'08 Results

[Rsak]

Partha,

Your need to invent proof in the absence of any is astounding. There was no mandate in 2000. There was no mandate in 2004. Whether I said vocally then or now, the answer doesn't change and that is neither approval or silence. So instead of being a bitter man, grow some fucking dignity.

This year very probably is a mandate, but not in any way a landslide.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I'm a Conservative - and I can honestly give a shit less how Obama won (mandate or landslide).

I always have a line from "Super Troopers" in my head. "You can't lump us in with that fucking martian" in terms of Conservatives being a bunch of "wet blanket" crybabies.

Mandate: Obama won the popular vote. Which means, he will have the power.
Landslide: From an electoral college perspective. Obama had 349 to McCain's 163.

If I'm wrong in this interpretation -- correct me, because I don't see the point to this part of the conversation.

-TF

[Lurker]

I'm also inclined to agree that a third/fourth party is being born. I won't call it the "Socialist Party" like many of the others have because it can happen on either side. Not to mention, we already have one here in the States. For all I know, it could be the "Right-Wing Whackjobs Party (which I would happily, likely join)."

Explain.

I consider the "right-wing Whackjobs Party" to be the part of the Republican party so enamored with Sarah Palin; a party based on fear, division and hatred led by the corrupt and ignorant. That's the part of the Party at war with the more mainstream fiscal conservative wing. "Social conservatism", and the culture war tactics they employ, is a dead end for the Republican party. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the whackjobs are the majority and the mainstream are the fringe.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I like CNN's main page right now -- "GOP Identity Crisis"...

Video Link

Perhaps that's what I'm experiencing. I love God, my guns, and my Constitution. While that's such a "cliche" now, it's really how I feel. Perhaps even at the base of my political values. I do believe in morality and serving my fellow man. The honest, hard working "midwest mentality" DOES exist. I want to work hard. I want to be compensated for that work. I want the freedom to fail at what I do, so I can find my way to succeed. I don't want to be awarded for falling short or coming in last. I want to have the ability of choice, be it my choice of worship, schools for my children, my doctors, etc. I do not support government intervention in how I live my life. I do want care for the elderly and the poor. But, I also think people who CAN work, SHOULD! Those who can't, should "feel the love" and be provided assistance.

I think the "right wing" has been invaded, or possibly been judged for only a few of our numbers. It's typical of many "organizations" to punish the whole for the sake of a few.

An example I like to give is gun rights. Because 5 kids choose to shoot up a school, 5 million gun owners have to give up their right to bear arms (not real numbers, obviously). Certainly, the school shooting is a tragedy - but I would argue so is removing the rights of RESPONSIBLE people. Even as a gun owner/advocate I'd want to know where they got the guns, who sold to them, who didn't lock them up, who failed to protect the students (what if teachers could carry?), etc.

I do get angered by the people that invoke fear, desperation, and pessimism into our system in order to control people. We should focus on the many AWESOME things that still make America the best nation in the world, despite those flaws. Yet, we don't see those. We don't see people doing their level best to provide for one another. I've wondered if it's a regional thing, or just a real emotion of "every man for himself." Maybe I don't have a party, nor need one. I cannot begin to describe how this election (and the last two for that matter) effected my patriotism. The lesser of two evils should never have to be a choice, sadly I have to vote to counter the greater.

I'm sure that didn't explain it well. I'd be happy to try and answer more, but I'd likely need questions to get there.

-TF

[wende darling]

My husband, who tends to be a bit more old school republican than he is new school democrat though he is a registered democrat, said something interesting last night that I think is fairly valid. He said that he thinks by the end of it all McCain was probably glad that he lost because if he won than it meant that those whackjobs who were booing at the sheer mention of Obama's name and yelling "hang the nigger" throughout the campaign won. He often looked embarrassed that these were the people supporting him.

I wonder how things would have turned out had Hillary Clinton won the primaries. In that case my husband would have voted for McCain for two reasons, one he can't stand Hilary and two, Palin wouldn't have even come into play. I think I would have still voted Democrat though I don't know if I'd have felt as good about it. I think she probably still would have won because so many people were voting a party rather than a person. However, I think the road there would have been much dirtier and the votes much closer.

[Taxious]

I wonder how things would have turned out had Hillary Clinton won the primaries.
...
I think she probably still would have won

I know about 10 people that would have voted for McCain had Hilary been the primary democratic candidate. I don't know anyone who voted for McCain because Hilary didn't win the primaries. I think we would be in a different boat right now had Hilary been the nominee.

[Lurker]

Perhaps that's what I'm experiencing. I love God, my guns, and my Constitution. While that's such a "cliche" now, it's really how I feel. Perhaps even at the base of my political values. I do believe in morality and serving my fellow man. The honest, hard working "midwest mentality" DOES exist. I want to work hard. I want to be compensated for that work. I want the freedom to fail at what I do, so I can find my way to succeed. I don't want to be awarded for falling short or coming in last. I want to have the ability of choice, be it my choice of worship, schools for my children, my doctors, etc. I do not support government intervention in how I live my life. I do want care for the elderly and the poor. But, I also think people who CAN work, SHOULD! Those who can't, should "feel the love" and be provided assistance.

Well said.

It's not "cliche" or corny. They are American values that don't belong to a single political party, although for decades the Rush Limbaughs and Hannity's have tried to claim them exlusively for "conservatives" while falsely denouncing "liberals" as anti-American.

You described almost perfectly the values and desires that drove Obama's campaign. I think that's ultimately why he had such a large victory over a party that ran a campaign based on fear and division.

[Partha]

Perhaps that's what I'm experiencing. I love God, my guns, and my Constitution. While that's such a "cliche" now, it's really how I feel. Perhaps even at the base of my political values. I do believe in morality and serving my fellow man. The honest, hard working "midwest mentality" DOES exist. I want to work hard. I want to be compensated for that work. I want the freedom to fail at what I do, so I can find my way to succeed. I don't want to be awarded for falling short or coming in last. I want to have the ability of choice, be it my choice of worship, schools for my children, my doctors, etc. I do not support government intervention in how I live my life. I do want care for the elderly and the poor. But, I also think people who CAN work, SHOULD! Those who can't, should "feel the love" and be provided assistance.

Well, I'm not a big fan of God, seeing as how I was exposed to Southern Baptism at it's most odious at an impressionable age. But I got no problem with guns or the Constitution. Most of what you wrote there, I agree with, and if you sat down and really talked with 'hard-left' Democrats, they feel the same things. Where they stand is on the fact that we don't have a level playing field in this country, and in the last two decades, it's gotten worse. A hard day's work is not rewarded with a good day's pay in many jobs, and choosing your school or your doctor only works when you have money if you don't have a contract with your employer for good wages and benefits. The Republican Party of my youth has been highjacked by religious nutjobs on one side who insist that I can't be an American if I don't go jot and tittle with their belief system, and on the other by uber-glibertarians who believe that money is might, might makes right, and anyone who is poor deserves to suffer. Fuck. That.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I've never argued with people over their "side" in the political battles. As I said, I don't ultimately care what my title is, politically.

As for Obama's campaign being driven by the same values, perhaps. Unfortunately, there were other portions of his campaign that don't reflect my values. By pointing them out in the past, both here and in-person conversations, I was called a "whackjob." The concerns were mainly for abortion, the "redistribution" of wealth, and Obama's original stance on the 2nd Amendment. Those are three "core" issues that my values dictate that are more than seemingly opposite.

Hopefully, more voices will reach President-Elect Obama now that the "battle" is over, and work MUST get done. Hopefully, he can keep Pelosi and Reed at bay. I'm not afraid to say their morals should be questioned. I do believe them to be "destructors" of our nation. Individual politics, as opposed to serving this nation, have been the fault of BOTH parties, but I enjoy singling them out since they're expected to be leaders.

-TF

[Lurker]

As for Obama's campaign being driven by the same values, perhaps. Unfortunately, there were other portions of his campaign that don't reflect my values. By pointing them out in the past, both here and in-person conversations, I was called a "whackjob." The concerns were mainly for abortion, the "redistribution" of wealth, and Obama's original stance on the 2nd Amendment. Those are three "core" issues that my values dictate that are more than seemingly opposite.

I'd only consider someone a whackjob if they used demonstrably false information to support their beliefs. For example, if someone accused Obama of being pro-infanticide when that is demonstrably false, or accused Obama of wanting to abolish the 2nd Amendment, or wanting a radical redistribution of wealth program. Accusing him of any of that isn't accurate or honest.

It's better to find common goals than to focus on what divides us.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

[wende darling]

Choice. One of those words that means, "I want to be able to choose what's best for MY life but I want to tell you what to do with yours".

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

It's better to find common goals than to focus on what divides us.

But without division, there can be no debate for end goals. I'm simply not sold on some of his policies. I'm willing to listen to them, comment on them, and even debate them, but it MUST be a two-way street. I think if we honestly asked 100 people "do you think your Congressman/President listen to you with their hearts?" -- I'm betting 50 say "No" while 49 say "Hell No!" Look at half of the conversations that have been started here. Some end with "your reference isn't credible" or "omgz yur racistz!" or, what is worse, silence. No one wants to debate anymore because one side has to win. There's no sense of compromise anymore. You're either with us, or against us. THAT is what needs to return. Once people realize we ALL get screwed/rewarded in the end.

Redistribution of wealth -- take from those that have it. Is it hard to see this hurting the middle class and the less fortunate? Tax those billionaires, millionaires, half-millionaires...just watch how they've made their money. They own businesses that have bottom lines. They hire people and likely sell a product or service. The cost of business goes up, they either make the profit from thinning the workforce, or raising the price on their goods, which, falls to people that need that good or service. "Made in the USA" used to mean something. It gave people a certain pride. Lowering taxes to make it easier to companies to stay in business in the States versus taxing foreign trade. Both are ideas meant to accomplish the same thing. Only one of them has the power to hurt the pocketbook of Joe Sixpack. I'd listen to a scenario for the other method, gladly!

Now, I will also say some of these "big money" people need to realize they too have a part in all of this. Many donate loads of their dough, but some/most also live WAY beyond the necessities. Just because you can have 12 European cars, doesn't mean you should. More importantly, having those 12 cars, shouldn't mean you're hot shit on a stick. But, that is likely another thread...our "shortcomings" as a society, though, that would certainly prove fun to debate

Choice. One of those words that means, "I want to be able to choose what's best for MY life but I want to tell you what to do with yours".

I'm not sure how to take your sentiment, and I know I could in at least two ways. A sensitive subject regarding a choice is abortion. While I am pro-life, I don't feel the government should have ANY say what a woman chooses to do with her life. For social issues, such as gay marriage, I also don't believe the government should have a say. Personally, it doesn't matter what I think. The union of two people, is none of my damn business. I am lucky to be married to a beautiful person that loves me. I can only hope those who wish that aspect of life, may find that person and celebrate their lives together. I find it interesting people allow laws of "the man" to keep them down. Though, I am not qualified to expound on that statement. I just know no force on Earth, Heaven, or Hell could keep me from the people I love, especially my wife.

I'm either rambling, or we're having a unique discussion. While I hope it's the latter...I could put a cork in it.

-TF

[Lurker]

But without division, there can be no debate for end goals.

The point is that sometimes the end goals are the same for both sides of a debate.

Look at half of the conversations that have been started here. Some end with "your reference isn't credible" or "omgz yur racistz!"

Some people here are racist and some people do use references that spread misinformation. Nothing wrong with pointing those facts out.

On taxes, don't conflate income tax policy with coporate tax policy. Obama is proposing increasing to the top income tax rate from 36 to 39% for people earning more than 250k a year. That's aimed at income. I don't think increasing personal income taxes from 36 to 39% would have a negative effect on job creation, but it will allow us to restore some sanity to our fiscal policy while targeting tax breaks to the people that need it most.

He hasn't mentioned a tax change for corporate taxes, but he does want to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses. I'll leave it to Embar to describe how huge that would be for small business.

Colin Powell quote after he endorsed that I think is spot on.

Now I guess the message this week is, "We're going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have."

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.

I don't want my taxes raised. I don't want anybody else's taxes raised. But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed. I don't want to have a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500 billion heading toward a trillion. So, how do we deal with all of this?

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Lurker

I haven't seen how Obama will classify "capital gains for small businesses", however, if he classifys it like capital gains for individuals, then the tax would only apply if a small business sells an asset that has appreciated. This could be a small portion of the business, or the business as a whole.

And it also is dependent on Obama's definition of "small business".

[Lurker]

Obama uses the definition for small business provided by the SBA. From what you've described your business would fall solidy within that definition. My understanding of his plan is that the capital gains elimination would be for investment money put into small businesses during a certain timeframe. Not sold in that timeframe, just invested.

Here's his plan (pdf) for helping small businesses.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

But without division, there can be no debate for end goals. I'm simply not sold on some of his policies. I'm willing to listen to them, comment on them, and even debate them, but it MUST be a two-way street. I think if we honestly asked 100 people "do you think your Congressman/President listen to you with their hearts?" -- I'm betting 50 say "No" while 49 say "Hell No!" Look at half of the conversations that have been started here. Some end with "your reference isn't credible" or "omgz yur racistz!" or, what is worse, silence. No one wants to debate anymore because one side has to win. There's no sense of compromise anymore. You're either with us, or against us. THAT is what needs to return. Once people realize we ALL get screwed/rewarded in the end.

Well put, Tarfang. There's different levels of division though. When people are divided by hate, there is no philosophical discussion. We as a society need to learn to keep our passion but let go of the hate. We need that fundamental respect for those we are debating against, and we need to turn our backs on those that would use debate as a vehicle to further hate and ignorance. That's the real divide. Once we can debate as brothers and sisters, the philosophical divide doesn't look so large. In fact, I would say that the diversity of our opinions is a strength and not a weakness.

What I took Obama's statement on abortion and gun control to mean is that the debate on these issues will be long and passionate, but let's at least take the low hanging fruit first. There's a pretty big overlap here.

And I totally agree that united we stand, divided we fall. Our commonality is greater than our differences, which makes that seem like a very good starting point.

[Ddrak]

"You're with us or you're against us" is the path to extremism and annihilation and the fundamental danger of Neoconservatism and the last 8 years of the US Presidency. Only by "agreeing to disagree" can two parties move past their minor differences to form something stronger.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

It's better to find common goals than to focus on what divides us.

But without division, there can be no debate for end goals.
-TF

I haven't even read the rest of your post yet but I had to stop and boggle at the first sentence.

[Rsak]

I haven't even read the rest of your post yet but I had to stop and boggle at the first sentence.

In isolation it is is illogical, but in the perspective of US government it is a very critical point.

The US is stronger with varying opinions coming together. The danger is the when the smaller opinions are either silenced or broadcast.

If dissent is silenced then you have problems like civil rights issues, the McCarthy communism scare, and even larger tragedies like the Holocaust where everyone was just following orders. So the minority should definitely be able to raise their voice and state their objections, but it needs to be done in the ballot box or the voting in Congress.

If dissent is broadcast then you have a situation where a vocal minority is using courts to supersede the majority. You can see this with court ruled action that is directly counter to the citizens will.

The exception to a broadcast of smaller opinions being detrimental is when there is a blatant hypocrisy in the laws such as our civil rights history with the Constitution/Emancipation and state laws. These situations were used to keep the Democracy honest with itself.

Some people here are racist and some people do use references that spread misinformation. Nothing wrong with pointing those facts out.

The problem is that this board is largely full of people with closed minds. Instead of actually looking at others positions or what they said they conflate their preconceived notion of that poster with their interpretation of the comments the poster made. Empathy is required to see situations from both sides, not to excuse what you see wrong, but to realize that there are no innocents when it comes to "misdeeds". The simple truth of the matter is every poster on this board can be accused of using references that spread misinformation, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the validity of the reference at the time of the post.

This leads to the larger problem that "Agreeing to disagree" is largely impossible, with the winner take all mentality here.

[Select]

A sensitive subject regarding a choice is abortion. While I am pro-life, I don't feel the government should have ANY say what a woman chooses to do with her life.

o.O Those views mean you are pro-choice, but personally choose the "life" half of that choice. Unless you are voting for candidates who believe in limiting it, but then that nixes "I don't feel the government should have ANY say what a woman chooses to do with her life."