The General US Politics Thread

No, National Defense isn't the only thing the Gov should be concerned about. We have wonderful programs like NOAA, OSHA, FDA and a huge bunch of other things that set and enforce reasonable standards, educate and/or inform the Public on hazards and stuff.

Skatepunk: You would be surprised how liberal I sound compared to a number of people I know. Who knows, that might make me a moderate.

edited 12th Oct '12 2:53:24 PM by pvtnum11

Well I'm glad you say that. But I've heard plenty of people basically say if its not in the constitution, the federal government should have zero involvement.

But half the things they take for granted aren't in there. Politics is never about constitution. It's about the conventions and unwritten norms that are created as such. For example, you don't really need to have two parties, but, you do, as a convention that developed.

Or something.

You do realize that pvtnum isn't a true conservative by the standards of people like tea-partiers, right?

^ I think in a way the U.S. Constitution has inadvertently lent credence to a belief that we or I (whoever is talking) can do everything better by starting over from scratch and doing everything ourselves.

edited 12th Oct '12 2:56:38 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

It stretches credibility to the breaking point and beyond to suggest, in all earnest, that The US Constitution, as good as a document as it is, was designed to address every and any sort of issue. It's just a framework, a set of guidelines that tells the Gov how it's supposed to operate. Of course it's not going to mention Abortion, or the FDA or NOAA or PBS or practically anything else one would care to mention.

It's rules on how to write more rules, basically. Follow those rules and we're fine.

QFT

Now please, please go explain this to everyone who is an extreme strict constructionist—or worse, a literalist.

By my standards, Obama is a conservative, and he appears to be more conservative than Obama.

I think I'll explain it to them like this, in the form of a question:

"Is the Consitution most like the rules on how to play a game of football, or is it most like the rules on how to referee a game of football?"

It's not a perfect analogy in my eyes, but I think it works to illustrate the concept. Right?

Norton, by your standards, I'm a conservative.

^^ I think that works. That's a great idea.

And I like how you're choosing to pose it as a question: It gives your audience a chance to interact, and also makes them less defensive compared to hearing a rant.

That's a wonderful analogy! I should use it sometime.

Damn straight you are!

edited 12th Oct '12 3:14:37 PM by deathpigeon

Well, there's the question - is the Government refereeing the game properly? Do we have too many refs? Not enough? Are the calls being made properly? Is one team getting preferential treatment?

Yes, individual viewpoints will impact that - your team gets a bad call, or one that you disagree with, and of course you'll contest it. Your team gets a call in your favor for another first down, and duh - you'll be thinking the system is working great.

But provided that the refs- er, the Goverment - is following their rules, we have a functional government.

...And, now, you've lost me on this metaphor. I mean, I'm sure it's a great metaphor, but it requires more knowledge of football than I have to get.

Right now we have a problem wherein both teams have figured out that they can bribe the refs. Since the refs are the ones deciding what the rules are, it becomes a game of bribery one-upmanship, with the occasional honest player yelling that the game is rigged and being ignored.

edited 12th Oct '12 3:36:52 PM by Fighteer

...And, now, I'm imagining Gary Johnson on a soccer field yelling at a ref...

And, yes, I know that the metaphor was football, but it was an involuntary imaginationer... or whatever its called.

edited 12th Oct '12 3:39:56 PM by deathpigeon

"And I like how you're choosing to pose it as a question: It gives your audience a chance to interact, and also makes them less defensive compared to hearing a rant."

Indeed, audience interaction is a lost art. Passive observation and debate structure leads to a lot of people standing around saying nothing. I'm hoping the town hall debate will be more of a conversation between audience and presidental hopefuls.

Also I expect to hear a lot of who "won" again instead of what was said.

Alright, if the stupidity in this nation has accomplished anything, it's been accomplishing itself in pissing me off. And thus, I've been trying harder and harder as a citizen in my community to tip the odds in our favor.

Recently, a Young Republicans Club was set up in our school, but only due to opposition towards us, rather than any want or need to support Romney.

We're planning to have a Debate with them, and it might be up in front of alot of the school. We're planning to absolutely tear them apart.

I can't wait for this, to be honest.

Do you guys have any tips on how to properly argue with the more extreme, immature Republicans?

Memorize some variation of the phrase "That is completely false/wrong." Then use it, but only when something's absolutely wrong, not just a different slant or prejudice than your own.

Can I point out if something's a bit ignorant/backwards, or do I just let it slide?

All I can say is, make a point of bringing facts and analysis to the table. Channel Krugman. Show employment gains under Democratic versus Republican administrations, compared with deficits.

If they bring up morality, turn it back on them. Ask about the morality of letting poor people suffer death and starvation.

Hammer home that they have no proof or evidence of the things they are saying.

edited 12th Oct '12 3:47:00 PM by Fighteer

Go to this site and do some research on any talking points you think they might use. Memorize figures, names, dates, credentials, etc. and be ready to debunk anything they could possibly throw at you.

I'd also suggest looking at this site. Now don't just say "X said they lied." Instead look at the analysis and find out why they're wrong or right. Also take a look at the promise meter on the right side so you can easily rebut the tired "Obama doesn't keep his promises!" talking point with concrete examples.

edited 12th Oct '12 3:53:36 PM by Kostya

Try not to be too antagonistic. Force your opponent over the edge and make them the villain. Speak in a calm and comfortable manner.

Furthering the analogy, the general public, to a degree, has their favorite team that they support. So of course they go ape when a ref calls a bad call - or one they simply disagree with. Then they get all rabid about supporting their team, by buying jersies, bumper stickers, and God help you if you are wearing the wrong jersey in certain parts of town...

So now we're poised to either oust a set of refs for another set, or we'll keep the existing set for another four years - and the refs all view and interpret the rules a little differently from one another.

"This ref supports my team, so I'll vote for him" and "that ref totally ignores that rule, so of course you support that guy" and "this ref makes bad calls all the stinking time and if you vote for him, you're an idiot" and all sorts of stuff in-between.

Sports and Politics - more alike than I had feared.

A good debate would be to refute their central point. If you unquestionably prove their central argument wrong, they have nothing. All they can do after that is retreat to their corner and lick their wounds. It's what we do here in OTC, right?

edited 12th Oct '12 4:06:02 PM by pvtnum11

@ cutewithoutthe

Don't assume they're extreme or immature.

Instead, be prepared to rebut their points using convincing arguments directed at the audience. Remember, you're not arguing against them directly; you're just arguing to convince the audience.

Feel free to use anecdotes and analogies to explain your points. Remember to what you want to do is to make issues—and your opinions on them—clear and simple to for people to understand.

Remember to call out your opponents if they try to bog you down in details and stress general points when they do. On the other hand, don't be afraid to bog them down in details yourself, questioning the legs their table stands on—especially if those legs are structurally relevant.

edited 12th Oct '12 4:06:47 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

http://despicabletweets.tumblr.com/post/33284591614/oh-so-i-guess-its-the-white-house-for-a

These people are immature though.

edited 12th Oct '12 4:16:08 PM by Thorn14