Earmark Voting?

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by Mirage, Sep 19, 2008.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I thought I'd get this thread going in response to some comments in another thread I made recently. Is it really "smear campaigning" to point out a political candidate's stance on a given issue? In politics, when a bill has extra laws or stipulations attached to it or included in the text it's considered an "earmark".

    Also, on the issue of smear campaigning. Elections are not won by showing how much better one candidate is than the other. Elections are won by picking the best of the worst.

    I think when voting for a candidate you have to pay attention to all of their stances, not just the ones you agree with. If their stance on certain issues is something you are strongly against or against at all, I think you need to come to terms with that stance before voting for said candidate. If you vote for somebody and disagree with them on a major issue, by voting for them you are still supporting that issue whether you agree with it or not.

    You aren't ever going to find a perfect candidate that you can agree with 100% of the time, but by voting for somebody you are essentially saying that you will tolerate their stances.

    It all comes down to which stances you are willing to tolerate over others. It's more than just how many issues you agree with or disagree with. I think that certain issues have more weight for different people. Can we agree there?
     

  2. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Guns. It's simple... McCain is no day at the beach, but looks like Charlton Heston next to Obama. You are correct with your statement.
     
  3. Malificus

    Malificus Likes snow

    When you keep proving godwin's law time and time again, yes, it is.
     
  4. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Pointing out stances is influenced heavily by:

    1) what language is used
    2) what sources are cited

    Often most political threads that discuss one candidate or another use disingenuous terms (fascists for Republicans and socialists for Democrats), or cite explicitly partisan sources, many of which are special interest groups that have a history of poor fact-checking.
     
  5. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Earmarking, does not really sit in the same boat as smear campaigns.

    Smear campaigns play a legitimate if not slightly seedy role in elections, however there are limits of how that information is put forward.

    I will comfortably assume that those comments in another thread were mine. I will elaborate on what I wrote there by saying it is not dissimilar to chivalry.

    Take these two examples, both will be on the same topic, from the same side of the fence and both will possess the same information displayed in an entirely different manner, do not be concerned over the topic being discussed but try and associate the differences in how the information is projected.

    However passionate or concerned you are over an issue there is still an appropriate etiquette to how an issue should be addressed and discussed.

    To be disgusted by an issue and publicly address it, is nowhere near the same as using unanimous guilt on the opposition by writing an article using nothing more than a derogatory and disparaging rant.


    Using Sample 2 I can conclude my own views on the subject, I can move onto condone or discourage the viewpoints. Meanwhile using Sample 1 I have already been told my views on the subject, I have been labelled an advocate of infanticide regardless of my own thoughts of the subject.

    Throwing terminology around loosley and lightly may not be the correct thing to do but it is commonly acceptable, however it is clearly different than using assertive and disparaging statements as they are both offensive and undermining and have nothing to do with politics.
     
  6. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Just because it bears repeating: "abortions" on babies born alive were illegal according Illinois state law prior to Obama ever voting on a bill which only served to potentially subject abortion doctors to more lawsuits. It's a common tactic by extreme pro-lifers to characterize a bill as banning some practice almost everyone finds indefensible (whether it happens to already be illegal or not), while the real intent is entirely different.
     

Share This Page