Does McCain already have the Election won?

[Big Phil]

Nobody did in this thread; in the collective realm of political debate, however, people have referenced Nixon's '68 campaign, or Bush's '88 campaign, as being turning points toward negativism. Supposedly back in the "good old days," there was no mudslinging and candidates debated like gentlemen.

I was mostly responding to Lusankya's assertion that an Obama victory means an end to dirty politics. At best it means that dirty politics take a new shape in four years; at worst nothing changes.

[Darth Wong]

Nobody did in this thread; in the collective realm of political debate, however, people have referenced Nixon's '68 campaign, or Bush's '88 campaign, as being turning points toward negativism. Supposedly back in the "good old days," there was no mudslinging and candidates debated like gentlemen.

I was mostly responding to Lusankya's assertion that an Obama victory means an end to dirty politics. At best it means that dirty politics take a new shape in four years; at worst nothing changes.

These problems rise and fall; it is quite possible for someone to say "this has gotten worse since year XXXX" without necessarily saying "this is the first time in the history of all humanity that this has ever happened". You are simply reading things into peoples' arguments which aren't there.

Now if you're trying to say that it has not gotten worse since year XXXX that's a different matter, but in any case, bringing up ancient history as proof that we didn't recently invent dirty politics is completely pointless.

[Lusankya]

I was mostly responding to Lusankya's assertion that an Obama victory means an end to dirty politics. At best it means that dirty politics take a new shape in four years; at worst nothing changes.

Show me the post where I ever claimed that was a certainty thanks.

And maybe someone could address my main point, which was "why is further encouraging dirty politics a good thing?" Nobody's even attempted to address that point - all they've done is go "RAR! It can't be completely stopped!" Well, guess what, bucko? Lots of things in life can't be completely stopped. That doesn't mean that you just let them run around willy nilly.

[Big Phil]

Nobody did in this thread; in the collective realm of political debate, however, people have referenced Nixon's '68 campaign, or Bush's '88 campaign, as being turning points toward negativism. Supposedly back in the "good old days," there was no mudslinging and candidates debated like gentlemen.

I was mostly responding to Lusankya's assertion that an Obama victory means an end to dirty politics. At best it means that dirty politics take a new shape in four years; at worst nothing changes.

These problems rise and fall; it is quite possible for someone to say "this has gotten worse since year XXXX" without necessarily saying "this is the first time in the history of all humanity that this has ever happened". You are simply reading things into peoples' arguments which aren't there.

Now if you're trying to say that it has not gotten worse since year XXXX that's a different matter, but in any case, bringing up ancient history as proof that we didn't recently invent dirty politics is completely pointless.

You're right - in this thread, at least, no one is arguing that dirty politics are a recent invention. Overall, it seems like people conveniently forget that it's not a recent (or Republican) invention; by overall, I'm referring to everywhere, including SDNet, but also political wonks, newspapers, discussions with people I know, etc. I probably shouldn't have used such a broad brush here when addressing Lusankya's post.

Show me the post where I ever claimed that was a certainty thanks.

You said "if the Democrats win this time, then it will prove that dirty campaigning isn't necessary to win an election. Then maybe the Republicans will see some virtue in clean campaigning and will change their campaign tactics." My point is dirty politics will never go away, not that you were arguing, with 100% certainty, that they would. Even if Republicans pull back a bit from their bullshit, it'll still continue in some form or another.

And maybe someone could address my main point, which was "why is further encouraging dirty politics a good thing?" Nobody's even attempted to address that point - all they've done is go "RAR! It can't be completely stopped!" Well, guess what, bucko? Lots of things in life can't be completely stopped. That doesn't mean that you just let them run around willy nilly.

How can any of us encourage or discourage dirty politics? Smart people ignore smears and vote based on issues. Dirty politics really only affect stupid people who don't know any better, and there are more stupid people than there are smart people, therefore, dirty politics aren't going anywhere.

The only ones who can significantly impact dirty politics are the press, and they have no interest in a reduction in dirty politics, as it helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers, thereby selling advertising, and making them lots and lots of money.

[Dominus Atheos]

If you're questioning my sanity, I'm not going to disagree with you.

Doesn't that kind of end any debate right there?

That's a definite possibility.

[Darth Wong]

The only ones who can significantly impact dirty politics are the press, and they have no interest in a reduction in dirty politics, as it helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers, thereby selling advertising, and making them lots and lots of money.

The re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine would help. It's not a coincidence that Ronald Reagan's administration put an end to it in the 80s.

[Lusankya]

You said "if the Democrats win this time, then it will prove that dirty campaigning isn't necessary to win an election. Then maybe the Republicans will see some virtue in clean campaigning and will change their campaign tactics." My point is dirty politics will never go away, not that you were arguing, with 100% certainty, that they would.

Concession accepted.

Even if Republicans pull back a bit from their bullshit, it'll still continue in some form or another.

You know, even if the Republicans stop trying to dismantle welfare, poverty will still continue in some form or another. I suppose we shouldn't bother tackling that, either.

How can any of us encourage or discourage dirty politics?

I suppose you mean apart from not voting for the people who engage in such tactics, is that right? Or making some kind of attempt to call them on their bullshit? And aside from encouraging those who engage in clean campaigns, be it through monetary contributions, volunteer work or this "vote" thing that I've been told you take so much pride in.

Smart people ignore smears and vote based on issues. Dirty politics really only affect stupid people who don't know any better, and there are more stupid people than there are smart people, therefore, dirty politics aren't going anywhere.

*bzzt* WRONG! Dirty politics affects everyone - if it get enough votes for the side which uses it, then everyone gets to put up with the arseholes who use these tactics.

Also, consider the integrity of those who use dirty politics as opposed to those who use cleaner politics. Who would you rather have leading your country - someone who engages in smear campaigns and underhanded sledging, or someone who can actually focus on the issues?

The only ones who can significantly impact dirty politics are the press, and they have no interest in a reduction in dirty politics, as it helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers, thereby selling advertising, and making them lots and lots of money.

*bzzt* Wrong again. The opposition can significantly impact dirty politics by calling them on their bullshit. Hell, if a large enough group of voters cares about dirty politics, then they can use their freaking VOTES to vote the dirty politicians out of power.

And once again, you have ignored my main point: WHY IS DIRTY POLITICS A DESIRABLE THING?

You seem to be under some misguided delusion that just because something is inevitable in some form or another that therefore it is desirable.

The re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine would help. It's not a coincidence that Ronald Reagan's administration put an end to it in the 80s.

I also think that some kind of publically funded news organisation would help - something that doesn't have to rely on revenue and can instead focus on actual news. I doubt that would go down well, though. Does anyone in the US even understand the concept of an independent government organisation?

[mr friendly guy]

The re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine would help. It's not a coincidence that Ronald Reagan's administration put an end to it in the 80s.

I also think that some kind of publically funded news organisation would help - something that doesn't have to rely on revenue and can instead focus on actual news. I doubt that would go down well, though. Does anyone in the US even understand the concept of an independent government organisation?

Then we will have idiots (ie mainly right wing retards like say Gerard Henderson) blabbering about how tax payers money is used to promote idealogies that they don't agree with. I guess for them the truth just hurts too much. But then we see numerous attacks on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation using this line of argument rather than actually attacking the point made. Amazing as it sounds these are the same people who cry "free speech", except when someone else says something they don't like.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh another thought. If McCain can organise a fundraiser in a foreign country, can't some Americans who have online stores sell stuff to us foreigners, and then use some of the profit to donate to Obama. After all, its your money and you can do whatever you want with it.

Not that I will buy anything (unless you guys sell awesome comic or sci fi merchandise ), because frankly people deserve the government they voted in for.

And yeah, I can totally sympathise with people like IP, Ayrium etc, after all, I had to put up with too many years of John Fucking Howard despite voting against him.

On another note, what effects would a McCain victory have on overseas and scientific research (what, with the anti science attitudes they espouse)? Will other countries own scientific research be enough to pick up the slack? Will China try to promote more growth via domestic consumption if the US economy does even more down the shitter and bring about the "decoupling" which seems to be a buzzword economists are using here.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And yeah, I can totally sympathise with people like IP, Ayrium etc, after all, I had to put up with too many years of John Fucking Howard despite voting against him.

Put it this way, if McCain wins, and then dies (and it looks like he might...) I will be unable to live in the US. It isnt as if I would want to leave my friends and family here, but a Palin presidency would make this country unlivable. The legal climate would become such (with her judicial appointments, as well as fiscal policy etc) that I will be legally persecuted, and my research de-funded.

[CaptainChewbacca]

And yeah, I can totally sympathise with people like IP, Ayrium etc, after all, I had to put up with too many years of John Fucking Howard despite voting against him.

Put it this way, if McCain wins, and then dies (and it looks like he might...) I will be unable to live in the US. It isnt as if I would want to leave my friends and family here, but a Palin presidency would make this country unlivable. The legal climate would become such (with her judicial appointments, as well as fiscal policy etc) that I will be legally persecuted, and my research de-funded.

What do you research?

[Alyrium Denryle]

And yeah, I can totally sympathise with people like IP, Ayrium etc, after all, I had to put up with too many years of John Fucking Howard despite voting against him.

Put it this way, if McCain wins, and then dies (and it looks like he might...) I will be unable to live in the US. It isnt as if I would want to leave my friends and family here, but a Palin presidency would make this country unlivable. The legal climate would become such (with her judicial appointments, as well as fiscal policy etc) that I will be legally persecuted, and my research de-funded.

What do you research?

I study the evolution of anti-predator behavior, and predation risk/growth/reproduction tradeoffs in amphibians in light of biological invasions and other anthropogenic environment alterations with an eye toward amphibian decline.

Or at least that is what I plan on working on as I continue my education and career. Most of my research will not only be publicly funded, but also have policy implications... And I dont see a Palin presidency being friendly toward my research goals or evolution in general.

[Dominus Atheos]

Unless you think there's some kind of social benefit to dirty campaigning...

I do. Those three facts I listed:

• Palin, after (quoting broomy here) "having her water break and, instead of going to a doctor/hospital like a normal women, she really did give a speech then board an airplane for a 6 hour flight back to Alaska followed by a 45 minute drive to give birth to a high-risk baby a month prematurely in a suburban clinic."
• McCain finishing 6 or so spots away from last in a class of 800-something and crashing 5 planes he flew.
• Married a swimsuit model, then after she was in a car accident and due to the scars and weight from laying in a hospital bed for so long was a lot less attractive, divorced her and married a woman 20 years younger then him who was an heiress worth hundreds of millions.

Are all very valid reasons not to vote for him, and by refusing to mention them it forces people to vote for someone they don't really know. I'd go so far as to call it deliberately harming informed democracy, and damn near treason.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Put it this way, if McCain wins, and then dies (and it looks like he might...) I will be unable to live in the US. It isnt as if I would want to leave my friends and family here, but a Palin presidency would make this country unlivable. The legal climate would become such (with her judicial appointments, as well as fiscal policy etc) that I will be legally persecuted, and my research de-funded.

What do you research?

I study the evolution of anti-predator behavior, and predation risk/growth/reproduction tradeoffs in amphibians in light of biological invasions and other anthropogenic environment alterations with an eye toward amphibian decline.

Or at least that is what I plan on working on as I continue my education and career. Most of my research will not only be publicly funded, but also have policy implications... And I dont see a Palin presidency being friendly toward my research goals or evolution in general.

Sounds kinda interesting. From the way you were talking, I figured it was something to do with stem-cells, but frankly your research sounds innocuous enough that it won't get noticed by the higher-ups, and if it does I can't really see how anyone would persecute you for it. Unless there's some obvious real-world application for your research I'm not seeing, of course.

[Darth Wong]

Unless you think there's some kind of social benefit to dirty campaigning...

I do. Those three facts I listed:

• Palin, after (quoting broomy here) "having her water break and, instead of going to a doctor/hospital like a normal women, she really did give a speech then board an airplane for a 6 hour flight back to Alaska followed by a 45 minute drive to give birth to a high-risk baby a month prematurely in a suburban clinic."
• McCain finishing 6 or so spots away from last in a class of 800-something and crashing 5 planes he flew.
• Married a swimsuit model, then after she was in a car accident and due to the scars and weight from laying in a hospital bed for so long was a lot less attractive, divorced her and married a woman 20 years younger then him who was an heiress worth hundreds of millions.

Are all very valid reasons not to vote for him, and by refusing to mention them it forces people to vote for someone they don't really know. I'd go so far as to call it deliberately harming informed democracy, and damn near treason.

Those are all facts, and therefore it would not be "dirty politics" to raise them. That's completely different from what the McCain campaign is doing, which is outright bald-faced lying.

[Dominus Atheos]

Unless you think there's some kind of social benefit to dirty campaigning...

I do. Those three facts I listed:

• Palin, after (quoting broomy here) "having her water break and, instead of going to a doctor/hospital like a normal women, she really did give a speech then board an airplane for a 6 hour flight back to Alaska followed by a 45 minute drive to give birth to a high-risk baby a month prematurely in a suburban clinic."
• McCain finishing 6 or so spots away from last in a class of 800-something and crashing 5 planes he flew.
• Married a swimsuit model, then after she was in a car accident and due to the scars and weight from laying in a hospital bed for so long was a lot less attractive, divorced her and married a woman 20 years younger then him who was an heiress worth hundreds of millions.

Are all very valid reasons not to vote for him, and by refusing to mention them it forces people to vote for someone they don't really know. I'd go so far as to call it deliberately harming informed democracy, and damn near treason.

Those are all facts, and therefore it would not be "dirty politics" to raise them. That's completely different from what the McCain campaign is doing, which is outright bald-faced lying.

Well I know that, and you know that, and nearly every member of this board would probably get that, but the Obama campaign has shown very clearly that it doesn't get that by refusing to mention any of them in the name of running a "clean campaign", which is why I'm willing to wait till 2012 for a real candidate who will put Republicans in their place. (not Hillary)

[KlavoHunter]

Well I know that, and you know that, and nearly every member of this board would probably get that, but the Obama campaign has shown very clearly that it doesn't get that by refusing to mention any of them in the name of running a "clean campaign", which is why I'm willing to wait till 2012 for a real candidate who will put Republicans in their place. (not Hillary)

When it comes to Hillary - why not? She proved she can fight a dirty campaign. That seems to be the TRUE/FALSE flag you're looking for in a Dem candidate, isn't it?

I suppose in a way we can thank her for digging up the early, easy dirt on Obama and expending that ammunition to no avail.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What do you research?

I study the evolution of anti-predator behavior, and predation risk/growth/reproduction tradeoffs in amphibians in light of biological invasions and other anthropogenic environment alterations with an eye toward amphibian decline.

Or at least that is what I plan on working on as I continue my education and career. Most of my research will not only be publicly funded, but also have policy implications... And I dont see a Palin presidency being friendly toward my research goals or evolution in general.

Sounds kinda interesting. From the way you were talking, I figured it was something to do with stem-cells, but frankly your research sounds innocuous enough that it won't get noticed by the higher-ups, and if it does I can't really see how anyone would persecute you for it. Unless there's some obvious real-world application for your research I'm not seeing, of course.

Palin has shown a massive inclination toward interfering with scientists, up to and including charging half a million dollars to access reports, and lying about findings. If you think she wont interfere with the NSF, NIH, and USDA when it comes to things like who gets what funding, you have something else coming.

I will be persecuted because I am gay, and she will appoint judges across the federal system who will gut my civil rights.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I will be persecuted because I am gay, and she will appoint judges across the federal system who will gut my civil rights.

My appologies, I didn't know your orientation. The only person here who I keep track of is Ein because, well, he's Ein. I thought you were saying you'd be persecuted for your research.

[Terralthra]

Palin has shown a massive inclination toward interfering with scientists, up to and including charging half a million dollars to access reports

Source?

[Darth Wong]

Palin has shown a massive inclination toward interfering with scientists, up to and including charging half a million dollars to access reports

Source?

There was a NYT article posted earlier about this. Read the thread.

[Gaidin]

Palin has shown a massive inclination toward interfering with scientists, up to and including charging half a million dollars to access reports

Source?

NYT. It was in the Palin thread, and a long article so here's the relevant paragraph:

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

[Terralthra]

NYT. It was in the Palin thread, and a long article so here's the relevant paragraph:

Thanks, Gaidin. The board software does weird stuff with read/unread messages for me, especially on longer threads. I never even saw that post on that thread, and you have to admit, it's so ridiculous on the face of that asking for a source isn't totally unreasonable.

[Big Phil]

You seem to be under some misguided delusion that just because something is inevitable in some form or another that therefore it is desirable.

Saying that dirty politics won't go anywhere is not the same as believing dirty politics to be desirable. To use an analogy, you're arguing that because I believe men will continue to rape women (and vice-versa), I'm in favor of rape.

[General Zod]

Thanks, Gaidin. The board software does weird stuff with read/unread messages for me, especially on longer threads. I never even saw that post on that thread, and you have to admit, it's so ridiculous on the face of that asking for a source isn't totally unreasonable.

Why is it ridiculous? Palin's an admitted fundie who's in favor of teaching creationism in science courses and against any form of stem cell research. It's hardly a stretch that she'd go out of her way to fuck around with scientists in other manners, especially given her corruption investigations. Taking those into consideration it seems perfectly in line for someone like her would do that.