[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by EricS6661

Think of it like this. Everyone was caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and he decided to rat on everyone else. He's just as guilty as the rest of them, but he is throwing it back at the GOP to show everyone just how dirty they are.

"So what if he isn't credible and refuses to substantiate any of his claims? His statements fit the argument I want to make about government corruption and total control, so they are accurate!"

[Eric the Fish]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Matrix jokes aside it is pretty questionable that this whole voter fraud thing is an argument while instances of voter fraud are so minimal. Historically minorities have been targeted, I don't think this is much different than in its goal from poll taxes and literacy tests.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure democrats would attempt to suppress the rich white vote if they thought they could come up with a plan for it.

Not that many rich white people in comparison to blacks. Swerve. One or two polling places where intimidation may have occurred would not have the same consequence as suppressing the votes of a whole demographic.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Eric the Fish

Not that many rich white people in comparison to blacks. Swerve. One or two polling places where intimidation may have occurred would not have the same consequence as suppressing the votes of a whole demographic.

What about the rich blacks? There's not that many rich white people compared to white people.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by Eric the Fish

Not that many rich white people in comparison to blacks. Swerve. One or two polling places where intimidation may have occurred would not have the same consequence as suppressing the votes of a whole demographic.

Yet there is evidence of the former and none of the latter.

Unless you're talking about "surpressing the vote" as in trying to demoralize the opposition so that they don't have great turnout - which is an orthodox political tactic used by pretty much every political campaign in history.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Unless you're talking about "surpressing the vote" as in trying to demoralize the opposition so that they don't have great turnout - which is an orthodox political tactic used by pretty much every political campaign in history.

This rhetoric saddens me. It's upsetting that democracy has just become a big ****ing game.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

This rhetoric saddens me. It's upsetting that democracy has just become a big ****ing game.

Every form of government has been from the dawn of time. I don't like it any more than you do, but it doesn't change the fact that it's reality.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Every form of government has been from the dawn of time. I don't like it any more than you do, but it doesn't change the fact that it's reality.

That's just blatantly not true. You just love throwing out "facts" without evidence don't you?

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

That's just blatantly not true. You just love throwing out "facts" without evidence don't you?

Go read some Machiavelli.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Every form of government has been from the dawn of time. I don't like it any more than you do, but it doesn't change the fact that it's reality.

Horse****.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Horse**** indeed.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Horse****.

You don't want it to be that way; doesn't mean it's not. Perception and motivation have been integral to politics since it's inception.

[EricS6661]

I have to agree with Swerve. Every side has their tactics to win and push their own agenda, it's just to what extent they go to win. Just look at campaign donations and where that money is coming from. Big banks and corporate entities.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by EricS6661

I have to agree with Swerve. Every side has their tactics to win and push their own agenda, it's just to what extent they go to win. Just look at campaign donations and where that money is coming from. Big banks and corporate entities.

Oh this is great. Thank you for equating every form of government/social structure to republics/democracies.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Oh this is great. Thank you for equating every form of government/social structure to republics/democracies.

Sure we can take out a few forms of government such as absolute tyranny, but for the most part rulers want to create motivation on their side, and surpress or demotivate opposition. I don't get why that's so difficult for a few on these boards to handle.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You don't want it to be that way; doesn't mean it's not. Perception and motivation have been integral to politics since it's inception.

If a comitee or an election are involved.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Sure we can take out a few forms of government such as absolute tyranny, but for the most part rulers want to create motivation on their side, and surpress or demotivate opposition. I don't get why that's so difficult for a few on these boards to handle.

Are you equating absolute authority with tyranny in a negative connotation? They have complete control so they don't have to play games. The agenda rolls out and it either succeeds or it fails.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by EricS6661

I have to agree with Swerve. Every side has their tactics to win and push their own agenda, it's just to what extent they go to win. Just look at campaign donations and where that money is coming from. Big banks and corporate entities.

Every form of government has sides and tactics? Totalitarian governments have sides? Dictatorships have sides? Every form of government has campaign donations? Communist governments have campaign donations?

Looking past his hyperbolic language and assuming he meant every democratic nation (which is a small sample in the grand scope): So every democratic government had campaign donations, big banks, and corporate entities influencing government policy? Hell we didn't have that anywhere close to the same level 10 years ago, let alone 100...

And you are butchering my point. I am talking about how democracy has become a game. People talk about republicans or democrats winning. If our goal is true democracy, proper governance, and improvement of our society, than things like demoralizing our opponents (other fellow citizens seeking the same things as us) has no room.

Pretending like every democracy was this shallow is simply insulting. The French Revolution wasn't. The American Revolution wasn't. Democracy just being a game is fairly new and very very bad.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Sure we can take out a few forms of government such as absolute tyranny, but for the most part rulers want to create motivation on their side, and surpress or demotivate opposition. I don't get why that's so difficult for a few on these boards to handle.

The large majority of human history is NOT democratic...

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

And you are butchering my point. I am talking about how democracy has become a game. People talk about republicans or democrats winning. If our goal is true democracy, proper governance, and improvement of our society, than things like demoralizing our opponents (other fellow citizens seeking the same things as us) has no room.

Pretending like every democracy was this shallow is simply insulting. The French Revolution wasn't. The American Revolution wasn't. Democracy just being a game is fairly new and very very bad.

I ignored the first part of your quote because you were adding all kinds of additional issues to your origial point.

Your gripe is that it has become a "game" and I refuted that by pointing out it has always been that way. Replace the word game with strategy and you'll see what I mean - you're calling a sound and historic strategy a "game". Efforts to rile up the "friendly" side and despress, confuse, or surpess the "other" side have been a part of every "game" or strategy in every revolution - political or violent, in history. In many cases things were much more vitriolic and over the top in terms of rhetoric and actions than today, perfect examples being the French and American revolutions. ALso, neither of them would have happend had one side not won the "game".

I think what you're really down about is that you see the underlying causes as being simply to make "whatever party is on your side" win. When you do that you forget that each party represents a distinctly different ideology and a distinctly different vision for the future of the country. This is what's being contested - people join and support different parties for a number of reasons, but this is the underlying conflict.

[Iamamartianchurch]

What gets me is the unanimous demonization of any single ruler government by virtue of corruption while praising the republic despite obvious plagues of corruption and looting of the system. Somehow, ****ing magically, republics and democracies are immune.

That doesn't even touch on the absurd dogma that every ruler has been and will be a bad guy.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I ignored the first part of your quote because you were adding all kinds of additional issues to your origial point.

I was ****ing quoting someone...

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Your gripe is that it has become a "game" and I refuted that by pointing out it has always been that way. Replace the word game with strategy and you'll see what I mean - you're calling a sound and historic strategy a "game". Efforts to rile up the "friendly" side and despress, confuse, or surpess the "other" side have been a part of every "game" or strategy in every revolution - political or violent, in history. In many cases things were much more vitriolic and over the top in terms of rhetoric and actions than today, perfect examples being the French and American revolutions. ALso, neither of them would have happend had one side not won the "game".

I think what you're really down about is that you see the underlying causes as being simply to make "whatever party is on your side" win. When you do that you forget that each party represents a distinctly different ideology and a distinctly different vision for the future of the country. This is what's being contested - people join and support different parties for a number of reasons, but this is the underlying conflict.

You clearly don't understand the conversation. Not going to waste my time.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

I ignored the first part of your quote because you were adding all kinds of additional issues to your origial point.

Your gripe is that it has become a "game" and I refuted that by pointing out it has always been that way. Replace the word game with strategy and you'll see what I mean - you're calling a sound and historic strategy a "game". Efforts to rile up the "friendly" side and despress, confuse, or surpess the "other" side have been a part of every "game" or strategy in every revolution - political or violent, in history. In many cases things were much more vitriolic and over the top in terms of rhetoric and actions than today, perfect examples being the French and American revolutions. ALso, neither of them would have happend had one side not won the "game".

I think what you're really down about is that you see the underlying causes as being simply to make "whatever party is on your side" win. When you do that you forget that each party represents a distinctly different ideology and a distinctly different vision for the future of the country. This is what's being contested - people join and support different parties for a number of reasons, but this is the underlying conflict.

You said every form of government swerve but you keep talking about democracy and republic, nothing else.