An American Dream (full version)
The story of Joshua Stroman, a student in South Carolina, who was inspired by the Obama campaign to break down old barriers and change his generation's attitude towards politics.
Tags:
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The amusing thing is that few people when put on the post can name any of Obama's accomplishments. They want to vote for him because they like his personality. There's a good basis for choosing the most powerful person on the planet.
My favorites (aside from "ummm..."): "His experience with the elderly" and "He's a great orator". Hilarious.
I think many people would have been hard pushed to name George Bush's accomplishments before they first elected him.
If I remember correctly he was the candidate that "you could have a beer with".
But tell me, who is your candidate so far Jason? Who, out of all of them, would you favour as your next President?
Sine I don't have a vote in the primaries, I only have a choice between the two candidates chosen by their respective parties. It looks like for the Republicans that will be McCain. Too early to tell who the Democrat candidate will be, but I hope it's Clinton (she'll lose more easily for one thing, but she's still a better choice than Obama). Between the two, I would vote for McCain (which is immaterial because I live in a blue state), although I have issues with all three of the potential candidates.
Basically the choice is going to come down to a moderate or a liberal. I'll choose the moderate.
I think many people would have been hard pushed to name George Bush's accomplishments before they first elected him.
Not knowing anything about the candidate doesn't make for an intelligent voter, as these people clearly demonstrate. The reason they can't name any of his accomplishments is because he doesn't have any. And all this just goes to further demonstrate my belief that by and large liberals tend more towards idealism whereas conservatives tend more towards realism.
Too early to tell who the Democrat candidate will be, but I hope it's Clinton (she'll lose more easily for one thing, but she's still a better choice than Obama).
Your claim of being an "independent" gets undermined every time you wish for the Democrats to lose.
Not knowing anything about the candidate doesn't make for an intelligent voter, as these people clearly demonstrate.
Of course it doesn't, but tell the truth, did you vote for Bush first time around?
Your claim of being an "independent" gets undermined every time you wish for the Democrats to lose.
I've tried on multiple occasions to explain our political system, but it's clear you don't get it. If I wasn't an independent, I could vote in the primaries in my state. Since I am neither a Republican or Democrat (in other words, an independent), I cannot vote in either of those primaries in my state. What I am is a national defense and economic conservative. That said, I understand that you probably cannot reconcile that in your mind because of your lack of understanding about US politics.
Of course it doesn't, but tell the truth, did you vote for Bush first time around?
No, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but I did in 2004.
You forget that one reason people may vote for a candidate is not because they agree with the candidate's positions, but because they disagree strongly with his opposition. I voted for Bush in '04 for his positions (although I didn't agree with all of them) and what he had done up to that point. Even had I not supported Bush, as a military veteran, there was no way in hell I would have voted for that scumbag Kerry, and would have voted for anyone running against him.
I've tried on multiple occasions to explain our political system, but it's clear you don't get it.
No, you don't get my point. I'm not talking about whether or not you are registered as a Republican, I am talking about your mindset. You call it, "a national defense and economic conservative", I call that a Republican.
And that is what you are, whether registered or not.
You call it, "a national defense and economic conservative", I call that a Republican.
You can call it what you want. That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong to do so and that your knowledge of our political system is so simplistic that you can only comprehend it in terms of black and white as opposed to the shades of gray that it really is.
Others have referred to you on here as my "resident Kool Aid drinker".
I prefer Republican. It's more polite. Tell me, Mr Independent, how many Democratic Presidential candidates have you ever voted for?
I prefer Republican. It's more polite.
You can prefer it, but it still demonstrates your ignorance. In the speech given right after Romney bowed out, McCain said told the crowd that he had "confidence that conservative principles still appeal to a majority of Americans, Republicans, independents and Reagan Democrats".
McCain, everyone else running for President, and most Americans for that matter are able to parse the difference between a set of principles and a party affiliation, but you seem unable to.
Conservatism and liberalism define a set of general political principles. Democrats (such as the so-called Reagan Democrats), republicans, Libertarians, independents, and others can all describe themselves as conservatives if they hold certain principles. Likewise Republicans, independents, Libertarians, and others can be considered liberal if they generally subscribe to tenants of liberalism (McCain is a good example of a liberal Republican, but there are better examples often coming out of very blue states, such as the New England states for example).
Being a Democrat means being registered to vote as a Democrat or belongs to the Democrat party. Similarly, a Republican is one who is registered to vote as a Republican and belongs to the Republican party. An independent is someone who is not affiliated with any party and is not registered to vote with any particular affiliation.
So you see, every time you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between conservatism/liberalism, and party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, independent, etc...), you're just displaying your ignorance of the US political landscape. And that's okay because since you aren't from here you can't be expected to really understand it, but just don't pretend that you do when it's obvious you don't. Or at the very least if someone who does understand their own political system is trying to educate you, you might want to listen sometimes.
Tell me, Mr Independent, how many Democratic Presidential candidates have you ever voted for?
None. I had to vote absentee for most of my voting life because I was in the military from the age of 17 until I was 30, couldn't have cared less about my state's local politicians because I didn't live there (military people maintain a home of record from where their ballot is cast), and since it was a very very blue New England state, all my state's electors were going to the Democrat candidate anyway so there was no point in going through the hassle of absentee voting.
There have been two Presidential elections since I left the military (2000, 2004), and as I had not yet established residency in the state I remained in after leaving the military and I had no interest in casting a ballot from my former home of record for the same reasons previously mentioned (the New England state), I did not vote. Once I established my residency where I live now I vote in all the national and local elections, and while I have not voted for a Democrat candidate for President, I have voted for Democrats for US Senate as well as local positions.
Jason, I undestand well the fact that you choose to refer to Republicans only as people registered with the party, and am sure that you cling to this and pretend that you think I don't understand what a Republican is when I call you one.
I know fine well what it is and, just as McCain might be referred to as a liberal Republican, he remains a Republican in my book. Just as I consider Liebermann a Republican, no matter how many times I am told he is an independent.
I undestand well the fact that you choose to refer to Republicans only as people registered with the party
The only choice I'm making is to use the correct terms, and the terms as they are understood by any US voter.
and am sure that you cling to this and pretend that you think I don't understand what a Republican is when I call you one
Clearly you don't.
just as McCain might be referred to as a liberal Republican, he remains a Republican in my book.
Okay, we're getting somewhere. McCain is a member of the Republican party so he is most definitely a Republican.
Just as I consider Liebermann a Republican, no matter how many times I am told he is an independent
And now we crash and burn. Oh well, let's not let facts and correct language usage get in the way of anything I guess.
Then if I may sum up, you are vaguely aware that there are these concepts of liberalism and conservatism that are political philosophies that have nothing to do with a person's party affiliation, yet you believe that if one is a conservative they are therefore be a Republican, and if one is a liberal they must therefore be a Democrat.
Let's take this a step farther... Do you believe that a person acan hold a mis of conservative and liberal values? Does someone have to subscribe to liberal philosophies across the board or conservative philosophies acroos the board?
Can I for example be an economic conservative and a social liberal at the same time? Can a person be economically liberal and also socially conservative?
And assuming (big assumption) that we can agree that people may hold a mix of viewpoints that might be considered conservative, liberal, or moderate on various issues, on what basis do you choose to label them with a party affiliation that is not their own?
My theory is that you simply choose a couple of issues that you think must only be supported by what you call "Republicans" (which we've already established has no relation to what a Republican actually is) or "Democrats" (also apparently little relation to what a Democrat actually is) and anyone that supports those issues is therefore a "Democrat" or a "Republican", regardless of the incontrovertible fact that they may be otherwise.
What this would indicate to someone who understands US politics (and quite honestly most US citizens can explain the difference by middle school or high school) is that you are confused about our system. Yet you insist you are not confused while at the same time demonstrating that you still don't seem to get it.
So if we take you at your word that you do understand the concepts of conservatism, liberalism, and party affiliation, while at the same time refusing to use the terms correctly, then I guess there are other issues at work here. And if you refuse to accept these basic facts, what does that indicate for much of the rest of what you are saying? To me it indicates a mind that is not able to assimilate information that flies in the face of preconceptions.
Let's take this a step farther... Do you believe that a person acan hold a mis of conservative and liberal values? Does someone have to subscribe to liberal philosophies across the board or conservative philosophies acroos the board?
Look, we have the same thing here where some Labour supporters are more left wing than others and the same can be said for many Conservatives but broadly speaking the Labour supporters believing that the state should intervene more to help people and the Conservatives broadly thinking the private sector should have much more influence and that the state should help as little as possible.
However, the distinction you seek to make - certainly in your case - is almost non-existent. Every single time you comment on here the views you are expressing are on the right of the political spectrum.
Maybe there's the odd issue where you think that the state should have intervened, New Orleans perhaps, but usually I know what stance you are going to take before you even take it.
And, as I said months ago, we both know that come November, if you vote, you will vote for whoever the Republicans put forward.
Every single time you comment on here the views you are expressing are on the right of the political spectrum.
I have never claimed that I don't lean right on many issues. What I have stated is that despite your insistence to the contrary, I do not happen to be a Republican. That said, the range of topics is necessarily limited here, understandably excluding most of the US domestic issues that are of importance to voters. Lacking a broad enough sample of these topics of interest certainly doesn't allow for a complete picture.
Health care, immigration, economics, crime, and a host of other topics hold value for the US voter that I wouldn't expect to be of much interest to a non-US resident since they are not affected by these issues.
Health care, immigration, economics, crime, and a host of other topics hold value for the US voter that I wouldn't expect to be of much interest to a non-US resident since they are not affected by these issues.
Agreed. Although I would be surprised if you were not on the right of the four issues you have named.
Post a Comment