|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 14 2016 15:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 14:36 JW_DTLA wrote:On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to. Gay marriage polled at 40% at best in the 90s. It polls at 60-70% now. The big middle of the country evolved, the part whose votes matter. Politicians can evolve with that big middle 30%. Yes. That's what I said. Changing your opinion based on polling data is correctly ridiculed. One other thing that flip-floppers are consistently unable to articulate (and why they are correctly ridiculed) is why they supported the old position. Just by way of example, Obama was against gay marriage in 2008, but now cannot seemingly comprehend why someone would continue to hold that position. In fact, he and his allies treat it as bigotry. Lets assume we didn't have the 22nd Amendment, and he was running for a 3rd term, why would a moderate liberal who holds free speech in high regard not assume he would make a similar switch following a hypothetical 2016 election regarding things like trigger warnings and other censorship issues (in the event that a significant % of the Democratic voting block adopts that stance)?
Those things aren't even remotely equivalent, you really have a way with stretching things.
I'm quite positive everyone knows someone who was against gay marriage 5-10 years ago and now believes anyone against it can't have any logical reason to be any more. I'm sure you have friends of family members that fit into that camp, do you doubt their convictions? Smart people that realize they're wrong change their minds. If there's no logical argument to be made against it only an imbecile would keep their old opinion.
|
The problem with flip-flopping candidates is that voters no longer know what they are voting for if they vote for a flip-flopping candidate. If you are staunchly in favor of smaller government (lowering taxes and government services) and vote for a candidate whose platform is on smaller government, you expect your candidate to follow through. If he flip-flops, then you feel betrayed.
If a candidate has a history of flip-flopping on issues, even ones you don't care much about, would you trust him on the issues you do care about?
So it really becomes a question of are you voting for
1) A thinking, changing candidate who you trust to make good decisions based on the most current information.
2) The closest embodiment of a set of ideas that you prefer.
If you are voting for #1, then a flip-flopper is not a problem if you trust his intelligence and believe that he is moving towards better positions. If you are voting for #2, then a flip-flopper is a bad thing. I'd also say that people who vote based on party lines are almost exclusively in camp #2, even if they don't want to admit it.
|
Well… Flip-Floping is not the same as adjusting/altering your position over time. The former thing is mostly done for political gain, the latter is a natural and important process.
Sadly, these two get mixed by the media/other candidates.
|
On January 14 2016 18:48 Velr wrote:
Well… Flip-Floping is not the same as adjusting/altering your position over time. The former thing is mostly done for political gain, the latter is a natural and important process.
Sadly, these two get mixed by the media/other candidates.
To be fair someone who adjusts their opinion over time should be able to explain why. Politicians who flip-flop usually can't explain why they changed their minds, they just hammer down the same arguments that were hammered by those who were their opponents the day before.
|
On January 14 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On January 14 2016 05:54 Deathstar wrote:On January 14 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On January 14 2016 05:10 cLutZ wrote:On January 14 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:On January 14 2016 05:01 Deathstar wrote:On January 14 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 14 2016 03:09 OtherWorld wrote:
Heyoh guys, how is the Sanders - Clinton battle shaping up?
edit : and how is the Republican primary really shaping up? Here in France we mostly hear about TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP, but what are his actual chances - at the primary, not at the presidency should he win the primary ? Well Clinton sent out her daughter and she herself have been attacking Sanders on Universal healthcare saying he wants to get rid of the ACA, medicare, medicaid, ect. Clinton needs a back hand smack to the face Clinton was all about the single payer system until she received a couple million in speaking fees from health care providers. Please, she still is. She's just under the impression that running Romney's 2012 strategy from the left will get her the White House. She also was receiving money from private prisons up until it became impossible to be a Democrat and take money from. I am not a fan of a lot of the groups she is receiving money from. On January 14 2016 05:14 Deathstar wrote:
Why is Jeb Bush still in this race? He should take his guacamole recipe and start a mexican restaurant instead.
Also, I hope dirt on Chelsea Clinton starts popping up. If you're going to send your daughter to do your campaign work she's fair game. TBH, that is super gross. Peoples family should be able to participle and support their parents without the world trying to destroy them. I accept that some people are going to do some digging, but wishing it would happen is gross. Chelsea Clinton talking about how great her mom is is different from Chelsea Clinton attacking other political candidates. There's a distinction IMO and one makes her deserving as a target. One of the main problems with American elections in a nutshell. Attacking characters instead of arguing over solutions is what got it stuck in the hole it is in. You have attacked the political process in the US and are now a valid target. Soon all the details of your life will be printed for all to see. Thank you for taking part in the political process, we hope you return soon.
Don't play the game if you don't want to lose anything. It's been a long-held standard that you don't attack people unless they stick their nose in (Wa-Po broke that rule with Cruz's daughters). If Chelsea stays on the sidelines and just cheerleaders for her mom, I think she should be completely left alone.
If she jumps in though then I think everyone should open up with both barrels. Elections are too important to use kid gloves with the opposing team.
|
Chelsea Clinton knew exactly what she was getting into. This was a strategic move. This wasn't some little girl finally mustering the courage to say "that's not right!". This was a grown ass woman entering the political stage and I imagine knows exactly what it means to be a Clinton.
|
From what I've seen from Bernie he seems to be too classy to do that stuff. Another thing I like about him...
He doesn't need to fling shit. He may or may not correct Chelsea, but he doesn't need to attack her personally. What would be the point anyway? He is trying to win by showing the voters that what he believes in is right, not by digging up that the daughter of his opponent has some horrible character flaw.
|
Hey, however you justify that desire to see the sorted details of her personal life. Because that is the real issue that we should be talking about.
|
On January 14 2016 23:10 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
From what I've seen from Bernie he seems to be too classy to do that stuff. Another thing I like about him...
He doesn't need to fling shit. He may or may not correct Chelsea, but he doesn't need to attack her personally. What would be the point anyway? He is trying to win by showing the voters that what he believes in is right, not by digging up that the daughter of his opponent has some horrible character flaw.
True. As much as I hope he loses, Bernie Sanders is something I never thought I'd see: an honest Democrat.
I hope it's a Sanders v. Trump race. It would be awesome to see the outsiders blow away both establishments and give America a real, honest choice.
|
If Bernie addresses Chelsea's attacks on Bernie's healthcare plan (and I'm sure he will be prompted to by the media), then I'm sure that he'll refute the argument without assassinating her character. Bernie's been incredibly good at not throwing out ad hominems and really sticking to the validity of plans and arguments. He'll probably say something smart and straightforward like "I respect Chelsea's views and she's a very smart woman, but the things she's saying about my plan are incorrect, and here's why..." Very respectful and tactful, but still hitting home the point that his healthcare plan is in the best interest of the country.
|
On January 14 2016 23:54 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 23:10 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
From what I've seen from Bernie he seems to be too classy to do that stuff. Another thing I like about him...
He doesn't need to fling shit. He may or may not correct Chelsea, but he doesn't need to attack her personally. What would be the point anyway? He is trying to win by showing the voters that what he believes in is right, not by digging up that the daughter of his opponent has some horrible character flaw. True. As much as I hope he loses, Bernie Sanders is something I never thought I'd see: an honest Democrat. I hope it's a Sanders v. Trump race. It would be awesome to see the outsiders blow away both establishments and give America a real, honest choice.
Out of curiosity, are there any current Republican candidates who you think are honest? You mention Trump here, who is a pathological liar and just plain ignorant on all things related to politics, so that really doesn't help... but anyone else?
|
Yeah Bernie won't attack Chelsea, but Chelsea's name is now circulating in the media. Another group may attack and frankly, I'm sure the Republicans have a stash of attack material for the entire Clinton family they're dying to use. But that'll wait based on whether Clinton becomes the nominee.
But please, attacking character is fair game. Do you see Jeb Bush's son attacking Marco Rubio or Donald Trump? Who, besides the Clintons, have used their own child/ren to attack other political candidates?
"I'm going to use my only child to attack you but please don't attack her back because it's totally gross!"
|
I was saying your desire to see that happen is gross, IMO. I am one of those people that thinks private lives should be private. Politician included. I can think of a single thing I need to know about Clinton’s daughter. Unless she is out there advocating for something while doing the exact opposite, I don’t care. And most of the time when we find that out, I sort of don't care then.
You can believe she is a valid target. That is fine. It won’t change the fact that I find that brand of politics gross, self destructive and not at all productive.
|
On January 15 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:
Yeah Bernie won't attack Chelsea, but Chelsea's name is now circulating in the media. Another group may attack and frankly, I'm sure the Republicans have a stash of attack material for the entire Clinton family they're dying to use. But that'll wait based on whether Clinton becomes the nominee.
But please, attacking character is fair game. Do you see Jeb Bush's son attacking Marco Rubio or Donald Trump? Who, besides the Clintons, have used their own child/ren to attack other political candidates?
"I'm going to use my only child to attack you but please don't attack her back because it's totally gross!"
Cruz did that with an ad that included his kids and when the (I think) NYT made a comic about them it was instantly not cool and people got super offended "come on, you can't bring kids in this!".
I'm kinda with them on this one. Don't think you should be attacking kids on a national level like this.
|
|
|
On January 15 2016 00:21 Plansix wrote:
I was saying your desire to see that happen is gross, IMO. I am one of those people that thinks private lives should be private. Politician included. I can think of a single thing I need to know about Clinton’s daughter. Unless she is out there advocating for something while doing the exact opposite, I don’t care. And most of the time when we find that out, I sort of don't care then.
You can believe she is a valid target. That is fine. It won’t change the fact that I find that brand of politics gross, self destructive and not at all productive.
I suppose this is more so a matter of definition. She said what she said under the assumption that she would be attacked for it. She has been a Clinton for long enough to know how political attacks work. As for whether or not personal attacks are ethical is a totally different issue. I'm not arguing that personal attacks are always ethical. I am arguing that Chelsea Clinton made a conscious decision to enter into that battlefield and that she knew what consequences come with that decision. So whether it is right or wrong for her to be attacked is kind of based on if you are addressing morality or how things are done. Every piece of history indicates it is normal for her to now be attacked, meaning she decided to be in that spotlight.
|
On January 15 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:
Yeah Bernie won't attack Chelsea, but Chelsea's name is now circulating in the media. Another group may attack and frankly, I'm sure the Republicans have a stash of attack material for the entire Clinton family they're dying to use. But that'll wait based on whether Clinton becomes the nominee.
But please, attacking character is fair game. Do you see Jeb Bush's son attacking Marco Rubio or Donald Trump? Who, besides the Clintons, have used their own child/ren to attack other political candidates?
"I'm going to use my only child to attack you but please don't attack her back because it's totally gross!"
I think if Chelsea is attacking Bernie's positions and not character, then Bernie should be able to refute Chelsea's positions without assassinating her character. Same goes with any other kids or candidates, if they're voluntarily jumping into the limelight.
|
Canada11607 Posts
It also depends on what you mean by character attack/ digging up dirt. If you mean digging up financing/ campaign donations from organizations, I think that is fair game- following the money is quite important. But it's also a matter of public interest, and not private lives.
However, what does this mean exactly: Also, I hope dirt on Chelsea Clinton starts popping up.
Maybe it wasn't intentional, but it sounds like hoping for any sort of character assassination, including personal life. And that sort of thing is an ugly way of fighting, a fallacious way of fighting and a complete distraction. I, personally, don't look forward to personal character attacks near so much. However, maybe the entire argument stems from a lack of clarification on what we mean by 'dirt.' Or maybe not.
|
On January 14 2016 17:23 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 15:21 cLutZ wrote:On January 14 2016 14:36 JW_DTLA wrote:On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote:
I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to. Gay marriage polled at 40% at best in the 90s. It polls at 60-70% now. The big middle of the country evolved, the part whose votes matter. Politicians can evolve with that big middle 30%. Yes. That's what I said. Changing your opinion based on polling data is correctly ridiculed. One other thing that flip-floppers are consistently unable to articulate (and why they are correctly ridiculed) is why they supported the old position. Just by way of example, Obama was against gay marriage in 2008, but now cannot seemingly comprehend why someone would continue to hold that position. In fact, he and his allies treat it as bigotry. Lets assume we didn't have the 22nd Amendment, and he was running for a 3rd term, why would a moderate liberal who holds free speech in high regard not assume he would make a similar switch following a hypothetical 2016 election regarding things like trigger warnings and other censorship issues (in the event that a significant % of the Democratic voting block adopts that stance)? Those things aren't even remotely equivalent, you really have a way with stretching things. I'm quite positive everyone knows someone who was against gay marriage 5-10 years ago and now believes anyone against it can't have any logical reason to be any more. I'm sure you have friends of family members that fit into that camp, do you doubt their convictions? Smart people that realize they're wrong change their minds. If there's no logical argument to be made against it only an imbecile would keep their old opinion.
Yes, actually I do doubt it such convictions. If someone changed on gay marriage over the last few years they still should be capable of identifying the reasons they supported the old position, and should be able to empathize with those who still do. And, in fact, that is what the normal people who I know that have switched are. They say something like, "I was worried about tradition, and two men raising a girl seemed like a risky thing to rush into, etc. Now I don't have that fear because <reasons and anecdotes>."
Only a politician cannot do that, because they would be saying, "I saw a poll saying 80% of voters didn't like gay marriage, then I saw one where 50% liked it, so I changed." And, thus, because they never knew why they had the first position to begin with, they cannot articulate what those reasons were, when asked.
|
Norway28926 Posts
On January 14 2016 22:54 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On January 14 2016 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:On January 14 2016 05:54 Deathstar wrote:On January 14 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On January 14 2016 05:10 cLutZ wrote:On January 14 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:On January 14 2016 05:01 Deathstar wrote:On January 14 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 14 2016 03:09 OtherWorld wrote:
Heyoh guys, how is the Sanders - Clinton battle shaping up?
edit : and how is the Republican primary really shaping up? Here in France we mostly hear about TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP, but what are his actual chances - at the primary, not at the presidency should he win the primary ? Well Clinton sent out her daughter and she herself have been attacking Sanders on Universal healthcare saying he wants to get rid of the ACA, medicare, medicaid, ect. Clinton needs a back hand smack to the face https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312 Clinton was all about the single payer system until she received a couple million in speaking fees from health care providers. Please, she still is. She's just under the impression that running Romney's 2012 strategy from the left will get her the White House. She also was receiving money from private prisons up until it became impossible to be a Democrat and take money from. I am not a fan of a lot of the groups she is receiving money from. On January 14 2016 05:14 Deathstar wrote:
Why is Jeb Bush still in this race? He should take his guacamole recipe and start a mexican restaurant instead.
Also, I hope dirt on Chelsea Clinton starts popping up. If you're going to send your daughter to do your campaign work she's fair game. TBH, that is super gross. Peoples family should be able to participle and support their parents without the world trying to destroy them. I accept that some people are going to do some digging, but wishing it would happen is gross. Chelsea Clinton talking about how great her mom is is different from Chelsea Clinton attacking other political candidates. There's a distinction IMO and one makes her deserving as a target. One of the main problems with American elections in a nutshell. Attacking characters instead of arguing over solutions is what got it stuck in the hole it is in. You have attacked the political process in the US and are now a valid target. Soon all the details of your life will be printed for all to see. Thank you for taking part in the political process, we hope you return soon. Don't play the game if you don't want to lose anything. It's been a long-held standard that you don't attack people unless they stick their nose in (Wa-Po broke that rule with Cruz's daughters). If Chelsea stays on the sidelines and just cheerleaders for her mom, I think she should be completely left alone. If she jumps in though then I think everyone should open up with both barrels. Elections are too important to use kid gloves with the opposing team.
what the hell do you mean? You think that once you involve yourself in politics you deserve to be ostracized for anything you've said or done that might not make you look like a saint even if it has no relation to any political ideas you are trying to fight for? Imo, 'elections are too important' to make stuff that isn't politically relevant significant, because we need to elect the leaders with the best ideas. How the hell would Chelsea smoking pot when she was 17 or cheating on her boyfriend when she was 20 or whatever the fuck it is you want them to target matter in the context of hillary being a good president?
Like, I get that if some candidate is being anti-drug while using drugs, that's relevant. If a candidate is incredibly pro-family yet a serial cheater, that's relevant. If a candidate in any way exposes himself as a serious hypocrite, that's relevant. But nobody is a saint, and even if somebody is a saint, that does not automatically mean that the person is the most suitable person for holding a political position. It's possible to dig up dirt on virtually anyone if you try hard enough - making this the focus point of a political debate (except when exposing hypocrisy - it is relevant then) only detract from the actually meaningful issues. And targeting sons or daughters - that's even worse, regardless of whether the son or daughter chooses to get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
