Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (171901)	7/1/2006 12:24:20 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

She will probably vote Republican by default, since it won't be GWB, but it would be with great reluctance if it is someone who pushes a religious and far right agenda. If the Dems would wise up and offer a candidate with a platform that reflected a moderate approach and solutions, rather than accusations about the current admin, I believe a lot of people would consider it. While the parties are governed by extremism, Neeka's article will remain valid and rapprochement is out. "Given a choice, people will choose to read, be among, watch, live with, worship with, vote with, people who are like themselves," This is just tribalism with a sheen of sophistication. Look at the SI threads. Great examples. And with it comes an inability to grant validity to other tribes' beliefs, or even to rationally consider them, with the result that the best that happens if you don't kill them (a nono nowadays at least in the US), is you obstruct them. It's an interesting phenomena. But if we are aware of it, we can try to get beyond our visceral reaction and actually listen to each other and attempt some kind of discourse. I dream.

To: John Carragher who wrote (171901)	7/1/2006 12:47:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

because the democrats would rather have the country run big debts than correct soc sec under republican adm I don't think that's fair. There is a legitimate difference of opinion over social security. The Dems don't want to move towards privatization. I don't agree with them but I have to recognize that as a legitimamte POV. Had Bush moved to reform social security some other way, you don't know that they would have blocked it. Further, privatization wasn't very popular with more than just Dems. Social security is a very popular program across the board and doing anything that appears to weaken it will get honest resistance. Privatization makes it less reliable. Lots of people want to keep the guarantee.

To: John Carragher who wrote (171901)	7/1/2006 2:02:14 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

Speaking as someone who voted for the man, the Democrats didn't have to do much to defeat Social Security reform because the White House did such a lousy job preparing the groundwork for the introduction of reform, informing the public about the benefits of the reform, and convincing most of the members of its own party sitting in Congress that this reform was the answer to the problem. It is not the only important item on the public agenda which this administration has failed to do so. Pick just about any subject and they have done a very poor job in communicating to the public. Thus, the abysmal poll ratings of the moment. As for the Democrats' electoral boogieman: You're right. And they will keep on using it until it ceases to work.