Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 20, 2010 4:22:06 GMT -5
*cough*2000 Election*cough*
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 20, 2010 6:56:58 GMT -5
*cough*2000 Election*cough* Is that your way of saying that since Democrat cheating in 2000 didn't work that you're no longer for it?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 20, 2010 11:48:19 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you.
Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 20, 2010 12:23:20 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you. Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office? How do you define cheating? I was thinking about this the other day leading up to this election. I think it is a valid question. Obviously, there are clear cut cases of cheating (fraudulent or multiple voting, fraud in vote counting, etc.), and I would condemn that no matter what the scenario, yes, even if it meant four more years of a President I dislike. But what do we consider fair game? In Massachusetts, it was reported that a liberal activist group in DC posed as a right to life organization and made calls to Massachusetts voters saying that Scott Brown was pro abortion. Is that cheating? They didn't entirely misrepresent the position of the candidate (I wouldn't call him pro abortion, but he is not a hard and fast pro lifer by any means), but they did misrepresent themselves. Fair play? What about this: I don't think this actually happened but I read online about how groups of Brown voters were thinking about posing as Coakley voters and trying to get the Democratic GOTV organizations to give them rides to the polls, only to vote for Brown (thus tying up resources, of course). Like I said, I didn't hear any reports of it happening, but if it did, is that cheating or is it fair play? What about stealing signs? I know it's against the law, but everyone does it. Is that cheating? Or push polling. That isn't illegal, as far as I know, but it's pretty scumtastic. I'm just curious as to where everyone falls on this. For me, I'd prefer an election free of any and all gamesmanship, whether it crosses the line into cheating or not. But, then again, I'd also prefer to live a life of sin on a beach with Isla Fisher. That ain't gonna' happen either. What is acceptable and what is not?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 20, 2010 12:35:37 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you. Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Elvado is a big fan of Palin either.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 20, 2010 13:28:56 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you. Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office? I would not support cheating in any form or fashion. Despite my loathing of Obama's policies, I would rather have a fair election and lose than cheat to win.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,756
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 20, 2010 13:32:47 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you. Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office? How do you define cheating? I was thinking about this the other day leading up to this election. I think it is a valid question. Obviously, there are clear cut cases of cheating (fraudulent or multiple voting, fraud in vote counting, etc.), and I would condemn that no matter what the scenario, yes, even if it meant four more years of a President I dislike. But what do we consider fair game? In Massachusetts, it was reported that a liberal activist group in DC posed as a right to life organization and made calls to Massachusetts voters saying that Scott Brown was pro abortion. Is that cheating? They didn't entirely misrepresent the position of the candidate (I wouldn't call him pro abortion, but he is not a hard and fast pro lifer by any means), but they did misrepresent themselves. Fair play? What about this: I don't think this actually happened but I read online about how groups of Brown voters were thinking about posing as Coakley voters and trying to get the Democratic GOTV organizations to give them rides to the polls, only to vote for Brown (thus tying up resources, of course). Like I said, I didn't hear any reports of it happening, but if it did, is that cheating or is it fair play? What about stealing signs? I know it's against the law, but everyone does it. Is that cheating? Or push polling. That isn't illegal, as far as I know, but it's pretty scumtastic. I'm just curious as to where everyone falls on this. For me, I'd prefer an election free of any and all gamesmanship, whether it crosses the line into cheating or not. But, then again, I'd also prefer to live a life of sin on a beach with Isla Fisher. That ain't gonna' happen either. What is acceptable and what is not? I think one of the biggest issues with our government is that everyone (okay, most) involved don't view it as public service but rather a game to win. Both sides make me sick, frankly.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jan 20, 2010 15:31:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 20, 2010 15:52:31 GMT -5
I think one of the biggest issues with our government is that everyone (okay, most) involved don't view it as public service but rather a game to win. Both sides make me sick, frankly. I agree to some extent. I think that at the end of the day, people on both sides think that if they were just allowed to do what they wanted and implement all their plans, the world would be a better place. In that way, they do want to serve the public. The problem is that the only way they think they can achieve those goals is by "winning" in a long series of games that results in winning every possible seat in every possible election top-to-bottom. And that's where the games are played. Unfortunately, it seems that the desire to serve the public quickly transforms into a desire to win a game. And reaching compromises to achieve middle ground outcomes is not "winning" for anyone, except about 75% of the population.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 20, 2010 16:26:41 GMT -5
Divine intervention is not cheating.... ....unless it takes place in a work of fiction where the author (or filmmaker) are so completely incompetent at writing a plot that they leave only one possible resolution via deus ex machina. Are you listening, Lost writers?!?!
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 20, 2010 17:08:17 GMT -5
Elvado: I'm going to throw your question right back at you. Suppose the 2012 election is between Obama and Palin, and it's razor-thin close. Let's say that it's all going to come down to Ohio. Given what's happened during Obama's term, would you support a bit of cheating by the GOP to get Obama out of office and get Palin into office? I would not support cheating in any form or fashion. Despite my loathing of Obama's policies, I would rather have a fair election and lose than cheat to win. Glad to see that. Boz - I think there's a lot of grey area with cheating. Stuff that's against the law is obviously cheating and 100% unacceptable. However, as you noted, there's a lot of stuff like push polling that's legal but still sleazy. My general guideline: If you'd be outraged if the other side did it, you shouldn't support your own side doing it. Do I always follow that? No. I try, but I don't always succeed.
|
|
hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Jan 21, 2010 12:36:13 GMT -5
I'm taking the Fifth.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2010 16:23:05 GMT -5
The way to avoid both sides ending up wanting to "win" is to sit down at the start and have real bipartisan drafting of legislation and then, if legislation is converted into law, to give all credit for the measure.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jan 21, 2010 16:54:10 GMT -5
What about stealing signs? Stealing signs might be considered cheating but it's much less heinous than using a corked bat. I think if we're capable of identifying degrees of "wrongness" when athletes cheat, we're equally able to draw the appropriate distinctions when politicians do it.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 21, 2010 19:04:15 GMT -5
The way to avoid both sides ending up wanting to "win" is to sit down at the start and have real bipartisan drafting of legislation and then, if legislation is converted into law, to give all credit for the measure. In other news from Magical Unicorn Land...
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 22, 2010 0:19:20 GMT -5
The way to avoid both sides ending up wanting to "win" is to sit down at the start and have real bipartisan drafting of legislation and then, if legislation is converted into law, to give all credit for the measure. In other news from Magical Unicorn Land... Hey, it worked for McCain-Feingold. Oh wait ....
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 22, 2010 8:18:57 GMT -5
The way to avoid both sides ending up wanting to "win" is to sit down at the start and have real bipartisan drafting of legislation and then, if legislation is converted into law, to give all credit for the measure. Can you honestly say that Republicans are willing to do this, though? Especially given their comments over the summer about planning to just derail any health care bill no matter what?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 22, 2010 9:04:51 GMT -5
The way to avoid both sides ending up wanting to "win" is to sit down at the start and have real bipartisan drafting of legislation and then, if legislation is converted into law, to give all credit for the measure. Can you honestly say that Republicans are willing to do this, though? Especially given their comments over the summer about planning to just derail any health care bill no matter what? Or on the other side of the same filthy coin, can you honestly say that Democrats are not hell-bent to get "Health Care" in some form or fashion, at any cost, just to fulfill one of the President's many promises? I don't know whose motives are pure and whose aren't.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 22, 2010 9:17:36 GMT -5
Can you honestly say that Republicans are willing to do this, though? Especially given their comments over the summer about planning to just derail any health care bill no matter what? Or on the other side of the same filthy coin, can you honestly say that Democrats are not hell-bent to get "Health Care" in some form or fashion, at any cost, just to fulfill one of the President's many promises? I don't know whose motives are pure and whose aren't. I think Democrats very strongly want a Health Care bill because health care costs are skyrocketing, its bankrupting the country, and the system still leaves many individuals less healthy than they could be. Sure, at this point, it has also become political, and in order to salvage the President's agenda, they likely now think something really needs to get done. But below that superficial justification is the very genuine need for this country to address the many flaws in its health care system.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 22, 2010 9:36:44 GMT -5
Or on the other side of the same filthy coin, can you honestly say that Democrats are not hell-bent to get "Health Care" in some form or fashion, at any cost, just to fulfill one of the President's many promises? I don't know whose motives are pure and whose aren't. I think Democrats very strongly want a Health Care bill because health care costs are skyrocketing, its bankrupting the country, and the system still leaves many individuals less healthy than they could be. Sure, at this point, it has also become political, and in order to salvage the President's agenda, they likely now think something really needs to get done. But below that superficial justification is the very genuine need for this country to address the many flaws in its health care system. I assume you leave open the possibility that Republican motives could be equally pure in that they might believe that the Federal government should not get control of 16% of the nation's economy, should not be empowered to compel people to buy insurance and should have less say over care rather than more. I'm not suggesting either side is 100% right or 100% wrong. I do know that any time the feds tell me they will cut costs, they fail to do so. And that is not a Republican/Democrat thing. That is just a sad fact.
|
|