Can a regular person alter human history with the click of a button?
Overnight, or even sooner, one statement, video, audio clip, picture or document can dramatically shift the national dialogue. In the past, main stream media led the way. A picture of Dukakis looking puny in a tank marked his campaign’s derailment in 1988. One mistaken pool report of George H.W. Bush at the supermarket reportedly looking surprised while viewing a scanner swiping groceries spelled doom for his second term, falsely becoming fodder for those calling him ‘out of touch’. In every occasion, however, normal voters could not drive any narrative or use any advanced medium to significantly reach prominent national attention.
No one denies this coming Presidential election will change the trajectory of world events, impacting generations to come. Before the internet demolished once impenetrable media barriers, people wanting to influence history so quickly had to do so with the barrel of a gun.
But now, that power is in each person’s hands (literally). Here’s a list of 10 ways one person, a collection of people, or a campaign used the web’s full potential to change the 2008 election.
Adam Brickley registered a blog in February of 2007 with a simple vision; draft Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President. When asked what inspired him, he says, “She’s somebody who can really connect with the conservative base.” The 21 year old college student relentlessly supported her, posting frequently with his thoughts on the choice. When McCain finally picked Palin, she and her husband, Todd, put in a call to Brickley to thank him personally.
George Allen was a rising star in the GOP, slated for a promising presidential run when he campaigned in what was considered an easy reelection bid during the 2006 Virginia senatorial race. His competitor, Jim Webb, sent a ‘tracker’ of Indian descent to capture video of the opposing side’s rally. Allen pointed out the Democratic activist and proceeded to call him a slur, ‘Macaca’. The Youtube video posted by the Webb campaign ignited a media storm, even attracting national attention, and Allen lost the race by a few thousand votes, effectively ending any hope for a 2008 run for the White House.
Without the power of organizing without organizations, Obama might have become an interesting footnote to the Iowa primary season. He built an impressive ground campaign reliant on new social tools that allowed supporters to exponentially increase their outreach. One of the four founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes, left the radically expanding company to join the Obama team, developing an advanced social network for supporters to organize, share and donate, which ultimately led to a shocking first place finish in Iowa. New media not only allowed his candidacy’s realization, but continues to sustain his efforts through a massive fund raising machine online that has, so far, attracted over 2 million individual donors.
Dragging slightly in the polls, McCain’s campaign, under the new direction of Steve Schmidt, learned how to exploit the viral nature of Youtube. They uploaded three videos attacking Obama; one called ‘Celeb’, then ‘The One’, and finally ‘Troops’. The exploit was successful; everyone buzzed and the media picked them up. McCain did not have to put any precious money in to placing these ads on the air, but gained copious amounts of national free time by virtue of the video’s news-worthiness. All the networks played the ads repeatedly, holding discussions on the content and nature of the attacks; but to no avail for the Obama camp, as their lead started to dwindle.
Amendments to the 1978 FISA legislation included wording intended to protect large phone companies from lawsuit for past compliance with warrantless Bush administration surveillance activities. Nearly all members of congress, save a few, agreed to the necessity of continued surveillance of physical or electronic communications possibly connected to terrorism. However, the whole packaged bill containing the retroactive telecom immunity was not met so universally. Wanting to seem tough on defense, Senator Obama, who once pledged to filibuster telephone company protection, released statements supporting the legislation despite its shortcomings. He reiterated his opposition to parts of the bill but said he nonetheless would vote for it when on the floor.
This outraged the netroots, some of Obama’s most rabid supporters. They passionately voiced their distaste with Obama, initiating a movement they called, “You can tap my wallet or my phone, but not both”. Angered fans organized a group on Obama’s own social network against him. Never before in Presidential politics had advanced social tools made way for protestations against the source that supplied them. Obama finally wrote a blog explaining his reasoning behind compromising on the legislation, still to no avail among the netroot activists. He experienced a small lag of donations from the virtual stand off.
Senator Obama claimed primary victory in the Xcel Energy Center on June 3rd. After the speech, his wife joined him on stage and in a congratulatory fashion, gave him a little fist pound. The media attempted to define the gesture in several, awkward ways. On a conservative columnist’s online article, a disgruntled commenter, “Larry” in Alpine, TX, named it a ‘Hezbollah-style fist jab’. Writing humorously of the different ways the media tried to call the dap, Slate author Christopher Beam accidentally failed to delineate the comment from Cal Thomas’ piece. Human Events removed the defamatory comment, making it appear that Cal intentionally scrubbed the incendiary portion only after criticism since the original phrase no longer remained in the comment section.
Despite realizing what confusion ensued over the article and posting a correction, it was too late, as multiple news sources quoted the piece and also mistakenly referenced Thomas’ column. Just a short while later, E.D. Hill of FOXnews listed a few different ways the greeting had been called, saying, “A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?”
Everyone criticized the show for lending credence to people’s fears of Senator Obama. E.D. Hill apologized but lost her job as host that week anyway. The misconception eventually landed on the front page of the controversial New Yorker cover.
Senator McCain called Rod Parsley a spiritual adviser. John Hagee emphatically endorsed him. Parsley says America was founded to defeat Islam. Hagee says the Catholic Church is the ‘Great Whore’ and an ‘Apostate Church’, and claims God purposely sent Adolf Hitler to get the Jewish people back to Israel. A big stink was made at liberal blogging sites, like the HuffingtonPost and OpenLeft, over statements made by both. The internet lit up with opinions on the subject matter, some upset that there existed a sort of double standard over one’s pastoral associations.
Reporters asked McCain about specific statements delivered by both pastors, forcing McCain to ultimately reject their endorsements. The trouble ignited by bloggers hurt McCain’s already flimsy relationship with the religious conservatives, partly reminding everyone of his statement during the 2000 election concerning Reverend Falwell being an ‘agent of intolerance’.
Even prior to Obama’s candidacy appearing more and more viable, untraceable e-mails sent between concerned friends unequivocally declared he secretly held to the Islamic faith. Different variations of the e-mails concerned his elementary school, swearing in on the Koran, Mohamed as his middle name, quoting his books improperly, what the Bible says of the anti-Christ, refusing to say the pledge, connections to political events in Kenya and more. Despite fighting the Smear-type campaigns on cable networks and fact-check sites, unsure Democratic voters neglected to support Obama in the primaries, leading to some very close races with Senator Clinton. The rumors continue to find support through low information voters refusing to not believe in their close friend or family’s e-mails.
In the middle of March, Youtube clips of Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, looped endlessly on personal computer monitors around the country. They contained offensive remarks about God’s judgment on America and the government’s involvement in allegedly spreading AIDs.
News stations around the country played them repeatedly, leading to discussions regarding Obama’s chances of winning the election dwindling and voters being permanently turned off. It all culminated in a speech on race called “A More Perfect Union”, now watched millions and millions of times on Youtube alone. Pundits continued to discuss the Wright controversy ad nauseum, but their attention was directed elsewhere just a short while later when newly released video caught Hillary Clinton in a lie about sniper fire.
Senator McCain’s unexpected choice for Vice President took everyone, perhaps even his own staff, by complete surprise. Barely anyone knew anything about her, causing bloggers to engage in a frenzy of research and rumors. Most notably, they passed around information suggesting Governor Palin’s youngest son, Trig, actually belongs to her eldest daughter, Bristol. Such a commotion came of the rumors that it gained traction on legitimate news sources such as Drudge and the Atlantic.
Just three days after her nod, the campaign released a statement verifying that Bristol Palin was five months pregnant. This stopped the endless rumors online, but gave way to a national frenzy over the scandalous behavior of the potential VP’s family. Botching the Governor’s important first impression to the nation, the McCain campaign feverishly developed a prime time speech for Wednesday night of the convention. The discussions on cable networks, newspapers and blogs generated over 40 million viewers for the Palin speech which the media widely praised. Conservatives already excited by the pick were even more energized by their conceived enemies in the media and on the ‘angry left’.
However, the speech proved to be a double-edged sword for Palin, adding up to a record $10 million worth of contributions by enraged Obama supporters online during the 24 hours between her and McCain’s acceptance speeches. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesperson, commented, “I hope she gives a speech every day.”
Final Thoughts
In a majority of these cases, the web encouraged the dissemination of media not particularly flattering for the candidate in question. A lot of them involved the mainstream media picking up a story with sufficient online buzz. 24/7 Cable news will likely remain an American staple for a long time, yet 2008 showed us regular people won’t be powerless forever in what stories capture America’s living rooms. If 2004 was our collective infancy learning the web’s capabilities, 2008 marks the toddler years of using those modern tools. We’re only catching the beginning of this user-defined generation, leading to what some call the ‘Youtube-ification of Politics’.
Contributor: DanielS
Randall, I mean Jamie, I mean whoever the hell wrote that, I love you.
I am so against McCain/Palin I wrote a very argumentative email to my MOM about why she shouldn’t vote for them. Of course she just wrote back something silly about keeping the spirit of Abigail Adams alive and encouraged me to keep on fighting, and refused to argue with me because she will never give up on the Republican party.
Ugh looks like I need to go back to Reading Comprehension 101. Ignore the Jamie part
Katie:
Thank you, I love you too. And yes, I did write that reply to “idreno.” And others here of course. I just didn’t write comment #116, despite it being under my name.
Sorry to hear that your mom is lost to us. Funny thing is, my family were/are old, old New York/Rockefeller Republicans (which I guess to all the whacko neo-cons and other conservatives out there who slobber over Sarah Palin, that means my family weren’t “real” Republicans–but only in the sense that they weren’t brain dead and were of the old establishment, if you ask me) but they almost never pulled that “we won’t abandon the party no matter what” attitude. THAT, I find, is always the sort of polarized attitude that does do harm to our political system. But at any rate, my mother (solid Republican in her day) was a great admirer of John Kennedy, and she hated Richard Nixon. She didn’t think much of Reagan either.
I’m not sure what Abigail Adams has to do with this. Abigail certainly wasn’t a Republican.
Maybe she was referring to “fighting spirit,” but mixed allusions always confuse. 
Anyway, Katie, sadly a couple family members of mine are also voting McCain… unfortunately (and I’m ashamed to admit this) I’m sure it stems from innate racism. My family aren’t stupid enough to feel McCain really deserves the presidency, but they’re just close-minded enough to not vote for Obama because of his skin color–though they’d never admit it in a million years.
Aww, Randall, sweety, alas, you are the one whose panties are knotted up, not mine. That’s the great thing about being American, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
As for the distinction between social and political issues…there is a big one. It is not in the job description of the Presidency to tell the American public what to believe in or how to live their lives. The President should not be voted in based on his personal opinions regarding religion, abortion, gay marriages, and other SOCIAL issues. It is not the job of the president to tell other Americans how to live their lives…it IS his job to deal with tax policies, the economy, nationaly education, foreign policy, and be the Commander in Chief (meaning some level of military experience of which nither Clinton, his wife or Obama have).
I absolutely disagree with the ultra-right wing stances on what I coin “social” issues: there is no reason why Republicans should be so stubborn about allowing homo*****uals to share a legal unification or laws that would provide women with the option of having an abortion so long as it isn’t just another means of birth control. However, I also disagree with the Democrat’s desire for “Big Government”…which is exactly what our forefathers were fighting against in principle. The beauty of capitalism is that you should be able to keep what you earn. If you make a million dollars through hard work and intelligence, you should be allowed to keep it and there is no reason why anyone should tax you more than someone else just because you have more money. Did you know that people who make more than $500,000 a year are placed in the same tax bracket as billionaires!? How is that fair? How is it fair that the government finds more and more ways to tax people…people want to talk about a failing economy, well, there won’t be an economy if there is no money in people’s pockets to spend!! Unfortunately, for many years now, tax money has just been wasted left and right…we the people do not determine to which cause go our tax dollars and so we get little in return. American’s need to start living and working and doing for America. As for wealth, Obama is not and has never been part of the working middle class. The man is part of the highest tax bracket in this country, his home costs over $2 million, his private jet is one of the largest in the country, and he grew up in a very over-priveledged family. And American voters expect HIM to help the middle class? As it is he already is proposing higher taxes, but if you think he’s just going to over-tax the rich and not the poor, then my dear, you are going to need to go back and watch some Robin Hood, because it doesn’t ever work that way. The man is not going to tax himself more than you.
Obama is full of empty promises and has shown himself to be extremely disloyal and disrespectful to this country: his campaign made a mockery of the Presidential Seal, of Air Force One, he refuses to wear the symbol of the USA, our flag, upon his lapel yet he dares run for the highest office our nation can bestow, and he has on many occasions audaciously insinuated not only that he expects to win this election, but that he will get re-elected and even serve a 3rd term!! (There was a huge article about it in the NY Times where he was quoted saying that he was making his European tour to become familiar with the world leaders that he will be working with for the next 8-10 years!) So now, not only does his show himself to be egotistical, but also unconstitutional in that he intends to pull an FDR. He knows little of what it means to be an American. There is an overwhelming body of evidence proving that his birth certificate was forged. The man did not grow up on American soil, he grew up in the Philippines where the population is over 98& Islamic/Muslim, less than 2% are Christian and Jewish and the remainder are pagan belief systems. Why does that matter? It matters in terms of an individual’s cultural outlook…society in the Philippines is quite different from the US, and a society that is predominantly Islamic tends to govern as Islam would have them be governed. While the US was founded on Christianity, it is not an exclusively Christian country and one of the most important aspects of the Constitution are the rights granted by the 1st Amendment. These same rights do not necessarily exist in other countries, and less so in countries that are predominantly Islamic. Obama’s initial cultural exposures have little to do with American ideals and philosophies and much more to do with those he was taught and familiar with from his childhood abroad. As a result, his constant fluctuations regarding his religious beliefs chip away his credibility. He knows that if he declares himself openly as a Muslim that he will lose virtually all chances of being elected, so he tries desperately to convince everyone that he is of Christian faith when it’s quite clear that he is not.
Another major problem with Obama is his painstaking efforts to appeal to a variety of ‘communities.’ Let’s talk about “diversity,” shall we? The term “Diversity” is a misnomer in that to diversify means to make different, to separate, to divide. Everyone in the past 10 years has gotten on this whole “we want diversity” bandwagon and it does more damage than good. The point I am trying to make here is that we should be trying to “UNIFY” not “DIVERSIFY.” There is a huge difference between the two. We should be acting and thinking as one UNIFIED nation of Americans…yes, each with different ideals and hopes and dreams and stances, but all with the common goal of being AMERICAN. THAT, my dear readers, is the fundamental principle of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence…two of the greatest and most transcendant documents in the history of the world. The point of being American is to give power to the PEOPLE, not to the select few who sit in Washington DC. When a political candidate (any one of them) does things to “Appeal to the (insert name here) community…” they do themselves discredit. I laugh at the fact that both Obama and McCain are striving to reach out to the Latino community, the Jewish community, the Black community, the Italian community (as Obama stated he will do next month around Columbus Day), etc. etc. What’s wrong with reaching out to the American community!?! Does it even exist!? Instead of appealing to AMERICANS as a whole, they strive to appeal to specific factions of voters. Alas, the fault is not all their own, the fault lies in the communities themselves. Why is it that so many voters are interested only in what a candidate is capable of doing for them? Isn’t this only another, less obvious form of segregation? Don’t attitudes like this only divide our nation? Personally, I believe that before the social issues that do affect specific communties can be properly addressed, we need to identify and improve the aspects of national life first: that means taxes, education, foreign affairs, immigration, health care…if those things don’t take precendent, then allowing homo*****ual unions or abortions or whatever else might be important to those individuals directly affected won’t have a place. To put it more simply…the President should worry about the issues that DIRECTLY affect ALL Americans FIRST. That’s not to say that all issues on the table aren’t connected to some extent…of course they do, but there are still disctinctions between the various issues and the primary factions of individuals that they serve. We also have to accept that not everyone is going to agree on every issue. What I said in my previous posting was to point out that at least Republicans stand by whatever it is they are standing for. They understand that not everyone is going to be happy with their ideals. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a reputation for always *trying* to be liked by everyone and end up playing one group against the other; instead of just being forthright about a particular view and accepting that there are going to be people who don’t agree, they try desperately to keep things nebulous and vague by making every issue seem like it’s going to work in everyone’s favor. The word for it is spineless. They will say one thing and then the moment they begin to receive criticism for it, suddenly it’s “oh no, you misunderstood me, what I meant to say was this” and when that receives criticism it’s again “We never said that, what we said was…” until the issue backfires completely and then they immediately say “Well, we had nothing to do with that…we were always against it.” Of course, if the issue succeeds, they are first in line to take full credit and with open arms stand ready to reap the rewards. If that doesn’t sound like Bill and Hillary Clinton to you, well, you need your ears cleaned. On the other hand, we do have people like George Bush who, while he makes it very clear (sometimes, when he isn’t mumbling or making unintelligable comments) what he stands for and what he’s doing, he is unable to ever say “I was wrong. Let’s find a different solution.” This is why the war has gotten so out of hand and why our economy is doing so poorly.
People keep saying “We don’t want another rich, old, white guy in the White House.” You see, the big problem is that this election shouldn’t be about race, but it is. The Democratic party pulled one of the most audacious stunts in history…they purposefully proposed both a woman and a man of color for the position of President, because they knew that either way, should one be elected, history would be made. The SAD thing is that the Democratic party and their followers felt that they had to resort to such low tactics to gain a foot hold in Washington. The Democratic party wants the American people to see Race and Gender. I personally take no issue with electing a woman president or one of non-european origin…but we should be voting because of a person’s intellect, experience, and ability to enact the changes and policies that they propose…not whether they look good in a suit or their outward appearance. Obama is continually trying to turn the Presidencey into a position of celebrity and too many people are already suckered into believe that it should be that way. The US Government is not just another movie set or reality tv series…it’s real life. In turn, I don’t deny that the Republican party used the same low tactic with the nomination of Palin as VP…but they got the idea from the Democrats…who, as is to be expected, didn’t take responsibility or credit for having employed the tactic, but immediately pounced on the Republican’s for having used it. So often in life the accuser accuses only for the purpose of misdirecting the attention away from themselves.
The are just SOME of the issues with a candidate like Obama. With McCain, things are much simpler to identify, his weaknesses and his short-comings aren’t covered up as well as his phoney liberal counterpart. McCain needs to realize that his buddy George Bush has gone too far with his flawed plans and that the war needs to end. It’s great that Saddam is gone as it was understood worldwide that he was an evil man capable of unspeakable things, but Bush stuck his nose too far into where it didn’t belong and now he can’t get his nose out…and he’s brought the rest of us along with him. McCain and the majority of the Republicans need to learn to be more accepting of other people and to know that they are not the moral center of this country.
You see, Randall, being an Independent means that I have no allegiance to one party and that I can separate which issues I do or don’t agree with as well as decide which issues are actually important versus the ones that have no place in the Presidential election. You’re attempts at defining what a “real” Independent would say or do show that you have absolutely no idea of what it means to be an Independent…you just treat it like it is yet another political party…that in order to be Independent, one MUST do and think and say like all other Independents. Aye, there’s the rub.
And to go one step further…you say that Governor Palin is a no-body but that Senator Obama is a somebody? Last time I checked, no one ever heard of him either until the advent of this election. He’s been as ineffective as a political figure even moreso than she has. The people of Illinois have heard of him. That’s about it. And while he sits in his little office doing “senatorial” work, she was actually governing an entire state. To me, that seems to be a rather poignant difference.
American’s need to start doing more research and have less blind faith in one candidate or political party. We are all humans and we are all fallible, including the people who are elected to govern us…we don’t live in a society where we believe that our ruler is placed there by divine right and that they are right even when they are wrong. We should be reviewing and relating to the stories and philosophies of the great individuals who came before us…men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt…the greatest presidents in our history and with good reason. We have to understand them and study them in historical context, but the substance of their philosophies, their advice to us in keeping our country alive and prosperous, and the courage with which they fought for freedom should permeate and enlighten us and guide us into the future!!!
*headdesk*
I’m with Randall on this one. I’d respond to ^, but I really do need to get to class
Randall, I think he’s in the Southern Hemisphere, thus not on our clock.
He’ll get to you.
Cyn and kiwiboi are both site admins, I think, I *know* Cyn is.
idreno:
“Aww, Randall, sweety, alas, you are the one whose panties are knotted up, not mine.”
Oh they are, idreno? First, I don’t wear panties, pinhead. Perhaps you do, but that remains to be seen (or demonstrated). Secondly, I’M the one worked up here when you just posted this unbelievably long-winded document? Please. Again, just as before, idreno, you try to be clever and you fall flat on your face.
I also remind you, idreno. You had the boneheaded gall to say that anyone voting for Obama is brainless. I notice you’ve dropped that little line of reasoning. Good for you, you showed brains yourself at once. But it was an absurdly offensive and stupid thing to say, and invited the response you got.
I also note you failed to respond to ONE SINGLE POINT THAT I MADE to you. That’s flat-out cowardice, idreno.
And I repeat–after having read this current comment, I can still call you a flat-out liar. You are no independent, so stop pretending to be one.
“That’s the great thing about being American, we are all entitled to our own opinions.”
One of the bad things about being an American is that you have to sit still for the opinions of others, such as yourself, who are ill-informed and lacking in any capacity for logic, rational thought, or critical thinking.
“As for the distinction between social and political issues…there is a big one.”
No, there isn’t. You still haven’t demonstrated how this is so. I don’t think you really understand what you yourself mean when you use the word “political.”
Your arguments are very poorly phrased to the point of incoherence. This is the problem, I think.
“It is not in the job description of the Presidency to tell the American public what to believe in or how to live their lives.”
Irrelevant, and in fact not really correct. GOVERNMENT (which the President is part of) exists to embody, create, carry out, and enforce laws–in theory, of course, at the will of the people. The President, therefore DOES tell us, in a sense, how to run our lives. As with all institutions that keep us civilized.
But of course you’re also being gravely and childishly naive. The President and our government very much DOES tell us how to run our lives—we place in his and their hands the functions of not only governing and policing our society but also of managing our nation’s foreign affairs, as well as heading our armed forces. The President on his OWN initiative can therefore involve us in overseas conflicts and so forth, which we have little or no say in.
You need to think your arguments through better, idreno, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re not really capable of this, so I can only move on.
“The President should not be voted in based on his personal opinions regarding religion, abortion, gay marriages, and other SOCIAL issues.”
Of course now you’re simply being patently ridiculous. How OLD are you idreno? Are you, perhaps, 15 or so? Because you’re not talking at all like an informed, reasonable, intelligent adult. If you’re a child you have a lot to learn and should cease trying to lecture to adults. If you’re an adult yourself you not only have a lot to learn and should cease lecturing your betters, but you should also be deeply ashamed of yourself because your grasp of our systems and traditions is so poor as to mark you as intellectually slow and for all intents and purposes illiterate.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, idreno, is a member of a POLITICAL PARTY. (I can’t believe I have to teach Civics 101 now). He and his party have a PLATFORM which states their beliefs, goals, and purposes–in short, their philosophy. We vote not only for the PERSON but for the PLATFORM—because the express purpose of WANTING to serve as President is so that you can be in the executive position to sign and enact the policies and laws which you and your party wish to put into place.
Your statement is, then, clearly not only wrong, but bafflingly stupid.
“meaning some level of military experience of which nither Clinton, his wife or Obama have”
And so now you’re saying that a presidential candidate MUST have served in the military? NOWHERE in the Constitution is that a requirement for office, idreno. Are you re-writing it for us?
“However, I also disagree with the Democrat’s desire for “Big Government”…which is exactly what our forefathers were fighting against in principle.”
Not precisely. Our forefathers (and I wonder if they were really YOUR forefathers? They were, in fact, mine, but then my family’s been here since well before the Revolution–I simply find it amusing how people often talk like you when it turns out that their own family’s were actually johnny-come-latelys. Not that it matters, but I simply find it amusing. Under those circumstances, if I were such a person, I wouldn’t be so ready to shoot off my mouth about “forefathers” who fought the revolution. The fact is I CAN, because mine did. I wonder if yours did.
At any rate, it was NOT “big government” they were fighting against, but TYRANNICAL and CENTRALIZED government. The former we know is bad, and good for them for standing up against it. The latter, we know (and they quickly learned) is necessary and a fact of life. We tried living with very decentralized government after Independence and before the Constitution, and it was a mess and got us into a lot of trouble.
Again, idreno–you simply don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
“The beauty of capitalism is that you should be able to keep what you earn. If you make a million dollars through hard work and intelligence, you should be allowed to keep it and there is no reason why anyone should tax you more than someone else just because you have more money.”
I wonder, idreno, just how much YOU make a year. I also find it funny that it’s always middle-class morons who defend the rich and ultra rich. Why? Because of course they slobber to be LIKE the ultra rich. They want to be one of them. But again, it’s another example of voting (and acting) against one’s own best interests.
Many of the rich, idreno, would be not at all keen to defend YOUR pocketbook. In fact, they make it a point of separating you from it when they can, which is one of the things that has helped MAKE THEM RICH. You are enticed into joining the consumer culture, rather than saving your pennies. And voila–they get richer and you get poorer. Nice system. Can be lots of fun. And at times it ain’t so bad. But it’s also rapacious and open to a lot of abuse.
At any rate, idreno, it’s also a simple fact that in order to GET rich, many people and companies do things which are not in the public interest. Not all these things are illegal, but they aren’t sweet, either. Also, we live in a society dedicated to a sense of egalitarianism… i.e, all men are created equal. This is not only a nice sentiment and a good one, it also keeps our society stable and peaceful, as evidence clearly indicates that when one segment of society feels too exploited and poverty-ridden, they tend to take it out, violently, upon those who did the exploiting and who are making all the bucks. We therefore try to keep things at least within a ball park of fairness in the US. This is wise, sane, and a tradition we should be proud of.
“want to talk about a failing economy, well, there won’t be an economy if there is no money in people’s pockets to spend!!”
Again–VERY funny that you claim to be an independent, and yet you repeatedly use antiquated right-wing talking points like the above.
There also isn’t a decent economy, idreno, when one party (Republicans) for eight years has looked the other way and/or colluded while corporations have driven jobs overseas, broken laws, made rapacious profits and paid out obscene bonuses while laying off workers, etc. etc. etc. AND while also driving our real estate market into the ground, causing our dollar to devalue, and allowing our dependence on oil to continue unabated and unaddressed so that now our economy is in a shambles and people are being squeezed more and more just to keep gas in the car.
“we the people do not determine to which cause go our tax dollars and so we get little in return.”
In fact, we DO determine it, idreno. We determine it by VOTING. This is a representative system. If you don’t like how the dollars are being spent, then vote for the other guy and/or the other party and keep doing so until you get the problem addressed.
“Obama is not and has never been part of the working middle class.”
WHAT? This just shows utter IGNORANCE of the man’s background. Do you know ANYTHING ABOUT Obama?
He very much came from a middle class background, you TWIT.
MOREOVER, MCCAIN HIMSELF IS ALSO RICH.
“he grew up in a very over-priveledged family.”
AGAIN… WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
This is simply WRONG. DEAD, DEAD WRONG.
“As it is he already is proposing higher taxes,”
ON LARGE CORPORATIONS AND ON THE *ULTRA* RICH, idreno. He in FACT proposes to LOWER taxes–that’s LOWER them–on the MIDDLE CLASS.
I just can’t believe this. Did I call you a liar? You’re not just a liar but a BAD liar. An absurdly bad liar.
“The man is not going to tax himself more than you.”
In fact many politicians have done just that in the past, (Roosevelt for just one) and Obama’s entire public career has been predicated and built upon helping the less fortunate. You’ll never, of course, know what someone will do in the future, but you can take a good guess from their past performance. Obama’s is clear. And you, idreno, are so ill-informed about him I wonder now if instead of being some talkative teenager, you’re not simply some out and out nut.
I’ll respond to the rest separately. There’s just too much bull***** to dispense with in one sitting.
Both of you are violating suggested conduct of this website by posting these ridiculously long comments, it’s not even worth saying anything about the list anymore. That’s why they have a FORUM!!
A few things in the comment FAQ I think would be good to stick to.
3. How long can a comment be?
We don’t have a limit on the size of comments, but we do ask that you condense what you want to say in to as few lines as possible. If you have to explain something very detailed, you should find a website with your explanation and post a link to that instead (see question 4 for instructions on links).
6. Can I carry on personal chats in the comments?
No – this becomes very tedious for other readers – please take it to the forums
8. How do I write a good comment?
You write a good comment by not insulting others, by not using CAPS LOCK, by not using repetitive punctuation, and by sticking to the argument if you don’t agree with someone. Remember, the minute you insult a person in a debate, you lose.
Randall- Thank you for your reply.
Yes I believe my mother was referring to Abigail Adams’ “fighting spirit”.
Idreno- You spoke of Senator Obama’s upbringing, and you say he grew up in the Philippines where you claim the population is 98% Muslim. Well I’m not sure where you get your information but Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, spent 2 years in Indonesia, and then returned to Hawaii. Indonesia is mostly a Muslim country. Spending two years in a place during childhood hardly means a person grew up there.
Also the Philippines is about 80% Roman Catholic.
As a senator in the US Congress, Obama held assignments for committees concerning Foreign Relations, Environment, Public Works, Veterans’ Affairs, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security, Governmental Affairs, and European Affairs. So he seems to have very diverse experience. Meanwhile, Palin is governing the 4th least populated state in the country. Which I’m sure was quite a lot of work, but does not give one quite enough knowledge to govern the 3rd most populated country in the world. In my opinion anyway.
Also, you actually defined the term “to diversify” not the term diversity, which you were speaking of. Diversity is (and I quote)-
1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference.
It is diversity that makes America such an amazing country. And yet, after events such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, Americans came together and did what they could to help. We have the best of both worlds, diversity AND unity. Politicians need to appeal to the entire nation as a whole and individual communities, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t do that. Especially when they can say, this is what I will do for the country, and this is why it will help you.
And if the Democrats do as you say they do, and try to appeal to what the people want now instead of sticking by their ancient ideas like the Republicans, I think the Democrats have the right idea. Times change and the government should change accordingly, should it not?
But I completely agree with you on one point, Americans’ do need to do more research before they cast their votes. But most will say they just don’t have the time so they flip on Fox News in the morning to listen to their appalling “news stories”. And that’s why so many voters are uninformed, the media does not give us what we need to make a wise decision.
I know I did not address all your points, but I made the points I wanted to.
I do have to say I am happy to see people so fired up over politics, here in Canada (I am American-Canadian) people just don’t seem to get that revved up over Canada’s political process and I have had an urge for a good debate even if I have little to contribute.
Oi! Lots of comments flying around these past couple of days. To answer some of the questions way up there…
1. We’re more of a representative democracy – we popularly elect representatives to go to Washington D.C. to voice our collective opinion and push for our desires/needs.
2. The electoral college was designed to essentially be a way to get educated people to make the informed decisions on completing the electoral process. We have a much better educated population in general now than we did 200 years ago, but we have a ways to go… eliminate the Electoral College??? Well, maybe someday, but we’d have to see…
3. Compulsory voting?? Are you MAD?!? Then we’d just have all sorts of disinterested, uneducated fools voting for whomsoever they thought looked good (or they could actually read the name on the ballot). Don’t force people to vote – let them vote. If someone does not cast his vote, he/she does not have the right to ***** about who was elected…
4. Wow… realizing something very important here… this topic was about the internet’s effective use in changing the 2008 election. How is it that we’ve gone on to protracted political and ideological tyrades? Do we/can we/should we be so spiteful and hateful toward each other? Like Jensp123 said, take it to the forums, where we don’t have to read the dribble.
5. I stop now… thank the gods for the internet!
129. jensp123- I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Well I apologize, I didn’t realize I was violating site rules because I haven’t read them. If anyone would like to start a thread on this topic please send me the link!
Oh and JayArr I can’t help it, Arr you a pirate?
(oh please forgive me if that insulted you in any way)
idreno:
continued:
“Obama is full of empty promises”
And do tell, how are these promises empty? How are McCain’s substantial?
“and has shown himself to be extremely disloyal and disrespectful to this country”
Okay, so you really ARE a nutcase then. I see now.
“his campaign made a mockery of the Presidential Seal,”
Excuse me? When and how did Obama supposedly do this?
“of Air Force One,”
And when did he do this? And also, I wasn’t aware that Air Force One was some sacred symbol. New one on me.
What color IS the sky in your world, idreno?
“he refuses to wear the symbol of the USA, our flag, upon his lapel”
In fact, idreno, he’s worn it on many occasions. Just last night in fact, but at many other times as well.
But talk about PHONY… you chastised the democrats for phoniness before and YOU are harping on someone not constantly wearing a FLAG PIN? And intimating that those who DO are more “respectful” and more appropriate for public office?
I let your nonsense speak for itself here. You’re a witless clod and I can’t improve upon illustrating this better than letting you speak for yourself.
“So now, not only does his show himself to be egotistical,”
You’re unbelievable, idreno. It’s almost funny.
EVERY person who runs for public office is egotistical. You HAVE to be. And let’s just say I KNOW from personal experience–not me–I’ve never done it. But I’ve worked CLOSELY with people who have.
“but also unconstitutional in that he intends to pull an FDR.”
You are truly sad and, I think, in need of help, idreno. A single statement said off the cuff and now Obama is “going to pull an FDR.” How does one do that, anyway? It was legal when FDR was elected to four terms. The Constitution now prevents it. Bush may have circumvented and walked all over the constitution, but it’s another thing to actually get amendments rescinded. Requires additional amendments, you see.
You’re an uninformed and off your nut ass, idreno. I keep saying that, but you see, it bear repeating. Get back on your meds.
“He knows little of what it means to be an American.”
He knows EVERYTHING of what it means to be an American, and clearly more than some brainless, witless, bigoted yahoo like you. Obama worked his way up from little to what he is today… which IS the American ideal. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a nobody on the internet, spewing nonsense and idiocy. I know which I prefer, personally.
“There is an overwhelming body of evidence proving that his birth certificate was forged.”
Oh, I see. You really are crazy. No joke.
Where is this evidence? How is that EVERY MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY LET ALONE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS MISSED IT?
We’ll leave aside all your ranting craziness about the Phillippines.. it’s beneath notice and utterly wrong. As is your conspiracy-nut ranting about Obama being “Muslim” (he isn’t).
Obama DOES speak constanly of unifying. He rarely mentions diversity. This can be seen clearly simply by examining the statements the man makes.
“I laugh at the fact that both Obama and McCain are striving to reach out to the Latino community, the Jewish community, the Black community, the Italian community (as Obama stated he will do next month around Columbus Day), etc. etc. What’s wrong with reaching out to the American community!?!”
Unbelievable.
And what ethnicity are YOU, idreno? I wonder. Some hillbilly in a shack? You sound like one.
The simple fact is that while we DO all identify ourselves as Americans, we like to retain some sense of our family connections and ethnic/national connections. There’s nothing wrong with this and in fact it’s quite charming. I had Italian/Greek aunts who were a hoot, and uncles of the same background that I used to hear all kinds of funny stories about. We were proud of that heritage as we were of our our English/German heritage–though we of course had little sense of it, since that dominant strain of our family has been here since the 1600s.
People like to congregate into communities, idreno. You may not know this living on whatever weird hilltop you live on, with your crazy extremist leaflets pasted on the walls… but people enjoy community. It’s fun, warm, and human. America is a vast collection of little communities–although sadly that’s been eroded in recent years. These communities don’t mean people are “disloyal” to America, it simply means that they like to remember where they came from and like the reassurance of it around them in a ghostly sense, as it were. It’s a human need. To imply that this equates to some kind of anti-Americanism just makes you out to sound like the stupid, ill-informed bigot that I’m seeing now you probably are.
At any rate, people vote, and it’s an easy way to reach out to them en masse, when one reaches out to them in a bloc. There’s nothing odd or un-american about it.
Much of the rest of your post was just a tiring rant.
“The Democrats, on the other hand, have a reputation for always *trying* to be liked by everyone and end up playing one group against the other;”
This is absurd. Present evidence for this.
The Democratic party is well known as NOT being on the side of big business and tending to be MORE on the side of “the little guy.” This is so obvious that grade schoolers often are aware of it. How is it you don’t? The Dems have traditionally been the party of liberal social consciousness amongst other things. Rarely have they ever compromised this, just as the Republicans have rarely ever strayed or compromised from what they are basically and traditionally known for.
“this election shouldn’t be about race, but it is.”
I don’t for a moment think that Obama wants his position to be based on his color, nor do most of his supporters. If anything it’s a liability, as we aren’t yet sure how much racism still exists in American society.
Again, logic is not only escaping you, idreno, you’ve run from it like a scared little girl.
“The Democratic party pulled one of the most audacious stunts in history…they purposefully proposed both a woman and a man of color for the position of President,”
idreno, the party “proposed” nothing of the kind. Clinton and Obama CHOSE to run. They also had competition from many white men. This is ridiculous.
Obama won the nomination because more voters liked his message and his demeanor and his vision. Clinton NEARLY won for the same reason. The others lost for the same reasons. Personality also plays a part, no doubt. But none of this singles the kind of conspiritorial affair that you’re hinting at.
Again what followed from you was more ranting.
“You see, Randall, being an Independent means that I have no allegiance to one party and that I can separate which issues I do or don’t agree with as well as decide which issues are actually important versus the ones that have no place in the Presidential election.”
You have certainly demonstrated none of this, thus far, in your arguments. Rather you come off as shrill, ignorant, blind, and narrow-minded.
“You’re attempts at defining what a “real” Independent would say or do show that you have absolutely no idea of what it means to be an Independent…you just treat it like it is yet another political party…”
Hardly, ass. I am an independent for the very fact that I was disillusioned by both parties, having at turns, in my past, been a member of each of them. I am not against the idea of political parties–they’re a necessary “evil.” But I choose not to belong to one because I no longer identify with any of them fully or even mostly.
“And to go one step further…you say that Governor Palin is a no-body but that Senator Obama is a somebody? Last time I checked, no one ever heard of him either until the advent of this election.”
Well you’ve again proven yourself an utterly ignorant and uninformed clod. Obama gained national prominence years ago. He has been an upcoming star on the national scene, and particularly within the Democratic party, for quite some time now.
“He’s been as ineffective as a political figure even moreso than she has.”
And your evidence for this statement?
“The people of Illinois have heard of him. That’s about it. And while he sits in his little office doing “senatorial” work, she was actually governing an entire state. To me, that seems to be a rather poignant difference.”
To you, perhaps, but then we’ve seen that you’re not the brightest bulb on the tree here.
US Senators do the very kind of vital and important governmental work which you yourself were referring to earlier… they legislate the top issues of our country and our national government. Being a US senator IS second only, in power, prestige, importance and gravitas, to being president or perhaps a supreme court justice, in our political system. (Leaving aside the question of presidential cabinet and so on). In his capacity as Senator, Obama has written several bills and introduced many others. He has been at the center of power in our FEDERAL government.
Alaska, on the other hand, is a geographically large but population-wise VERY small state with few issues of national importance, populated largely by isolated communities of people who have little in common with larger centers of population in the lower 48. I hesitate to say that it’s a state of whackos and hicks, in large measure, but it wouldn’t be FAR wrong to say that. At any rate, it’s a small state in every sense BUT in terms of square miles.
There’s nothing wrong with being governor of even Alaska, however, if Palin had shown any OTHER inclinations or signs that she is qualified. But she hasn’t. She didn’t go to an important school where she might have been exposed to and studied national and international issues, law, policy, and so on… she went to the University of Idaho. She didn’t study in any of the fields that matter to governing, legislating, or being a president. She didn’t work overseas or work within Washington, nor has she done anything of an international nature in her life. Perhaps in a few more years she may have. But she hasn’t yet.
I wouldn’t object so much to her if she had SOME sort of background to justify her being on the ticket even if she was still merely governer of Alaska and a former small town mayor. But she has no such background. She’s done nothing whatsoever.
“American’s need to start doing more research”
This is the most absurdly ironic statement yet, considering the nonsense you’ve spewed out here and the little you actually KNOW about these matters.
jensp123:
I’ve been posting on this site practically since it went online. And you are?
Fact is, jensp, when you are presented with a long-winded idiot like idreno, it requires responses which are in turn long-winded. No way around it.
But I certainly don’t need lecturing from someone when I’m an oldie around here. I understand why you did it, but then leave it to the administrators. It’s not your job to police the internet.
Ktbcca(133) – I was a pirate, but I got better.
Hey JF-
How about a list of the longest, most boring post ever written on Listverse. I see we have a lot of them here today.
OBAMA IN ’08!!
137. MT- Oh, but it was well deserved. Trust me, when you get not one but TWO Randall posts ripping your argument to shreds, you know you’re special and a loony, right-winger.
LOL. Nice try, idreno, but you lose.
First of all, there is nothing right-wing about me, but my veiws are certainly more conservative than they are liberal as far as taxes, immigration, and economic
Second of all, I think it’s funny how so many leftists are unable to have a simple conversation about politics but have to resort to ignorant comments and statements. I still stand by the fact that Obama is not a good candidate for the Presidency and there will be little to change my attitude about that and that far too many people already have the wool pulled over their eyes about this man. What’s funny is that you assume that because I voice my dislike for him and his campaign that I am automatically a supporter of McCain…as if there isn’t anyone else running for President.
Third of all, my information about Indonesia is not incorrect: I studied political science with the man who wrote THE book about politics and religion in Indonesia. My facts are not skewed.
Fourth of all, I apologize to all the readers here for having written too much and taking up too much space. My original comments were short and succinct…due to Randall’s averse attack on me, I attempted to explain myself.
Maybe if Randall would do more research and less ranting, he might learn something.
1st-This list certainly makes you wonder how drastically and quickly the election process will change from now on. Technology is advancing faster than even I can keep up and I’m a 24 year old who at least tries to read about the latest and greatest.
2nd-Is there a political list on this site that doesn’t have a heated crazed discussion going on lol? I guess we have quite a crew here at listverse
3rd-Did someone hack your account Randall or did you seriously just write that about yourself?
129. jensp123
Both of you are violating suggested conduct of this website by posting these ridiculously long comments, it’s not even worth saying anything about the list anymore. That’s why they have a FORUM!!
****
jensp123 , Randall’s posts may be long, but they are fact-packed and well worth reading every word.
You might not like the man’s approach, but give me a break! He knows what he’s on about, he’s factually correct in every thing he says. His posts are an historical education in and of themselves.
Randall’s posts take time and effort to read, so some people find them too difficult to deal with, “take them to forums!”, how about reading them and actually learning something? You might be surprised. You might really enjoy it.
141. Idreno: Well, you seem pretty far right-winged to me. And my comment was in response to whomever is hijacking Randall’s name and posting childish comments about him. I suspect it was you and although it showed up before the false-Randall comment, it was meant to that person. My apologies if it is not you, but you seem like the most likely culprit.
143: segue: And technically jensp123 is violating the conduct by saying they’re violating the conduct. And the word to highlight is “suggested”. Who died and made him/her the police of listverse?
I think the advancement of technology (such as the internet) is part of the problem instead of the solution. People are more interested in the tools and the “toys” and drift away from the basics. Communication should be more about what is said and what you mean rather that how fast can you get your soundbite out before the other guy can. That’s why kid’s nowadays have such a short attention span and why people pay more attention the style rather than substance.
Hmmm…you’ve got a point there MT. I think there are pros and cons though. A con would be there is a lot more garbage to sift through before you find genuine factual information. Pro is there is more readily available information. From an election standpoint I think a con would be if the presidential election was decided by who put out the best Youtube video. A pro would be if they developed a way for people to legitimately vote online once. Then we would have a much bigger voter turn out and the will of the people would be better represented. Just some thoughts but I do get what you are saying.
There is certainly so much out there to instantly occupy our minds that we can hardly pay attention to any one thing for long. I was falling victim to this and decided to cancel all of my gaming subscriptions and read all the books in the top ten fantasy list. Hopefully I end up reading most of the books on the book lists. I’ve always wanted to write a novel and have started a few times but was struggling with actually getting my imagination to work like it used too. I realized that I had stopped reading and just had zero inspiration and could no longer envision what would make a good story. I really hope to accomplish this. Sorry to go off about personal stuff but I thought it fit in with what you mentioned.
Obama 08!!!!!
for ever!!!!
Zwiebler: You must have only skimmed the list; reread the part about George H.W. Bush at the supermarket and you’ll see it refers to the ‘mistaken’ pool report.
Actually, I used snopes as a source for that sentence
Idreno: “I think it’s funny how so many leftists are unable to have a simple conversation about politics but have to resort to ignorant comments and statements.”
Actually, what I’ve seen so far is pretty much the opposite. Although Randall’s posts have been long-winded, they have also been full of FACTS, which is something that you have consistently failed to do. Whatever facts you may have thrown into your rants are weakened by the paranoid, right-wing verbal diarrhea you’re spewing. Obama is a Muslim? Give me a break, that was debunked ages ago, and the only people who thought it was important were narrow-minded bigots like you who thought that a president’s religion was more important than the platform he was pushing. “Gimme Dubya for a third term, I don’t care, at least he ain’t no dirty Muslim that’s gonna take over the world.”
It’s “facts” like those that lead to Randall and other educated listverse commenters to dismiss you as a lunatic. And frankly, if you are going to come here and say this narrow-minded BULL and then whine about how WE are the ones whose arguments don’t hold water, then you deserve to be called names.
OBAMA IN ’08!!!!
143. Cedestra
141: segue:And technically jensp123 is violating the conduct by saying they’re violating the conduct. And the word to highlight is “suggested”. Who died and made him/her the police of listverse?
Actually, that was going to be the end part of my post, but I hit submit before I added it. I thought, briefly, of posting another comment, then decided that someone (such as you) surely would.
150. segue- Great minds think alike, eh?
151. Cedestra
150. segue- Great minds think alike, eh?
****
You took the words right out of my keyboard!
;-D
Anyone else concerned with a candidate that advertises openly with his wife, “I’ve never been proud of my country until today.”? Do we really need an Anti-Patriot in the White House? I don’t know about you, but I am putting my vote in for McCain.
Oh, Ashley! My god, if you were any more wrong it would be funny. As it is, you are just wrong enough to be absurd, ridiculous, and dangerous.
I suggest you skip voting this year, if that is something you actually believe, you don’t have enough information to vote.
Ashley~ You have to give Michele Obama the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think she meant she had never been proud of her country but that she had never been MORE(I seem to remember hearing that word was actually edited out) proud of her country because of the progress the country had made in supporting a black candidate. Something that would have been unheard of a few decades a ago.
Other things you should stay away from…..Obama not wearing a lapel pin, Obama supposedly being a Muslim, Obama calling Palin a pig…Really just don’t go there those things aren’t true or are irrelevant.
segue, you should actually tell someone why they are wrong instead of the just saying it and telling them to not vote because they feel that way. I personally would never discourage anyone from voting no matter what. There isn’t some knowledge requirement a person must meet before they SHOULD vote. If Ashley is concerned about the patriotism of the Obama’s then that’s fine, I really hope she looks into it and gets more information. Perhaps you could provide a source for further education instead of a couple sentences of useless ridicule. Just a suggestion….
Sedulous:
“I personally would never discourage anyone from voting no matter what.”
I certainly would. Some people are not responsible. I would discourage someone from driving a car if they were drunk, because they could do harm to themselves as well as to others. Likewise, someone who is an ass and will vote thusly should be discouraged from voting, as their vote could contribute to harm being done to themselves as well as others, if they help to elect the wrong person to office.
Citizenship requires participation—it means having the intelligence and critical thinking skills to make good judgments about important matters. Some clearly lack this.
“There isn’t some knowledge requirement a person must meet before they SHOULD vote.”
Perhaps there ought to be.
“Perhaps you could provide a source for further education instead of a couple sentences of useless ridicule. Just a suggestion….”
Sedulous, you’re trying to be nice, I know, but think this through. Our culture is awash in information. It’s everywhere. All one need do is surf the web, open a magazine or newspaper, or turn on the TV or radio. I’d prefer they go to the print media, but that’s me. But at any rate, it’s everywhere. People shouldn’t need to be hand-held to find information.
And the fact is that the vast majority of such people would refuse such help anyway. Their minds are made up through ignorance and bigotry. Yes, education is a way of fighting ignorance, but sometimes it must also be remembered that it IS a fight, and the other side may not be interested in fighting fair or even in fighting on the ground that should be fought on.
Randall,
“Likewise, someone who is an ass and will vote thusly should be discouraged from voting, as their vote could contribute to harm being done to themselves as well as others, if they help to elect the wrong person to office.”
If they help to elect the “wrong” person into office? Randall your view of the “wrong” person isn’t the same as everyone else so does that mean you discourage those people from voting? Should everyone who is not looking to elect the same person as you not vote? Come on man I don’t care who votes for who, it’s their right to vote and if you have rights and care about those rights you should encourage people to exercise those rights. Neglecting to do so could effect whether or not you have those rights in the future.
Intelligence, critical thinking skills, and good judgment are not requirements for voting. They just aren’t I hope that every person uses them in arriving at there ultimate decision but that’s not always the case. I don’t think the color of your skin, your gender, your level of IQ, or your decision making skills should determine whether or not you can vote. Sadly, in the past some of those were determining factors and I hope that never becomes the case again.
Right now there is some idiot college kid who is voting for Obama because there favorite actor supports him and at the same time there is some bubba down south who is voting for Mccain because he doesn’t want a “colored man” in the white house(Sorry to be stereotypical or derogatory in making my point). I strongly disagree with how they arrived at their decision but it’s still their right to exercise it.
“I’d prefer they go to the print media, but that’s me. But at any rate, it’s everywhere. People shouldn’t need to be hand-held to find information.”
I would rather see those people encouraged to inform themselves about the issues that matter rather than discourage them from thinking altogether and voting. That’s what I was trying to do with Ashley. Just get more information, get the facts, where do you stand on certain issues and which candidate holds the same position as you? Don’t focus on a misconstrued sentence or rumors about someones religion or there fashion choices. Sometimes people just need advice no matter how obvious it might seem to us.
“And the fact is that the vast majority of such people would refuse such help anyway. Their minds are made up through ignorance and bigotry.”
You yourself no doubt know that a person’s view can change. Did you not say you were once a conservative (I apologize if I’m incorrect)? So you never know. If you truly feel that someone has made up their mind through ignorance and bigotry then encourage them to be better but not to stop exercising their rights. Maybe they refuse help initially but think twice about it later on. It’s possible the fruit of your labor can remain unseen until you are long detached from the situation.
Honestly I disagree with most everything you say but I really, truly, and honestly want you to keep saying it because it’s your right. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing and I appreciate the debate you bring to the table and I would never wish that you were denied the right to vote or to express who you’re are voting for and why. As I would not any other 18+ US citizen. If I don’t like what you have to say then I don’t have to listen to you and if I want to I can tell you why. Somehow we can both benefit from the discussion even if that only amounts to practicing our typing skills.
155. Sedulous…segue, you should actually tell someone why they are wrong instead of the just saying it and telling them to not vote because they feel that way… Perhaps you could provide a source for further education instead of a couple sentences of useless ridicule.
****
Sedulous, I’ve done all of that. I’ve done that over and over. The problem is that people like Ashley get their information from Rush Limbaugh, or The Fox News, or The National Enquirorer, or the manicurist, or their fundamentalist preacher and *Hot Damn*, that’s good enough for them.
I have honest tried, in good faith (and I’m talking about over a course of 20+ years), to get people to go to “hard” sources for their information.
In 9 cases out of 10 it’s a no win situation.
Ashley’s comment *was* absurd. It was yet another example of the “low information voter” and how they are, and have been for years, slowly destroying this nation. It’s low information voters who gave Bush that second four years. It will be low information voters who give us another four years of McBush…only the chances of him actually living out the term are slim, giving us the horror of a Palin presidency.
Sedulous, I’m done with hand-holding. If someone is old enough to vote then, damn it, their old enough to get the proper information on their own.
Was I condescending and rude to Ashley?
Maybe I was.
Did her comment deserve such a reaction?
Absolutely!
Am I sorry about any part of my answer?
No.
Maybe she’ll wake up and check out the actual sources and the actual quote in context. I doubt it, but maybe.
Sedulous:
“If they help to elect the “wrong” person into office? Randall your view of the “wrong” person isn’t the same as everyone else so does that mean you discourage those people from voting?”
I consider myself an intelligent, well-informed individual, Sedulous. I would gladly dissuade someone who was not an intelligent, well-informed individual from exercising his right to vote until he made some effort to become well-informed and more intelligent.
Citizenship, Sedulous, takes active participation. It shouldn’t be just taken for granted. YOU take it for granted. I do not.
Do you believe George Bush was the wrong man to be in the White House the last eight years? I do, and from every poll we see, the majority of the country agrees. But people voted twice against their OWN best interests to put him in office. What is the explanation for that? Surely some of it is due to the Democratic party fielding less than appealing candidates. But also some of it is surely due to people being incredibly stupid, ill-informed, and/or uneducated.
My advice to those people? Yeah, stop voting until you can better inform and equip yourself to vote like a responsible citizen instead of some knee-jerk moron who salivates when you wave the flag in front of his face. Stop jumping up and down for some pin-brained yokel like Sarah Palin just because you think she’s “just like you.” And so on.
“Should everyone who is not looking to elect the same person as you not vote?”
Oh please, don’t hand me that crap. You can’t paint the facts away with some pathetic attempt to smear me with an egotism label. Grow up with that *****.
“Come on man I don’t care who votes for who, it’s their right to vote and if you have rights and care about those rights you should encourage people to exercise those rights.”
WRONG. I care about my rights, including my right to vote, but I want a RESPONSIBLE, INFORMED electorate, not just a mob that walks into the voting booth when the call is placed.
“Neglecting to do so could effect whether or not you have those rights in the future.”
No, Sedulous… having an uninformed, poorly educated electorate is what WILL threaten those rights in the future. You’re on exactly the wrong side of this question. Think about it.
“Intelligence, critical thinking skills, and good judgment are not requirements for voting.”
And again, I repeat–they should be. It is merely the fact that we don’t know how to properly and appropriately quantify such things that they are not requirements. But I damn well wish they could be made so.
“I don’t think the color of your skin, your gender, your level of IQ,”
I said nothing about skin color or gender so don’t drag that into the discussion.
“Sadly, in the past some of those were determining factors and I hope that never becomes the case again.”
Again, irrelevant. You’re not going to paint some Jim Crow thing on me. Don’t try it. This is an entirely different discussion.
“Right now there is some idiot college kid who is voting for Obama because there favorite actor supports him”
You know what Sedulous? I don’t doubt that’s true. But I will DAMN WELL bet you MONEY, if we could find a way to verify it, that the number of people voting for Obama for such irrelevant reasons is FAR lower than the number of people voting for McCain for irrelevant reasons.
“and at the same time there is some bubba down south who is voting for Mccain because he doesn’t want a “colored man” in the white house”
Again, I’m quite sure you’re correct.
“I strongly disagree with how they arrived at their decision but it’s still their right to exercise it.”
Well no *****, it is. But also face facts, Sedulous. It SHOULDN’T be their right. Which is not to say that I’m in favor of taking that right away from them… that doesn’t work either. But I damn well DO wish there was a WAY to weed out such people from the electorate—because they do nothing whatsoever but bring the rest of us down and endanger ALL of us.
“That’s what I was trying to do with Ashley.”
And you need to face reality, Sedulous, that there’s an awful lot of people out there who won’t listen to facts, or the truth, or to reason. Who WON’T go an educate themselves. It’s an unpleasant truth to face, but it IS true. Are you happy to share your place in the electorate with such people? To placing your fate and the fate of your children in their hands? I’m not.
“You yourself no doubt know that a person’s view can change.”
Yes, absolutely, some times. Mine certainly has over the years. But I was also always open to it. There ARE people in this world, and in this country, who are NOT open to it and never will be.
“Did you not say you were once a conservative (I apologize if I’m incorrect)?”
Yup. But I was never an ignorant yahoo who wouldn’t listen, investigate, and think things through.
I know you mean well, and I know you’re taking the less cynical view here. But there does come a time when a protest has to be made against stupidity. It’s my life and the life of my children now, that is being affected detrimentally, because a large segment of the electorate can’t get their heads out of their asses and THINK. You want to try to educate those people, feel free. It’s a big damn job. Good luck with it. Me, I feel more inclined to write them off (I wish I just could) because if they can’t open their eyes and see reality, then I can’t see how they deserve the democratic system they have.
Democracy requires vigilance, not simply the lowest level of participation.
155. Sedulous…segue, you should actually tell someone why they are wrong instead of the just saying it and telling them to not vote because they feel that way. I personally would never discourage anyone from voting no matter what.
****
Sedulous, I used to be very active in politics. I’d hand-hold people and explain all the things they could easily have found out for themselves, but were either too lazy, too naive or too credulous to bother, rather having the information handed to them via whatever extremist radio commentator was “their” guy, or Fox News, or the National Enquirer, or the manicurist or the preacher.
Not exactly hard news sources.
But I went at it for years. To no avail. People, in general, like to take the easy way out. They hear a random, out of context quote, and Hey! Hot Damn! Lookit that! Doesn’t matter that the other guy doesn’t know jack, I’m gonna vote for him cuz this guys wife maybe said something…or maybe not…but he’s black and it’s as good an excuse as any.
Sedulous, when the low information voter is out there and doesn’t want to be anything *but* a low information voter (God knows, there’s enough information waiting, free for the asking), I believe it’s my duty to suggest they not vote.
I’m enjoying the back and forth… thought I’d add a study I recently read about voter’s ‘rational ignorance’. In other words, how do people justify voting without sufficient information to make an informed decision?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID953118_code410506.pdf?abstractid=916963&mirid=1
Chris Hughes did not develop the social network for Barack Obama. It was developed by a company called Blue State Digital.
http://www.bluestatedigital.com
BILLYtheKID:
Hughes left Facebook in early 2007 to help with the development of Obama’s social networking website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/technology/07hughes.html
Wikipedia says he “primarily acts as coordinator of online organizing within the Barack Obama presidential campaign.”
Yes, bluestatedigital built the site. However, credit is due to Hughes for helping coordinate the huge task that played a role in his early 2008 primary victory in Iowa.
Concerning #5 – I thought it was a typical American thing to do that fist punch thing? o.o
Sam,
I agree. Just because someone does a fist pound doesnt make them a terrorist… That makes A LOT of americans… and all sorts of people terrorists.. silly the things people come up with to bash both McCain and Obama.
Not sure that Drudge and the Atlantic are reputable…
@Pren: The word I used was "legitimate", and if I can properly recall the meaning I intended when employing the word over two years ago, it's that Drudge and Atlantic are legitimate disseminators of news, with pretty far reach. To touch a bit further on Drudge, several commentators on both sides of the political spectrum complain Drudge too easily drives main stream news… which is why I included it.
Fun to see people still reading this, and thanks for the excellent discussion point, Pren!
there is but one thing I don’t understand: why does it matter whether or not Mr President Obama is Muslim or not? One should judge a political figure by how well he leads and handles situations, not by his religion. That, of course, was no error of yours and I found this piece quite interesting.
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with valuable information to paintings on. You have done a formidable process and our entire group shall be grateful to you.