme of national politics? They are a more direct voice for the people but are usually the voice that goes unheard when an 'executive decision' has already been made, again illusion.

Originally Posted by Conforming

I have not limited myself to one source, this source happens to be the most direct way of explaining such things to people who don't care to listen. Also, i would rather not post source after source for someone who is already set in their hope for the system.
If their voting would not have made a difference due to corruption then it is an illusion of change.If some would rather hope for the best, continue voting, and sleeping.

As for like-minded people voting although they believe it to be an illusion and thinking it makes a difference, the only difference it would make is on them ---becoming hypocrites. what are you really asking here?

And how much sway do you believe local politicians have in the grand scheme of national politics? They are a more direct voice for the people but are usually the voice that goes unheard when an 'executive decision' has already been made, again illusion.[/b]

read your own post. Who is set in their opinion?
I have addressed that there is corruption. But I don't hide behind that fact.
What do you stand for? what would you propose?

All political campaigns are decided on a grass roots level by volunteers working with their friends, peers, and neighbors.
You don't think you can be a part of the solution. Or worse you don't want to try hard enough.

"I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness." Roosevelt..I think.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

You seem to argue otherwise before. So what is your issue with wording?
Down to earth. Generally is a pretty good attribute, practical and realistic. A comprehensive approach.
- It can also be hard-headed, or pragmatic with a linear train of thought.

If you have followed politics there are some attributes that seem to follow suite with each party.
If I were to point them out I would likely be labeled as taking sides.

If you are involved, you should already know what these labels are. It is just the labels that each party would like to obtain that causes a ruckus.
[/b]

I don't think I ever argued any point but the one I made in that post, which is saying something like "the republican party is more steadfast and down to earth" is propagandist and un-substantive. You said "down to earth" means "hard headed," or "pragmatic," or whatever. This implies that democrats are not as pragmatic or hard-headed, which implies that they are willy-nilly flip-floppers who don't think problems through in a practicle way. I don't care if this is what a party wants to be called, that's just because the language of politics IS very often propaganda, because each party wants to play on emotions to get votes. That is why I say, "don't use vaguely positive adjetives to describe parties (i.e. hard-headed)." You might as well call them "good," it does just about the same thing. Each party has a system of beliefs that they follow, and each party believes their philosophy to be better. So each party thinks they are more "pragmatic and hard-headed." You don't hear democrats sitting around saying, "Damn, the things that we believe in just aren't as practicle as republicans! If only we thought things through!" Why? Because that language is propaganda, meant to form positive or negative associations based on emotions and not logic!

It's fine if you want to call republicans "more down to earth," and it's fine if the republican party wants to call itself that, I'm well versed in political language and I know how the republican party wants to be known. All I wanted to point out is that doesn't really mean anything outside of trying to get some votes, because it says nothing about their actual beliefs.

Ok , after writing this i realized that it was a bit lengthly response to yours. Please do not look at it as a rebuttal or attack on your ideas or your previous comment, this is not how i wrote it. As i was writing it i found that a few more ideas have opened up in my mind and i would like to contemplate them further. Actually any input you may have may prove to be valuable...

"What do you stand for? what would you propose?"

I am no expert in political activity, although i do follow the mindset at times and the human decisions that lead to political mistakes. By not voting or destroying a ballot would alleviate the owness of responsibility for those mistakes. {" For being in a position to know and nevertheless shunning that knowledge creates direct consequences for the result"} The conditioning of humans and citizens of a particular nation to react in certain calculated ways and to be more influenced by their governments than their own thoughts and actions is a necessity of any governing force. This is where i get the 'illusion' aspect of politics.

Saying this, I am more into human behaviour and the future (extrapolated) consequences of those actions resulting from an imposition upon a nation by a governing force. Today, people are not fit to govern themselves, they have given up their self-reliance and political clout to the few who make decisions easier for them, so eventually they do not have to decide at all. (this is evident in the last election whether some belive that it was rigged or not..i don't care to see it as a real election or a deceptive one)

For me Democrat and Republican have always been an illusion of two competing forces, presented to the public as democracy, that use each other to influence and instill their own terms and collusions on those who 'vote' for them. Wether you vote donkey or elephant does not matter as long as at the time of voting there is a large degree of public acceptance. When there is a split, it makes it much easier for a nation to go to war and further imprison their own people with more laws, regulations, and amendments that make them 'safer'.
Without going too far into policy, if a nation is split in decision of who they want their leader to be and just over half get their way, the other less than half is the one that becomes beat down by the media as those who made the 'wrong' choice. Like the human condition, even a large mass of minorities cannot stand up against a few in power when the decision based on their own Constitution (the supreme law) is made. That would just be un-constuitutional and non- american (maybe even anti- american).

As for what i would propose. A beginning. A push away from general education and into something that challenges a nation to think. For me this is where i believe it can start. A subdued nation of Armchair quaterbacks who know very little about a lot and a lot about very little cannot make the proper rational choice for themselves and country. To me, the governing forces depend upon stupidity of a nation to choose "A" or "B", don't dig any further, don't look too long or hard.

So i guess my issue goes beyond politics and the system in place to the comprising supports that hold up that system and cause its people to exist wanting easy answers and simple choices. Going back to illusions, the choices that they make have been soo boiled down that rational thought about those choices lead them to vote for the sake of voting. "because if i don't vote i cannot complain".

I do not have easy answers for a new political system. This is a task that i do not believe can be decided by one person, it would be a Dictatorship. But what i do believe in is a nation that may one day have the want to be intellectual and gain as much knowledge about the many contributing forces to their world. Maybe from then on a new system can come about through asking questions and not just accepting things until they can think otherwise.

Originally Posted by Conforming

Ok , after writing this i realized that it was a bit lengthly response to yours. Please do not look at it as a rebuttal or attack on your ideas or your previous comment, this is not how i wrote it. As i was writing it i found that a few more ideas have opened up in my mind and i would like to contemplate them further. Actually any input you may have may prove to be valuable...[/b]

Heck no. I think that is great!! That is what it is all about.
You and 3FLryan make good points.
There is know reason we cannot discuss it. In fact I have enjoyed both of your responses because you do not get emotional irrational when posed with a different view.

I would like to take all this in. Just so I ma not acting on my own ambitious thought patterns.

* This is what Extended Discussion is meant for.
Exchanging ideas.

Not saying (NO!!! you are wrong) - and visa verso.

Good to hear!
i look forward to it...

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

I don't think I ever argued any point but the one I made in that post, which is saying something like "the republican party is more steadfast and down to earth" is propagandist and un-substantive. You said "down to earth" means "hard headed," or "pragmatic," or whatever. This implies that democrats are not as pragmatic or hard-headed, which implies that they are willy-nilly flip-floppers who don't think problems through in a practicle way. I don't care if this is what a party wants to be called, that's just because the language of politics IS very often propaganda, because each party wants to play on emotions to get votes. That is why I say, "don't use vaguely positive adjetives to describe parties (i.e. hard-headed)." You might as well call them "good," it does just about the same thing. Each party has a system of beliefs that they follow, and each party believes their philosophy to be better. So each party thinks they are more "pragmatic and hard-headed." You don't hear democrats sitting around saying, "Damn, the things that we believe in just aren't as practicle as republicans! If only we thought things through!" Why? Because that language is propaganda, meant to form positive or negative associations based on emotions and not logic!

It's fine if you want to call republicans "more down to earth," and it's fine if the republican party wants to call itself that, I'm well versed in political language and I know how the republican party wants to be known. All I wanted to point out is that doesn't really mean anything outside of trying to get some votes, because it says nothing about their actual beliefs.[/b]

I think the main issue can apply to both to the above, 3FLryan,s statement and also 'Conforming Non-Conformist'.
Education :!:
Heaven forbid we have a language that has many synonyms. Many complain that our language is flawed for this reason, hard to learn. Well yes, maybe it is. I however feel that because we have sooo many emotions all these metaphors, synonyms, acronyms and what have you allow us to really pin point down to a great degree what EXACTLY we want to portray. So to say the language is propaganda is not so. It is used as such but it does not mean it cannot have substances.
I understand your point. Politicians use this unfortunately as a tool. This is why educating yourself not only to the political processes of a nation is so important but furthermore navigating your way through this world.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

Ok , after writing this i realized that it was a bit lengthly response to yours. Please do not look at it as a rebuttal or attack on your ideas or your previous comment, this is not how i wrote it. As i was writing it i found that a few more ideas have opened up in my mind and i would like to contemplate them further. Actually any input you may have may prove to be valuable...

"What do you stand for? what would you propose?"

I am no expert in political activity, although i do follow the mindset at times and the human decisions that lead to political mistakes. By not voting or destroying a ballot would alleviate the owness of responsibility for those mistakes. {" For being in a position to know and nevertheless shunning that knowledge creates direct consequences for the result"} The conditioning of humans and citizens of a particular nation to react in certain calculated ways and to be more influenced by their governments than their own thoughts and actions is a necessity of any governing force. This is where i get the 'illusion' aspect of politics.

Saying this, I am more into human behaviour and the future (extrapolated) consequences of those actions resulting from an imposition upon a nation by a governing force. Today, people are not fit to govern themselves, they have given up their self-reliance and political clout to the few who make decisions easier for them, so eventually they do not have to decide at all. (this is evident in the last election whether some belive that it was rigged or not..i don't care to see it as a real election or a deceptive one)

For me Democrat and Republican have always been an illusion of two competing forces, presented to the public as democracy, that use each other to influence and instill their own terms and collusions on those who 'vote' for them. Wether you vote donkey or elephant does not matter as long as at the time of voting there is a large degree of public acceptance. When there is a split, it makes it much easier for a nation to go to war and further imprison their own people with more laws, regulations, and amendments that make them 'safer'.
Without going too far into policy, if a nation is split in decision of who they want their leader to be and just over half get their way, the other less than half is the one that becomes beat down by the media as those who made the 'wrong' choice. Like the human condition, even a large mass of minorities cannot stand up against a few in power when the decision based on their own Constitution (the supreme law) is made. That would just be un-constuitutional and non- american (maybe even anti- american).

As for what i would propose. A beginning. A push away from general education and into something that challenges a nation to think. For me this is where i believe it can start. A subdued nation of Armchair quaterbacks who know very little about a lot and a lot about very little cannot make the proper rational choice for themselves and country. To me, the governing forces depend upon stupidity of a nation to choose "A" or "B", don't dig any further, don't look too long or hard.

So i guess my issue goes beyond politics and the system in place to the comprising supports that hold up that system and cause its people to exist wanting easy answers and simple choices. Going back to illusions, the choices that they make have been soo boiled down that rational thought about those choices lead them to vote for the sake of voting. "because if i don't vote i cannot complain".

I do not have easy answers for a new political system. This is a task that i do not believe can be decided by one person, it would be a Dictatorship. But what i do believe in is a nation that may one day have the want to be intellectual and gain as much knowledge about the many contributing forces to their world. Maybe from then on a new system can come about through asking questions and not just accepting things until they can think otherwise.[/b]

NO! It is not meant to be decided by one person. That is the whole point. That is why a person needs to look beyond themselves and realize a vote counts. Our government is meant to represent the people, That is why I said, Freedom only arises when you use it.
I also said that ignorant people should not vote. But this is in line with my main point. Education. We (the people) are allowing politicians to ride over us. People make a choice to not participate. It is a choice.
I look back at 1994 or 95?? When A "throw them all out" attitude shook up both political parties. This shows that people can have an influence but choose not to use this valuable right we have as a free citizen.
You cannot avoid politics. You still have to pay taxes, abide by the rules that are put in place. So why not participate?
I could not agree with you more about the two sides. As I mentioned earlier as well---Voter reform. ~ third parties, mandates on a parties funds, something. I don't know the answer for a lot of the problems. There are many.
People underestimate the legitimate role that local politics has. Each state has different reforms and in addition have a big influence on the greater whole. Not to mention your own way of life in your community.
Furthermore many local politicians may eventually use this as a stepping stone to get into the larger political agenda. In return your education is already beginning to pay off.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Heaven forbid we have a language that has many synonyms. Many complain that our language is flawed for this reason, hard to learn. Well yes, maybe it is. I however feel that because we have sooo many emotions all these metaphors, synonyms, acronyms and what have you allow us to really pin point down to a great degree what EXACTLY we want to portray. So to say the language is propaganda is not so. It is used as such but it does not mean it cannot have substances.
I understand your point. Politicians use this unfortunately as a tool. This is why educating yourself not only to the political processes of a nation is so important but furthermore navigating your way through this world.[/b]

My point is not that many words have different meanings and politicians use those words to influence people. We all know they do this, and people should be educated about it.

I'll express my point again:

"Hard-headed" has many associations. Many vague, approximate associations, at that, such as "good" (one that republican politicians might hope you have, which is why they try to portray themselves that way). People might be confused about what it means, not be educated about what it means, or whatever. But none of that matters (i.e. it is unsubstantive)! None of those words say anything about the actual beliefs of the republican party! If it said something about the actual beliefs, then it would be substantive. That is my whole point. Language such as, "Republicans believe in lower taxes than democrats" is not propagandist, because it simply states a fact and makes no subjective judgement. If you just tell someone all the facts and let them decide what is "good" or "hard-headed" or "pragmatic," then you have been completely neutral. But telling them "republicans are more steadfast" is propagandist. It's playing on emotions and not logic. Now, if you gave a set of premises, such as a few republican beliefs, then said, "therefore, republicans are more steadfast," then it wouldn't be as propagandist because someone could look at your argument and decide whether or not they agree with your premises and line of reasoning. The problem is, politicians don't want people to reach a different conclusion than they do, so they give little if any reasoning most of the time, and just say "We're this, they are this!" and hope people agree based on the vaguely positive and negative associations they have.

You doomed your argument when you said: "I however feel that because we have sooo many emotions all these metaphors, synonyms, acronyms and what have you allow us to really pin point down to a great degree what EXACTLY we want to portray. So to say the language is propaganda is not so."

Facts are facts. You just say them, and English is perfectly good for doing that. Trying to portray them, or twist them, in any way at all other than what they are is propaganda.

You doomed your argument when you said: "I however feel that because we have sooo many emotions all these metaphors, synonyms, acronyms and what have you allow us to really pin point down to a great degree what EXACTLY we want to portray. So to say the language is propaganda is not so[/b]

So having the ability to portray want we want is not good?

So we want to use vague, not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed unspecific and imprecise.


I do realize that much of this results in the information or rumors deliberately spread widely to help politicians or a group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
But I would rather people educate themselves the opposite of that and dumb down.

If you are naive and uneducated then you leave yourself open to your emotions to be manipulated.
Those are the facts as I see them. but I am not saying I didn't understand your point and that it is not prevalent too.

btw what are some of the big differences with Democrat and Republican? obviously there are a few small differences...

it seems like its just "do you want to vote right-wing?" or "..even more right wing?"

btw didn't bush once say something along the lines of God chose him to be president? I guess democrats votes wouldn't have mattered anyways.

Originally Posted by ;367096

btw what are some of the big differences with Democrat and Republican? obviously there are a few small differences...

it seems like its just "do you want to vote right-wing?" or "..even more right wing?"

btw didn't bush once say something along the lines of God chose him to be president? I guess democrats votes wouldn't have mattered anyways.[/b]

Let's see how it is answered in a nonsubjective manner, if 3FLryan wants to.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

So having the ability to portray want we want is not good?

So we want to use vague, not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed unspecific and imprecise.
I do realize that much of this results in the information or rumors deliberately spread widely to help politicians or a group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
But I would rather people educate themselves the opposite of that and dumb down.

If you are naive and uneducated then you leave yourself open to your emotions to be manipulated.
Those are the facts as I see them. but I am not saying I didn't understand your point and that it is not prevalent too.

[/b]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you think I want you to use vague or hard to understand language. The point is, comments like "the republics are steadfast" ARE VAGUE AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND. A fact is NOT VAGUE and NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It is just a FACT. There is nothing "dumbing down" about explaining the philosophy of the republican party. It IS dumbing down and misleading to say they are "down to earth."

The guy asked, "Who should I vote for?" You said "I'm sure you'll find republicans to be more down-to-earth, blah blah blah." That doesn't give him any information. No facts. It is just propaganda! It wouldn't have been if you said, "Well, republicans believe in X and democrats believe in Y, and I think X is better." This would be fine! In fact, it would have been great, because it would have been LESS VAGUE, EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, and then he could have decided on his OWN what he thought instead of having you force-feed him your opinion that "republicans are more down to earth."

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Let's see how it is answered in a nonsubjective manner, if 3FLryan wants to.
[/b]

The question is "What are some of the big differences between republicans and democrats?" And I have to (OH NO) answer this is a non-subjective manner?

Do I really even have to do this?

First of all, each person is slightly different, so each candidate might have slightly different views on each issue, and sometimes even radically different views from their own party (though not often), so you should research each candidate and his or her views before you vote.

That said, on the whole, democrats favor higher taxes and more government run social welfare programs than republicans do. This is because democrats see a certain amount of wealth redistribution as desirable for the good of society. Republicans, on the other hand, believe in a freer market, with the individuals in society creating the maximum amount possible with as little government intervention as possible.

Should I go on?

There aren't an overwhelming number of things that are different about each party, but they do differ on many issues of how to increase overall welfare for the state.

Originally Posted by 3FLryan

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you think I want you to use vague or hard to understand language. The point is, comments like "the republics are steadfast" ARE VAGUE AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND. A fact is NOT VAGUE and NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It is just a FACT. There is nothing "dumbing down" about explaining the philosophy of the republican party. It IS dumbing down and misleading to say they are "down to earth."

The guy asked, "Who should I vote for?" You said "I'm sure you'll find republicans to be more down-to-earth, blah blah blah." That doesn't give him any information. No facts. It is just propaganda! It wouldn't have been if you said, "Well, republicans believe in X and democrats believe in Y, and I think X is better." This would be fine! In fact, it would have been great, because it would have been LESS VAGUE, EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, and then he could have decided on his OWN what he thought instead of having you force-feed him your opinion that "republicans are more down to earth."
[/b]

Why is down to earth misleading? Who has made this so? You, the media?
I have folwed both parties for some time. Down to earth as most would understand it, is quite befitting in my eyes.
In your case, you are generalizing, which is worse, IMHO.
For exampe. YOu can word this a half a dozen ways or more. Two examples presumably from differant parties.
1.The Rebulican party recognizes the rigths of the second emmedment.
2.The Rebublicans sponser guns.

Each party is going to put their spin on the other parties termonaolgy, hence the reason we are in a position to catagorize and word very directly how we feel a party is positioned.