Posters becoming politicans

[Nym90]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

Wow, thanks. What do you think my strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks in advance.

[Nym90]

As someone who used to be involved in politics for real, I think I have some pretty good insight into this question. While I have not met you guys in person, based on what I've read on this forum in terms of substance AND style, there are very, very few people who actually have a chance to be elected to significant political office.

On the forum, one person stands out above the rest as a guy with a very, very real future in politics based on his intelligence, demeanor, and the substance AND style of his arguments. More on him at the end...

But guys who COULD have a future from what I see include Supersoulty and PBrunsel on the Republican side, and Ben and Nym90 on the Democratic side. As for the European contingent, both Gustaf and JFK could also be on that track. But all of these people mentioned have limitations which could hinder their chances...

The only surefire politician on this forum...if he wants it...is John Ford.

Wow, thanks. What do you think my strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks in advance.

Nym90,

Your strengths are that you make intelligent and coherent arguments that would play well with most people. Your politics are left wing, but not so left wing that you would be unable to secure a nomination. You would have little or no problem securing votes within your own party, and would have a good chance to earn a nomination based on your "loyal Democratic soldier" approach to every issue, even when you know you're party is wrong. As for your weaknesses, you have a tendency to assume certain levels of knowledge on the part of your audience....this is not a good thing when dealing with the general public. You need to explain WHY you arrive at a conclusion better rather than just WHAT that conclusion may be. And while your partisan approach would aid you in securing a nomination, it would seriously alienate moderate and conservative voters if you were placed in an awkward situation by a fellow Democrat or an issue which is potentially negative for the overall party. Like most modern Democrats, you are prone to ignoring or rationalizing factual data when it doesn't suit your political agenda. You're part of what I like to call the "2+2=5" crowd who continue to argue their message even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now you will counter by saying that BOTH parties do this, blah, blah, blah, but the truth is that Democrats do this FAR more often than Republicans, and this is a big factor on why Republicans made so many Congressional gains over the last 10 years. Democrats have lost because of their POLITICS more than their POLICY, and you definitely fall into the "2+2=5 and it depends on what the definition of is is" crowd. THAT KILLS YOU in a general election unless you are in a very, very safe district.

Well, for one thing, I don't always support my party. I'm more moderate than probably most in my party on abortion, and I oppose race based AA. I'm also passionate about reducing waste and inefficiency in government; "reinventing government" and the like, as well as renaissaince zones for urban areas. I realize you don't know that, because most of those haven't really come out in my posts. But just thought I'd point it out.

Yes, I'm partisan, and not objective. I like how you say it's the "truth" that Democrats rationalize away their views more than Republicans...not your opinion, or merely based on your experience, but the "truth". I'm sorry, but you are, like me, blinded by your partisanship and aren't objective. I know that I'm not objective, which is why I don't usually trust my first emotional reaction to issues; I try to think about them logically and take into consideration my own personal bias before I open my mouth. I know my opinions are biased, so I don't try to say that they aren't. But I try as best I can to set that aside when I analyze.

Anyway, if I knew my party was wrong, I would speak out against them. I would not defend a position that I thought was wrong. I am partisan, but that's because I strongly believe in the values of my party. I don't agree with all of my party's views, but I agree with its goals and core values. But I don't defend my party right or wrong. If I feel my party is wrong, I do speak out against them.

When have I continued to argue a message even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Or when the facts were against me? (Forgive me, but your interpretation of what is "fact" and "truth" isn't always the same as mine. Of course, you are ALWAYS objective, and I'm a blind partisan, right, so that makes yours more valid...)

Now, that being said, I tend to view things logically rather than emotionally, and I do tend to be somewhat of a moral relativist (note: somewhat, not completely by any means, so don't jump to conclusions), and I believe in doing what works, regardless of ideology. I'm open to compromise in the name of pragmatism, and that would probably hurt me, because I wouldn't be viewed as someone with strong convictions. I'd be a "flip-flopper", because I actually think through my positions and sometimes change them in the face of logical, rational analysis and convincing arguments.

Regarding your statement that I assume too much knowledge on the part of my audience...I do that on this Forum because I know that most people here do have high levels of knowledge, so I prefer not to waste my time explaining things that I don't need to. In making a speech to the public, I would change my style in that regard to match my audience.

I appreciate your insights though. It does make me think, which is something that I greatly enjoy doing.

[Nym90]

"Everyone else took my comments for what they were...constructive criticism....you instead turn into a referendum on partisanship and MY political beliefs."

You are right, I should not have brought it up in THIS thread. But you have said before that you are ALWAYS objective, and that's clearly not true. No one can be 100% objective about something when they have an opinion about it. The difference is I realize this and admit my partisanship, while you do not, and blindly go on thinking that you are objective when you aren't.

"I said your partisanship would HELP you in the primary and HURT you in a general election...your answer...but you're partisan too...LOL...what the hell does that have to do with the point I made?"

Agreed, it has nothing to do with the point, and I'm sorry if I made it seem like it did. See my comment above.

"You then explain that "truth" and "facts" are different depending on one's political perspective...yeah, that's a really defensible position...proof of what I meant with the 2+2=5 comment. You then ask for examples of where you ignore facts to remain loyal to the Democratic Party....welll..."

I didn't say that truth and facts change due to one's political position. When I said I don't agree with your truth and facts, what I meant is that what you said wasn't a truth or fact at all, and that you are the one making up things. I don't accept that Democrats do the 2+2=5 thing more than Republicans. So, because I fail to accept that Democrats do this more often, this proves your point that Democrats do it more often? You create a "fact" with no proof, and then use my failure to accept your "facts" as "proof" of your facts.

"On numerous occasions you have defended Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and a host of other Democrats who have made outrageous, despicable comments that cannot be proven factually and are clearly poison in the political discourse. Your response? "Ann Coulter is just as bad...Rush Limbaugh is just as bad..." The when I ask you to show me examples of Ann Coulter LYING like Michael Moore did, you clam up and say, "You're clearly partisan..." You did the same thing to John Ford in his rather detailed dissection of Michael Moore...rather than deal with the FACTS posted by Ford, you dismissed him as a legitimate critic because he's a Republican. This is classic Clintonista behavior....your response...Republicans do it too and the fact that MarkDel says it's more prevalent among Democrats means that he's biased, so his criticism can't be taken seriously. Contrast this with John Ford's review of Moore where he mentions Moore's bias, but in no way, shape or form is it central to his overall argument."

I have never defended anything outragous said about Moore, Dean, Gore, or Kucinich. Show me the posts where I did. I said that Dean, Gore, and Kucinich weren't leaders in the party. What I meant was that they DID say outrageous things that weren't true, but that no one, including Democrats, cares, because they are largely irrelevant. All of them are FAILED presidential candidates, and thus no one, including my party, much cares what they have to say anymore. Regarding Moore, I did not defend him at all, I only said that Ford's argument was logically incorrect, based purely on the rules of logic alone. I hadn't seen the movie, so I knew nothing about Ford's assessment of the movie, and thus I wasn't qualified to talk about things that I knew nothing about. I didn't want to assume anything about either John Ford or Moore other than their explicit words, nor did I want to assume anything about the movie, having not seen it. In fact, I'm criticizing the very view that you accuse me of having. I NEVER said that Ford's argument was automatically wrong, just because it wasn't a logically sound argument. I'm just saying that simply because Moore hates Bush doesn't mean that everything that HE says can be dismissed AUTOMATICALLY on this basis. The fact that you say that Democrats equivocate more than Republicans does not make you biased, what makes you biased is that EVERYONE is biased, and some realize this and admit it, while some are able to delude themselves into thinking that they can remain objective. It's not possible to set aside one's personal biases 100%. All one can do is admit to them so that others can take them into account when they read one's posts, and then do one's best to compensate for them, but one can't get rid of them.

Show me where I said anything about Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I never brought them up. Again, you assume things about me with no proof whatsoever, to make me fit your stereotype of a Democrat. So the alleged exchange that you accuse of me of having with you never occured. You are making things up to fit your view of me.

I wasn't assessing all of Ford's review, just that one argument which didn't follow the commonly accepted rules of logic. You assumed much more than what I said.


"And if you notice, I listed you as one of the people who COULD have an actual political career."

I know, and I appreciate that.

"But I'll give you another chance to prove that you are not what I know you are...."

Again, not who you think I am, who you KNOW I am. You've already made up your mind, so there's no point in me even talking. You KNOW who I am, I fit your nice little simple stereotype, which prevents you from having to actually listen to what I say and read the words that I post. That must be nice, but I view the world as being much more complex than that, and assume NOTHING unless it is explicitly stated. That's the key fundamental difference between you and I, and it's why we have such a hard time understanding each other, I think.

"If Sandy Berger actually removed classified records from the National Archives, was he guilty of a felony and should he be prosecuted?"

If someone commits a felony, they should be convicted and prosecuted for it.

So IF it can be proven that Sandy Berger knowingly removed classified records from the National Archives, and thus it wasn't an honest mistake, and if that's a felony (I assume from your statement that it probably is, right?) then he should be found guilty and prosecuted, yes.

[Nym90]

You are right, he isn't serious or fair about the issues. I agree on that.

Yes, I have seen it. I agree that it was propaganda. It clearly had an agenda. I am very interested into looking into the claims that have been made, though. I'd post a more lengthy analysis now but I really don't have time, sorry. Remind me another day, and I will.

[Nym90]

"I know you think you have just given a straight answer about Sandy Berger, but look at your answer carefully...you still qualified it in Clinton fashion. You give Berger, and yourself, the wiggle room that the law does not allow. You say, "if it wasn't just an honest mistake..." But for purposes of the law, it is completely irrelevant if it was an "honest" mistake. If I sleep with a 14 year old girl because she showed me fake ID that says she was 18, that's an honest mistake, but I am still guilty of statutory rape under the law. Ignorance of the actual law (which in Berger's case is a ludicrous claim anyway) is NOT a defense. If I say, "Gee, I didn't know it was against the law to drink and drive" I am still GUILTY of drinking and driving. So what you have done is answered in what you think is a straight forward fashion in order to defeat the point I was making about you, but in reality all that you have done is exposed your need to provide Berger, and yourself, with an out."

Well, first of all, I would have the same standards for a Democrat or a Republican.

Secondly, I'm only going with the hypotheticals you laid out. I don't know enough about the Berger case to say whether he should actually be convicted or not, but if it was indeed an honest mistake that didn't hurt anyone, I don't believe he should be convicted, regardless of what the law says. Having sex with a 14 year old and drunk driving are both things that have great potential to hurt people, thus they should not be allowed under any circumstances.


"As for your overall point about "objectivty" I think we are merely at a philosophical difference there, one that is common disagreement between liberals and non-liberals. You feel that ALL decisions and ALL conclusions are automatically biased, thus the only "unbiased" person is the one right down the middle who takes no "side" in an argument. I strongly disagree. I may reach conclusions that are consistently to the right and center of the political spectrum, but that does not mean that I did not objectively arrive at those conclusions. You're talking about results...I'm talking about process. I can take ANY issue and look at objectively and formulate a fair, honest and objective argument from ALL sides of that issue. If I wanted to, I could kill the poster MarkDel and come back here in six months and argue the LEFT WING perspective just as well as I articulate the right wing perspective. Why? Because my ANALYSIS is objective even if I my conclusions take sides. And that's what you either don't understand, or simply disagree with on a theoretical level. And what seems to be the problem with modern American politics. Most people (leftists are worse than rightists but both are guilty) in this day and age reach a decision FIRST and then formulate their rationale for reaching that decision AFTER they have reached their conclusion. I think this is not only flawed, but a major part of why this nation is so polarized right now. I reflexively take no position on an issue until I analyze the available data and then work through to a conclusion...this is what human beings are SUPPOSED TO DO...it's what separates us from the animals!!! Think like Descartes instead of Ted Kennedy and you'll find your answers."

Well, objective, as I use it, means "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices". That's straight from dictionary.com. I don't think that conclusions are automatically biased, not at all. What I do believe is that once one has come to a conclusion, it is impossible to discuss that issue without your bias creeping in at least a little. Thus, the honest person admits this, and allows others to take their comments for what they are. For you to state that you are always unbiased in your assessments is arrogant at best. Why not let others decide whether or not you are objective? Why do you feel it necessary to say so? Isn't that really something that other people get to decide, not you?

I also have thought long and hard about my positions, logically and rationally, and come to the conclusions that I have after much thought and also assessments of my own personal core values. I, unlike you it would seem, think that logical, rational people can come to different conclusions when presented with the same data and evidence. Much of it is based on personal experiences, of course; I've had many that have shaped and reinforced my beliefs, and I'm sure that you have too. However, I see the world in many shades of gray, while it seems to me that conservatives tend to see it in terms of black and white, good and bad, you're either with us or against us, etc. I feel that's view of the world is waaay too simplistic, and fails to take into account much about the way the world works. If there is a universal truth, I don't know if it is necessarily in our power as humans to discern it, and come to agreement about it, no matter how logical we are. That's not that we shouldn't be logical and try; I'm a very logical person (ask my girlfriend, it drives her a little nuts sometimes, albeit in a good way). Yes, we should do our best to come as close to the truth as possible, but we must also discern the truth from opinions; that's what annoys me about your posts, is that you constantly state that your opinions are not opinions but rather facts and truths. I don't know if you noticed, but I try my best to always say "I think" and "I feel" and "I believe" something is true, rather than something is true, unless I know for sure that it is scientifically proveable to be true. I don't pretend that my opinions are scientific facts.

I, like you, have to my conclusions logically and rationally, in combination with my personal core values and my own life experiences. That is something that I do know to be a fact.