Red State Road Trip Videos -- Highly Recommended
 

A couple of guys in a car are driving through the Red States as we speak, interviewing people off the street about who they vote for and why, and they're uploading video as they go.

It seems to me that a lot of people who say they voted for Bush think he's some kind of Democrat, at least in policy. My, the power of ignorance.

Anyway, cool stuff, take a look whatever your ideology. The people being interviewed are treated pretty respectfully, but the things they have to say are sometimes ... kind of unbelievable.


http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

I can't believe the ignorance of some of those people. My god.

Is it just my imagination or were the democrat voters more clued up than the Bush voters?

The clip on election irregularities is interesting too, and some of those statistics are very worring - huge swings towards bush in heavily democratic counties where electronic counting machines with no paper tally were used, and no such swings in heavily democratic counties where they weren't! And at the same time 71% across the state (florida) voted for an increase in the miimum wage. Was this like any policy in Bush's manifesto?

Prediction: one of our Bush supporters will make a comment about how the guys are being selective about what video they show, and maybe even a reference to our favorite corpulent filmmaker.

Hmm, seems like every Bush supporter they chose to show was not all that bright and any Kerry supporter seems to be "enlightened." Looks like the guys doing the video are biased a certain way. Reminds me of Michael Moore... (that was for you Kadath ;))

LOL people, anyone want to dig a little deeper and see why trouthout.org was formed in 2000? All you need to do is scroll down to the other videos to see which way that website leans...

Definately a scientifically sound and random sample of ten Bush supporters. One can only conclude that 57 million kerry supporters are "more clued up" than 60 million Bush supporters. Well done truthout.

Hey, everybody's got a point of view. I didn't claim they were the League of Women Voters.

As for every Bush supporter seeming not all that bright... I don't agree. There was simply a disconnect between their support for Bush and what seemed to be their own best interest. They've been pushed a lot of propaganda based in part on their faith (remember the part where the woman talked about Jerry Falwell putting Bush's picture up there on the altar) and their respect for authority (it's our duty to support the president), and they're responding to it. Bush is a good Christian man, and his faith is strong: I've heard the exact same thing from my stepfather, who is a conservative Christian and watches Fox News daily but also has a master's degree and has run large and complicated enterprises.

I know, I was just making light of Kadath's post. And not to flame him, but to say that what he wrote is a legitimate opinion. I also wanted to point out that digging a little deeper in to the rest of the truthout.org website makes it obvious that it is a liberally biased publication.

And obviously there's nothing wrong with that. I just had to respond after you wrote this... "My, the power of ignorance."

Well duh, the website is called "red state road trip". So it is pretty obvious that it is going to be biased. It is one of those sites us democrats like to watch, because it reinforces the idea that Bush voters were idots when there were no reasons to vote for him. So of course the site is geared toward that goal. So stop complaining republicans, we just like to see you wiggle and complain about the obvious; it is a liberally biased website.

Who are the ones wiggling and complaining again? We won....you guys just can't get over it. Watch all the movies you want. Hey, whatever helps you Bush-haters deal with the loss.

huh, ranger. interesting update of the old category of smugness. sort of.



for myself, i do not see the advantage of consistently underestimating the enemy. so i do not see the advantage of reinforcing the sense that the main constituency that voted bush is made up of uninformed nitwits. i prefer to look at the types of arguments that circulate in conservativeworld and to think about the extent to which those arguments would function to detach even a fairly informed person who was (for some reason) sympathetic to the right from the world that other people know about.

the structuring of dispositions by types of argument is an actual strategy, something that can be demonstrated, something that can be opposed. i see the present far-right bushworld ideology as dangerous precisely because it does not simply appeal to stupid people.

Ok I'm going to drive through black-dominated areas and ask them why they are voting Democrat.

Then I'm going to ask what the Dem's have managed to do for them in the last 20 years and smile while it's the Republicans who've managed to help them out more.

Oh, please. :rolleyes: Republicans doing something for the black community? Ok, how about the Bush admin wanting to get rid of afirmative action (which is still needed by the way) by suing the Univ. of Mich a few years back as an example? That's really helping out the black community there.

Not really. I was merely responding to an "interesting update in the old category of feelings of elitism." Did you bother to notice the "bush voters are idiots" part of what I was responding to? How is that constructive? Yet you conveniently let that fly. Again. I suppose "Bush voters" should just take our lickings from you guys without responding so we don't appear smug. Right?



It's good that you have a grasp on who the real "enemy" is. This is the problem, you're at war with Republicans, while Republicans are busy fighting our common enemies.

Watch the movie if you want, and it helps you feel better about how "stupid" all the Bush voters are. That's all I'm saying.

What an excellent comment you made there, roachboy.

I feel absolutely respected when reading it. We've acknowledged our disagreements and moved on toward continuing dialog, you and I. I appreciate that.

What a wonderful world this could be...

well, you apparently managed to read my post and miss the point. i was actually agreeing with you on that particular point--that i do not see how this "bush supporters are idiots" line actually helps anything. even if it turns out that there is a strong correlation between the two, it still doesnt help.


but you make it more difficult to resist the indentification of bush supporters and idiots with remarks like this, frankly.

heroic republicans fighting unnecessary, absurd wars against phantom enemies makes the rest of us feel better how exactly?

heroic republicans fighting the last vestiges of an other than barbaric form of capitalism...is the redistribution of wealth the "common enemy" you refer to? or is it the system of taxation in particular?

or those seditious environmental regulations?

or maybe you have in mind that heroic republicans are out there fighting the rights of others to love whom they choose?


great job.
i feel safer knowing that heros like yourself are out there making sure that folk who are gay cannot marry.
i am sure all of america does.

Prediction: many of our posters think that anticipating an argument disproves it.

There is no reason to sugarcoat the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the participants interviewed. They are simply asinine drones that serve little purpose in their feeble lives. I label them as moronic drones due to their lack of ability to think for themselves. Their simple mindedness couldn’t possibly comprehend anything further than their false compassion for “Jesus” or their blatant disregard for other cultures. I can guarantee you that a large majority of these “good Christians” couldn’t find Iraq on the map, why? Because they are too concerned with Bush’s so called “faith” to worry about the innocent lives being taken away everyday by this “good man”.

Now I personally think religion is for the weak minded who “practice” their “faith” to not only feel as if they have a purpose in life, but to feel that they have a one way trip to heaven regardless of their actions on Earth, but that aside, I do have a question. Is being a good Christian equate to greed, murder, arrogance, selfishness and dishonesty? I ask this because these are Bush’s prime “qualities” and a large populace of his supporters elected him for these very reasons.

I’m curious to know, if you put his “good faith” aside, would as many people have voted for him? I would think so, because they know absolutely nothing else regarding his failed presidency. They go about their day-to-day programmed lives soaking in propaganda as absolute truth and avoid all else in their sterile existence.

Now, many Bush supporters, and even Kerry supporters for that matter would say that the ignorant is the minority, and that there are plenty of good Bush supporters out there, but unfortunately I do not see this as so. My personal opinion is that a majority of Bush supporters are as the “individuals” presented in the interviews, simply because I fail to see how they can vote for a sick man such as Bush after all the destruction he has caused not only in Iraq, but America as well.

I have no reason to be politically correct, and bear in mind that this is only my opinion, it may be completely false, it may be completely true. This is meant as no disrespect to Christians, as I know there are several decent ones out there, and that fools such as the ones in the video give the good ones a bad image, just as the Muslim extremists give good Muslims a bad image, but I think anyone who has the slightest clue about their religion, would know that Bush completely defies it in every possible way. We have failed severely as a society when we allow false faith to make dangerous decisions.

maybe i should explain a little more what i meant earlier:

if you find yourself, say, watching an argument unfold between someone who believes in natural law and someone who doesnt, you can pretty well know, even before anyone really says anything, how it will go: for the folk who think there is a natural law, there wil be some kind of assumed order that shapes how all law either is or should be structured. this would function as a kind of given, on the basis of which their arguments would be constructed. if the other person does nto share this assumption that there is something like natural law, then he or she will take the arguments are being strange--based on a substitution of constructs rooted in relation to abstract principles that float about in space and time...from any other viewpoint, natural law arguments will take the person making claims on that basis into a space that does not have to take account of history in any straong sense. which would lead them to detach what they are saying from the world that others know about. it is a matter of assumptions and how those assumptions inform the direction and type of argument...

so say some folk on the right think that some god told them that being gay was evil.
for this to make any sense, you have to believe in this god and accept the sources of his or her wisdom and that these sources can be taken in a particular way, and that arguments drawn from these sources override conditions that might obtain in the history that human beings make.

if you dont accept the premises, the arguments will seem to run the speaker away from the reality other people know about.

that is why i reacted as i did to the form of argument prevalent in conservative ideology as the problem for those of use who oppose that political position, not the particular people who articulate their views of the world through arguments that use that particular form. this is why it is often so difficult to get conservatives to lay out the premises of their politics, i think--they tend not to work on the same level as those that might inform how others see political arguments.

cultural power is the ability to control/shape frames of reference.

You may call these people ignorant but most are just working people much like the folks I live with out here in the country. They do not follow the issues closely and are influenced more by the popularity contest that is our media driven modern election.

I agree with roachboy on the folly of belittling these folks, both parties will discount them at their peril. They are the swing vote everyone is after. The people who follow the issues closely are usually already alligned with one of the political parties.

I have dealt with the loss of the presidency (or the loss of intelligence) and if you couldn't understand the sarcastic tone in my last post then I can more understand why you voted for Bush. :crazy:

HAHA.......HAHA......Funny....whew!! :lol: Sorry I thought I was in the Humor section again. :lol:

Ok name one thing outside of Affirmitive action which IMO doesnt even help them out in the way needed.

Lower taxes, increased military spending (one of the best uppward social-economic opportunities), increased police keeping crime low (Juliani did a great job).

What have Dems done? fight welfare reform which was a plague on those who actually wanted to work.

Lower taxes really help to fight the social in-justices of the world. Bush has cut pell grants (greatly I might add), which help minorities and low-income people pay for college. Also, Bush as greatly reduced after-school programs, which help inner-school kids stay off the streets. Yeah, republicans are doing a great job. Did I mention the budget (sorry, I'm off the subject). ;)

I do believe those are funded locally, not a federal issue.

Sorry, but your belief is simply what it is a belief and not the truth.

Bush Proposes After-School Funding Cut in '04 Budget

Seaver, Please read up on what you put down. :thumbsup:

I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not you think you understand why I voted for Bush, your sarcastic (and typical elitist remarks) are part of the reason why your party can't win. If you can't understand the serious tone in my post, then I can more than understand why you voted for Kerry.

Well this is the last comment I'm going to give in this thread because this is just getting to be argumentive instead of talking about the issues. We won 2 straight presidency races in the 90's don't get to cocky, because it seems to me a lot of the republicans are not liking some of Bush's idea's (privatization of social security, illegal immigration issue, and I think most republicans think it is a mistake to try to even create an amendment for "saving" the institution of marriage (only have a 50% divorce rate)).

Well read it and you can respond to other posts I make in this forum but this thread I'm done with. I made my point clear that the website that was posted was clearly biased and no reason to give it any clout to how all republicans think (because clearly they picked the dumbest people to show on their website). If there was a blue road trip (which would be pretty funny because it would be a short trip) it would do the exact same thing. Let's get over this stupid argumentive tones and just talk about the issues concerning us all.

Can't we all just get along.

Drake out. :thumbsup:

Honestly, I like hearing stuff like this.

I want this kind of rhetoric to continue.

I want Dean to be head of the DNC.

I want Hilary to be the candidate in '08.

I want Soros to continue to be a primary money machine for the Democrats.

I want more speeches like the one Ted Kennedy just gave.

I want more complaints about Fox.

I want moveon.org to continue to claim to be representative of the true Democratic Party.

I want Hollywood to stand behind and rally for the Democrats (especially Barabara, she's my fav).

I want more discussion about how stupid Bush supporters are.


It just means more electoral victories for my side. I am very happy with the path the Democrats have chosen to follow and haven't strayed from.

Margin of victory means nothing to me. A win is a win is a win. How much you win by only matters when you are betting on the spread.

Alright, aside from all the argument, I invite you to return to the Red State Road Trip Site to see a new installment, Day 5, in which a Northern liberal reporter eats a big plate of eggs and pork brains in a Mississippi diner. I guess he had to: the diner owner was a Democrat :-) . Come on, grossouts are one thing we can _all_ agree are fun.

http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

It seems like the witty commentary I wanted to leave was expressed much more elegantly by Roachboy, even as we tend to be on opposite sides of the fence.

Laughing and pointing at the "stoopid" people on the other side is a sure way to lead your side to disaster.

(Not to mention that it is frequently inaccurate.)