Palin Speech Generates $8 Million in Donations within 24hrs - To OBAMA!

[Mr Skeptic]

Why do you accept this? Is that not false? How would this "force" ever hope to be countered without an opposing force?

 

Just because I expect something, doesn't mean that I accept it. Politicians have been famous for being corrupt for over 2000 years.

 

Yeah that wouldn't (if it's true) say something good about Obama, it would say something bad about him. If he doesn't think it's the right thing to do then he shouldn't say it, period.

 

It confuses you that I'd say something against my favorite candidate?

 

Not to put this on anyone here, but the idea that people have to be "tricked" into voting the right way really irks me.

 

I never said anyone has been tricked. Only that when a politician says something that is the politically expedient thing to say, I won't automatically assume that it is in fact what he believes.

[Pangloss]

This wasn't a "politically expedient" kind of statement. Those tend to be generalized and de-emphasizing. This was more along the lines of a flat-out policy declaration. The difference is what the public will (or will not) hold you to down the road. Don't think for a nanosecond that anybody is going to let this one slide. It was way too direct and brazen to be forgotten.

[ParanoiA]

Just because I expect something, doesn't mean that I accept it. Politicians have been famous for being corrupt for over 2000 years.

 

It does mean you accept it when you vote for them. Are you voting for liars and those that present themselves falsely? If so, that's rewarding bad behavior. Doesn't work real well for halting bad behavior. Maybe if we would stop accepting this nonsense we might stop this 2000 year hemorrhage.

 

I never said anyone has been tricked. Only that when a politician says something that is the politically expedient thing to say, I won't automatically assume that it is in fact what he believes.

 

I just can't relate to this at all. You're actually ok with the notion that people that are in charge of making LAW that you and I can be punished for - from tickets, to jail, to prison, to execution - can essentially lie and falsify their positions and be considered common? Is that not malfeasance you're rewarding?

 

Wow, talk about lowering the bar. My countrymen have accepted the idea that we must interpret and guess the truth buried in statements made by our leaders. How sad.

 

I will write in Dr Paul. I will reward good behavior, even if it is fruitless.

[Mr Skeptic]

It does mean you accept it when you vote for them. Are you voting for liars and those that present themselves falsely? If so, that's rewarding bad behavior. Doesn't work real well for halting bad behavior. Maybe if we would stop accepting this nonsense we might stop this 2000 year hemorrhage.

 

No one is going to be stopping any of this if we maintain the plurality voting system that we have now. Not only will we continue to vote for politicians we don't like, but we will have only two choices except in some extremely rare cases which might not ever occur. Not only that, but both candidates will move as close to the other guy's position as possible, without crossing into the other side.

 

I just can't relate to this at all. You're actually ok with the notion that people that are in charge of making LAW that you and I can be punished for - from tickets, to jail, to prison, to execution - can essentially lie and falsify their positions and be considered common? Is that not malfeasance you're rewarding?

 

Wow, talk about lowering the bar. My countrymen have accepted the idea that we must interpret and guess the truth buried in statements made by our leaders. How sad.

 

I will write in Dr Paul. I will reward good behavior, even if it is fruitless.

 

Fair enough. But see the part about wasted votes in the link I gave. I'd rather get rid of the system that allows our two party system to thrive.

[ParanoiA]

Fair enough. But see the part about wasted votes in the link I gave. I'd rather get rid of the system that allows our two party system to thrive.

 

I totally agree. We've had a few of these conversations before, and I would love to see a change. Not sure how to do it though.

 

By the way, you could have used my earmarks argument against me here. Dr Paul engages in the game of earmarks even though he simultaneously stands against earmarks. You could say the same of your position here. You're engaging in the system for the interim choosing not to be disenfranchised, while advocating a better system.