I am so fucking tired of this infantile bullshit...

[Ankh_Too]

I am setting myself up for a good old-fashioned "whupping", but I can't contain my annoyance any longer. I speak of the, what seem to be, dozens of various election related threads that are littering the boards. Religion, politics and sex are the three subjects that, in general conversation, tend to arouse some of the strongest emotions. It's not as if I don't realize we're tossing around some highly charged ideas. Nor am I unmindful of the frustration and disappointment that people on both sides of the issue are feeling after a month of legal battles and uncertainties. But what I can do without, what I wish we could all do without, is the depressing emergence of self-righteous venom that seems to leak into every single fucking discussion any more. I don't care how strongly you feel about your side of the issue, the simple fact that someone has the temerity to disagree with you does not, in an of itself, give evidence to your pet theory that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a sloped brow, drooling mouth-breather who can barely count to five without using fingers. Intelligent people can disagree. Deal with it.

I am very conscious of the fact that I've only been around for a few months, and don't know most of the people here very well at all. But I still find myself disappointed. Perhaps I have no right to be, knowing how strongly people feel about this subject. However, I would have hoped that people on both sides of the issues were a little more interested in discussing and debating the issues in some sort of rational manner than indulging in a round of foam at the mouth vituperative bashing of the candidates and their supporters.

I don't mean to make the same sorts of sweeping generalizations that I see many of the election discussion contain. Not everyone who contributes to these threads are indulging in the same sort of inane and juvenile insults which annoy me so much, there is a great deal of good information, well thought out debate and intelligent discussion. I've learned a great deal about election law, a subject I thought I had a fairly good grip on prior to this debacle. But at the same time, it seems that I can't read a thread that hasn't been polluted, at one time or another, by a preponderance of partisan bullshit that bears little or no relation to the subjects at hand. There are certain threads that I don't even bother opening, because they're nothing more than people bitching about how "Gore stole ..." or "Bush is too dumb too..." If that's what entertains you, fine. But quit pretending they have anything to do with finding the truth (in whatever guise it might be masquerading at the moment).

I happen to be a registered Democrat who wanted to vote for Senator McCain. Unfortunately, he didn't make it, which caused me to become a tepid supporter of Vice President Gore. My support, being so unenthusiastic at the beginning, has done nothing but shrink in the month since the election. I completely understand why he has tried every legal avenue in order to get the questionable votes counted. As a theoretical point, I agree with his position. However, in my personal opinion, he should have conceded at some point along this roller coaster from Hell. Nor do I mean to imply that I find all of his actions, or the actions of the Democratic party and its supporters to be admirable and above reproach. The attempts to disregard the absentee ballots are redolent of hypocrisy of the highest order. To turn around and exclude ballots for "irregularities" while attempting to get other "irregular" ballots takes an ability to lie with a straight face that only professional poker players and politicians share. Of course, given that the Republicans seem to be doing the exact same thing with respect to keeping out some of the disputed ballots while attempting to ensure the absentee ballots are counted, I'd say there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. There are plenty of examples, from both sides that illustrate that everyone has engaged in behavior that people are going to find questionable. Reacting to the situation with the self-righteous admonition that your side's position and actions are unsullied by the taint of self-interest is laughable and does nothing but marginalize you and your positions to the realm of comedic relief.

When this entire episode began to unfold, I thought it was wonderful. Having registered as a poster here only a few a couple of months prior, I looked forward tot he opportunity to see reasoned and intelligent debate and discussion as the whole thing played out. There was some of that, particularly early in the dispute, but as it's dragged on, the ugliness has become more and more a fixture in almost every discussion.

And, in a larger way, I thought it was going to be a wonderful opportunity to show that the American political system, for all its flaws, was so strong and stable that it was capable of withstanding this sort of confusion. I still believe that it is. But I didn't count upon the reaction of the partisan supporters. I thought that intelligent people were capable of realizing that other people could honestly and rationally disagree without subjecting them to questions about their intelligence, their honesty or their parentage. Silly fucking me. What was I thinking?

[porcupine]

I have been saying for the last month that the election has brought out the worst in a lot of people, and I don't just mean Gore and Bush. I have avoided all the election threads here for that reason.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
I am setting myself up for a good old-fashioned "whupping", but I can't contain my annoyance any longer...
<snip>
And, in a larger way, I thought it was going to be a wonderful opportunity to show that the American political system, for all its flaws, was so strong and stable that it was capable of withstanding this sort of confusion. I still believe that it is. But I didn't count upon the reaction of the partisan supporters. I thought that intelligent people were capable of realizing that other people could honestly and rationally disagree without subjecting them to questions about their intelligence, their honesty or their parentage. Silly fucking me. What was I thinking?

Ain't gonna get a "whupping" from me. You're my new best friend. I've got a similar rant I've re-written about 5 times and haven't been able to make half as coherent and cogent as yours.

I'm coming from just about the opposite side of the spectrum as you (reluctant Bush Republican). I'm so sick of the argument on both sides saying that their opposition is either stupid, well-meaning but duped, or evil. Most of the issues in this election are things that reasonable people can disagree over.

Again, well said!

Fenris

[Jodi]

Amen, Ankh Too. IMO, the process is working. Whether you like the outcome or not, the process is working; we don't have riots in the street; we don't have the military overthrowing the government due to uncertainty; we just have a bunch of people -- candidates, voters, election workers, and judges -- doing their best to sort the mess out. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the democratic system in action. It ain't pretty, but it works. I've never understood what people imagine will be gained by removing basic civility from the equation.

[annalamerino]

Religion, politics and sex are three topics where I seldom read beyond the OP.
Catholic, Democrat, Married with Children Soccer Mom.
What's left to add?
If people ask for a vote, I note one of the above and quit.
If they want to argue and bewail, that's when I lose interest and switch to the next topic.
See how easy that is?

[Cervaise]

Right on, dude.

I admit, I read the election threads with interest, because I am learning a tremendous amount of information about election law and modern constitutional philosophies, but I agree it's harder and harder to sift through all the bickering. Like Fenris, I had a similar thread notion in the back of my mind (though with a slightly different focus).

My real question is, does anybody truly and honestly believe they have an unsullied, nonpartisan view of all of this? I read the election threads, but I do not participate, because I recognize my own strongly partisan viewpoint and freely admit that it makes my opinion, to put it politely, objectively suspect. (Not to mention redundant.) Therefore, I see no point in adding yet another strident voice to the ongoing imbroglio, and I refrain from posting.

Does this put me at risk of appearing "holier-than-thou"? Perhaps. In my defense, I'll say only that it's taking all of my willpower not to throw a couple of partisan jabs into this, even at the risk of violating the point of what I'm trying to say. It's hardly easy to monitor oneself, and I'm sure, even with the best of intentions, I still slip regularly.

Anyway, Ankh-Too, far from setting yourself up for a "whuppin,'" I think you have said, and said well, something that few others had the wisdom to perceive or chutzpah to assert. Thanks.

[UnEasyRider]

The past month has shown exactly how vermin infested out legislative and judicial systems have become. It is definitely way past time for the Orkin man treatment. This would make great comedy channel programing if it wasn't about the government of the United States.

[Grendel69]

Here here Ankh Too!!!

[Enderw24]

Ankh_too

You're not going to get an argument out of me on this one.

I'm sick of the Gore supporters who yell that the process was confusing. I'm sick of Bush supporters who refuse to acknowledge that regardless of the confusion, the ballots could have been illegal. I'm sick of Gore supporters who demand recount after recount no matter how many times it comes up with Bush ahead. I'm sick of Bush supporters who criticize Gore for wanting to use legal means to settle the matter. I'm sick of Gore supporters making fun of Dubya and Bush supporters laughing at algore.

Does this all sound like one big contradiction? Maybe. But I'm sick of protester after protester shouting "Bush! Bush!" and "Gore! Gore!" when they should stop and realize that their candidate isn't God. Their candidate wants to win and will do whatever it takes to win. We above all else should try to ensure that the process remains fair and equitable, that it follows the rule of law, or we're all screwed.

The group of people I'm really sick at right now are the ones who didn't bother voting. Reform party, Green Party, Constitutional Party, whatever. Vote.

"My vote didn't matter." Yeah...how about we fill a movie theatre with people that think like you? Guess what? You guys could have single handedly changed the history of this nation one month ago.

[Homer]

Reform party, Green Party, Constitutional Party, whatever. Vote.

Oh, so you mention three parties with no one in office, but IGNORE the Libertarian party? The 3rd biggest party? SEE! THIS IS WHY WE... what? Oh. Sorry.

--Tim

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I think you're right about the election bringing out the worst in people.

I'm on an email list of moms who all got pregnant at the same time. We've had plenty o' battles in the ensuring 2.5 years, but I thought we'd moved beyond all the stupid stuff. But the election reminded me of how narrowminded and judgmental some of the moms on the list are, and I was disgusted anew. I don't give a flying fuck who any of them voted for. I do care that they not make ridiculously overbroad, sweeping generalizations about those who voted the other way. I also am utterly disheartened to know how many of them fucking believe ANYTHING they read in the media, as long as it supports the outcome they are hoping for. And that's on both sides of the issue.

Even more depressing to realize that these people are ALL RAISING CHILDREN to probably be just as poorly-informed, bigoted, and gullible.

[GusNSpot]

Even more depressing to realize that these people are ALL RAISING CHILDREN to probably be just as poorly-informed, bigoted, and gullible. ]]]]]]]]]]]]] <-- CAAOM

This is the scarriest part and not manny seem to think anything about it.
::::: sheesh ::::

[SPOOFE]

Ankh_Too, you've consistently proven yourself to be rational, reasonable, and very intelligent. Especially on the election issue. For these reasons, I commend you highly, and I want you to know that you have my utmost of respect.

I've figured the animosity that comes with this issue is due to the fact that both candidates are relatively plain in comparison to previous candidates, and as such the only way a person can justify his or her political position is to make the other side seem as bad as possible. "The grass is always browner on the other side."

Because of this, I've kept my involvement in the election threads to a minimum. If you present an opinion or a view, or even some evidence with a cite or two, you'll get three or four people of opposing viewpoint to come and, basically, shout you down.

This is not an atmosphere that fights ignorance... this is an atmosphere that encourages juvenile behavior. The reasonable people have no voice, while the unreasonable people refuse to listen.

Ah, well... maybe it'll all cool down... maybe.

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by Cervaise
"My real question is, does anybody truly and honestly believe they have an unsullied, nonpartisan view of all of this? I read the election threads, but I do not participate, because I recognize my own strongly partisan viewpoint and freely admit that it makes my opinion, to put it politely, objectively suspect. (Not to mention redundant.) Therefore, I see no point in adding yet another strident voice to the ongoing imbroglio, and I refrain from posting."[/B]

I am possibly the kind of offensive poster you all despair of in the sense that my first visit to SDMB was made expressly to vent by flaming someone who had what I deemed to be a narrow-minded pro-Bush attitude. (Both flame wars I participated in ended on a relatively amicable note, but that is not the point I want to make.)

I'm not speaking now to defend myself b/c I don't take Ankh's op personally, but I do want to suggest a different way of looking at things.

Cervaise, I'm not suggesting that I have "an unsullied, nonpartisan view of" anything. What I do feel is that my partisan position is an informed one. I care deeply about a range of issues and I take pains to keep reasonably informed about them. I don't vote for candidates for major office based on their party affiliation: I do my best to judge them on the merits of their record. It is highly unlikely that I would ever vote for a Republican (although I certainly see things to admire in a figure like McCain) because the great majority of Republicans support policies that I strongly dislike.

What I question about your post, Cervaise, is your feeling that you lack objectivity because you are partisan. I understand wanting to refrain from expression b/c you're fed up with argument, and I certainly understand the feeling that vitriolic argument is unpleasant and often counterproductive. But the notion that informed partisan people lack objectivity is deeply flawed.

The more informed you are, the more you're going to have a position on what you believe is right or wrong on any issue whether it's free trade, or welfare reform, or reproductive rights, or vouchers, or what have you. That position may will likely make you partisan; you'll attach yourself to the party or candidate whose position most closely matches what you think is right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you will cease to be objective. In fact it can mean quite the contrary. As an informed and concerned person you'll be in a position to know if your favorite candidate has lapsed, or if changing circumstances warrant a change in your position. I know that for me to enter certain discussions without taking a strong position I'd have to force myself to be *less* objective since its my objectivity that allows me to evaluate the evidence for the injustice and/or wrong-headedness of certain policies.

I believe that a healthy democracy depends on informed and opinionated people--in other words, partisans of various issues, platforms, ideologies, candidates. Partisanship is sickening when it involves self-interested politicians or officials doing what they know to be wrong just to help their candidate get elected or stay in power. Partisanship on the Internet can be very frustrating when it devolves into substanceless name-calling (and I've done my share of that). The answer to that kind of frustration may be to seek out a group where flaming is barred. But however just one's frustrations, I think it's dangerous to begin to see political difference as though it were meaningless bias with no objective basis: as though we were arguing about our favorite color, or whether spaghetti is a better food than pancakes.

There's a reason why some subjects produce more venom than others. The venom itself may be disheartening, but the stakes are high. It's fair to condemn the venom, and understandable to want to avoid it; but, I'm suggesting, don't get so frustrated that you lose sight of the importance of some of these differences.

[TVeblen]

Could this possibly be the start of groundswell of reason? Nah, too much to expect.

Dang right this election has been disillusioning. Not so much because the process was messy; the country is at peace, life goes on as usual and the process will get overhauled.

It's been disillusioning because of what people have permitted themselves to make of it. The issue in doubt is the national executive; not a god, not an icon, just one temporary executive in a layered system of checks and balances. I can't believe the hype and heat from people who either 1. didn't vote at all or 2. only voted in this election. They quote pundits and talking heads, but have no idea who their local officials are.

Sweet sufferin' fish at sea, talk about stupidity! Hype and ballyhoo aside, the Prez doesn't decide most things that directly impact life: how much are your property taxes, how much goes to schools, what are the schools teaching, can your dog run loose, what about those idiots with the blaring, cheapo car speakers that wake you up at 2 a.m., etc.

No, the whole shebang is dumped onto one national figure, and the "debate" gets overloaded with emotion, hype, exaggeration and noise. And supposedly sensible people lose their respect for others in the glare of the kleiglights.

Quick quiz: name your local and state officials, and their party affiliations. Describe their outlook, based on voting record. List, in detail, their marital record, any lapses, family associations, educational background, etc.

My point is, this doofus election is a system correcting itself, nothing more. Whichever poor sumbitch ends up with the job doesn't worry me as much as the lack of civic impulse and common sense among people who should know better.

Hell, P.T. Barnum was right, much as I hate to admit it.

Veb

[SPOOFE]

It's been disillusioning because of what people have permitted themselves to make of it. The issue in doubt is the national executive; not a god, not an icon, just one temporary executive in a layered system of checks and balances.

this doofus election is a system correcting itself, nothing more. Whichever poor sumbitch ends up with the job doesn't worry me as much as the lack of civic impulse and common sense among people who should know better.

Veb, with your permission, I would like to print out those two lines and provide a copy to everyone I know.

[Catzpjs1]

[[[[Now you said a mouthfull.......
Even more depressing to realize that these people are ALL RAISING CHILDREN to probably be just as poorly-informed, bigoted, and gullible. ]]]]]]]]]]]]] <-- CAAOM

This is the scarriest part and not manny seem to think anything about it.
::::: sheesh ::::]]]]]]]]<----Catbiker

So? What are you advocating, Catbiker? Government stepping in and telling us how to raise our children? Or maybe state run 'homes' to do the raising for us? Yes it is scary how some people chose to raise their children, or how they chose to not raise their children. Personally, I am more concerned about those who do nothing, who don't seem to care that the child is not dressed warmly or isn't clean or hasn't been fed today. There are too many people out there who live for their own pleasure and ignore any responsibility toward their children (who were only conceived because of the 'pleasure' involved). At least people who are raising their children to think differently than you are raising their children to think, no matter how misguidedly.

[[[end of rant]]]

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by TVeblen

It's been disillusioning because of what people have permitted themselves to make of it. The issue in doubt is the national executive; not a god, not an icon, just one temporary executive in a layered system of checks and balances.

That may be true but for the last few years we've had a Republican majority in both houses and a Democratic president who used his power to shape or veto quite a lot of major Republican-led legislation. Apart from appointing nominees to the Supreme Court, there are a lot of things a president does.

Are you aware that the US has a position on the environment that is so different from Europe's that talks recently broke down about what to do to reduce global warming? Any Bush presidency is likely to amplify that divide as he has a record of appointing anti-environmentalists to positions of authority and has already talked about these kinds of individuals for his cabinet. Gore is not the environmentalist he appeared when he first wrote on the subject but his position is certainly better that Bush's.

Are you aware that legislatures often attach riders to bills so that a bill with bipartisan support that everyone's been wrangling over for months will end up having some noxious or expensive legislation attached to it that *no one* (except some lobbyist that's been feeding the campaign coffers of the politician who wrote the bill) wants. The general public very rarely reads anything about these riders until it's too late and once again a president is in a position to halt them. (That doesn't mean they always do, only that they often can.)

"I can't believe the hype and heat from people who either 1. didn't vote at all or 2. only voted in this election. They quote pundits and talking heads, but have no idea who their local officials are."

This is indeed very annoying. OTOH, as the people who didn't vote at all are the majority of voters, maybe we should recognize their position as the true will of the people ;).

"the Prez doesn't decide most things that directly impact life: how much are your property taxes, how much goes to schools, what are the schools teaching, can your dog run loose, what about those idiots with the blaring, cheapo car speakers that wake you up at 2 a.m., etc."

Partly true, though the federal government does supplement education of various kinds and Bush seems determined to divert some of that into some kind of voucher program. I think this idea totally sucks and it's another reason why I really care about who is our next president. Nor does caring about that mean that I don't care about who is on my local school board, as I'm sure you realize.

"My point is, this doofus election is a system correcting itself, nothing more. Whichever poor sumbitch ends up with the job doesn't worry me as much as the lack of civic impulse and common sense among people who should know better."

Actually, I'm not sure I understand this comment. When you saying "a system correcting itself" do you mean that some Florida counties are likely to replace the "Votomatic" with a more reliable technology? Do you mean that people will now want to address the inequities between the voting apparatus in poor as opposed to well-off counties? If so, I agree there'll be a lot of attention to all of this in the future and I hope lots of good comes out of it. This has been an educational experience for everyone.

But, if that's what you meant, why imply that those who argued about this issue lacked "civic impulse." Maybe some people's civic impulse was ill-informed or ill-expressed.

You seem to assume that people who keep abreast of their property taxes and local school board are productive citizens and those who pay attention to national affairs are somehow un-civic. Shouldn't the civic impulse apply to both spheres? Am I just getting you wrong here?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Mandelstam

Are you aware that the US has a position on the environment that is so different from Europe's that talks recently broke down about what to do to reduce global warming? Any Bush presidency...(elipsis mine)

...will summon demons to arise from the nether-dimensions and eat the faces of innocent children. Al Gore on the other hand, if he becomes president will condem everyone to hell, where they'll be forced to drink molten lead through cast-iron straws for all eternity. We've heard this before.

Good FUCK, there are approximately ten billion threads in GD on which candidate is the poopy-head. Can't you find a more appropriate place to post this?

What is it with you and your ilk? Are all you so devoid of a sense of identity and self-worth that ANY TIME someone mentions your president-wanna-be's name or anything that could possibly have a vague sense of connection to him, you've gotta chirp in with a rigorous defense? Do you know what this sounds like? Every conversation I've had with this sort of zealot has gone like this:
Fenris: "Y'know, I saw a really good movie last night. It was..."
Zealot friends: "93.6% of people who didn't vote my way are too dumb to turn on their televisions"
Fenris: "Yeah. Anyway, it starred Judy Holliday and she..."
Zealot friends:"The other candidate will take away all holidays for everyone! Forever! You'll be forced to work in the salt-mines for 80 hours a week during what used to be your days off!"
Fenris:"Uh-huh. Like I was saying, Holliday was playing a telephone answering service operator..."
Zealot friends:"My candidate keeps an open line of communication! You'll never get a busy signal when you try to talk to him."
Fenris: Punches zealot friends. (not really, but...)

Fenris (who may've just hit the breaking point on "My president wanna-be's dick is bigger than your president wanna-be's dick!" hijacks)

[Mandelstam]

Dear Fenris, thanks so very much for missing the point of this entire thread as well as my own contribution to it. So far as I can tell, Ankh and those who supported Ankh's op are fed up with precisely the kind of empty rhetoric that you just vomited forth.

My point has been to distinguish between understandable frustration and substantive difference. You cited me in the midst of saying that reaching an international consensus on global warming is one area where the difference between candidates may matter a great deal.

Where exactly in your verbal equivalent of untreatable sludge am I supposed to figure out where you stand on this hugely important matter?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Dear Fenris, thanks so very much for missing the point of this entire thread as well as my own contribution to it. So far as I can tell, Ankh and those who supported Ankh's op are fed up with precisely the kind of empty rhetoric that you just vomited forth.
<snip>

Where exactly in your verbal equivalent of untreatable sludge am I supposed to figure out where you stand on this hugely important matter?



Oh, Irony, thy name is Mandelstam:
#1) The only political rhetoric here was yours. No-one discussed who's presidential-wanna-be was better until you chirped in with your sprited defense of your father-substitute.

#2)You aren't supposed to figure out where I stand on global warming, because, outside of your hijack, no-one was talking about it. If you wished to discuss the ramifications of the election on the ongoing international debate about global warming, why didn't you just start a thread about it?

Do you realize how annoying it is to have zealots like you popping into every conversation to debate candidates, regardless of the subject at hand?

Fenris

[Philbuck]

Originally posted by Mandelstam

Where exactly in your verbal equivalent of untreatable sludge am I supposed to figure out where you stand on this hugely important matter?



I see that you've ventured little outside of the Pit. Perhaps you are unaware that there's a form more suited, nay intended for such, shall we say, "debates"? Here, I'll even point you to it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=7)...


Anyway, I've long been sick of listening to the hype on both sides. One would think that at a supposed institution of higher learning one could get away from incessant cries of "Bush will take away a woman's right to choose!" and "Gore will ban all firearms". But no, so I've given up talking politics to anyone save my roommate, and precious little even then. I, too, appreciate Ankh Too's rant.

[Sterra]

"...will summon demons to arise from the nether-dimensions and eat the faces of innocent children. Al Gore on the other hand, if he becomes president will condem everyone to hell, where they'll be forced to drink molten lead through cast-iron straws for all eternity. We've heard this before."

Then obviously Bush is the superior president because children arent voters. Of course gore does promise eternal life...

[Cervaise]

Mandelstam: What I question about your post, Cervaise, is your feeling that you lack objectivity because you are partisan. ... The more informed you are, the more you're going to have a position on what you believe is right or wrong on any issue...
I have no problem at all agreeing with the general tenor of this. I am a very, very well-informed citizen. I can name all of my city council representatives, I know how long all of them have been in office, I know their general political biases. I know my county, state, and national legislators. I've voted on every race, levy, proposal, etc. in my area in the last, oh, ten years.

Problem is, it's irrelevant to what I was talking about. I have no difficulty whatsoever being vocally partisan on specific issues -- environment, social reform, foreign policy, etc. -- because those issues lend themselves to analysis and conclusion. I'm particularly vehement on the current hot-button issue of violence in the media; search on my name for past threads.

What I was specifically getting at in my previous post, nestled as it is in this individual thread on this particular topic, is that I don't feel like I would add anything by weighing in on debates about how this specific election is proceeding. I have a strong partisan position favoring one side. I believe the other candidate will not be healthy for the country. I have a vested interest in the outcome.

Therefore, I strongly suspect my bias negatively impacts my ability to stay objectively informed. I am very well informed on the arguments favoring my side, because they support my position. I am not as well versed in the arguments favoring the other side, because I dismiss them; I listen to them and know them only insofar as I must in order to formulate a counterargument. Because of my strong partisan bent, I have no way to know for certain if my view is based on strong, clear, empirical data, or if I am subconsciously filtering information in order to bolster my position. (See Robert Anton Wilson's "reality tunnel.") I believe the vast majority of people who take one side or another are falling victim to this phenomenon, and my only advantage is that I recognize the danger of same in myself.

When I take a step back and look coldly at the election brouhaha, the only conclusion I can reasonably support as having any measure of objective evidence is that the vote in Florida is, mathematically, a tie. Out of six million votes, a difference of 500 or 700 or 300 or wherever it stands now is less than the degree of measurement error. Mathematically, there isn't any way to concretely determine a winner, because with those figures, it's impossible to count that many votes with a margin of error that's less than the margin of victory.

And in light of this, I recognize that as I follow the back-and-forth legal maneuvering, as I cheer when one position prevails and then weep when the other comes superior, I am not basing my position on objective analysis, but on my own political preference. Any position that "interprets" the vote margin one way or another must be based on political and legal maneuvering, because it sure as hell isn't based on mathematical and statistical reality. I see that in others, and further, I see it in myself.

That's all I was getting at. Clear now?

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Dear Fenris, thanks so very much for missing the point of this entire thread as well as my own contribution to it. So far as I can tell, Ankh and those who supported Ankh's op are fed up with precisely the kind of empty rhetoric that you just vomited forth.


Wipe your chin, the "vomit of rhetoric" was yours. Perhaps your post was intended differently than Fenris and other have interpreted it, but in any case, the first three paragraphs relating to your ecological objections to a Bush Presidency are not only irrelevant to the issues set forth in the original post, but a tangential example of what prompted the post in the first place. You're afraid of the outcome of a Bush Presidency. We get it. I could weep for you, truly. But it doesn't have anything to do with the original topic of the thread. Your ideas about "understandable frustration" and "substantive difference" may be a wonderful topic of either a rant or a debate, I really can't tell what you're trying to say with it, but in either case, it has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.

My frustration stems out of the behavior of a number of posters who seem to drag every single attempt at a serious discussion regarding the election outcome into a morass of partisanship bickering. I really don't give a good goddamn how strongly someone feel that Vice President Gore would be a better president. It has nothing to do with the underlying problems regarding how the vote in Florida will or should be resolved. In discussing the outcome of the election counts, bringing up the perceived stupidity of Governor Bush or the assumed duplicity of Vice President Gore is utterly and completely out of place. But there are some who cannot seem to resist the emotional reward of inane and juvenile attacks of this nature.

I realize that people feel strongly regarding the issue of who will be the better president. But we are watching the election system working itself out the way it was designed to do. Debating the merits of the various challenges and cases is wonderful and I, for one, very much enjoy that aspect of it. But I am sick and tired of people blithely assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with their analysis must automatically be either liars or thieves. Rational and intelligent people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions. And while I acknowledge the idea that everyone brings their own values and preconceptions to any review of this situation, I refuse to believe that either side has a monopoly on the TRUTH.

Jodie touched briefly on the issue of civility, specifically the lack of it in many of the discussions and debates that have erupted over the handling of this election. And while I have been raised to be polite and obey all the forms, particularly in intellectual discourse, the lack of civility is less important to me in this situation. What I see as the most frustrating part of this entire episode is the intellectual dishonesty that seems to be rampant in these threads. The inability for people who hold one particular belief to step back and admit that someone who disagrees might possibly still be a rational and intelligent individual who simply draws different conclusions from the same information frustrates the hell out of me. For example, it seems that some supporters of Governor Bush are incapable of viewing Vice President Gore's position as anything other than an attempt to "steal" the election from the "rightful winner". On the other hand, some of Democrats feel it's impossible that the Republicans could honestly believe that the recounts are not warranted because the ballots were designed and approved in advance by a Democrat.

I do not discount a strong thread of self-interest that runs throughout the positions on both sides of the issues. But I also realize that people can simply disagree on an issue without either side being liars, fakers or simply out for their own power. I simply wish others would be able to make this adjustment to their thinking when they sit down to post their positions.

And I would like to thank everyone who chimed in with their support on this thread. I had worried that some would feel that I was trying to proscribe limits to the discussion of the issues at hand, which is obviously not the case. It's simply the frustration of watching smart people do things that I think are beneath them.

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly:
"Ankh_Too, you've consistently proven yourself to be rational, reasonable, and very intelligent.

As flattering as that is, it frightens me more than anything you mentioned in the TMI thread. The day that I'm viewed as the "Voice of Reason" must be one of the signs of the coming Apocalypse. But thanks.

[GusNSpot]

::::::: How about them Cowboys? ::::::::::::

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Cervaise

That's all I was getting at. Clear now?

I gotta give you props for that one, Cervaise. Superbly articulated.

And actually, I can and do say the same to Mandelstam.

(note the lack of reference or preference as to content. I'm just impressed at how you have both presented your positions)

<removes hat>

stoid

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
Rational and intelligent people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions. And while I acknowledge the idea that everyone brings their own values and preconceptions to any review of this situation, I refuse to believe that either side has a monopoly on the TRUTH.

[ What I see as the most frustrating part of this entire episode is the intellectual dishonesty that seems to be rampant in these threads. The inability for people who hold one particular belief to step back and admit that someone who disagrees might possibly still be a rational and intelligent individual who simply draws different conclusions from the same information frustrates the hell out of me.

I'm constantly held up as the #1 example of a rabid partisan on this board. I will not, because I cannot, argue with that. I absolutely am. (And I don't apologize for it. But I will not take on the mantel of the rudest or nastiest. All my mud is slung exclusively at public figures, never, ever at my fellow dopers...again, something for which I shall not apologize )

However... I just can't let this go by without pointing out one little post I made that absolutely NO ONE acknowledged or responded to (that I can see or recall). It was a momentary lapse of insanity, but here it is, and I would simply like to remind one and all that I made it, and I meant it:

Originally posted by Stoidela 11-19-2000 09:20 PM


I think, in the end, we see loads of hypocrisy and bad behavior going on, and it is undeniable that both sides have very conveeeeenient ways of interpreting the law. Unfortunately, the law in Florida is set up this way, so it DOES make everybody right.

So here's where we are:

Everybody is right.

Yep.

Both sides.

I have come to the conclusion that overall, and where it counts, everyone involved and all of us who are passionately observing, BELIEVE utterly in our own cause and our own view. I don't think that there is much in the way of cynical bending of reality going on, I really don't. I think we all, and Gore and Bush and company, all really, truly believe that we are on the side of truth.

And again, I think we are all right.

.....


I would love to present every detail of this to some foreign professor or other intelligent person who doesn't give two figs about America or her leaders and hasn't even heard about what has happened, and get his or her take on what's right and fair. But I doubt I'll get the chance.

For the whole post, and the whole thread (it was the military ballots thread):
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47265

Again, while there are those on this board who seem to spend all their time tracking my every word in order to attack it, not one person even NOTICED that I posted this. It was disheartening.

So I sez to myself I sez, Screw it! And went back to bickering in a rabidly partisan way.

stoid

[Mandelstam]

Phillbuck, Thanks for the advice about posting in GD. I don't really want to debate environmental policy. I brought it up, with TVeblen's post in mind, as an example of why presidential politics matter so much to some people. When Fenris responded that I was being just another zealot, his (her?) response seemed excessive to me b/c I was attempting to explain the objective basis that such seeming zealotry can be predicated on. Fenris's level of animosity struck me as entirely disproportionate to what I was trying to say and the way in which I was trying to say it.

Cervaise. Thanks for the clarification of your position. I never doubted for a second that you were a good citizen, I only felt that *maybe* you were selling short your ability to be objective even while being partisan. I understand what you mean about cheering one court decision and lamenting another on purely partisan grounds. Still, I believe that even the most partisan person can rise above such personal investment and make reasonably objective evaluations even in what may seem to be (in Ankh's term) a "morass." For example, much though I would personally prefer a Gore presidency to a Bush presidency, I thought the Seminole County case (regarding the ballot application irregularities) was a weak one. Had Judge Clark ruled to throw out 15,000 absentee ballots on the merits of that case I would have disagreed with her even though, as a partisan, I would have liked the outcome. So that was my meaning.

Ankh_Too. Perhaps the reason you don't understand the distinction I've been trying to make (b/w "understandable frustration" and "meaningful difference") is that it wasn't a direct response to your OP. I agreed with your OP but was attempting to explain why someone like me isn't likely to desist from partisan speech that you and some others might find disheartening.

Let me try to put this another way. "Partisan bickering" exists and it's irritating and that was the subject of your post. Fair enough: but (and here was the point of my reply) not every partisan bickers from a non-objective standpoint.
Let me go a step further (and this may piss off some of you).

As I said above, I introduced the global warming example purely to give an example to TVeblen of why who's president really matters. My intent was not to insist on the superiority of any particular environmental position. But let's say that it had been. Let's say, for argument's sake, that my main purpose had been to speak as a concerned environmentalist whose point was something like, "It's true, bickering sucks and is annoying, but maybe it stems from the fact the future of the environment is so incredibly important. Why just a few weeks ago at the Hague [blah blah, blah]"

Ankh, have you really lost so much patience with political argument that this kind of reply, if made politely and reasonably, would have been intolerable to you?

Is it possible that *some* of people's negative response comes not only from a dislike of unreasonable hostility, but also from frustration with issues themselves. With issues that can seem depressing, divisive or just plain-old boring and confusing?

This kind of alienation from politics interests me more than some of the debates themselves.

Which is one of several reasons why I prefer posting here, in a pit of disaffection, than in a locale like GD.

At least Stoidela seems happy about it ;).

[TVeblen]

Mandelstam...huhhh???

Of course it's important who's President! My entire point is that the system is multi-layered, and it's damned important who federal and state legislators, governors, and all officials on down are, too.

The Presidency seems to be the lightning rod for opinion, which is somewhat understandable for the chief executive. But it concerns me that so many people either don't vote at all, or only in "high hype" elections.

I'm sorry, not voting at all isn't "the will of the people". It's plain damned laziness and a disgrace in a democracy. Not a candidate you like? Get involved, get vocal, get moving. Talk about the lack of civic impulse! In the immortal words of Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

I'm a hardliner on this. People have fought, bled, died, sweated and broken their hearts and health to create this system and make it work. Didn't vote? Never written, called or emailed a Congressman? Just wanna sit back and passively wait for a miraculous perfect party and candidate to drop in your lap like a candygram? Then, to me, your opinion ain't worth a cup of warm spit.

Yes, I do believe this election tripped a long-needed overhaul of the system. It's been creaking at the seams as long as I can remember: the electoral college question, voting machines that don't work, which machines work better, how much will better machines cost, the media "calling" elections based on eastern projections well before polls even close in west and coastal states, etc.

This is the first time a high-profile election was so close the inadequacies in the system couldn't be ignored any longer. The legal confusion and brouhaha are messy--but necessary--pains while the problem heals.

And I still maintain that the civic duty requires consistentent, informed participation as well as a basic respect for those who disagree. It's almighty hard, with hype and hate-that-sells and hoopla poisoning the atmosphere, but there has to be room for honorable disagreement.

SPOOFE: g'head and quote at will; I'm flattered. And still pity whichever hapless soul "wins" this mess. I wish I saw more signs of strength in either, or in us.

Veb

[Ankh_Too]

Mandelstam, I wasn't asking for anyone to desist from partisan speech. I was expressing my frustration that it keeps being used in an attempt to rationalize why the various court cases should be decided one way or the other. Partisan and politically oriented speech is one of the bedrocks of this board and I have absolutely no desire to have anyone refrain from expressing their political beliefs and attempt to convince others that they are the "right" ones. I have a problem and become incredibly frustrated when someone says that the disputed votes in Miami-Dade County should be included because "Dubya is going to ruin the country and he's a pinhead to boot."

I don't see how one person's highly subjective political fortune-telling of the next four years is relevant in a discussion about the legal standing of the undervotes, Almost everyone who participates in these threads support one or the other of the candidates, sometimes passionately and vocally, which is certainly as it should be. Those people who participate are the most interested in the subject. My objection comes about only when the partisanship obscurs the underlying issue. It does occur in nearly every political discussion in one form or the other, but for some reason, this topic seems to bring out the worst of it.

The election of a president is important; I've never denied that fact. But the party policies and tendencies don't really impact on whether or not the votes in Miami-Dade county were counted correctly or whether the overseas absentee ballots should be counted without a postmark or not. When someone's objection to the outcome of these questions is based on their interpretation of either the Republican or Democratic party's perceived policies, they completely obscure the underly issue and becomes not only a logical fallacy but utterly disheartening to everyone who wants to talk about the legal or technical issues.


Originally posted by Mandelstam
Let me try to put this another way. "Partisan bickering" exists and it's irritating and that was the subject of your post. Fair enough: but (and here was the point of my reply) not every partisan bickers from a non-objective standpoint.
Let me go a step further (and this may piss off some of you).
<snip>
Ankh, have you really lost so much patience with political argument that this kind of reply, if made politely and reasonably, would have been intolerable to you?

If the discussion has to do with the why you voted for one candidate over the other and wished that others did as well? Had I been involved in that discussion I almost certainly would have replied. However if it came up in a discussion concerning the specifics of the Florida election and it's confusions, I would have had the urge (figuratively at least) to slap you upside the head and tell you to stick to the point of the discussion. My point is that people should refrain from espousing support for one person or the other as the basis for resolving the current conflict within the Electoral process in Florida. To continue with your example, if you want to climb up on a soapbox and rail against the ecological disaster that is about to befall us due to the Bush Presidency, go right ahead. But stick it in another thread since it doesn't have anything to do with the resolution of the voting problems.


Originally posted by Mandelstam Is it possible that *some* of people's negative response comes not only from a dislike of unreasonable hostility, but also from frustration with issues themselves. With issues that can seem depressing, divisive or just plain-old boring and confusing?

I fear you're missing my point; perhaps I haven't been completely clear. I don't have a problem with people who do find themselves frustrated by the current political situation. It's the idea that because someone believes that Governor Bush is a moron or that Vice President Gore is a liar, it is reason, in and of itself that this court case should be found in favor of Vice President Gore or that case should be decided for Governor Bush.

This was actually the minor point in my original rant, because it's something that I think is less prevalent here on SDMB than in most of the other conversations I've had elsewhere. My biggest problem was the way people seem to feel that their side is the only possible interpretation and that anyone who opposes them is automatically either mentally deficient or dishonest.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
I have a problem and become incredibly frustrated when someone says that the disputed votes in Miami-Dade County should be included because "Dubya is going to ruin the country and he's a pinhead to boot."



But the party policies and tendencies don't really impact on whether or not the votes in Miami-Dade county were counted correctly or whether the overseas absentee ballots should be counted without a postmark or not. When someone's objection to the outcome of these questions is based on their interpretation of either the Republican or Democratic party's perceived policies, they completely obscure the underly issue and becomes not only a logical fallacy but utterly disheartening to everyone who wants to talk about the legal or technical issues.




It's the idea that because someone believes that Governor Bush is a moron or that Vice President Gore is a liar, it is reason, in and of itself that this court case should be found in favor of Vice President Gore or that case should be decided for Governor Bush.



I'm glad you said at the end that you find this less prevalent here, because I can't recall seeing this at all. Sure, the topic of Dubya's being an idiot and Gore's being a liar comes up in the election threads, and people even say that these issues (or whatever others) are the REASON they'd like the resolution to go their way...but I can't recall anyone actually arguing that the election should go one way or another because of the relative failings of either candidate. Just about everyone tries, as much as they can, to argue the particulars of the case. And of course, they argue from their own bias most of the time, but that's not the same thing.

stoid

[SSgtBaloo]

The Pit? I almost never go to the Pit!

I, too have been frustrated at the ever-increasing levels of bile and vitriol in the political discussion threads. I have, for the most part, refrained from posting in most of the political threads. I have made every effort to look past the response I'd like to post, to evaluate the potential reactions and consequences, and alter my reply accordingly (G-d bless the preview function). I have tried to keep my replies as neutral as possible, not because I do not hold strong opinions, but because I respect your right to your own opinion. One thing I've kept in mind is that when the inauguration comes, someone will be raising his right hand and taking the oath of office.

The day after the inauguration, I don't want to have to mend fences with someone who's only "fault" is not seeing things my way. We will have a president. He will not be "my" president or "your" president. He will be our president (non-Americans excepted, of course ;)). In the meantime, I do not intend to unecessarily damage friendships or alienate acquaintences I have made here at the SDMB.

The rules of civil discourse do not exist just to make it difficult for you to prove your point, or even to ensure the "correct" conclusion is arrived at. They exist so you may participate in a debate with someone else and still be friends with them when the debate is over. I see nothing wrong with that.

~~Baloo

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I forgot one other point--when I was griping about that other e-mail list to my spouse, he suggested that the sort of people who "like" politics and are drawn to the debates about it might the sort of people who enjoy discord. Some people really do thrive on the sort of debate that has the element of exaggeration and button-pushing. While *I* might think that's just awful, inconsiderate, and uncivil, for them it's just part of the appeal. They don't find it upsetting or insulting or a reflection on the character of the participants--it's simply the discourse of politics. And they probably think I'm a real sniveler who doesn't get it. :-)

I think he might be right about that.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan


I think he might be right about that.

He is. (I don't know about your being a sniveler) I would modify it a little, though.

People who enjoy discord and people who enjoy debate are not the same thing. I have always enjoyed debate, ever since I was a kid. I grew up in a house where the conversation was always lively and interesting, even heated. I've always hung out with people who enjoyed a good debate.

Discord is different. While I enjoy debate, I deeply dislike true conflict. There are people in this world who seem perfectly content to scream at the people they love at the drop of a hat, turn minor disagreements into major fights, and enjoy, to use a phrase "fuckin' n' fightin'". There are people who appear not to feel fully alive unless they are pissed off about something. None of that is me. I'm a peacenik. Love makes the world go 'round, baby. Make love, not war... you get the picture.

For folks who do not fall into either category, the distinctions may be fuzzy. But to those of us who fall into one or the other, they are crisp and clear.

stoid

[Mandelstam]

TVeblen: Apologies if I overstated the extent to which you were minimizing the importance of who is President in order to maximize the importance of paying attention to other levels of government. I do occasionally exaggerate my points (although I have only seldom claimed to have invented the Internet). Under different circumstances I'd want to converse with you about the issue of laziness and those who choose not to vote. But to explain my opinions on this subject, I'd have to launch into a sea of leftist social criticism that would have Fenris believing that Al Gore is not only (as he alleged) my father-substitute but also my astrologist, stock broker and personal savior. (For the record, Fen, I am anything but a Gore-worshipper.)

Ankh_Too: You've clearly spent a lot of time responding to my posts, which I very much appreciate, but I think I've still failed to convey my intentions to you. I know you are not trying to silence political speech. Your OP, with which I entirely sympathized, was very clear on that point.

You began by denouncing what you (very colorfully) described as "the depressing emergence of self-righteous venom that seems to leak into every single fucking [election-related] discussion." My sole intention was to provide the viewpoint of someone whom you may have felt to have engaged in such discourse and, in my second post, to insist that partisanship does not necessarily preclude objectivity. This was offered in a spirit of intellectual exchange; not negativity. May the force be with you.

I also understand, Ankh, that you are saying that partisan speech is most inappropriate when it's introduced to justify a position with respect to the election aftermath as in...

"[(Fill in) Gore/Bush] doesn't support [(Fill in) Issue]; therefore I insist that dimpled chads:
a) register the intent of a voter so forcefully that they can be perceived at a distance of 5,000 yards by graduates of schools for the blind; or
b) have been found by infallible machinery and certified by the entirely impartial Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to reflect no discernible mark of any vote whatsoever (except insofar as they have been wildly mishandled by Democatic partisans locked alone in rooms with sharp instruments."

Despite the justice of your condemning such reasoning I have to agree with Stoidela that 1) I haven't observed too much of this kind of thing on this board and 2)that it is possible to take a position on the matter of chads, court decisions, etc. without necessarily succumbing to partisan mono-vision. Indeed, Cervaise has illustrated such judgment in coming to the very reasonable conclusion that the election is (statistically speaking) a tie.

This brings me (thank god) to my final point. What I've learned from reading (and, gasp, re-reading) this thread is that things look very different depending on one's level of political engagement. Cranky's husband is ready to assert that people who "like" politics "enjoy discord." By contrast, I'm foolish enough actually to set a great store by politics and to believe in some better way of doing things that might lessen discord.

I still tend to believe that the more one knows about a subject, the more genuine and substantive one's political engagement; and the less dispiriting political argument (even of the vitriolic kind) becomes.

TVeblen: On a personal note, is that like *Thorsten* Veblen??

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by Mandelstam


This brings me (thank god) to my final point. What I've learned from reading (and, gasp, re-reading) this thread is that things look very different depending on one's level of political engagement. Cranky's husband is ready to assert that people who "like" politics "enjoy discord." By contrast, I'm foolish enough actually to set a great store by politics and to believe in some better way of doing things that might lessen discord.



TVeblen: On a personal note, is that like *Thorsten* Veblen??



This is my fault for not writing very clearly--but I didn't mean this to be some sort of dichotomy (those who like politics are one way--argumentative, say; and then there's everyone else). I meant (and what I think my husband's point was) that debating about politics is for some people a great arena for them to indulge in a practice they love: arguing, debating, indulging in a little hyperbole, tweaking noses, etc. Some people thrive on that. Others don't. I don't.

Thus, I stay out of debates, and I've tended to feel disheartened when I see people behaving in ways that (to me) rude. That doesn't mean I am disengaged, nor does it mean that I don't see the practice of politics as a pretty fascinating circus to watch--and a remarkable means to get things done. I suspect I'm not the only one. I don't like the way it makes people behave when they talk about it, but I've been encouraged to see it as a place where the discussion rules are different and behavior can be, too. It's not a matter of character, which was the mistake I was making when I was getting bummed out seeing otherwise nice people saying total jackass things.

I was starting to feel cranky about the misreading of my muddled post, until you threw in the Thorstein Veblen reference. *swoon*

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Whee! Here's a cure for what ails you. If you're sick of the talking heads as well, listen in on the Supreme Court proceedings. Those robed ones don't suffer fools gladly, and they cut down b.s. as soon as it passes the lips of the lawyers.

Very very satisfying.

[TVeblen]

Originally posted by Mandelstam


TVeblen: On a personal note, is that like *Thorsten* Veblen??



Yepper, Thorstein Veblen. In stern practical terms, I'm actually female and not bearded, not matter vicious rumors to the contrary.
Always had a sneaking admiration for the eccentric old poop; gotta admire a misanthrope who indentified conspicuous consumption slam in the middle of the Gilded Age. Or maybe my fugue state was worse than usual when trying to come up with a screen name.

CrankyAsAnOldMan wrote:
I was starting to feel cranky about the misreading of my muddled post, until you threw in the Thorstein Veblen reference. *swoon*

::snickers:: This from a fellow gender-bending poster?

Veb

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by TVeblen
Always had a sneaking admiration for the eccentric old poop; gotta admire a misanthrope who indentified conspicuous consumption slam in the middle of the Gilded Age.

CrankyAsAnOldMan wrote:
I was starting to feel cranky about the misreading of my muddled post, until you threw in the Thorstein Veblen reference. *swoon*

Right on latterday Veblenians! Is this just a bizarre coincidence or is the SDMB some kind of cyberjunction for fans of cool sociologists?

I'm curious, Cranky, TVeblen, whom, if anyone, you think carries T.V.'s torch in our own Gilded Age?

[Shirley Ujest]

Originally posted by annalamerino
Religion, politics and sex are three topics where I seldom read beyond the OP.
Catholic, Democrat, Married with Children Soccer Mom.
What's left to add?



Wait a second....a Catholic Democrat...is that allowed? I'm afraid I'm going to have to get a judges ruling on this....MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Shirley Ujest
a Catholic Democrat...is that allowed?

Catholics have traditionally been Democratic. It's only recently, with abortion, that Catholics have been seen as politically conservative. The Catholic Church is pro-labor union, anti-death penalty, pro-welfare, etc.

[scratch1300]

"Infantile bullshit"....Couldn't that be expressed more economically as "calfshit"?