Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Perhaps it's because political arguments are frequently framed in obviously fake ways to make them more palatable to the general public?

Only a fool takes political arguments at their word. It makes more sense to look at them in context, evaluate them on their merits and accept or reject based on thought and reason. So while you may think that voter ID is going have a significant protective effect on electoral integrity, your perspective isn't supported by any sort of fact-based understanding of the situation. In fact, it seems likely that widespread enactment of voter ID laws could result in a net reduction in voters that is greater than the net reduction in fraudulent votes, which seems counter productive to me.

 

In my experience the more local a politician is the more honest and direct they are - and that it is generally easy to recognize politicians who hold sincere policy positions compared to those who don't.

When Bush said he wanted military authority to invade Iraq, I took him at his word. Many did not, which was the foolish position?
When Bush said he was going to "stay the course" during his re-election...

on the other-hand, I have never believed a word that has come out of Obama's mouth in the context of his political speeches, he speaks in empty platitudes.

I think it depends. I use judgement. I don't lump everyone together.

 

This isn't about you.

 

You Can't get more local than a county commissioner and county auditor, have you looked at Cleveland politics lately and the FBI investigations that led to their trials?

 

In response to "me", you used the word "you", "I" responded - are "we" engaged in some kind of riddle, if so "I" don't get it.
--- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM ---

"I" am not sure how to answer the question, but "I" am going to take a risk and say, no I have not looked at Cleveland politics lately.

 

MLK forged alliances whenever and wherever he could and part of his strategy included appeals to conscience where there was a conscience to appeal to. And yes, he could be very persuasive.

But he also knew there existed a level of racism which could not be reasoned with or appealed to on the basis of Constitutional and moral "right". The bulk of his strategy was aimed at minimizing their influence and voice in the issue. He wasn't looking to "win them over" or pander to them. He forged ahead as if they weren't there.

In terms of homosexuality, appealing to the conscience of fence sitters has been a way forward and support from that sector continues to grow, but there is a very large and vocal coalition of those in effective opposition, not much different than the opposition MLK faced, but MLK at least had religion in common with his Southern counterparts. Common ground from which to build some alliances.

The gay and lesbian movement enjoys no such common ground with the rabid Religious Right who are their primary adversaries. To imagine these soldiers for moral justice and purity can be appealed to through Dale Carnegie's persuasive techniquest is as naive as imagining they can be reasoned away from their strict religious beliefs.

To insinuate that this is not only the course of action but the right course of action is bullshit. Equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or sexual orientation are inalienable and no one should be required to persuade, pander, or barter with bigots for it.

 

The very large vocal coalition in effective opposition, I would argue, is not large. Those in effective opposition is small and they have made the case to the shrinking numbers of people who really don't feel strongly about the issue one way or the other- but who state they are in opposition to gay marriage.

I think you are wrong. I think a case can be made for both having a common interest in adults being in monogamous long-term relationships Acase can be made for all of God's children being in God's image are a reflection of God and should be treated with eqaulity, love, empathy, etc..

You seem to start with the assumption that persuasion is not possible, if that is what you start with, that is what you will end with.

I don't know what more I can add. But I do know Carnegie's philosophy works. If I were ever inclined to Carnegie's method here, I wouldn't be the ongoing bane of everyone who posts here. I don't because I don't want to put in the effort - I respond to what I think is silly with silliness. I agree that it is childish - But I can respond here in ways I wish I could respond in the non-cyber space world. My goal in life is to one day be a cynical and cantankerous old man - I am currently in training.

 

Religious fanatics and ideological extremists are not influenced by reason or persuasion. Their goal is simple and unwavering -- to impose their rigidly held extreme beliefs on the entire country.

That is obvious to most fair-minded people, Ace, but perhaps not to you.

 

It's true that a majority of Americans (now) do not oppose gay and lesbian relationships and that some have a different opinion when it comes to gay marriage. Even that number is growing smaller.

But the vocal opposition is large enough to have an effect on the passage of legislation and court decisions which, constitutionally, allow for the right to marry. Their increased level of activism is in direct response to polls which reveal the growing tolerance amongst average Americans. This is a good sign, actually. Push back means there's something to push back against. So why do you think that gays and lesbians need to persuade the hold-outs? Does it really matter? The intolerant will never get on board and it's becoming evident that they will soon lose the battle altogether.

I guess I wonder why it's necessary to fight for something so basic. The bigoted and intolerant always makes a thing like this more difficult than it needs to be. Yet you think they deserve to be sought out, ad nausea, in the quest for common ground they themselves fail to take a step towards.

I say, if they can't already see that everyone should be treated equally, with love and empathy, they don't deserve to have a "case" made to convince them otherwise - by those who do. Let them stew in their own moral and dogmatic juices while the rest of us get on with it.

I'm already a cynical, old bitch. Nothing wrong with my powers of persuasion but I can't reason anyone out of their immaturity, their alcoholism, their religion, or their bigotry. Lord knows, I've tried. If you believe you can do better, have at it.

 

Perhaps, one does not need ideological extremists. Most people can change their views. Most people do not feel strongly about gay marriage one way or the other.

That may be someone's goal, but it is not everyone's goal - even if they express a view that reflects intolerance. All I am arguing is that in most cases persuasion starts with an understanding of the concerns of the other parties - and then developing direct and sincerer responses to those concerns. The approach of lumping everyone in a ideological extremist category is counter productive.

It is not about me, right??? In your efforts to say I don't get it, all you do is further show that you don't get it. You can not see wisdom through your emotion. Slowing down and reflecting is helpful in this regard. There is no charge for that sage advice. It would take a real professional months and thousands of dollars to get you to the conclusion, I just helped you with.
--- merged: Mar 20, 2012 4:34 PM ---

I think people always have to be diligent and fight for freedom. I think it requires effort, and is not a passive activity. I think restrictions on the freedoms of others, puts my freedoms at risk. I think, in the context of gay marriage or other freedoms, it is the obligation of those who see and understand to persuade others.

Yes. I am not sure i understand the point of your question because to me it seem obvious that it matters, is there something I am missing?

Why do you keep saying this? It is not true.

Ten years ago if you asked me the question, I would have been against gay marriage. I have changed my view, reinforced through a personal experience. When I was in California, I had an employee, we hired when she recently graduated HS. Over the years, as she was discovering herself, educationally, professionally and personally - she became like a daughter to me and I wanted what was best for her. Eventually she announced that she was gay. It took courage and I respected her and her courage. Through our interactions and discussions I gained a thorough understanding of the issues she faced. About a year ago, she married her significant other (I was invited to the wedding but could not attend but would have). I went from being against gay marrage to being an advocate for gay marriage. I am like most people, often all it takes is helping others see an issue more clearly or understanding the issue.

Why do you assume others can not change their views? I don't get it!

 

What risk? Google the name Jimmy Dimora, Kevin Kelly, Frank Russo and FBI investigations and trials and see what you get. Dimora was a Cuyahoga County commissioner who was found guilty of 20+ counts of fraud, bribery, etc, Russo and Kelly copped pleas to turn evidence over. Russo was county auditor. Not sure what Kevin Kelly was.

The point was corruption happens on all levels, local and more visible does not mean more honest, in fact it could mean more corrupt.

 

Who has spent the most per vote and per delegate during the primaries.....not who you might think.

Yeah, it doesnt count the obscene spending by the Romney SuperPac and the Paul crowd will challenge the numbers.

But Dr. Ron -- dude, $1/2 mil per delegate...so much for so little!

 

I hate Santorum with all my heart and soul, but I don't think he was saying N######.

 

Hilarious and true.

 

The odds are poor unless some white hooded knight rides through the doors of the Republican National Convention at the midnight hour. (I pity the poor horse if Chris Christie is in the saddle and whatever bar stool Ann Coulter starts coming on)
--- merged: Apr 6, 2012 12:25 AM ---

Speaking of the Rep National Convention, to be held in the great state of Florida:

The Maddow Blog - Water guns, no; real guns, yes


What will they do with all those bootlaces, I wonder?

 

The fat lady is tuning up to sing Onward Christian Voters, Rally Round the Mormon.