I'm truly mystified by the enthusiasm that some supporters of either candidate are displaying...

[Solon]

for either candidate on DU. Now I may be an idiot, but my memory isn't so bad that I don't remember, only about 5 months ago, a lot of you were calling both Hillary and Obama centrist assholes, or at least words similar to that. How did that turn into "Gobama" or "Go Hillary" platitudes?

Granted I know many, particularly Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel supporters ended up settling for one or the other candidate when their chosen candidates dropped out. But where did all this enthusiasm come from? I settled for Obama myself, my second to last choice(Hillary is last, BTW), but I would loathe to see myself actually say that made up word, Gobama, in the context that many Obama supporters use.

Hell, I don't even call myself that much of a supporter, I simply no longer oppose his nomination, but even then, I go into it realizing that I settled for a guy that, frankly, I don't think is going to do much for anyone when in office. I just think he would do less damage than either Hillary or McCain, that's about it.

I don't know, I'm just mystified by the whole thing, a lot of things mystify me, I don't understand sports fans that much, indeed, I don't know why people get excited by a bunch of rich assholes that win games for a paycheck. I don't understand the 4th of July either, or the patriotic attitudes it fosters. Hell, I don't even understand Patriotism, emotional attachment to arbitrary lines drawn in dirt, how silly is that?

Maybe I'm just not that much of a follower, of anything, I frankly don't know.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. We get it. You're terminally unique.

Whatever, Snowflake. :eyes:

[Solon]

3. Thanks for being polite!

:hi:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Hey, I didn't cuss you out or anything.

So I was polite. :)

[Solon]

7. Oh hell, you should see me around 4th of July, when some posters...

Post empty patriotic platitudes about this country and I eviscerate them brutally, usually with facts and figures about the "Great" USA they are so proud of.

[cali]

43. there was nothing polite about your OP

it was a simple case of me, me, me. I'm so much better than most people here. good for you.

[redqueen]

52. Hahahaha...

sometimes you really crack me up!

Your post there reminded me of the people who go on about how they don't even own a tv.

OoooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooh! :P

[leftstreet]

2. You don't understand the 4th of July? You Communist!!!!1111

:hi:

For a lot of people this primary has turned into a DLC vs DNC thing. Plus, I don't think anyone's been worried about McCain, so the assumption is that the Dem Primary winner is the next POTUS.

[Solon]

4. I understand blowing shit up with fireworks, that's the only reason I like the holiday...

:D

However, as far as DNC vs. DLC, well, I don't like either, to put it frankly, so I don't have a bone in that fight. I said I wasn't much of a follower, that includes political parties.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

74. It's not just about blowing shit up, Solon ...

It's also about beer and burgers.

Get with the program.

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

6. That's baffled me, too. I don't understand the passion FOR either of these two.

I understand having a strong dislike for Clinton. And I understand passionately wanting this race to be over.

But being in love with either? Nope, don't get it. Didn't get it with Edwards, either.


Gore? That's a candidate you can fall in love with. Or even Kucinich, if he's your type. Not these guys though.

[Solon]

8. Even in the case of Gore or Kucinich, the largest concession I can make is that they are acceptable.

Sounds sad or cynical, but at least I would be voting for them rather than against their opponent.

[Eric Condon]

30. Kucinich is just "acceptable?" Seriously?

I understand and always sympathize with complaints that major Dem politicians are too centrist (and indeed, I don't even think of the Clintons as centrists, they're full-on conservatives). But Kucinich?

I'm a pretty hardcore liberal, and I don't see how American politics could possibly ever get much better than Dennis. He's one of the good guys.

My question is basically, if you really find Dennis merely "acceptable," then what DO you want?

[Solon]

34. I agree he's one of the good guys, however, that doesn't mean I don't have disagreements...

If you look to the graph I linked to in post 12, and compare it to the graph in post 11, you can see that I don't agree with him 100%, not even close, we are in the same quadrant, but I'm much further to the left of Kucinich, and more freedom conscious too. From my perspective, Dennis Kucinich is a Center-Left candidate, which is far and away better than either Hillary or Obama, who are both Center-Right. Mostly I think my biggest difference with Dennis Kucinich is in priorities rather issues themselves, but that can create a huge difference.

As far as what I want, a good Socialist candidate, or hell, even an outright Marxist would be acceptable to me as well. Understand that saying "acceptable" is actually a huge concession for me, and I really can't believe I'm saying it about Gore, but he's been drifting leftward for years now, ever since 2000.

[Seabiscuit]

21. So why do you post

threads full of Gobama chickenshit bullshit like this? -http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5677376&mesg_id=5677376

[redqueen]

53. Gore? DLC member from when it started?

I know he's done a great job reinventing himself... but really?

[Guaranteed]

76. He's the greatest leader we have right now. nt

[redqueen]

77. Just recognize that he's no different from other politicians. (nt)

[mcctatas]

9. I know, I know

"Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"...
or some shit like that!:evilgrin:


per the big dog!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305070522AAyzB4Y

[The Magistrate]

10. You Make An Interesting Point, Sir

And are correct in your recollection.

My guess is that five months from now, you could make a similar post, expressing wonder why so many who ardently supported the candidate who gets the nomination are now so unsparing in criticism of his or her campaign positions and tactics....

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

[Solon]

13. Yeah, I probably will, and, to be truthful, I don't belong to any political party...

The Democrats are far too conservative for me. I'm somewhat glad I live in an open primary state so I can at least vote for the candidate I wanted, though this year he dropped out before my primary was scheduled.

ON EDIT: Perhaps the most amazing thing is the uncritical support for candidates that occurs, posters that eviscerated these two candidates 5 months ago on their positions on certain key issues now either stopped criticizing them at all, or they sugarcoat their own differences with their chosen candidate. This is why I'm skeptical of supporters' claims that they will hold their candidate accountable after the election. I don't see how they can accomplish that, the candidate will be safe and secure till the next presidential election rolls around, why would they listen to you AFTER the election already occurred. And this is assuming the supporters actually want to hold the candidate accountable, which is doubtful.

[The Magistrate]

15. Sen. Edwards Quit Just Before My State Came To The Polls, Sir

It caught me, and most of my family, flat-footed.

Though we come at this, clearly, from different grounds, our attitudes have some similarity. All of the leading candidates this year seemed, and seem, to me to be excellent material, both as potential Presidents and as potential candidates, and also seemed to me to be different 'flavors' or aspects of the same basic thing, so that it was difficult to choose between them, and any choice, once made, was not too firm, since all were acceptable and no serious differences divided them. It is still my view that there is not much difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama in terms of substance, but only in style. Accordingly, a great deal of the commentary here mystifies me as much as it does you.

[Solon]

18. Yeah, it just seems to me that people are fighting over personality and style over issues...

to be honest, I prefer fighting over issues, at least then the disagreements matter! I generally have contempt for our system of government, and this is a classic reason why, its too damned personal too damned often. Instead of candidates debating over issues that matter, people ask them how their marriages are going! I don't give a shit about that stuff, tell me what you are willing to do for me! That's the job you are applying for, why not actually apply for it!

Its like me going into an interview for a job, and the guy hires me because I have a family, and not for any other reason. That's just stupid.

[The Magistrate]

25. Indeed, Sir, A Fight Over Issues Is Preferable

Unfortunately, the focus on personalities is not going to go away, and it does not seem to me to be unique to our country, but rather a part of the democratic process when engaged in on a large scale. Electoral politics is a process of forming group identities, with the largest group winning. This is an emotional experience, not a rational undertaking: people must not only like someone, but feel he or she is somehow like them, if they are to identify with them. The larger the mass to which it is necessary to appeal in order to collect the largest group in their division, the simpler the appeal must be, and the more calculated to stir emotional response.

There is a story told of Gov. Stevenson, running against Gen. Eisenhower in the fifties: someone told him he had the vote of every thinking American, and he supposedly replied "But I need a majority."

[Solon]

28. heh, I remember hearing about that...

He was right too, and so are you.

I know its not going to go away, its just frustrating that people are fighting over what I like to call "fluff". Democracy is a messy affair, and the process and results aren't always what we hope for, still, at least I get to vent about it.

[The Magistrate]

33. A Pleasure To Find Some Points Of Agreement, Sir

Happy hunting!

[Writer]

60. Kudos to you and the OP for what is the most lucid exchange I've read in a while.

To me, voters using personal reasons to make their choices is not a mystery to me, but what is a mystery is this: Why must we always have an enemy? I wonder if the Internet has fueled a type of tribalism in which each group amasses into its own echo chamber, reinforcing its world view until anything challenging that world view is simply intolerable, if not heresy. Unfortunately, I believe that these "tribes" view hatred as a perfectly acceptable means of dealing with alternative viewpoints. It's just fine to hate, because not to do so might invite dissembling questions into the tribe, and for members of the tribe that is exceptionally threatening.

[The Magistrate]

64. Thank You, Ma'am

Mr. Solon and I do disagree on many things, and doubtless on some future occasion will be displaying side-teeth to one another over them, but his leader here struck me as both apt and helpful, and we all here on the forum do best when we focus on what unites rather than what divides us.

Enemies seem to be essential to group definition: if no one is out, how can anyone be in?

[Solon]

72. Thanks...

I think we need enemies because that is what defines us. Whether we are talking about opponents in a political race, or enemies of a nation, it helps foster group cohesion. Not saying its ideal, indeed, its the opposite of ideal, it quite base. We can oppose people based on issues without stripping them of their own humanity in the process.

And on that note, I got to get ready for work, this elitist is off to work as a clerk at a gas station. Yeah, I fit the leftist ideal to a T. :D

[Bonobo]

65. One Cannot Focus on the Issues, Sir, When Such a Large Load of Horseshit is Flung About.

As that wry witticist, George Bernard Shaw, said:

"A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education."

[The Magistrate]

69. True Enough, Sir

And one reason for the fecal storm is to disguise how little real difference on issues exists.

Always a pleasure, by the way, Sir, to see a reference to Mr. Shaw: he is indeed the master, and the various prefaces to his plays among my very favorite reading matter. One of my favorites:

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

[madfloridian]

16. You two don't seem to get it.

We have our nominee already. Hillary wants to diminish him. She is teaming with Fox and Murdoch and Scaife.

What about that don't you get?

[The Magistrate]

17. It Does, Ma'am, Seem Likely Sen. Obama Will Receive The Nomination

The odds of another result are so slim that cool calculation would dictate withdrawl for Sen. Clinton. But people locked in a contest they have a great deal of themselves invested in seldom calculate coldly, and feel that however narrow and strait may be the path, they can thread the needle and bring it off, and generally there is no one near them by then who can or will tell them otherwise and make them listen.

[Seabiscuit]

23. 55% of PA voters won't "listen" to your "cool calculation" either, Sir.

And I say that 55% is worth fighting for.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Question To Me, Sir

Is generally not whether a thing is worth fighting for, but whether the fight for it can be won: it is very rare for a fight that cannot be won to be worth pressing.

[Seabiscuit]

27. So without predictably certain conviction in the Senate, you probably oppose Impeachment too, Sir.

You'd toss out principle and the rule of law that easily in favor of thinking you're on a "winning" team?

Lest ye forget, Sir, conviction in the Senate was far from predictably certain when Impeachment hearings began against Richard Nixon.

Everyone knows this race is far from over. Only the Obama supporters delude themselves into thinking/wishing otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

32. Actually, Sir

My view was, and remains, that impeachment in the autumn of '07, after suitable investigative groundwork in the preceeding months, would have been the best move. There are several reasons why, but the most important in this exchange is because the object of that fight would not have been removal from office, but the domination of headlines with the worst aspects of administration's criminal malfeasance, and the diversion of the enemy's energies into defense of the indefensible, and an office that would expire soon in any case. all of which would be wholly wasted effort. The object to be attained by a fight is not always the apparent objective....

Nor, Mr. Biscuit, are you on the mark in drawing from my assessment of the actual balance of power in this contest a conclusion that my support in it is given to Sen. Obama, any more than you would be in drawing from this disclaimer the conclusion Sen. Clinton is my prefered candidate. My comment above to Mr. Solon is true position: neutrality, on the grounds that the two contestants are both acceptable, and do not differ much either in platform or principle.

[Seabiscuit]

49. You certainly fooled me.

All that talk about no fight being worth pressing no matter how otherwise worthy if it can't be won, all that talk about how Hillary's personal investment prevents her from listening to what you label "the cool calculation" - i.e., the voices clamoring for her to quit the race. Sure sounds like Obamaspeak to me (despite a wafer-thin pretense of neutrality). Because you're just reiterating their talking points which attempt to justify demands that she quit.

Hardly neutral. Had you really been neutral in your post you would have pointed out that this is a very close race, and while Obama has an edge in delegates, Hillary has the momentum and is closing the gap in the popular vote (even excluding Michigan and Florida), and since neither candidate can attain the magic number of delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention, those voters in the remaining states should have the opportunity to have their votes counted as a matter of democratic principle. You would have pointed out the truth of the matter, that this race will be decided by the superdelegates at the convention because neither candidate can "win" without them, if the party's rules are followed. IOW, you wouldn't have focused purely on Hillary's supposed inability to "win". Or you at least could have remained silent at the risk of appearing foolish, rather than stand, speak, and remove all doubt.

While I am relieved that you did not oppose Impeachment in '07, I am disappointed that you supported it for the wrong reasons. Again, your justification fails to rise above trying to find a political strategy that is a "winning" one. While I would agree about the effect of the timing you outline, your position still focuses purely on political opportunism with no regard for principle and the rule of law. Which implies you opposed impeachment prior to '07.

BTW, my handle is "Seabiscuit", not "Mr. Biscuit".

[The Magistrate]

50. You Open Interesting Vistas, Sir, In Your Comments

You agree, for instance, both with my analysis of what real benefits would have accrued from a Bill of Impeachment last fall, and that there would be no prospect of conviction in the Senate, and yet manage to call me wrong-headed for having concluded that that would have been the proper course to take, and for regarding achievement of the gains available as a victory, and thus considering the fight one that could be won even though the result was not removal from office, and hence definitely worth pressing. Apparently, my reluctance to engage in ritual chants you are fond of is the sticking point....

Your conception of a neutral expression seems to me a very odd one, as it seems to require both touching on every possible aspect of a contest, and conveying the most optimistic view of the matter held by partisans of one side in the contest. On this ground, you are even willing to impute dishonesty to me, and to strongly imply that my support is actually given to Sen. Obama. But the analysis you give is an excellent illustration of the tunnel-vision towards low probability chances of success it seems to me afflicts the councils of Sen. Clinton's campaign today. You list a number of factors, every one of which must break to your candidate's advantage if victory is to be achieved: this sort of 'if this, then this, then this, and then this' program almost never comes off in real life. Things go wrong, something always goes wrong, and a plan with no margin for error or reverses typically fails of success when brought into contact with an opponent.

[Seabiscuit]

78. Whooaaa, Nellie!

I did not say I agreed that if there was a bill of impeachment last fall "there would be no prospect of conviction in the Senate". I merely agreed it would have been politically opportune timing. When you assume like that you make an "ass" out of "u" and me".

I pointed out, rather, that it appears that absent something to "win" you impliedly wouldn't support impeachment prior to 2007, because you still refuse to say whether or not you'd support impeachment without predictably certain conviction in the Senate, unless of course, there was some politically opportunistic payoff as you outlined (despite the fact that no predictably certain conviction in the Senate existed when the impeachment process was begun against Richard Nixon).

I didn't suggest "touching on every possible aspect of a contest", I merely pointed out what everyone knows: that *neither* candidate can "win" prior to the Convention and the final vote of the Super Delegates. You know perfectly well this is true, but instead are dishonestly promoting the phony "math" utilized *only* by Obamanoids, replete with their own versions of "probabillity" while completely ignoring the simple truth I just repeated again about the Super Delegates and the Convention. Using words like "cool calculus", etc. to declare the "improbability" of Hillary winning is hardly neutral. It's a well-known and oft-chanted Obamanoid daily mantra right here in this forum. The only thing you didn't do is demand she drop out immediately. Maybe that was another attempt to conceal your bias against her and promote your phony pretense of being "neutral".

It's obvious you're an Obama supporter. Why can't you just admit it without shame?

You're clearly not a Hillary supporter. She can't "win" according to you, and you've made it crystal clear all you're interested in is being a "winner".

Will you now pretend you support neither candidate?

I can proudly admit that since Edwards left the campaign, I am now supporting Hillary by default.

[The Magistrate]

79. As You Wish, Sir....

"I'm going home. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[Writer]

62. You've just encountered tribal mentality.

1) They must categorize you as either a tribal member or the "other"

2) If you fall into the latter category you are deserving (to their eyes) of hateful comments


It's ochlocratic rule, but on the Internet.

[Solon]

19. Obama is the presumptive nominee, by any measure I can tell, but that doesn't...

make me feel any better about it. Just because his opponent is an asshole doesn't make him the non-asshole in the race.

[TahitiNut]

11. Here's how it maps for me ...

My vote for Kucinich didn't "count" ... and would've reluctantly supported Edwards. As it is, Obama doesn't nauseate me like Clinton does. She's a bottom-feeding corporatist.

[Solon]

12. Here's where I'm positioned on that map...

To me, both of them are bottom-feeding corporatists, the difference is that Obama is slightly less so.

[TahitiNut]

14. (LOL!) Well, I'm at about -5.5/-5.5 ... between you and Kucinich.

We're among the VAST majority of DUers, too. It's truly BIZARRE that DUers get hyped over candidates so FAR from themselves ideologically. Self-denial may be a virtue, but that's fucking ridiculous.

[Solon]

20. Exactly, only .4% of DU would agree with either candidate on the majority of issues...

For the rest, they may agree with the candidates about 50% of the time, if that, and yet they are so excited, it just looks so stupid.

[Lord Helmet]

22. people just made a choice and decided to kick in

is that a problem or something? maybe it's you that has the problem

[anigbrowl]

24. I really don't know. I'm a long time supporter (mid-07) and have never said 'Gobama'.

Mind you I am the sort of person who tends to avoid union or political protests unless it's very important because I can't stand chanting, drum banging, and other pre-adolescent forms of political protest. I just find it terminally undignified - half the time the protest turns into some sort of impromptu street party or else some jerkoff in a balaclava decides now is the moment to stick it to the man by breaking a window. Being on the left is really embarrassing sometimes.

[madfloridian]

29. For hubby and me, it is becoming more anti-Clinton than anything else.

The way the campaign is being run is offensive to us. This was the year we could have won.

[Solon]

38. That's more or less the same reason for me as well...

but it does illustrate the sad state of affairs for both the party and country.

[bhikkhu]

31. Eight years of fear and loathing

Thats where it comes from, IMHO. Eight years of seeing things slide in the wrong direction, with every media assurance that this slide was normal and good and inevitable and irreversible. And now we have another election with two candidates who both kick McCain's ass in the GE - http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr24.html - and both have solid agenda's toward turning things around (obliterating Iran excepted).

I would guess the enthusiasm is that of a strong chance of winning in the fall, and how long we have been building up to this point...

[Eurobabe]

35. Elitist much?

[Solon]

36. What is elitist about my post?

[cali]

44. nah, not so much elitest

as representative of NPD.

[earth mom]

37. I hear ya. I think DU has been invaded by freeperville.

Have you noticed how many people posting in GD-P haven't donated to DU? :wow:

How can it be that there are so many people posting on GD-P right now that haven't donated? :wtf:

[cbayer]

39. It's the passion of wanting a change.

In 1968, it grew like this. Enough. Power to the people. Bring the troops home.

It is eerily reminiscent with the added ingredients of a woman and not white man.

Fascinating and needs to be harnessed for good.

Just my opinion.

[Solon]

40. Wanting a change, and actually getting it through your chosen candidate are two different things...

That's the danger right there, asking for change is fine, latching onto a centrist candidate to deliver that change is something else entirely.

[cbayer]

41. No argument there.

But what choice do I have? There is no peace candidate.

I don't understand the passion for each individual candidate. On the other hand, centrist is better than what we have now.

[Solon]

42. Yeah, its the lack of choice that really pisses me off...

If I feel any passion about anything, its passionate hatred against this two party farce we call Democracy in this country. I wouldn't mind having real, viable options for ANY elected office.

[cboy4]

45. I voted for Edwards in the California Primary, even though

he'd dropped out.

I'm not at all happy with Obama.

I'm kind of luke warm when it comes to Hillary.

But I am fiercely opposed to the behavior and all of the whining from Obama supporters who go on and on about why Obama is the nominee.

He is?

No.

Allow everyone to vote, and then we go from there.

[ScarletSniper]

46. "I don't understand sports fans that much"

Oh my, how could you not understand, dyed-in-the-wool, die-hard, kick ass take down the other team at all cost, no matter what, sports fans...lmao!

I'm one of them...lol

[kaybea]

47. I'm more policy than person oriented. If gov't could run effectively

and fairly by machine, I'd go for it. Qualities like charisma and leadership, while certainly real, don't hold the same appeal for me that they do for some others. Personal stories, personal connections (called nepotism in some situations) also hold no appeal for me.

[Jamastiene]

48. It's a pissing match at this point.

"They" piss us off with "their" attitude. Either side will tell you that much. So, we have a full fledged pissing match going on with flames that seem impervious to the moisture from said pissing match.

If you have any more questions, I'll be more than happy to answer those too, if I can. :D

[redqueen]

51. Transitioning for the GE.

It's routine.

[Aloha Spirit]

54. Dudes, I think the OP is asking for gratis psychological insight. Let's stick to the thread.

[Aloha Spirit]

55. In my unprofessional opinion the OP has transformed his/her fear of losing into a fear of competion

[redqueen]

56. You know... the more I think about this, the more arrogant and condescending it comes off.

First of all... this is not new. It's part of any kind of battle. Sports, since you brought it up, is merely an outlet for our competitive natures. We indulge in our desire to cheer on "our side" in these venues.

As for the candidacies... just as with sports, excitement and energy are important because they help to spread the willingness to support the candidate / team / whatever with $$$, energy, etc. It's not some kind of nonsense fluff that you can write off as meaningless just because you don't "get" it.


It's one thing for you to say you don't understand these things... but to do it as sneeringly as you have done is frankly disgusting.

Elitist much?

[harun]

59. He was referring to excess in sports, adults playing childrens games

to often tends to make them act like children.

Things like losing tempers, throwing tantrums, etc.

Pretty much all major sports fall in to that category today except for Golf. Which at least for now they still act in a dignified manner and dress in a dignified way while they play it.

[redqueen]

61. Ugh... spare me with the "dignified", PLEASE.

You act as if every sports player acts like a kid. That's hardly the case.

Sports that AREN'T boring enough to put one to sleep are supposed to arouse passion and excitement... and emotions sometimes lead to people acting in a less than vulcan-like manner.

I think those that would rather be vulcan than human are in the vast minority. And thank God for that.

[Solon]

66. Yeah, but where do the excitement and energy come from?

The problem as I see it is that people are becoming inconsistent themselves, almost as if they changed their own views to match that of the candidate they chose, even if, originally, they didn't agree with that candidate hardly at all. I find this fascinating and disturbing, all at once. If this observation, along with the rest of my OP seem condescending, I'm sorry, this is just my perspective on things. Just like how cheering on "your team" puzzles me, so does this.

[redqueen]

68. I haven't changed any of my views. I simply recognize what I view as the best candidate

and act accordingly.

As for where it comes from, that depends. Sometimes it comes from my desire to see more people sign up and help out... or it comes from seeing the excitement in others on the same "team". This isn't rocket science, it's basic anthropology.

It does seem condescending. You're looking at basic human behavior as if it's somehow inexplicable and it appears as if you consider it to be quite literally beneath you. You come off as being "above all that". I'm not the only person who got that impression from the post. Maybe it's us... but maybe not.

[Solon]

70. I view a lot of things about human behavior as puzzling...

and always thought of myself as a freak, and was abused appropriately for that throughout my school years. Whether I'm above all that or below it, I don't know, its just weird to me, that's all. I just don't develop strong emotional attachments to the "team" as you put it. I've always been this way, and it didn't matter what the team in question was.

[harun]

57. People like you are the reason I come to DU to chat.

Us 1 percenters aren't going to win any elections anytime soon but we can keep each other company :-).

[BlooInBloo]

58. You're so cool and cooly disaffectd and jaded. We all wish we could be so disaffected like you.

[knixphan]

63. Basketball

I've been a NY fan my whole life (hence the handle)

But when the Knicks lose in the postseason, I support the eastern conference team out of east-coast loyalty (Even after I relocated to LA, Lakers couldn't steal my east-coast loyalty)

But the point is, when my particular team goes down, allegiance shifts to the greater good

Hence Kucinich-to-Obama.

And if I have to shift to Hill in the GE, so be it - she'd still be the lesser of two evils.

But for now - hell yeah, I got enthusiasm! This is my government!

GOBAMA-

[marshall]

67. Maybe you could think about it in terms of family

Do you understand people adhering to their parents, children, and siblings--sticking to "arbitrary lines of genetics" when push comes to shove? It often doesn't make sense, but people do pick sides whether it's a country or a party or a family. I guess it's part of the human condition to form group loyalty.

[Solon]

71. Interpersonal relationships I understand, and they aren't as arbritrary as you seem to think...

Most of the time, those people you share genetic material with are people you were raised with, took care of you, and love you. Even people who don't share your genetic material you can love due to knowing them, becoming friends, adoptive parents, etc. The key difference, in my view, is this leap from the solid relationships due to familiarity and loyalty displayed towards lines in the dirt.

My question is always this, why is it that to become a patriot, one must become an enemy of humanity itself? I understand wanting the best for humanity as a whole over stopping that concern due to lines drawn on the ground. The human race includes all of us, if anything I'm a human patriot, not an American patriot. I care about humanity, and I don't stop caring about them just because of some line drawn on a map. That's the only type of "group loyalty" I can display, because its the only one that makes sense to me.

[marshall]

75. Not everyone thinks alike

I was trying to draw a parallel between something you can understand (family loyalty) and something you can't understand (country or party loyalty). Most people love their spouse or family differently than they love the townspeople or fellow citizens of a country or humanity as a whole--people make the schoices to love certain groups more than other groups. For families it is as you say because of a shared past. For country loyalty it is very similar--a shared experience of growing up in the same society.

[Lord Helmet]

73. you must be Xtra special at least in your own mind