[QUOTE=Hamlet]
As a complete aside, is anyone else yelling “Cripple Fight!!!” reading Dio and Elvis’s posts to each other?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been thinking that this thread was a lot more interesting when it was about economics.
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
As a complete aside, is anyone else yelling “Cripple Fight!!!” reading Dio and Elvis’s posts to each other?
[/QUOTE]
I am now!
-Joe
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They’re making things up to pretend to be upset about. I can say this with confidence because every single one of their contrived objections can be equally made about Hillary.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’ve convinced me…I won’t vote for Obama or Hillary now!
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Well, you’ve convinced me…I won’t vote for Obama or Hillary now!
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t commenting on right wingers who (as misguided as they may be) have actual political disagreements with Obama. I was commenting on people who are irrationally voting contrary to their own ideologies and political interests.
[QUOTE=muttrox]
This is very poorly reasoned. You claim the “die hard war mongering republicans and the bigots” are open about it. So they would be in polls same as everyone else who does or doesn’t vote for Obama for any particular reason.
But the objective fact is that Obama is winning.
Either (a) you’re wrong about them being out in the open, or (b) you’re wrong that there’s enough of them.
Which door do you choose?
[/QUOTE]
Polling is not an exact science. It seems to be close enough to be iffy. But Repub die hards are too few to carry the day. They augment their numbers by appealing to people who vote on one theme. Gun lovers are one group. They claim the dems want to take your guns. A stupid theme and not true. But it works.
Then they claim the repubs are big on defense of marriage. Its the evil gays threatening your marriage. A BS theme if I ever heard one. But it works.
Then They suppress voters in districts that are likely dems. The claim is to protect the integrity of the elections. It actually does the opposite.
The pro war die hard repubs are still about 30 percent. That will not win. The bigots add to these numbers. How many are there. I do not know but it is a problem for Obama that he can not do any thing about. My experience shows it is substantial and makes this election close.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If you really want to parse it. let’s just say that, for whatever reason, be it childish vindictiveness or or latent bigotry, they want to irrationally vote against their own best interests, an against the best interests of their country.
To bring it down to one issue of paramount importance to women, the Supreme Court is one seat away from overturning Roe. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to why it’s in the best interest of women to vote against the only candidate who will preserve their reproductive rights.
[/QUOTE]
Because not all women are interested in identity politics, as you are. Individual women are not obligated to vote in a manner that is in the best interests of women as a group. You may believe that it’s a moral responsibility for them to do so, but that is not the same thing as voting in one’s own best interests. My personal “best interests” would have zilch to do with reproductive rights, and everything to do with keeping taxes as low as possible, so it would in fact be in my own best interests to vote as far to the right as possible, and certainly not irrational for me to do so.
But these are women who idenitify themselves as pro-choice feminists concerned with women’s issues and upset with the role that they think misogyny played in Hillary’s defeat.
And, FYI, Obama is running on tax cuts, not tax hikes, but leaving that aside, he’s also running on something they claim is dear to their hearts and that’s Universal Health Care. Again, these are Hillary voters I’m talking about, not “women” as a class. If Hillary represents their values, than it makes no sense to vote for the guy who opposes those values and against the guy who supports everything they say they want. They are going against their own self-professed values. I’m not speaking in terms of my own opinion about what’s in their interests, but in terms of what THEY say they want.
What is “identity politics?” I didn’t know I was for it. What is my “identity?”
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Because not all women are interested in identity politics, as you are. Individual women are not obligated to vote in a manner that is in the best interests of women as a group. You may believe that it’s a moral responsibility for them to do so, but that is not the same thing as voting in one’s own best interests. My personal “best interests” would have zilch to do with reproductive rights, and everything to do with keeping taxes as low as possible, so it would in fact be in my own best interests to vote as far to the right as possible, and certainly not irrational for me to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, that’s a moot point here. These are supposedly Hillary supporters, not some random Phyllis Schlaffley Concerned Ladies Against Womyn types. Which means they are supposedly center left feminists. Which means that supporting McCain is an exercise in spite, because the Venn Diagram intersection between McCain supporters and Clinton supporters is teenytiny-to-nonexistent.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Because not all women are interested in identity politics, as you are. Individual women are not obligated to vote in a manner that is in the best interests of women as a group. You may believe that it’s a moral responsibility for them to do so, but that is not the same thing as voting in one’s own best interests. My personal “best interests” would have zilch to do with reproductive rights, and everything to do with keeping taxes as low as possible, so it would in fact be in my own best interests to vote as far to the right as possible, and certainly not irrational for me to do so.
[/QUOTE]
It’s in your best interest to vote for the party that cuts taxes but doesn’t cut spending correspondingly?
Bit short-sighted, that.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What is “identity politics?” I didn’t know I was for it. What is my “identity?”
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to assume that you are being disingenuous here.
But to your other point in your post above, and jayjay’s point as well, you are both right.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
It’s in your best interest to vote for the party that cuts taxes but doesn’t cut spending correspondingly?
Bit short-sighted, that.
[/QUOTE]
I said as far to the right as possible. I thought of commenting in that post that there really isn’t such an option in actuality, but I figured that I was speaking in enough of a hypothetical that it didn’t matter. There’s a whole philosophy of government that isn’t really represented at all these days, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Because not all women are interested in identity politics, as you are. Individual women are not obligated to vote in a manner that is in the best interests of women as a group. You may believe that it’s a moral responsibility for them to do so, but that is not the same thing as voting in one’s own best interests. My personal “best interests” would have zilch to do with reproductive rights, and everything to do with keeping taxes as low as possible, so it would in fact be in my own best interests to vote as far to the right as possible, and certainly not irrational for me to do so.
[/QUOTE]
I love it. Endless war . Economy running down hill. Financial crisis after crisis. Huge national debt. Incredible wealth concentration for the chosen few. Constitutional rights treated like a problem to be conquered. But on the off chance your taxes may go up to save us from disastrous economic management. ,you will vote Repub. You must be rich. Obama said he will not raise taxes on those under 200 K.
That is not a deep thinking political process. You must be one of those women who just think about themselves.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I’m going to assume that you are being disingenuous here.
[/quote]
Not disingenuous at all. I think I’ve heard that phrase before, but I don’t really know what it means. I’m guessing it’s politics based on some kind of demographic identity? My demographic is white, middle class, middle aged male. That should put me solidly in the Republican category, shouldn’t it? But I’m a liberal independent. How does that make me an “identity” voter?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I love it. Endless war . Economy running down hill. Financial crisis after crisis. Huge national debt. Incredible wealth concentration for the chosen few. Constitutional rights treated like a problem to be conquered. But on the off chance your taxes may go up to save us from disastrous economic management. ,you will vote Repub. You must be rich. Obama said he will not raise taxes on those under 200 K.
That is not a deep thinking political process. You must be one of those women who just think about themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sure, I’m rich! That’s funny. I guess you need to believe Obama when he says he will not raise taxes on those under $200K for that to be motivating to you.
But, it doesn’t matter…you actually missed my point completely. I was speaking hypothetically, based ONLY on Diogenes’ statement that voting “against” reproductive rights is voting against these womens’ best interests. Trying to point out that what is in one person’s best interests isn’t necessarily in another’s, and that perhaps voting “in one’s best interests” isn’t the best way to make your choice.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not disingenuous at all. I think I’ve heard that phrase before, but I don’t really know what it means. I’m guessing it’s politics based on some kind of demographic identity? My demographic is white, middle class, middle aged male. That should put me solidly in the Republican category, shouldn’t it? But I’m a liberal independent. How does that make me an “identity” voter?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what identity politics is. You may not personally vote that way, but you seem to support it in others. You see nothing with Reverend Wright’s appeal to identity, for example.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
You must be rich. Obama said he will not raise taxes on those under 200 K.
[/quote]
He’s actually proposing to cut taxes on thsoe making less than $200K. Even for those making more, he’s proposing no tax hike, but only letting the current temprary tax cut on those at the top expire instead of making it permanent. McCain opposed that tax cut himself and agreed with Obama on letting it expire until about 4 minutes ago.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He’s actually proposing to cut taxes on thsoe making less than $200K. Even for those making more, he’s proposing no tax hike, but only letting the current temprary tax cut on those at the top expire instead of making it permanent. McCain opposed that tax cut himself and agreed with Obama on letting it expire until about 4 minutes ago.
[/QUOTE]
OK, well, if Obama becomes President, I will be eagerly awaiting my smaller tax bill. I could really use the break, let me tell you.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
OK, well, if Obama becomes President, I will be eagerly awaiting my smaller tax bill. I could really use the break, let me tell you.
[/QUOTE]
So you’ll be voting for him, then?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I wasn’t commenting on right wingers who (as misguided as they may be) have actual political disagreements with Obama. I was commenting on people who are irrationally voting contrary to their own ideologies and political interests.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, it’s not your business at all why people vote the way they do. I can’t believe that while breathlessly screaming, “It’s nobody’s business” regarding Edwards, you have the gall to say you have rights in this situtation because, “They want to fuck up my country.”
Talk about irrational ideology and political interest.
Second of all, just because you disagree, and that’s the gist of your argument, it doesn’t make their concerns any less valid.