People attacking each other in politics. What do you think?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's stupid.

You have a different view than a group of other people so they call you stupid or a moron and other mean names when you express you views or your opinion but group of people have the same views and opinions as you so they attack those other people who have different views than them.


For example. Few people say in a thread Bush is the worst president we ever had but other people who don't agree attack those people. Those people can also say they're stupid for liking Bush and supporting him. See what I mean?

It doesn't make any sense because it doesn't get anywhere. I think it's real childish and lame.

I used to do the same but I don't think I have ever called anyone names to their face in politics. I realized last year thinking other people are stupid because of their political beliefs or opinions or attacking them and calling them names to their face is really stupid so I stopped. They can also think the same about me because I have different thoughts or opinions than they do so that's why I say it's stupid to attack people for their political beliefs, their opinions, and their views because it doesn't get anywhere.

nah, you're stupid.

on a more serious note: this is politics... of course people will get angry.

Those especially that hate both the republicans AND the democrats.

What is more important to point out is that those either side of the political divide will often have opposing fundamental views on the nature of mankind and its proper social order. So conflict is inevitable. As for calling people names.... no comment.

You better have been joking or I don't like you if you were serious.
All I asked for what are peoples thoughts for people attacking other people in politics for their opinions and thoughts and views.

Obviously he was joking, the whole point of the joke was to call you stupid immediately after you expressed displeasure of mudslinging in political discussions. He included an emoticon to insure it was taken as a joke, but it was evidently insufficient.

As for the topic, I agree with you it is nothing less than disgusting and is one of the reasons I stay away from politics. When people get desperate, they get ugly (not unlike the recent "I hate Obama's pastor, so I hate Obama" thread).

It has always been my opinion that politicians running for elections will always put down their opposition, they should be made to fight it out with socks full of horse crap, the loser has to eat the sock.
I was very impressed with Barack Obamas speech last night, when compared to speeches by that shill Hillery and the senile old raciest McCain, Obama would have my vote if I could vote in the States.

I have a radical new idea, instead of mudslinging and going around making promises which we all know they can't keep, why don't the politicians campaigning for office simply present their resumes? After all, they are supposed to be working for US?

In my job, if I want to get promoted, I have to sit down and write at least a one-page paper explaning why I should get this promotion. In this paper I have to set out what goals I have accomplished since the last year, what my new goals are, and what my qualifications are. I have to explain in detail that I have met all the criteria established for the new position.

In contrast, it seems that all you need to become leader of the most powerful country in the world is to be an American-born citizen 35 years or older, with sufficient money to run a winning campaign. I would like to know from each one of the candidates what kind of experience and qualifications they are bringing to this position. Not what they are promising to do, and not how they are better than their opponent, but a simple statement of qualifications. Then let the voters decide.

If I were running for office, which I have absolutely no desire to do so, since I know I am not qualified, but if I were, that is how I would conduct my campaign. Here is my resume of accomplishments . . .

I don't mind when they are Politicians are sticking to the issues or contrasting themselves with other candidates, but I get turned off when it get's personal. Which Texas politicis usually does.

I want to see the candidates play a game of Risk, televised. Or at least Monopoly or poker. Candidate-lympics. Tests for reading comprehension, IQ, ... other stuff. Cornball stuff, but if they can't do the cornball stuff, no way they can proceed to play with fire in the White House.

There are 3 things in this world that can be argued infinitely and will never get anywhere:

Politics

Religion

Music

Well. I don't think you're stupid. I think he was joking, or teasing.

There is a reason discussions on politics devolve into name calling and personal attacks. The reason is that most people hold political views based on emotion rather than rational thought. When you look at the logical premises, most political arguments amounts to "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story". Without invoking emotional appeals, including ad hominem attacks (i.e. name calling), there's often nothing of substance to argue.

very true marshall. While I don't find it absolutely necessary as I thought I made it quite clear that I was being "stupid" when I called SpokaneGirl stupid. but alas...

as for the point you make about being not much ground in political debate. It is very true. Because politics tends to rest on Ethics, which rests on epistemology which rests on metaphysics. Our political choices will rest on our very fundamental view of reality and existence. So when people often debate about politics the assumptions that ground many of the assertions are left unnamed... so when you do that you have little recall but to state conclusions then resort to name calling.

Probably doesn't help when us Aspies lack the ability to take perspective of another person easily.

Lot of people are narrow minded in politics and religion. Lot of us think we're right, think whoever doesn't know the real truth is stupid, blah blah blah because they don't want to read something that is against their beliefs or they might not want to hear what you want to say. Like my mother said when I was 19, people will only want to hear what they want to hear, not want to know the real truth but lot of us don't even consider we could be wrong about what is really going on, we just think we're right. That is narrow minded.
An open minded person would consider they could be wrong what they think is right, they will knowledge it's their opinion, they won't get so upset about what someone thinks that is so different from their views. If they do feel upset, they won't attack the person. They will just respect their opinions. They might also like to hear other peoples thoughts because they want to see what they say, even if they don't have the same opinons or views as them.
In politics, you need to be very careful whom you talk to about with it.

If there's one group I never associate with, it's close-minded people!

Oh. I agree. I have trouble understanding or empathizing with close minded people. When I look into their eyes it feels like I’m looking into a robot’s eyes. It's like their brains exist in an entirely different dimension from mine. What gets me the most is when people are so certain of their correctness that they refuse to concede a single point or admit a single error on their part. All their thoughts revolve around confirming what they already “know” to be true. I can’t imagine thinking that way without blatantly lying to myself.

considering that most people who talk about politics, talk like they have been brainwashed, it's not surprising people get discusted with them and call the names when they won't even listen to the other side of the arguement, never mind take it into consideration.

People suck. And in politics, this is especially evident.