Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 7

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Sustainer, it is clear that you want to vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office 

 

I hope that's clear by now, since I said it in my very first post on this thread.

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You like the green party candidate more, but because she has no chance of winning, you aren't voting for her.

Yup.  Correct.

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I can't understand this way of thinking. 

 

Apparently not.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

All I know is that you are voting for someone for a very wrong reason.

 

You think it is is a wrong reason, inexplicably, but it is actually the most reasonable reason in the world.  One of two people will be President and I'm picking the one I think is better.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I also know that you are trying to convince me that my voting for a third party is illogical and a tragic waste. 

Absolutely incorrect, as I've clarified many times now.  *Your* vote, or the vote of any one else who has no preference between the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning, is neither illogical nor a tragic waste.  What I said was that, when someone does prefer Obama to Romney, and they don't vote for Obama, I find it to be illogical, tragic, and wasteful.

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You don't for one second want to see the other side of things, that is clear.

Actually, there have been one or two people in this discussion who have made a case for voting 3rd party which was more reasonable than the case you made.  I recognized the validity of what they said.  It is still my opinion that it is better to vote for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

Anyone can read back these posts and realize that you are, in fact, trying to convince me to go your way. 

I encourage everyone to re-read all of my posts and make their own determination about this.  I trust that they will not close their eyes when they come to certain sentences, as you seem to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

I have never tried to persuade you or anyone else who has posted on this thread, or just read it to vote my way.

Voting "your way" means voting for the candidate that the voter likes the most, even if voting for that candidate only helps the candidate that the voter likes least become President.  You have tried to persuade people to do this.  I never said that you were trying to get people to vote for a *particular* candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it. 

And then you said that you hadn't tried to get anyone to do *anything.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

I will never vote for someone to keep someone else out of office. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.

If you say so.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

There are more than two candidates running. 

...only 2 of whom have a chance of winning...

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 
 

Choosing from either the democrat side or the republican side because they are the only options that can win is sad. 

Not sad.  Realistic.  Reasonable.  Practical.  Effective.  Sensible.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 Believe or not, I actually agree with what you're saying here

I do believe it.  It would be very odd if a 3rd party supporter did not support it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I still think what you are doing is a wasted vote

It's only a waste from your perspective because you think Obama and Romney are equally bad.  I don't think that they are.

No reasonable person could think it is wasteful to vote in a way that actually has an effect on which of the two candidates who has a chance becomes the President, IF one of the two is better than the other.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

They actually are supposed to be in the debates, but they (the mainstream parties) won't allow them. 

There are certain standards for who is allowed in the debate.  They have to have attained a certain level of support from voters.  Only Obama and Romney met the qualifications this year.  When Ross Perot met the requirements, he was allowed in the debate.  The way the system is set up now, with only 2 candidates having a chance to win, I actually think it would be a bad idea to include 3rd party candidates in the debate.  

 

I support instant run-off voting, and when we have that, I will support 3rd party candidates in the debates.

 

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

But, do you realize why it's very frustrating to hear that some people are only voting to keep someone else out of office? 

I wish *you* could realize how frustrating it is to hear someone say that people should vote for someone who has no chance of winning, even though the only effect of doing this instead of voting for the better of the 2 who have a chance of winning will be that the candidate *farthest* from the voter's views will become President!

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

My wish is that people would vote to make this country better and pick the best candidate for the job whether it be democrat, independent, republican, green party, etc.

If the candidate that a voter thinks would be the best for the job is a candidate who has no chance of winning, then voting for that candidate would NOT make the country better!  In fact, since failing to vote for the preferred candidate out of the 2 who has a chance of winning will result in the *worse* of the 2 winning, the result is that the country will be made *worse*!  Arg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

It's a shame because there are some really great people who want to do great things

It's a shame that we don't have instant run-off voting.  But the way the system is set up now, those "great people" have no chance to do those "great things," no matter who their supporters vote for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

it sounds like people just want to vote to keep someone else out of office.

That's all we can do.  There are only 2 people who can become President.

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

But I guess that's the thing, Im not 100% on board with anyone- so I'm going to cast my vote in the direction that is most likely to yield the kind of results I want to see. 

Yeah, according to erinmattsmom, you shouldn't even vote.  

Personally, even if I agreed 100% with a candidate who had no chance of winning, I wouldn't vote for them, because that would prevent me from using my vote to express my preference for the candidate I preferred out of the two candidates who had a chance of winning.  I want to have a positive effect on the actual outcome.  I vote on real world consequences, not abstract ideals.  I don't want my vote to be symbolic when it can be effective instead.  There clearly are exactly 2 potential results, and one is clearly better than the other.  There has never been a Presidential election in which I didn't see a *huge* difference between the two candidates who had a chance of winning, and I don't expect that there ever will be.  But even if there were only the tiniest of differences, I would still consider it more useful to use my vote to express my preference for the slightly better one, then to use it to express my support for a candidate I 100% agreed with, who had no chance of winning.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/20/12 at 12:30pm

[erinmattsmom88]

 You have tried to persuade people to do this. I never said that you were trying to get people to vote for a *particular* candidate.

I am not trying to PERSUADE anyone to do anything. I am offering and bringing to light a different way of approaching voting than what you are saying and trying to convince people to do.

If I said something like this, " I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama." Then, yes, you saying I am trying to persuade people to do something would be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

I have merely stated that there are more than two options, and have encouraged folks to look into them. I have also encouraged folks to vote for the best for the job, and if they feel, for example, voting for the American Third Position candidate is the right thing to do, then I say they should do it.

And then you said that you hadn't tried to get anyone to do *anything.*

 Nope. It's a suggestion, not a persuasion.

Sustainer, look, there are going to be people who agree with you and those who don't. Same goes for me. What you are trying to do is convince people to vote for Obama. You've said that. All I have been trying to do aside from telling you what *I* think is the error of *YOUR* ways, is to bring more exposure to third party candidates... because of people like you who think that there are only two choices. That's all. There are more than two. Third party candidates are the red-headed stepchild of elections. People like me, who support one, feel like they get the shaft time and time again. We are tired of it. We are tired of your way of thinking. We really, REALLY want change in this country and don't think the present administration is doing a good job. We also think Romney wouldn't do a good job either. We are getting louder because we need to. We want our voices heard. I am going to do that any way I can. By debating here, voting on November 6th, wearing my Ron Paul 2012 Restore America Now shirt, donating money when I can, whatever I have to do. We are here and we are growing. The MSM and current 2-party system are bought and paid for by the people who really call the shots, and don't want other ideas be known. Like Ron Paul, for instance. The real rulers don't want the Fed to be audited or NDAA to be repealed among many other things, and because Ron Paul is standing up to that, they are doing and have done all they can do to discredit, and make him and the others disappear. What happened to Jill Stein this week is a perfect example of that. She was exercising her first amendment rights. She is a presidential candidate who is on 85% of the ballots, yet wasn't "allowed" in the debate. Hmmm. What's going on here? "They" don't want independent thinkers. They want the voters of this country to believe there is a difference in dem or repub when really they control both parties. Look into who donates money to Obama and Romney... Wall Street. Here's an article about how Obama and Romney are similar... http://www.infowars.com/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-essentially-the-same-candidate/

Here's something else to read, pay close attention to the last two paragraphs... http://www.infowars.com/romney-and-obama-share-same-bankster-campaign-contributors/

So, you keep believing that your vote will matter to keep Romney out of office. I know better. A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney and vice versa. You've bought it hook, line and sinker.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I am not trying to PERSUADE anyone to do anything. I am offering and bringing to light a different way of approaching voting than what you are saying and trying to convince people to do.

Go back and read your posts.  Your wording has the intent of being persuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

If I said something like this, " I hope I have made it pretty obvious that I am trying to convince people to vote for Obama." Then, yes, you saying I am trying to persuade people to do something would be correct.

Just because you don't say "I'm trying to persuade people" doesn't mean you haven't tried to persuade people.  The only difference between what you have been doing and what I have been doing is that I have *admitted* that I am trying to persuade people to vote for Obama, and you have been hypocritical about what you have been trying to do.  You HAVE made it obvious that you have been trying to convince people to take a certain kind of action.  You just haven't *said* that you have made it obvious that you're trying to persuade people.  It doesn't need to be said.  People can see that that's what you've been trying to do.  It's senseless for you to keep saying that you *haven't* been trying to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 Nope. It's a suggestion, not a persuasion.

You said that people *should* vote a certain way.  You said 'do this.'  You even said that the way many of us vote -- which is to put the priority on choosing the better of the candidates who have a chance, when we might like another candidate who can't win even better -- is "terrible," "awful," "pathetic," "doesn't make sense," "compromises our integrity and values," that we "should not vote," that it's "ridiculous," "not worthy," "bizarre," that our "reasons have no validity," that it "is a very wrong reason," that it's the "craziest thing you ever heard of," that it's "sad," "wrong," and "a wasted vote."  You said that I'm "disgraceful" because I said that I like another candidate better and I'm voting to re-elect the President.  I could quote even more instances of you saying that people "should" vote your way (not for your candidate, but using your philosophy of voting), and of you saying to people reading your posts "do THIS."  It went even further than persuasion.  It was worded as a command.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

We are tired of your way of thinking.

And I am tired of people like you, every four years, telling people who prefer the Democrat to the Republican, not to vote for the Democrat unless they can honestly say that they agree with the Democrat ONE HUNDRED PERCENT and that they like the Democrat better than ALL of the other candidates who don't have a chance of winning.  I am tired of candidates like George W. Bush becoming President for 8 years because people don't vote for the better candidate who can defeat him.

YOU may not think that Obama is any better than Romney, but that is YOUR opinion.  Around 50% of voters DO think Obama is better than Romney.  It is perfectly valid for us to vote for Obama.  Yes, even if there's someone else, who has no chance of becoming President, who we would like even better.

Edited by Sustainer - 10/21/12 at 10:27am

[erinmattsmom88]

I'm so tired of you arguing needlessly over and over again about useless crap. You are so petty. I don't care whether you think I am trying to persuade anyone to do anything because I know I'm not. Me telling you you are disgraceful for your way of voting is not being persuasive. I just think that it's disgraceful. You can lump that into everything else I said. So, stop being so petty. I have come full circle with my posts. In my first post I said there is no difference in dem or repub, and I'm going to say it again. There is NO difference. I'm over the whole arguing over semantics crap that has taken over this thread.

So, like I said last time... there is no difference in the two mainstream parties. Keep believing that there is. Vote for Obama because you *think* he's not Romney. They are the same.

 YOU may not think that Obama is any better than Romney, but that is YOUR opinion. Around 50% of voters DO think Obama is better than Romney.

 Nope I don't and it is both my opinion and it is also fact. Yeah, and those 50% are as clueless as you. No I'm not being persuasive here, just telling it like it is.

 It is perfectly valid for us to vote for Obama. Yes, even if there's someone else, who has no chance of becoming President, who we would like even better.

 That is the worst reasoning for choosing to vote for someone. But, that's America today. Fixated on "winning". Winning wars, winning elections, winning debates, killing enemies (which usually only accomplishes killing innocent civilians). I guess doing what's right is not the goal these days.

Please do not respond to anymore of my posts. It's getting to be troll-like. And, yeah, I am trying to persuade you to stop responding to me.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I'm so tired of you arguing needlessly over and over again about useless crap. 

Then stop doing it.  My responses to you have been just that:  responses to things you have said.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You are so petty.

Not at all.  I have just been responding to what you've said.  And I've been discussing issues that are far from petty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I don't care whether you think I am trying to persuade anyone to do anything because I know I'm not. 

You can say you haven't been trying to persuade anyone to do anything.  You can even *think* you haven't been trying to persuade anyone to do anything.  It doesn't change the fact that you HAVE been trying to persuade people.  Anyone reading this thread can see that you have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

In my first post I said there is no difference in dem or repub, and I'm going to say it again. There is NO difference. 

That's your opinion.  Since you hold that opinion, I support your decision to vote for a 3rd party.  I do not share the opinion that there is no difference between the Democrat and the Republican.  Neither do most people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

 Nope I don't and it is both my opinion and it is also fact.

  Sorry, but you do not get to classify that as a fact.  It is an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Yeah, and those 50% are as clueless as you. No I'm not being persuasive here

No, you are not being persuasive here.  Now you're just being INSULTING.  You are saying that all of the people who think Obama is better than Romney are "clueless."

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

That is the worst reasoning for choosing to vote for someone.

I don't know why you have such a difficult time accepting something that is so reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Fixated on "winning". Winning wars, winning elections, winning debates, killing enemies (which usually only accomplishes killing innocent civilians).

It has nothing to do with competitiveness or fighting or someone being a "winner."  It has to do with who is going to become the next President.  Who can attain enough support.  Who the majority of the population chooses for President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I guess doing what's right is not the goal these days.

My goal is absolutely to do what is right.  And I think the right thing to do, when there are exactly two people who have enough support that they could be elected President, is to vote for the better one.

I don't think the right thing to do is vote for someone who has the support of so small a minority that they can't/won't be elected President, thus letting the worst candidate become President.

I agree that war mostly accomplishes the killing of innocent civilians.  I think it was wrong to let George W. Bush -- the kind of person who would launch a preemptive war against Iraq on the basis of a false claim -- become President.  If the people who had voted 3rd party had voted for Gore instead, the Iraq war would not have happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Please do not respond to anymore of my posts. 

  If you post something I disagree with, you can bet your boots I'm going to respond to it.  I have just as much right to express myself as you do.  If you don't want me to respond to it, then don't say it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

It's getting to be troll-like. 

This is not YOUR website.  If you post something and I respond to it, that does not make me a troll.  You have been responding to my posts, so I am no more of a troll than you.  But, of course, YOUR opinion is the "correct" one, right?  And I am the one disagreeing with *you,* so that must mean that the troll is *me.*  You are really revealing your true colors in this post.  I thought you were "done" with this thread?  And then you said you only came back to say you agreed with me about something.  But you're still here, responding to things you disagree with me about.

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I am trying to persuade you to stop responding to me.

 

As you've been saying to me throughout this entire discussion, "Not gonna happen.  Deal with it."

Edited by Sustainer - 10/22/12 at 1:49pm

[Adaline'sMama]

Erin- Let me get this straight. All of our opinions are just opinions, but your opinions are opinions AND facts. Gotcha. 

[erinmattsmom88]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14028/obama-vs-romney-polls-5-reasons-why-mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-are-exactly-the-same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLqsRqKFyI

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-represent-the-same-one-party-system/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7t9W_Nxc4E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7t9W_Nxc4E

http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2012/09/01/15_sobering_similarities_between_obama_romney

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2012/jul/9/romney-or-obama-does-who-wins-really-matter/

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/05/18/15_facts_that_even_obamas_biggest_supporters_should_be_able_to_admit_are_true/page/full/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeDtzeKo-G8

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same

[Adaline'sMama]

When people use words like "exactly" to compare people, it makes them look like a fool. Obviously, Romney and Obama are not "exactly" a like. 

[erinmattsmom88]

You democrats love to play the semantics game.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/21/hypocrisy-not-democracy-in-america/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKMPoKf17qQ

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/15790898-452/romney-obama-share-same-foreign-policy.html

http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/

[CatsCradle]

With all due respect, erinmattsmom88, some of the links you provide are a little whacky.  I clicked on one of the Youtube posts you linked above and the comments themselves are part and parcel everything crazy in this country (Lucifer, lack of love of Jesus, Obama as the anti-Christ).  Just saying, there is thoughtful criticism and then there are the wack jobs.  I'm much more apt to listen and consider intelligent and well-thought out advice and commentary based on reality than on off-the-wall postings by people whose intelligence I question immediately by links.  A lot of folks out there are "afraid" for the wrong reasons, IMO.  I'm not convinced, yet.

[serenbat]

if more had even the basic understanding of how a bill becomes a law and the procedure to overturn a bill the choice would be very clear, sadly most of the electric lacks these skills and seem to think it would just be rainbows and unicorns and all magically turns out perfect on day one

even if you think what one tells you is the truth you should look at the real basic facts that have nothing to do with position but all to do with what laws really are....I have found most are completely clueless in this area 

sadly most of the electric are also (as the rightfully call it) low information voters and often vote against their best interest- several red states get far more from the feds than they pay and I personally would love to see that change, perhaps that might wake of a voters but not like it would happen

[erinmattsmom88]

Wacky, huh? That's the word of choice around here. Wacky because the links I provided contain the truth? Yeah, that's pretty wacky.

So, did you just read the comments at the end of the articles/videos?

Maybe you read the first 10 and locked into a few foolish statements to make a generalized assumption over the articles you didn't read? Did you read and watch *all* the links I provided? I see nothing wacky about any of them. They all contain very serious content. There is nothing wacky about the NDAA. I provided links for people to read/watch the *article* or *video* not the damn comment section. Any information you find on the internet these days usually provides a comments section. It can be an article as useless as something about Kim Kardashian from Yahoo to something reputable from NPR, infowars.com, dailypaul.com, Veterans Today, etc. You will always get fools commenting on articles from any where about anything. Youtube is notorious for that. What did you think of the actual video? For you to deduce the links I sent to being wacky because of maybe a few idiots saying non-intelligent things who are probably trolls then I guess that's your problem. You should focus on the content of the video/article I sent if you are going to actually look into things. I wasn't providing links for you to read the comments section.

If you are going to surmise that the links I sent are off-the-wall because of the comments section then please do not comment further on them. I whole-heartedly disagree. The information I sent via links (because there is no other way to do this on here) are things I have come across while educating myself on what is really wrong with this country. What I have provided by the way is just a sliver of what else is out there. I have been told that my opinions are just that and not based on fact. So I have felt it necessary to provide information to the contrary. It is clear no one wants to take a step further to look into what I have provided. There is so much more, but clearly it is a waste of my time to give AdalinesMama and Sustainer this information, as they are unwilling to at least look into another viewpoint. Sustainer has a know-it-all, what I say is the gospel and everyone else is wrong, attitude. You all want to just repeat yourself, argue with folks and downplay the seriousness of the bigger issues that should be focused on in this election cycle, and discredit, devalue, and disregard the fact that there are other presidential candidates who want to actually fix these problems. So, you go ahead and say this " I'm much more apt to listen and consider intelligent and well-thought out advice and commentary based on reality than on off-the-wall postings" about everything I have provided so far. What exactly do you think is not off-the-wall? Tell me that now and if anything I have falls into that category I'd be glad to no longer provide a link to it. How about this, you provide ME with some information about how Obama and Romney are going to change the course of this country, in a positive way.

I'd like to have an intelligent and civil discussion as well without argument, but I haven't seen that yet from anyone on here. I'd like to have that discussion with that someone who will actually take another's viewpoint seriously and not be so one-sided. I have been asking for folks who disagree with me to give me information if they feel I am wrong, and all I have been getting is repetitive quotes over and over. But, I'm the bad guy I guess.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You democrats love to play the semantics game.

I don't know why you think you're going to get anywhere by calling things "semantics."  

You have been very emphatic about there being NO difference between Romney and Obama.  A vote for one is a vote for the other.  

It's ridiculous.  They're two different people with different philosophies and different policies.  

Obama did not fire the members of the Mass. Health Council who tried to end the marketing of formula in hospital L&D units.  Romney did.  That's a major reason many of us here at Mothering have a huge problem with Romney.

They are not atom-for-atom duplicates of each other.

But, of course, in order to convince people that considering 3rd party candidates is worthwhile, you need to convey the idea that it wouldn't matter even a tiny bit whether Romney or Obama was elected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Wacky because the links I provided contain the truth?

Yeah.  They're wacky because they're truthful.  /sarcasm  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I have been told that my opinions are just that and not based on fact.

You really like to mischaracterize what people say, don't you.  You didn't say that your opinion that neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other is *based* on fact -- you said it *is* a fact.  So I pointed out that "Neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other" is an opinion, not a fact.  I did not say that you were not *basing* your opinion on any facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Sustainer has a know-it-all, what I say is the gospel and everyone else is wrong, attitude. 

This from the person who refers to her opinion that neither Romney nor Obama is better than the other as a "fact."  What I have been doing is expressing my opinions, mentioning facts that they are based on (without confusing the two), explaining my opinions, and giving logical rationales.  It is true that I hold my opinions very strongly and that I express them forcefully, but there is a difference between that and the way you are characterizing me.  

Here is YOUR WAY of deciding who to vote for:

1.  You have to agree with your candidate *at least* 100%.

2.  There can't be any candidate, no matter how obscure, who you think might be better than your candidate.

3.  No consideration is to be given to whether or not your candidate could get enough votes from other people to actually be elected.

4.  No consideration is to be given to the fact that failing to vote for the Democrat makes it more likely that the Republican will win, or vice versa.

5.  No consideration is to be given to all the horrible things that could happen if a worse candidate is allowed to become President.  Instead, the consideration must be given to all of the wonderful things your candidate would do if (s)he became President, even if your candidate cannot become President as a result of the election.

You have implied that anyone who doesn't vote your way is some sort of horrible, insane, idiotic person.

As opposed to what I have been saying, which is that if someone prefers Obama to Romney, I think it's illogical to vote for someone who has no chance of becoming President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

You all want to just repeat yourself, argue with folks and downplay the seriousness of the bigger issues that should be focused on in this election cycle, and discredit, devalue, and disregard

You're calling the kettle black again.  You have done just as much of these things as I have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I'd like to have an intelligent and civil discussion as well without argument, but I haven't seen that yet from anyone on here. I'd like to have that discussion with that someone who will actually take another's viewpoint seriously and not be so one-sided. 

The pot is black.

Edited by Sustainer - 11/5/12 at 12:46pm

[Adaline'sMama]

So, who's watching the debate tonight? 

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

So, who's watching the debate tonight? 

I'll be watching it.  Plus, picked up the new New Yorker today and there is a great article in there about so-called election fraud and the facts behind that.  It was actually a  good piece of journalism (I expect nothing less from the NYer).  It is interesting to discover how the outcries of election fraud are based in deep-seeded ideas of racism.  The dead people who were "voting" in Georgia and the Carolinas?  Actually people with the same names as the dead people.  One guy even said that he was notified of disqualification because his son had passed away but had the same name.  Another woman in Ohio was told that she couldn't vote because her property was abandoned (but the abandoned property in question was a glitch on the city's database).   Interesting how fact checking can bring the "truth" to light.  People are finding ways to disenfranchise voters who may vote for the other side.  Most often these are voters who don't have the power to contest a bigger piece of machinery with the funds to slap them down.  

[erinmattsmom88]

Catscradle, looks like you only mentioned two *possible* instances of mistaken election fraud. Care to offer others?

I'm still waiting to hear why requiring ID at the polls is considered disenfranchising voters.

 It is interesting to discover how the outcries of election fraud are based in deep-seeded ideas of racism.

 Are you speaking generally or are you specifically referring to me here? Better not be accusing ME specifically of racism because you are WAY out of line. I hope I have misunderstood you.

[erinmattsmom88]

So, I went to The New Yorker website and found where to click on this election fraud myth article (haven't read it yet). Directly above it was an opportunity to click on an article titled, The New Yorkers's endorsement of Obama. Gee, that isn't biased. How about something objective.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

So, I went to The New Yorker website and found where to click on this election fraud myth article (haven't read it yet). Directly above it was an opportunity to click on an article titled, The New Yorkers's endorsement of Obama. Gee, that isn't biased. How about something objective.

One of the things that I appreciate about the New Yorker is that it has been more than critical about Obama's administrative polices in the past and continues to do so.  I think the hallmark of good journalism is that one can be critical as well as positive.  We seem to think if someone praises someone that they are incapable of being critical of same.  The article today in the New Yorker which "endorsed" Obama laid out in pretty clear terms why it was supportive as well as noting in great length Obama's weaknesses and general disappointments.  Courts do much the same thing when deciding cases, they do weight tests.  They compare positives and negatives to reach a result.  Read any Supreme Court decision and you'll see the same type of analysis throughout.  I think there is a clear difference between analysis based on facts and blind allegiance.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about you when I referred to the racism in running through the voting law issues.  Good lord, it was a general statement about how I feel and what I've read.  I'm not attacking you specifically or inferring that you, specifically, are a racist.  I find that during an election cycle such as this, people get mighty touchy.  Read the article on voting fraud and if you want to accuse me of calling you a racist after that, then fine.  In fact, throughout this thread I've been trying to offer my opinions and they have been largely ignored.  Funny how ears are pricked when the word racism or any other similar word comes into the equation.  Oh no, not me!  I'm not a racist!  Funny how an innocuous post can create such reaction.  This has me scratching my head.  

I find this whole entire thread and conversation incredibly disheartening.  I don't have a lot of time to spend on MDC due to work and family issues, but generally I keep coming back because there are real discussions throughout MDC without the condescending attitudes that I've seen on this thread.  It would serve me well not to post here anymore.  For one, I'm busy.  Further, it seems no matter what I say it will be potentially attacked as ignorant and biased.  I'm a big girl.  My feelings are not hurt.  But I have the good sense to know when my words or thoughts no longer mean anything to anyone.

[erinmattsmom88]

CatsCradle, agreed.

I can appreciate what you say here...  

 One of the things that I appreciate about the New Yorker is that it has been more than critical about Obama's administrative polices in the past and continues to do so. I think the hallmark of good journalism is that one can be critical as well as positive.

 I did notice this. But, you have to admit, it was suspicious to see the election fraud article you mentioned, and then directly above it was an article about how the New Yorker endorses Obama. Was just trying to make a point.

As far as the racism goes, you're right about this... 

Funny how ears are pricked when the word racism or any other similar word comes into the equation 

 I admit as soon as I saw that word in your last post, I had to stop and re-read it a few times. I didn't come out and specifically accuse you of calling me a racist, as I did *ask* if you were speaking generally or specifically to me.

You can say this...  

Oh no, not me! I'm not a racist! Funny how an innocuous post can create such reaction. This has me scratching my head. 

 I know in my heart, which is all that matters by the way, that I'm not a racist. What gets my blood boiling is that I have found that the race card is too easily pulled in these types of conversations and it sickens and angers me to no end. I will stop there, as I just don't want to get any deeper into this. That explanation should be good enough.

[nyssaneala]

First time on this thread.

I voted early today in NC, and I voted for Obama. I have volunteered countless hours for his campaign, at the DNC, and knocked on hundreds of doors to help people register to vote, and help get people out to the polls to actually cast a vote.

I voted for Obama because:

- Affordable Health Care Act. It's not perfect. But it is a step in the right direction, and it is more than any previous president has done in the last 20 years.

- He thinks strategically, not spontaneously and unilaterally

- He actually has a foreign policy plan, and a fantastic Secretary of State

- The Romney/Ryan ticket has changed their stance on almost everything, leaving absolutely no idea on what they would really do if in office (although I think I have a pretty good idea, and it has special interests/big business written all over it).

- As a woman, I don't want to see my rights regress to the 1870's. I want my daughter to have the same rights that I had when she is a teenager and young adult.

- I absolutely do not support adding money to defense, and especially to the detriment of all other federally funded programs.

- It took years to get into this economic mess, and a Republican Congress has largely blocked Obama every step of the way in trying to get out of it. He needs more time (and hopefully something better than this do-nothing Congress).

- his long-term vision for the US, his focus on education and technology, creating jobs that pay well, etc. are much better than anything Romney has come up with.

I have also seen two instances of voter intimidation right outside the polls during early voting, both times directed at Democrats. In a swing state. All the Obama signs in my neighborhood have been stolen twice (never the Romney signs). My Obama car magnet was stolen in a Target parking lot, and my bumper sticker defaced, across the street from an early voting location. NOT COOL. And very, very childish.