WF Political Climate Sept 3, 2012

Looking at the front page of the Red Room you can't help but notice the number of political threads, and they all are variations on one theme: Elephants are bad. Not a one about "Donkeys are good."

Instead of simply piling on the elephants, is there a reason somebody should vote for the donkeys?

In before the "They're both bad, but..." crew.

The equivalence argument is such a load of crap. Take credit for your partys fanaticism, don't put it off on the other team.

I haven't voted for a Dem or a Repub in over a decade, so that leaves me out.

No.

/thread

So nobody should vote for the donkeys? Fair enough yet before closing the thread, let's see if anyone disagrees with you.

The theory of partisan equivalence is but a weak justification to act like the monster you claim the other team to be.

In other words, a load of crap.

Only if you actually vote for one of them. I claim the two major parties are equally bad, I vote for someone else.

I vote for a number of representatives who are in different parties. I don't vote just one party.

We need a "don't care" thread.

Here you've provided yet another justification for hyper-partisanship.

Truth be told I think we've but one party with two differing sales pitches.

The difference is between the Donkey faithful and the Elephant faithful, a fan fight, it's not about the difference between the two parties themselves, it's all about the winning, once elected every president switches into status quo party mode.

I can't speak for everybody, but my observation regarding attempts at positive political threads is people shout the OP down with so many negatives and insults, it's easier to just start by attacking. The other thing to keep in mind, is that most of us know the Pro-elephant, pro-donkey arguments. There is nothing knew there, whereas a gaffe or other negative revelation might be more newsworthy. Finally, there are a number of posters like Clyde, who really only like to be reactive, rather than starting th kinds of threads they claim to desire. Of course, when somebody starts a thread, they have to assert a viewpoint and defend it, rather than simply poke holes.

Not interested in personal attacks, in fact this type of behavior is what I'm talking about.

If I didn't know any better I'd interpret that as a declaration that the maturity of having a political argument backed up with reasoning and mature discussion is either impossible or not worth it.

Not a personal attack, just an observation about posting habits. And if you aren't interested in personal attacks, why start a thread like this that trolls a good number of wordforgers?

Regarding your observation, I just did a quick scan, and the first 10 threads has just one that is criticizing the GOP, and the critique is from a conservative. There is also at least one thread that criticizes liberals. Seems rather balanced.

Fancy a screenshot battle?




gul this is the type of baloney I'm talking about, there is zero doubt that the Red Room is filled with anti-elephant threads right now, many of which were started by you.

You are really reaching to make a point, and the more you reach, the more desperate you seem to see something that isn't there. I have three threads on the front page. One is critical of the media, one is an exploration of whether people can form new conclusions after debate at Wordforge, and one pokes fun of Paul Ryan for a gaffe, not for a political stand. Care to revise your story?

gul, be honest, do you really think your tap-dancing has any substance?


Anyway . . .



Instead of simply piling on the elephants, is there a reason somebody should vote for the donkeys?

Looking at all 40 first page threads, 12 appear to be overtly partisan, using the expansive definition that humor can count. Of the 12, 7 are critical of Obama or Democrats, 5 are critical of Romney or Republicans. And I'm not even counting this thread, which would make things 8-5.

I only need to demonstrate that your assertion lacks substance. I've done so. Also noted, this very thread represents the negative approach you claim to decry.

There are lots of reasons, but they won't compel somebody with conservative leanings:

universal healthcare
Iraq withdrawal
preventing a depression
reducing college loan interest
preserving Medicare
etc.

do you have any positive reasons to offer for why somebody might vote for Romney?

Ah you forgot to factor in post count, partisan statements within threads, and most of all your donkey goggles.

Stats can't save you gul! Man up and defend your partisanship! At the very least answer the question - Instead of simply piling on the elephants, is there a reason somebody should vote for the donkeys?

You've only stated your opinion. The truth can easily be found be any member bothering to look.

You will see what you want to see Clyde, when you distance yourself from reality. Also, moving the goal posts isn't a game I care to play. See above, and note I did answer the question. Can you? Or will you and say you support none (even though you like to criticize donkey supporters)

Exactly my point.

Good then let's not start playing now.

You might have noticed the RNC going on recently, Clyde. Of course the GOP is dominating the news cycle right now. Guess what? When the Dems have their convention, there will be a lot of threads about what they were saying, and yes, most of them will be negative.

Clyde, stealth partisan. He thinks. LOL.

That's fair, the RNC did just have their convention.

The theory of partisan equivalence is but a weak justification to act like the monster you claim the other team to be.

In other words, a load of crap.

But . . .

That's not to say I'm unwilling to put it to the test. Let's see how the DNC convention threads compare.

Clyde is not so cleverly trolling lefties, don't expect him to acknowledge the holes in his premise.

@Demi, stealth righty, so trrue!

You want it, you start it.