Anti-republican threads

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

We get the idea.

Republicans suck and Obama can do no wrong.

He's going to win.

The republicans haven't even been in the race for the last month.... so why so many threads highlighting slights and minor mistakes?

From highly accurate 'dakkapolls' we know most people on dakka are democratic in leaning.

It's just coming off as gloating now...

**Mannahnin**

I haven't seen a thread against all Republicans. Can you point it out?

If you're talking about thread criticising Republican candidates, tactics, or attitudes, I'm going to point out that you have not lived in this country for the past eight years.

This election is anything but a sure thing, and some of us have some frustration, both at the garbage we've had for executive leadership in the past eight years, and at the garbage that passes for political rhetoric in some quarters.

For some of us, this election is one of the most important in our lives. In retrospect, of course, 2000 was even more important, but many did not realize it at the time.

If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it.

**dogma**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:We get the idea.

Republicans suck and Obama can do no wrong.

He's going to win.

The republicans haven't even been in the race for the last month.... so why so many threads highlighting slights and minor mistakes?

From highly accurate 'dakkapolls' we know most people on dakka are democratic in leaning.

It's just coming off as gloating now...

Republicans don't suck. That's not the impetus of all the chatter. The whole idea is the neo-liberalism, and its neo-conservative off-shoot, has outlived its usefulness. That academic project has dominated both parties for the better part of 30 years. Obama, ideologically, looks to be the first Post-Modern/Constructivist President in US history.

**Polonius**

I chortle at the notion that Dakka is democrat leaning. It might be true, but there's a strong conservative contingent.

I think it's more a case that the GOP ticket is doing interesting things, both good and bad. Palin is far more interesting than Biden. Obama keeps ramming home his basic message, while McCain is calling audibles and doing whatever he can to try to regain some momentum.

This election is also a bit of a "chickens coming home to roost" election for the GOP. When the economy collapses, the party in power loses, it's simply that simple.

**DarthDiggler**

Beware of what you wish for. I have seen more and more similarities between Obama's run and near term plans in his first years as Bush had 8 years ago.

Just yesterday CNN was saying that Obama is putting together a veteran foriegn policy team which keeps him updated on world events. This team is a who's who of Democratic foriegn policy experts with loads of experience. The same thing George Bush did 8 years ago to combat his lack of foriegn policy experience.

To be honest if we really cared about highlighting gaffs, slights and minor mistakes we would need an entire new forum dedicated to Joe Biden, and I love the man. I love Joe Biden to death. I would take a bullet for Joe Biden, but the mans insane.

**dogma**

A lot of that is because he will have to work with the Bush budget for at least the first year of his administration.

**dienekes96**

Mannahnin wrote:For some of us, this election is one of the most important in our lives. In retrospect, of course, 2000 was even more important, but many did not realize it at the time.

And this one probably ISN'T, but we won't know THAT for eight years. It's the Dem equivalent of fear tactics (though I admit it's much more palatable than how the Republicans do it). The current events facing our nation are much greater than the office of the Executive, and where the country is in 4 years with Obama is very likely quite similar to where it would be in 4 years with McCain.

Very soon, the tables will turn.

People are more on the left now, but a huge chunk of that (magnetically speaking) is repulsion from the right. Once that repulsion is gone, the Dems will have to man up where the rubber meets the road...Congress. And then you'll see their cracks and splits. Everyone is unified to win the election. Once it's been won...then the factions start

**dietrich**

The democratic controlled congress scares me more than anyone that could be in the White House.

I think both candidates made horrible VP selections. It's just that people didn't know how bad Palin was, since was such an unknown at the time. Biden is known, so people aren't talking about how bad a choice that was.

There's another Bush-Obama simularity. Pick a crusty, mean, old white guy with 'foreign policy experience' to be the VP to try to cover up your own inexperience.

**lord_sutekh**

After all the "get over it, he won, objecting is unpatriotic, no need for a recount, etc." from 2000, it's about time turnabout became fair play. The pots need to do some clean-up before they can start objecting to the kettles' blackness.

**dogma**

dienekes96 wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:For some of us, this election is one of the most important in our lives. In retrospect, of course, 2000 was even more important, but many did not realize it at the time.
And this one probably ISN'T, but we won't know THAT for eight years. It's the Dem equivalent of fear tactics (though I admit it's much more palatable than how the Republicans do it). The current events facing our nation are much greater than the office of the Executive, and where the country is in 4 years with Obama is very likely quite similar to where it would be in 4 years with McCain.

Very soon, the tables will turn.

People are more on the left now, but a huge chunk of that (magnetically speaking) is repulsion from the right. Once that repulsion is gone, the Dems will have to man up where the rubber meets the road...Congress. And then you'll see their cracks and splits. Everyone is unified to win the election. Once it's been won...then the factions start

That is the crux of the issue. Especially so considering much of the last 30 years can be laid at the current crop of Democrat feet. Though I think that the general distaste for the Republican party, and by extension neo-liberalism, may help to free a Democratic majority to enact progressive reforms that are favored by the party's intelligentsia.

**Polonius**

One thing I'd like to point out as a liberal (and increasingly ad-hoc democrat) is that while we were worried about Bush's inexperience, we were far more worried that he had almost no curiosity or knowledge. I'm not saying he's dumb, it's that he doesn't particularly value foreign policy knowledge and experience. Obama doens't have any more experience, but his record shows him to be better at grasping new concepts and seeking to become an expert at something. Bush didn't pick Cheney to hide his inexperience, he picked him to allow him to remain inexperienced. Obama (and Clinton or Gore before him) all had a broad intellectual curiosity. Bush values instinct, which is a useful and powerful trait, but as times have gotten more complicated and the amount of information available increases I think that the raw value of instinct, and instinct alone, decreases. And, for the record, I'm aware that reason has gotten us into some serious messes, but I like my gunslingers behind center or running a new sales proposal, not dealing with emergent nuclear powers in central asia.

**dietrich**

Obama doesn't have enough of a track record to judge if he's good at new concepts. He's been in the Senate what - less than 2 years, and he's spent 3/4 of his time campaigning for president. He hasn't spent enough time being a Senator to know if he's any good at it.

I think it's debatable how intellectually curious Clinton is. I have this mental image of Bill in the Will Farrell part in Old School, "I'm just wondering what kind of underwear she's wearing...." I know Clinton got a lot of academic accolades, but I think he's much more charm and glintz than intellectual.

Back to the OP. This is just like the media, which has focused more on the Republican ticket's faults than the Democratic ones. And frankly, I think it's much more about going after the Republicans than addressing the issues.

**dogma**

dietrich wrote:Obama doesn't have enough of a track record to judge if he's good at new concepts.

Besides the fact that he was a professor of law at the extremely competitive University of Chicago for 12 years. I'd say that shows an intrinsic kind of intellectual curiosity, and a definite skill with new concepts.

dietrich wrote:
I think it's debatable how intellectually curious Clinton is. I have this mental image of Bill in the Will Farrell part in Old School, "I'm just wondering what kind of underwear she's wearing...." I know Clinton got a lot of academic accolades, but I think he's much more charm and glintz than intellectual.

As someone who is pretty familiar with academic politics I can see where you're coming from. Though I think its important to note that, while charm and glitz are important, if Clinton had some kind of academic ability he would not have been honored the way he was. Academia may take a soft stance on passing individuals through the system, but it is pretty judicious in its consideration for special honors

**Waaagh_Gonads**

Mannahnin wrote:I haven't seen a thread against all Republicans. Can you point it out?

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

With that many threads you could open up a "Politics" forum in the index.

**dogma**

Now that would be dangerous.

**sebster**

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:With that many threads you could open up a "Politics" forum in the index.

Bit late now, in a couple of weeks you'll see the number of threads drop off considerably.

Meanwhile, Darthdiggler, if you want to convince people that Obama is a lot like Bush, you're going to have to do a lot better than 'they're both setting foreign policy advisory teams'. I'm not saying they won't be identical, but I might need a little more convincing than both of them having an advisory team on the same subject.

**Belphegor**

GO GO DAKKA PUNDITS!

**Polonius**

dietrich wrote:Obama doesn't have enough of a track record to judge if he's good at new concepts. He's been in the Senate what - less than 2 years, and he's spent 3/4 of his time campaigning for president. He hasn't spent enough time being a Senator to know if he's any good at it.

I think it's debatable how intellectually curious Clinton is. I have this mental image of Bill in the Will Farrell part in Old School, "I'm just wondering what kind of underwear she's wearing...." I know Clinton got a lot of academic accolades, but I think he's much more charm and glintz than intellectual.

Back to the OP. This is just like the media, which has focused more on the Republican ticket's faults than the Democratic ones. And frankly, I think it's much more about going after the Republicans than addressing the issues.

Well, Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review and a lecturer in Con Law. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. I don't know where you're from, but in my town those are both incredible accomplishments. Nobody dull earns those.

It is possible that the Republican ticket genuinely has more faults than the Democratic one. I'm not saying it does, but that is a possibity for the coverage.

Four years after the Swift Boat Veterans turned Kerry from a war hero into a traitor, it's good to see that the Republicans are more interested in the issues than simply going after their opponent. It's an election: wanting to win isn't a bad thing. I know it's not, because the GOP is running far more attack ads per dollar spent than the democrats.

**Mannahnin**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I haven't seen a thread against all Republicans. Can you point it out?

By republicans I meant the McCain/Palin ticket as oposed to Obama/Biden...

I see. Well, I don't think that's an accurate definition. There are respectable Republicans out there, of whom the present nominees (especially the VP nom) are not representative.

The threads you've linked are commenting on the race, and the people running. A race for the most influential political position in the world, that is in its last two weeks. If you want to post a contrarian opinion, please feel free. If you expect people not to comment, perhaps you might propose to Yak that we shouldn't have an OT forum at all.

**Frazzled**

I think the issue from the aussie is that it may be getting a bit much on the one sided front. On the one hand, I'm all for free posting of topics. On the other hand I remember Warmonger OT hit a point where dissenters were shouted down and I quit reading the threads and Warmonger in general.

On the third hand (in case you're from Alpha Centauri) contrarians are free to post topics on Obama/Biden as well if they desire.

**Orlanth**

Therre is a gross media imbalance in the US media at present. The mistakes of one side are magnified, those of the other concealed. While to a good extent politics are always like that, the media imbalance can shift this otherwise tidal struggle into a strong and lasting bias. America is learning the wrong lesson in media campaigning, one first detected in modern western politics in the UK 1997 elections.

We are still seeing this type of imbalance and gross hypocracy now, with the current Osbourne scandal. People dont learn easy.

The USA is now about to get its Tony Blair.

Good luck, you need it.

**Frazzled**

I'll take Blair. That Mo-Fo could talk and debate, especially in comparison to our President who's almost incoherent at this point.

Wife has a theory that some of the alleged drug use in the past may be actual and that its catching up to him. That and the pressure is making him increasingly incoherent. Since she worked for the cops and some other things, she's more knowledgeable than the average person and may have a point. Its sad.

**Kilkrazy**

Are our Republican members getting shouted down? Do they feel they are getting shouted down?

**Kilkrazy**

Orlanth wrote:Therre is a gross media imbalance in the US media at present. The mistakes of one side are magnified, those of the other concealed. While to a good extent politics are always like that, the media imbalance can shift this otherwise tidal struggle into a strong and lasting bias. America is learning the wrong lesson in media campaigning, one first detected in modern western politics in the UK 1997 elections.

We are still seeing this type of imbalance and gross hypocracy now, with the current Osbourne scandal. People dont learn easy.

The USA is now about to get its Tony Blair.

Good luck, you need it.

There's no doubt the defection of the various Murdoch papers to New Labour helped Blair a great deal. However, for those of us who lived through the increasingly inept and corrupt Conservative regime of the late 80s to mid 90s, the major factor in the election was complete disgust with the Tories.

I think a lot of Blair's and Brown's trouble since, have been because they underestimated the extent to which the 1997 election was an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Labour vote.

**Mannahnin**

The media in this country reported on the Lewinsky scandal 24/7. The media in this country was way too credulous in the buildup to the Iraq war, and in reporting on the war for the first few years at least. The media in this country has been in love with McCain, and incredibly soft on him up to this year. They're still not reporting on stuff like his religious connections, or the free cell phone towers.

The concept that the media is widely supporting one party or the other is laughable. They are mostly supporting their profit margins, based on whatever story is most scandalous or juicy. Since the Palin nomination at least, the McCain campaign has done more odd and noteworthy things. The Obama campaign has been comparatively positive and uneventful, aside from one or two Biden misstatements. Which makes a more interesting story?

**Frazzled**

I disagree most harshly to that statement Ragnar in your last paragraph. I don't see the fashion police on the NYT investigating The Democrat's taste in clothing or expenses. I don't see Biden having been raked over the coals for running despite being a single parent. As you're afan of hit #'s you'll note the high #'s of negative articles on McCain/Palin. Its almost non-existent against Obama/Biden. Lets get real here, the SNL skit when Clinton was running is highly accurate.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:

There's no doubt the defection of the various Murdoch papers to New Labour helped Blair a great deal. However, for those of us who lived through the increasingly inept and corrupt Conservative regime of the late 80s to mid 90s, the major factor in the election was complete disgust with the Tories.

I think a lot of Blair's and Brown's trouble since, have been because they underestimated the extent to which the 1997 election was an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Labour vote.

**Mannahnin**

Frazzled wrote:I disagree most harshly to that statement Ragnar in your last paragraph. I don't see the fashion police on the NYT investigating The Democrat's taste in clothing or expenses. I don't see Biden having been raked over the coals for running despite being a single parent. As you're afan of hit #'s you'll note the high #'s of negative articles on McCain/Palin. Its almost non-existent against Obama/Biden. Lets get real here, the SNL skit when Clinton was running is highly accurate.

If there is a forest fire, do you expect to see a lot of positive stories supporting the fire?

McCain made an awful choice for VP. An utterly unqualified person he had never met, whose virtues consist of exciting the worst parts of the Republican base, stirring up fear, and accusing the other side of being less American; of not seeing America as a force for good in the world. Someone who thinks that guilt by association (with a guy who was Chicago's Citizen of the Year in 1997) is a damning political criticism.

As far as fashion criticism, that's more sexism than partisanship. There was certainly commentary on Hillary's wardrobe, and on Michelle Obama's.

As for Biden the single parent:

wikipedia wrote:In order to be at home every day for his young sons,[22] Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, D.C., which he continues to do.[5] In the aftermath of the accident, he had trouble focusing on work, and appeared to just go through the motions of being a senator. In his memoirs, Biden notes that staffers were taking bets on how long he would last.[23][16] A single father for five years, Biden left standing orders that he be interrupted in the Senate at any time if his sons called.[21] In remembrance of the accident, Biden does not work on December 18.[24] Biden's elder son, Beau, later became Delaware Attorney General and an Army Judge Advocate scheduled for service in Iraq[25] and Biden's younger son, Hunter is a Washington attorney.

In 1975, Biden met Jill Tracy Jacobs, who grew up in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania and would become a teacher in Delaware.[26] They had met on a blind date with Biden's brother's help though it turned out that Biden had already noticed her in a local advertisement.[26] Biden would credit her with renewing his interest in both politics and life.[27] On June 17, 1977, Biden and Jacobs married.[2] They have one daughter, Ashley Blazer (born 1981).[2] Biden and his family are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and regularly attend services at St. Joseph on the Brandywine in Greenville, Delaware.[28]

**Frazzled**

Is that the Church where the Bishop is telling him to go away? Don't hear much about that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Its not pertinent to the topic.