NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, given that the primaries are in a mere three months out, and the media narritives have been stuck and restuck (and then duct taped to insure maximum stickiness) on candidates, most Generalites must have some pet peeves about one or two or three or all of the candidates. What's yours?

Mine is best expressed by a CNN story from today, which can be found here (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/15/clinton-it%e2%80%99s-hard-running-for-prez-as-a-woman/)

I really hate the "people oppose Hillary because she's a woman" meme. It's dishonest. There are plenty of people who oppose Clinton on grounds that have nothing to do with her Gender. God kniows her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl resolution is reason enough.

I, and most Dems who don't want to see Hillary nominated don't give a shit. She could be a one-eyed, three-horned, flying, purple, people-eater, and it wouldn't change a thing: she doesn't listen to her own party, she's too much of a hawk, and she's a dishonest, triangulating politician who can't be trusted whatsoever.

Republicans.

Republicans.

Why, in particular? I know this batch is hardly the cream of the crop, but I always took you for being moderately conservative.

Why, in particular? I know this batch is hardly the cream of the crop, but I always took you for being moderately conservative.

Oh wow, you actually have an opinion of me? I thought I was pretty much an unknown around here. I feel loved.

Anyway, I guess this goes for both parties. They somehow spend an hour talking about something, and end up saying nothing at all. It makes me :mad:.

And bases. Oh, lord, the base issues. For Republicans it's "Blah Blah Blah Taxes Blah Blah Blah Iraq Blah Blah Blah Guns". For Democrats it's "Blah Blah Blah Healthcare Blah Blah Blah Abortion Blah Blah Blah Iraq."

Lord, sometimes I wish we had a dictatorship.

Oh wow, you actually have an opinion of me? I thought I was pretty much an unknown around here. I feel loved.

I don't know if, "That annoying Conservative who hands me my ass when I get rabid" counts as loved, but if that's how you want to take it.

Anyway, I guess this goes for both parties. They somehow spend an hour talking about something, and end up saying nothing at all. It makes me :mad:.

Oh God. Tell me about it. "Well, (insert Newscaster here), I definitely think Health Care needs to be fixed. Why, my opponent's plan doesn't fix health care at all. When I'm made President, everyone will have healthcare, a new car, and a cat on every table."

What's [your Presidential campaign pet peeves]?


Republicans
Democrats
Libertarians
Greens
Cable "News"
The Whole Sad Sorry Exhibition In General



...a one-eyed, three-horned, flying, purple, people-eater...


**assumes fetal position, rolling around on floor, trying to get song out of head**

Republicans
Democrats
Libertarians
Greens
Cable "News"
The Whole Sad Sorry Exhibition In General


So... Basically... You hate everything.

Ever considered Emo music? :p

**assumes fetal position, rolling around on floor, trying to get song out of head**

Gentlemen, my job here is done.

So... Basically... You hate everything.


Not everything. Just American politics.

Which, of course, is why I chose to study political science.

But I am proud to be a registered member of the "Decline to State" party.

Ever considered Emo music? :p



In the mid-1980s, the term emo described a subgenre of hardcore punk which originated in the Washington, DC music scene...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo)



As I've stated, absolutely nothing good comes out of Washington, DC.

Not everything. Just American politics.

Which, of course, is why I chose to study political science.

Funny, I'm of the opinion that all politics deserve some level of scorn, regardless of nationality(let's be blunt, the politics of Britain, Germany, Japan, India, Russia, Japan, or Isreal are not really any better). I, too, took up Political Science (I'm more interested in the academic side of things. Besides, just because it's dirty doesn't mean it isn't fun).

But I am proud to be a registered member of the "Decline to State" party.

Ah. See, I'm a Dem. I feel that I may as well try, anyway.

As I've stated, absolutely nothing good comes out of Washington, DC.

Actually, beleive it or not, early Washington DC Emocore was actually fairly good. It only got shitty when it got Greed Day-ified by the major labels. It was actually about the opposite of the My Chemical Romance crap that we see labeled as Emo.

What pisses me off is the occasional bald faced lies told about candidates. Kerry's swift-boating, Obama's apparent attendance of a Madrassa, ect. These little pieces of bullshit, the choicest of which always seem to appear on Fox.

I dislike politicians who have a "every problem has ONE cause and One solution. Never more." mindset. Maybe global warming isn't entirely manmade. I mean, within the last 1000 years, we had a mini ice age in between two periods of great warmth. Maybe "cut and run like sissies" and "stay there 'til we're all dead" aren't the only solutions. Iraq has always been a hellhole, is a hellhole, and will always be a hellhole. Maybe we could and should lesson the hell-ness so it doesn't spread further. Problems sometime spread.

I also dislike the "anyone but (insert name here)" policy that basically got Bush re-elected. How? The Democrats adopted an "anyone but Bush" strategy. That strategy's made to fail like so many failsafe devices. Murphy's Law, people.

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

I also dislike the "anyone but (insert name here)" policy that basically got Bush re-elected. How? The Democrats adopted an "anyone but Bush" strategy. That strategy's made to fail like so many failsafe devices. Murphy's Law, people.

*looks at his sig*

Besides the nascent illogic of this statement (Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong, so concentrated opposition to a politician should be abandoned in favor of haphazard, unstructured opposition), it ignores the true reason for the failure of the 2004 election: John Kerry. Kerry ran a godawful, triangulating, tiptoeing, spineless campaign, and he got kicked to the curb by a rough and experienced street team of slime-masters led by Karl Rove. That is why Bush won.

I study Political Science as well, and, believe it or not, as much as every prof here tells me my beliefs are backward and wrong, I "belong" to the GOP, or at least have helped them in the past. I have been thinking about starting my own party, though, because in the words of a good friend of mine,

"There's only one thing I hate more than Republicans, and that's Democrats."

I really tend to teeter on the right-to-center end of the scale. (More like, I'm more conservative than I let on, but I sound more moderate because I actually understand and respect where the other side is coming from, unlike anyone in Washington!)

Actually, beleive it or not, early Washington DC Emocore was actually fairly good. It only got shitty when it got Greed Day-ified by the major labels. It was actually about the opposite of the My Chemical Romance crap that we see labeled as Emo.*listens to Waiting Room on YouTube*

Ah. See, I'm a Dem. I feel that I may as well try, anyway.


The problem is systemic. Anything in, garbage out.


Actually, beleive it or not, early Washington DC Emocore was actually fairly good. It only got shitty when it got Greed Day-ified by the major labels.

It's the major label effect that causes me to reject most music in a fashion similar to my approach to political parties. My music collection only recently exceeded the capacity of a single CD-RW (MP3s), and I don't even listen to all of that.

The problem is systemic. Anything in, garbage out.

I beleive that you know the old Winston Churchill quote and I have no need to quote the old drunkard.

It's the major label effect that causes me to reject most music in a fashion similar to my approach to political parties. My music collection only recently exceeded the capacity of a single CD-RW (MP3s), and I don't even listen to all of that.

I suggest checking out Dischord Records: they're an independant label from DC which singlehandedly "created" Emo. Try Embrace, Fugazi, or Rites of Sping.

*listens to Waiting Room on YouTube*

You made me turn off my Nightwish... Now I'm going to get into the radio station with Fugazi in my head, and my show is going to confuse the metalheads who listen...

I really tend to teeter on the right-to-center end of the scale.


This "scale" is what's wrong with American politics. Yep, there's yer problem right there.

I don't like that money=speech, noise=truth, limited choices, marginalization, that too many people are ruled by too few and that if more were added it wouldn't necessarily make it better. I don't like the binary system. I don't like the old boys club. I don't like having to apologize for my leaders.

I don't like that money=speech, noise=truth, limited choices, marginalization, that too many people are ruled by too few and that if more were added it wouldn't necessarily make it better. I don't like the binary system. I don't like the old boys club. I don't like having to apologize for my leaders.

We can solve some of those things: we can move to public financing in a way that does not supress speach, but rather gives everyone an equal voice. We can work to make the Primary system more open to challengers. We can even try Multimember Districts. Still, we'll have to appologize for our leaders, as all men do, and we will have that same old binary. It's the truth of politics, and it will never change, because human nature has made it that way.

I beleive that you know the old Winston Churchill quote and I have no need to quote the old drunkard.


Not only an old drunkard, but, searching through the list of quotations at Wikiquote, an old drunkard racist. Not someone I would consider an authority on democracy.

That said, democracy is the better of the forms of government yet tried. All I ask is for the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and others to arrive at the same conclusion.


I suggest checking out Dischord Records: they're an independant label from DC which singlehandedly "created" Emo. Try Embrace, Fugazi, or Rites of Sping.


**starts up Pandora**

That said, democracy is the better of the forms of government yet tried. All I ask is for the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and others to arrive at the same conclusion.

I've got a bridge to sell you, my friend...

I've got a bridge to sell you, my friend...

Exactly.

Exactly.

The problem is that the nature of politics is the struggle for power by minority groups, and no regime or rule of law can change that. The best we can hope for is a few honest men and a lot of hard work to keep them honest.

My pet peeve? Ironically enough, it's with my candidate, Bill Richardson.

I wish he'd get off the "I'm the only candidate who'll get us completely out of Iraq!" saw he keeps touting.

My usual response when he gets on that line of talk is to glaze my eyes and say, "Yes, Bill, that's good, but what'll you do *after* you get us out of Iraq?"

There's lots of good stuff about him. He's definitely the most-qualified and experienced statesman in the race. I like the thought of having a true, card-carrying diplomat in the White House, instead of Just Another Law School Graduate. But if he doesn't bring some more instruments into his proverbial song, he's gonna get left behind in the dust.

The other pet peeve: Edwards got some of his campaign money from Rupert Murdoch. If that doesn't make your klaxon go off...

mine would be that we are told to pick between people about whome we know nothing other then the lies they tell about themselves and each other, instead of being (OURSELVES) allowed to weigh in and be counted, on issues about things that we do.

(not to mention, none of them making the final cut, without major economic interest's seal of approval. said major economic interests, being themselves the problem to begin with!)

=^^=
.../\...

The fact that we'll most likely have to choose from the lesser evil again and that the only effect that the Third Party will have is to steal votes from the Democrats or Republicans. For once I would really like to see a honest Republican, Democrat and Libertarian race.

I hate it when candidates talk about being hard on drugs or hard on crime. Or when they say that they are declaring war on crime. Stupid metaphors that don't tell you what the candidate actually plans to do. Like when Obama says that healthcare is broken and that hes going to fix it. What the hell does that mean?

I just want the candidates to give me a grocery list of everything they beleive in and everything they will try to do as president. I don't want to hear vague analogies that avoid details.

The fact that we'll most likely have to choose from the lesser evil again and that the only effect that the Third Party will have is to steal votes from the Democrats or Republicans. For once I would really like to see a honest Republican, Democrat and Libertarian race.

Yeah totally, whats up with this 2 party system. I don't give a shit who is popular this election, I am voting for Ron Paul.

Ridiculously trivial shit thrown at Obama. I like him, I know he's a bit vague on policy, but the shit they get him for is unbelievable.

Lapel pin?
Name?
Black, or Not Black?

Oh, they're ALL saying "Fix health care." Even the Repubs are saying that. It's a major issue in this campaign and after the Dark Age of Bush, an encouraging sign. I'd rather see a politician talking about health care than leading a prayer group.

I like Obama. If Richardson wasn't running he'd be my choice, simply because he's good at getting everyone at the table talking, instead of fighting. We DESPERATELY need a Philodox leading this country.

Well, given that the primaries are in a mere three months out, and the media narritives have been stuck and restuck (and then duct taped to insure maximum stickiness) on candidates, most Generalites must have some pet peeves about one or two or three or all of the candidates. What's yours?

Mine is best expressed by a CNN story from today, which can be found here (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/15/clinton-it%e2%80%99s-hard-running-for-prez-as-a-woman/)

I really hate the "people oppose Hillary because she's a woman" meme. It's dishonest. There are plenty of people who oppose Clinton on grounds that have nothing to do with her Gender. God kniows her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl resolution is reason enough.

I, and most Dems who don't want to see Hillary nominated don't give a shit. She could be a one-eyed, three-horned, flying, purple, people-eater, and it wouldn't change a thing: she doesn't listen to her own party, she's too much of a hawk, and she's a dishonest, triangulating politician who can't be trusted whatsoever.

1. Your link doesn't work. That makes it hard to evaluate your claims.

2. The fact that plenty of people oppose Clinton on grounds that have nothing to do with her gender doesn't change the fact that her gender is an issue to plenty of other people.

Like when Obama says that healthcare is broken and that hes going to fix it. What the hell does that mean? This. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf)
One part:(1) OBAMA’S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees. The new public plan
will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.
The plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the program through which Members of Congress get their own health care. The new public plan will include coverage of all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. Coverage will include disease management
programs, self management training and care coordination for appropriate individuals.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Participants will be charged fair premiums and minimal co-pays for deductibles for preventive services.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will receive income-related federal subsidies to keep health insurance premiums affordable. They can use the subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplifying paperwork and reining in health costs. The plan will simplify paperwork for providers and will increase savings to the system overall.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage. Quality and efficiency. Participating hospitals and providers that participate in the new public plan will be required to collect and report data to ensure that
standards for health care quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

I just want the candidates to give me a grocery list of everything they beleive in and everything they will try to do as president. I don't want to hear vague analogies that avoid details.

What Obama Believes in, and what he's done about it. (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/)
some of my favorite bits:Strengthening America Overseas

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.
Plan to End the Iraq War

Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, Senator Obama has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.
Environment

Barack Obama believes that we have a responsibility to our children to leave this Earth better than we found it. He has a plan to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to turn the global warming crisis into a moment of opportunity for innovation and job creation. And as president, he will restore America's promise of a clean and beautiful environment by cleaning up our air and water, building healthier communities with fewer toxins, and preserving our forests and other national treasures. In doing so, Obama will make sure that our environmental laws and policies balance America's need for a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth.

I found these in 5 minutes of looking on Obama's website. He very clearly lays everything out. Do you still feel you are lacking in information on where he stands?

Ridiculously trivial shit thrown at Obama. I like him, I know he's a bit vague on policy, but the shit they get him for is unbelievable.

Lapel pin?
Name?
Black, or Not Black?

I don't think he's vague on policy, it's all clearly laid out of the people that look. The people who don't care to look don't care about policies anyway.
Anyway, I agree. That's my biggest annoyance this election.
"zOMG, Barack Osama (oops lolz!) isnt waring a lapel pinz. he h8s america n wants teh terrists to pwn us LOL!"--Fox News

This. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf)
One part:


What Obama Believes in, and what he's done about it. (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/)
some of my favorite bits:



I found these in 5 minutes of looking on Obama's website. He very clearly lays everything out. Do you still feel you are lacking in information on where he stands?

Thank you. I was going to post links to his policies, but you beat me to it.

"zOMG, Barack Osama (oops lolz!) isnt waring a lapel pinz. he h8s america n wants teh terrists to pwn us LOL!"--Fox News

I tensed up reading that. That shit pisses me off to no end.

This. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf)
One part:


What Obama Believes in, and what he's done about it. (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/)
some of my favorite bits:



I found these in 5 minutes of looking on Obama's website. He very clearly lays everything out. Do you still feel you are lacking in information on where he stands?

Oh, sure, he says that, but will he do that? After all, a politician is a politician is a politician. Can't trust them.

I hate the lies. The lies that America is free... until you realize only 2 parties have any chance of winning at all. The lies that politicians want to help you and represent you... until you realize they only want your vote and their salary raised. The lies where campaigning is based on honesty... until you realize that whoever has the most money wins, with no exceptions.

I hate the lies.

1. Your link doesn't work. That makes it hard to evaluate your claims.

Yeah, CNN apparently doesn't archive their blog posts on their ticker. Figures the MSM would have no idea how to run a blog.

2. The fact that plenty of people oppose Clinton on grounds that have nothing to do with her gender doesn't change the fact that her gender is an issue to plenty of other people.

I have yet to meet a person who would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. In contrast, we've had posters here on NSG who ONLY supported Hillary because of her gender. Let's stop talking about her gender. It doesn't matter. Let's talk about her policies. As long as she can hide behind her gender as the reason so many people hate her, she can avoid the fact that its because she's the worst kind of lying, deceitful politician out there.

Atma's pet peeves:

(1) Democrats attacking each other to try to win the primary
(2) Politicians dumb enough to think that being a liberal is a bad thing.

I'm always upset when pundits and reporters assume that the voter populace is a blank slate, and that who wins an election is not about what the voters decide but how the candidates act. ("Is Obama 'black' enough?" is the epitome of this silliness.) There is some truth in this, but short of fraud at the polls, the bulk of the outcome depends on the personal decisions of several million people.

I really hate how biased the media is. You'll notice that in all news reports Democrates are "good guys" while the Republicans are "war mongering criminals".

I really hate how biased the media is. You'll notice that in all news reports Democrates are "good guys" while the Republicans are "war mongering criminals".

Hah. Then what about the Fox News (sic) report, "Barack Obama went to an extremist Muslim school! zOMG!" story? That turned out to be a complete fabrication. Yeah, real liberal media.

Ooh, so many to pick from.

Well, since we're selecting from one among many, I'll select one political, and one policy option, in that order. Yes, I realize that makes two, but I consider them equally annoying and mutually linked.

The political problem I have is the degree to which journalists and political "experts" speak in meta-political rather than straight political discourse. In blunter terms, I wish I could hire a land shark that would jump out and eat a talking head who, post-debate, answers a question about Obama's position on health-care by talking about whether this overcomes his image (manufactured by this same talking head, no less) as vague on substance. That wasn't the damn question. The question was: What the f*#$ was Obama's position on healthcare, and if you're a real go-getter, how does that position compare favorably or unfavorably with either a) his prior positions, or b) his opponents positions. That's the question asked. That's the form of the answer I want to hear. I don't care about your take on how serious he is, I don't care about whether or not you think he's cool, I don't care how you think this plays with other voters. I care about what this does to me and my f*@%ing country, compared to what else could be done to me and my f*$&ing country.

The policy problem is the assumption on the part of all involved in the punditocracy, political class, and body politic that something that is actually really quite obsene is nevertheless incontestably true: that a corporation has "free speech" rights. Let's refresh: a person is assumed to have rights on the basis that he is a reasoning creature, and on that basis can serve as a constituent of a right-protecting and in some cases right-granting state. That's basic Locke. Now, a corporation is generally defined as a contract signed by a group of people to collectively pool resources in exchange for limiting potential losses. A contract cannot reason. Therefore it cannot serve as a constituent in a right-protecting and granting state. A contract has no mouth; it would seem to have difficulty speaking. In other words, a hamster has more claim to rights than a contract, because a hamster has at least a primitive level of intellect and it can make noises. A contract cannot manage that much. So why, oh why, does a body politic that obsesses over the definition of life nevertheless not even stop to question why a piece of paper has rights, and on the basis of its vaster resources, can employ its rights more astutely than can most of its citizens?

I've got a bridge to sell you, my friend...

Someone wanna explain this reference?

George Parker (1870-1936) was one of the most audacious con men in American history. He made his living selling New York's public landmarks to unwary tourists. His favorite object for sale was the Brooklyn Bridge, which he sold twice a week for years. He convinced his marks that they could make a fortune by controlling access to the roadway. More than once police had to roust naive buyers from the bridge as they tried to erect toll barriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

And while we're on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig

The money aspect is what annoys me most. It seems that the only reason certain candidates are leading in the polls is because they have the largest war chest. While guys like my man Mike gravel get left in the dust.

Someone wanna explain this reference?

Put simply, the person who says it to you is saying you are easily conned. For instance:
Person1 "The president says that america doesn't participate in torture!"
Person2 "and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."

The money aspect is what annoys me most. It seems that the only reason certain candidates are leading in the polls is because they have the largest war chest. While guys like my man Mike gravel get left in the dust.

Oh, sure, he says that, but will he do that? After all, a politician is a politician is a politician. Can't trust them.

well, until we start screening our politicians with mind reading, we really won't know for sure if they're telling us the truth. Until then, we need to do this arcane thing called listening to them and determining if we believe them. And after listening to Obama, I believe he will do everything he can to make these things a reality.

It goes on for far too long. Seriously, the length of the campaign is retarded considering that no candidates really say anything specific anyway - just vague generalizations about 'issues' that they think are important and how everything will be super fantastic hunkydory when they are elected.

I honestly think it could be squeezed down to six or seven weeks.

My pet peeve is that New Hampshire and Iowa ALWAYS go first.

Why should those two states ALWAYS go first, whereas the states that have later primaries NEVER get candidates?

There should be a rotation system that way we don't have the farmers from Iowa always choosing the candidate.

Yeah totally, whats up with this 2 party system. I don't give a shit who is popular this election, I am voting for Ron Paul.

With out the two party system the contry would most likly become to fractured to work. With so many partys and ideoligies running the place it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get things done. It would also be harder to get people to vote for you.

It goes on for far too long. Seriously, the length of the campaign is retarded considering that no candidates really say anything specific anyway - just vague generalizations about 'issues' that they think are important and how everything will be super fantastic hunkydory when they are elected.

I honestly think it could be squeezed down to six or seven weeks.

Egads, yes. You'd think these people have better things to do...oh, like RUNNING THE COUNTRY!

well, until we start screening our politicians with mind reading, we really won't know for sure if they're telling us the truth. Until then, we need to do this arcane thing called listening to them and determining if we believe them. And after listening to Obama, I believe he will do everything he can to make these things a reality.

If you like Osama so much, why don't you marry him.

:gundge:

If you like Osama so much, why don't you marry him.

:gundge:

His name is Obama.

And I'd love to. Except he's straight.

And married.

Damn fine piece of man-meat, however.