For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?
- Thread starter mountainclmbr
- Start date
- Status
JuanCarlos
New member
Are you elevating posts 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 in this thread to the status of "rebuttals?" Also you might consider, just for a moment, that rather than the responses here being evidence of some universal truth that perhaps it's just evidence that in some respects and on some issues (aside from guns, which would be expected) that this subforum is often nothing more than an echo chamber. That it has more to do with who frequents this forum than with what's right or true. You know, just maybe.
True, for the most part, though progress can involve tearing down and building new from time to time. Though actual experimentation is something that should largely be avoided. Also, what if the learned known foundations haven't brought past success?
Coming from you, that's rich. Oh, wait...you don't usually go with subtle condescension.
Perhaps I should have included hostility..............
Is it the first or second course of action you are taking....
As to the need sometimes to tear down to gain progress, I agree, the Civil War is a good example, but I done believe the institution of marriage being re-defined is. No law ESTABLISHED marriage. Marriage is ancient and culturally universal. The means is different in that some jump a broom, some say vows, etc. but the joining of a man and a women establishing new family is again, ancient. Post #15 is the rebuttal and is expounded upon in other posts. It isn't established by law, it is recognized by it.
Last edited:
9mmHP: You are correct. It was two paragraphs before the beginning of Article II. Article I Sect 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
My bad again. I may know what's in it, but not always exactly where it is.
There is some wiggle room here assuming that you could get the Congress to bless Rudy's title of nobility from HRM, but That's assuming a lot considering I believe the days of the neo-cons are over and the era of the big government conservatives are over with them. I believe that whatever we get next will be either a small government conservative or a big government liberal. Just my belief, but who knows with Obama? He doesn't have a record long enough and hasn't put forth any real concrete ideas beyond "hope".
My bad again. I may know what's in it, but not always exactly where it is.
There is some wiggle room here assuming that you could get the Congress to bless Rudy's title of nobility from HRM, but That's assuming a lot considering I believe the days of the neo-cons are over and the era of the big government conservatives are over with them. I believe that whatever we get next will be either a small government conservative or a big government liberal. Just my belief, but who knows with Obama? He doesn't have a record long enough and hasn't put forth any real concrete ideas beyond "hope".
Redneck with a 40
New member
Change = nationalized health care, nationalized oil companies, takeover wall street, coddle terrorist's and give them the same rights we have, coddle criminals, remove our best method and right to self defense (gun ownership), basically the govt will be our nanny from cradle to grave, because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. Finally, declare war on corporate America, end capitalism and tax the hell out of the middle class.
JuanCarlos
New member
Who knows, it could work.
But seriously, though, I'd just like to reiterate again (it came to mind in a better way) that a consensus (or near-consensus) among a limited subset of people, particularly a self-selecting one, isn't exactly meaningful. I obviously agree with most here that gun rights are important and beneficial, but I'd never make the mistake of thinking that this is so because most/all of us here think so. That's absolutely irrelevant. So suggesting that I (or anybody else) should rethink any position of mine simply because so many folks here vehemently disagree is more than a little ludicrous. I could point you to any number of forums where your positions wouldn't exactly go over well, yet I doubt suddenly that you'd take this as a cue to re-think them.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Change means replacing the Republican idiots in the White House with new Democrat idiots. Every election brings change.
I have re-considered MANY of my positions from debates on this very forum. And this isn't the only one I visit. I have been banned from forums with Democrat/liberal perspectives rather then have them debated. This forum is exceptional in that our commonality ISN'T our political perspective and that civility is mandated by mods as evidenced by multiple members being banned or suspended for failing to be just that. Political perspectives aren't the prerequisite, the ability the see more than black and white, state you case civilly, and respect the other members is. This is far and away different from an echo chamber. The diversity of ideas and perspectives here are because it's not those perspectives that brought us together.
To state that, despite the lack of valid support, your or my premises don't warrant re-evaluation is what is ludicrous. To think that just believing something makes it so isn't intelligent, educated, enlightened, progressive, etc. It is contrary to those attributes. Often we think the argument against it is something different then what we thought is would be and the actual argument has in it substance that validates it.
Change being the word of topic, willingness the re-evaluate and potentially change ones own perspective is far more beneficial then adimate insistence despite solid, valid, true evidence to the contrary.
One point I whole heartedly agree with is that truth is truth because of popular opinion. I believe Colbert called this 'truthiness'.
To state that, despite the lack of valid support, your or my premises don't warrant re-evaluation is what is ludicrous. To think that just believing something makes it so isn't intelligent, educated, enlightened, progressive, etc. It is contrary to those attributes. Often we think the argument against it is something different then what we thought is would be and the actual argument has in it substance that validates it.
Change being the word of topic, willingness the re-evaluate and potentially change ones own perspective is far more beneficial then adimate insistence despite solid, valid, true evidence to the contrary.
One point I whole heartedly agree with is that truth is truth because of popular opinion. I believe Colbert called this 'truthiness'.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
That is probably the most truthful statement in this whole thread!
JuanCarlos
New member
Also, Bruxley, you should note that aside from your implication that the whole "emotive response" thing was uniquely Democratic/liberal I really didn't disagree all that much with you until we got on the gay marriage topic. Just sayin'.
I was responding more to Leif's/Tibu's suggestion that it's not entirely possible to have a worthwhile discussion of Democratic platforms/positions here without an abysmal SNR. See Redneck with a 40's recent response, or all of the ones I listed in my previous post (which were a majority of the first 10).
Either way, I'll say that my positions aren't written in stone, and I wouldn't come here if it wasn't to encourage a little thought on them. But again, your previous statement ("If Democrat's positions bring such a response there are 2 courses of action...") missed the fact that they only bring such a response here. Out in "the world" you'll find a fair percentage (upwards of half) who'll respond quite favorably to their positions. In fact, it's entirely possible these positions will win them quite a few elections next year, including the presidential.
So either you were suggesting that popular opinion here should convince me to rethink my positions, or ignoring the fact that it's not nearly as unanimous elsewhere. Either way, more than a little silly.
I was responding more to Leif's/Tibu's suggestion that it's not entirely possible to have a worthwhile discussion of Democratic platforms/positions here without an abysmal SNR. See Redneck with a 40's recent response, or all of the ones I listed in my previous post (which were a majority of the first 10).
Either way, I'll say that my positions aren't written in stone, and I wouldn't come here if it wasn't to encourage a little thought on them. But again, your previous statement ("If Democrat's positions bring such a response there are 2 courses of action...") missed the fact that they only bring such a response here. Out in "the world" you'll find a fair percentage (upwards of half) who'll respond quite favorably to their positions. In fact, it's entirely possible these positions will win them quite a few elections next year, including the presidential.
So either you were suggesting that popular opinion here should convince me to rethink my positions, or ignoring the fact that it's not nearly as unanimous elsewhere. Either way, more than a little silly.
JuanCarlos
New member
Back to the OP, I'll say again that "change" is just a general buzzword. Right along the same lines as "security." It appeals particularly to the liberal base, of course, for obvious reasons. Same reason it turns off the conservative base. Just look either one up in the dictionary. But at the base level, it's the kind of vague promise that should appeal to all of us...at least anybody who doesn't think the world is perfect as-is. Obviously the critical thinking among us will then want some info on exactly what "change" we're talking about, and whether it will actually be better (or, on the other end, exactly how we'll be made more "secure").
Still, obviously on the masses both words work (among others, plenty on both sides). Which is sad, since I remember being taught about "glittering generalities" in like fifth grade civics. I guess most people really don't remember anything they learned in school.
EDIT: And, as was said by somebody else, if you want to know what changes those candidates might be referring to, their websites and debate videos/transcripts are a good start. Obviously you have to filter that; because they may want more (or less) change than they state, and because they may not be able to accomplish all that they want (and they may well know then when making the promises). Looking a the Democratic pack, it seems that in general aside from health care proposals those changes are less than many liberals want, and more than most conservatives want. Which is unsurprising.
EDIT: Below we see yet another example of that SNR thing I was talking about.
Still, obviously on the masses both words work (among others, plenty on both sides). Which is sad, since I remember being taught about "glittering generalities" in like fifth grade civics. I guess most people really don't remember anything they learned in school.
EDIT: And, as was said by somebody else, if you want to know what changes those candidates might be referring to, their websites and debate videos/transcripts are a good start. Obviously you have to filter that; because they may want more (or less) change than they state, and because they may not be able to accomplish all that they want (and they may well know then when making the promises). Looking a the Democratic pack, it seems that in general aside from health care proposals those changes are less than many liberals want, and more than most conservatives want. Which is unsurprising.
EDIT: Below we see yet another example of that SNR thing I was talking about.
Last edited:
sw_florida
Moderator
The change the Dems are talking about is the change of your underwear, to politically correct colors and style. They will do it for you if they win the big election, whether you want it done or not. With all the extra tax money on their hands, from higher taxes, they are forced to start up new public projects just to see the money burn. There will be many of those underwear changers, each supervised by a manager.
MeekAndMild
New member
Folks I'm afraid that it isn't all empty rhetoric but its really kind of complex. Sorry to burst the humorous bubble. 
Those who call themselves "progressives" espouse the political theory of utilitarianism or "the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility" and welfarism, "the view that the morally significant consequences are impacts on human welfare".
Progressivism is distinctly different from Classical Liberalism as Progressivism is based on these two Consequentialist theories and uses Legal Positivism as its structure for government rather than Natural Law, the basis for Classical Liberalism. (Classical liberalism is based on natural law and Progressivist Marxism is based on utilitarianism...not the same.)
SO, let me break this down to something we all can understand. I'd recommend you actually read the link to Progressivism but skim the others just so you'll understand I'm not making up just how deep this depravity goes. Once you digest it you'll realize that "candidate for change" really means a junior Mugabe who is absolutely dedicated to the proposition that you, your gun rights, your property rights, your free speech, your amendment 1-10 rights inclusive and all your other civil rights which stand in the way of his idea of a socialist paradise will be removed one way or another. And it won't be pretty.
My 2 cents worth. As long as I was looking through Wikipedia I decided to come back and put in a tangential link to an article about the Iroquois Confederacy for those of you who trace the US Articles of Confederation and US Constitution in that direction instead of the European direction. One should look in this direction to see the strong cultural basis for the common acceptance of RKBA in America.
Those who call themselves "progressives" espouse the political theory of utilitarianism or "the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility" and welfarism, "the view that the morally significant consequences are impacts on human welfare".
Progressivism is distinctly different from Classical Liberalism as Progressivism is based on these two Consequentialist theories and uses Legal Positivism as its structure for government rather than Natural Law, the basis for Classical Liberalism. (Classical liberalism is based on natural law and Progressivist Marxism is based on utilitarianism...not the same.)
SO, let me break this down to something we all can understand. I'd recommend you actually read the link to Progressivism but skim the others just so you'll understand I'm not making up just how deep this depravity goes. Once you digest it you'll realize that "candidate for change" really means a junior Mugabe who is absolutely dedicated to the proposition that you, your gun rights, your property rights, your free speech, your amendment 1-10 rights inclusive and all your other civil rights which stand in the way of his idea of a socialist paradise will be removed one way or another. And it won't be pretty.
My 2 cents worth. As long as I was looking through Wikipedia I decided to come back and put in a tangential link to an article about the Iroquois Confederacy for those of you who trace the US Articles of Confederation and US Constitution in that direction instead of the European direction. One should look in this direction to see the strong cultural basis for the common acceptance of RKBA in America.
Last edited:
JC, Bruxley, Meek and Mild, etc. The vast,vast majority of the electorate would have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. It's like reading a Tom Clancy novel or a bunch of college professors trying to impress each other. It would be nice if the average voter considered any of this, but that's a dream.
"Change, Yeah Right, We Need That", about as deep as it goes.
"Change, Yeah Right, We Need That", about as deep as it goes.
JuanCarlos
New member
Oh ZeroJunk, now you've gone and depressed me. Though yeah, you're probably right. But like I was saying, I just don't get how this can be; I was taught about all the various campaign/propaganda strategies (like "glittering generalities") in elementary school. I pulled fifth grade out of my posterior, but I know I was young enough that worksheets and pictures were involved. You talk about college professors, but honestly this isn't rocket surgery. This is like a step above coloring.
Did I just go to a particularly fantastic school system or something?
I mean, when I hear short remarks on things like "change," "security," "family values," "the children," or a handful of other popular buzzwords (and again, both sides have them, and they share many of them) I know I can generally just disregard whatever is being said. Not always, of course...there is that rare moment when somebody actually has something of substance to say in regards to one of these. But most of the time.
Also, some interesting reading there MeekAndMild. Obviously not all of these candidates are using "change" as an entirely empty buzzword; many/most really are looking to make actual changes, and some of them are...well, not so great. But the whole "change candidate" thing is not new, has not been exclusive to liberals or progressives, and is a pretty blatant vague call to emotion. If I have time later I may be back to respond more to what you brought up, though.
Did I just go to a particularly fantastic school system or something?
I mean, when I hear short remarks on things like "change," "security," "family values," "the children," or a handful of other popular buzzwords (and again, both sides have them, and they share many of them) I know I can generally just disregard whatever is being said. Not always, of course...there is that rare moment when somebody actually has something of substance to say in regards to one of these. But most of the time.
Also, some interesting reading there MeekAndMild. Obviously not all of these candidates are using "change" as an entirely empty buzzword; many/most really are looking to make actual changes, and some of them are...well, not so great. But the whole "change candidate" thing is not new, has not been exclusive to liberals or progressives, and is a pretty blatant vague call to emotion. If I have time later I may be back to respond more to what you brought up, though.
No. I think people accumulate their beliefs in a manner that they probably do not understand themselves. Once beliefs are acquired they are almost unchangeable. If there is a good argument against what you believe, it just makes you mad. And, the better the argument is the madder you get. But, in the end very few ever change their mind once it is molded in adolescence or whenever. It's true with religion ,politics, etc. So ,you trying to change Bruxley or vice versa is a waste of time no matter how articulate either of you are.
MeekAndMild
New member
ZeroJunk I'm sorry but I was using their words not mine. You can gather all this information from listening to their rhetoric and then going to wikipedia to look up the words. Its scary just how deep is the 'kim chee' here.
Bottom line is that the change they want is to make sure their voters get plenty of other peoples money to spend and the other people i.e. you and me don't have the power to prevent it. I didn't throw in the Mugabe reference for fun. He was the ultimate candidate for change and his entire country is starving.
Maybe they'd understand the movie Idiocracy?
JuanCarlos, I'll tell you that it is really dangerous to assume that the candidates for change are airheads. They want us to assume the phrases are just empty words. Do you recall the war between Israel and Egypt where for months Egypt had drills every couple of weeks? They loaded up their infantry and tanks on boats, armed their air force et cetera and then went out halfway across the Suez Canal. Then they would turn back and unpack. Well at first the Israelies were on guard but then they got tired of the game and started saying 'its just the Egyptians rattling their swords again'. Then one day the boats didn't turn back and Israel was caught with its pants down.
Bottom line is that the change they want is to make sure their voters get plenty of other peoples money to spend and the other people i.e. you and me don't have the power to prevent it. I didn't throw in the Mugabe reference for fun. He was the ultimate candidate for change and his entire country is starving.
Maybe they'd understand the movie Idiocracy?
JuanCarlos, I'll tell you that it is really dangerous to assume that the candidates for change are airheads. They want us to assume the phrases are just empty words. Do you recall the war between Israel and Egypt where for months Egypt had drills every couple of weeks? They loaded up their infantry and tanks on boats, armed their air force et cetera and then went out halfway across the Suez Canal. Then they would turn back and unpack. Well at first the Israelies were on guard but then they got tired of the game and started saying 'its just the Egyptians rattling their swords again'. Then one day the boats didn't turn back and Israel was caught with its pants down.
Oh and JC, besides hitting the nail on the head, you also left out homosexual marriage, Flag Burning, "terrorism" and other buzzwords that inspire fear and loathing of the opposing party. Those are designed if not to vote for the candidate using the words, to vote against his opponent.
- Status