This is something that bothers me

[freddy]

For some reason, its seems that a good answer to 'Obama lied' is 'Yeah, well McCain lied too.'

It seems like a good response for 'Palin is inexperienced' is 'Yeah, well Obama is inexperienced too'.

Do you know what I'm saying? Why is it considered a valid response to say, essentially 'So my team sucks but that doesn't matter because so does yours.' So, instead of thinking carefully about the issue at hand, we dismiss whatever is said about our guy and turn it back on the other guy because we don't really want to face it or deal with it. I don't understand why its considered a valid response or how it is useful in any way.

[seals]

As my Dad said to me constantly

or so it seemed when I was growing up: "two wrongs do not make a right." I'm not sure who said it first, but he sure said it a lot. And I'm passing it on to my DSs too. LOL

Sue

For some reason, its seems that a good answer to 'Obama lied' is 'Yeah, well McCain lied too.'

It seems like a good response for 'Palin is inexperienced' is 'Yeah, well Obama is inexperienced too'.

Do you know what I'm saying? Why is it considered a valid response to say, essentially 'So my team sucks but that doesn't matter because so does yours.' So, instead of thinking carefully about the issue at hand, we dismiss whatever is said about our guy and turn it back on the other guy because we don't really want to face it or deal with it. I don't understand why its considered a valid response or how it is useful in any way.

[Jeannie]

No no, the answer is "McCain lied more" or "Obama is more inexperienced"

[freddy]

No no, the answer is "McCain lied more" or "Obama is more inexperienced"

You have a point. Or, one of my favorites, the old subject change- 'Obama hangs with terrorists' met with 'Palin shoots baby wolfies'.

[Tonia1]

This bugs me, too...

It's basically a way for someone to shoot down what you said, and then you feel like you can't bring up anything, because it will just get met with, "Yeah, well, your guy's worse." Why is it so hard for some people to just admit there might be an issue with their candidate that's worth discussing? I guess because once we "pick a side" we feel the need to defend them to the end. I try not to do that, but I've probably been guilty of it, too, at times.

[zoeyz]

For some reason, its seems that a good answer to 'Obama lied' is 'Yeah, well McCain lied too.'

It seems like a good response for 'Palin is inexperienced' is 'Yeah, well Obama is inexperienced too'.

Do you know what I'm saying? Why is it considered a valid response to say, essentially 'So my team sucks but that doesn't matter because so does yours.' So, instead of thinking carefully about the issue at hand, we dismiss whatever is said about our guy and turn it back on the other guy because we don't really want to face it or deal with it. I don't understand why its considered a valid response or how it is useful in any way.

I've been thinking about this, and I think it is because conversations are starting with or digressing into accusations and insults. How is a person supposed to respond intelligently or thoughtfully when confronted directly with an all-out insult about the candidate they support? I think the points are valid, that there is a counter argument to the accusations, but the way they're brought to the conversation puts a person on the defensive immediately.

[Tonia1]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it is because conversations are starting with or digressing into accusations and insults. How is a person supposed to respond intelligently or thoughtfully when confronted directly with an all-out insult about the candidate they support? I think the points are valid, that there is a counter argument to the accusations, but the way they're brought to the conversation puts a person on the defensive immediately.

This is true, too. Sometimes questions aren't really questions, but statements or accusations in disguise. That's why talking politics is a tricky thing! It's so easy to get offended and take things personally. I think probably once a day I ask myself why I continue to come here, when it just gets me all worked up (and I think we're probably a relatively tame group)!

[freddy]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it is because conversations are starting with or digressing into accusations and insults. How is a person supposed to respond intelligently or thoughtfully when confronted directly with an all-out insult about the candidate they support? I think the points are valid, that there is a counter argument to the accusations, but the way they're brought to the conversation puts a person on the defensive immediately.

That does happen (on both sides), and it is hard to respond intelligently. Which reminds me of a quote attributed to Mark Twain: Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Not that I'm calling anyone a fool. Or a socialist. Or a plumber. Or a redneck.

[Jeannie]

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

So true. So true.

[zoeyz]

That does happen (on both sides), and it is hard to respond intelligently. Which reminds me of a quote attributed to Mark Twain: Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Not that I'm calling anyone a fool. Or a socialist. Or a plumber. Or a redneck.

I agree it's on both sides, no question.

I like the Twain saying!

[northy]

well, when i feel hopeful on this topic, i like to (m)

It's basically a way for someone to shoot down what you said, and then you feel like you can't bring up anything, because it will just get met with, "Yeah, well, your guy's worse." Why is it so hard for some people to just admit there might be an issue with their candidate that's worth discussing? I guess because once we "pick a side" we feel the need to defend them to the end. I try not to do that, but I've probably been guilty of it, too, at times.

think that the response should be interepreted as being "that's not the point"...

as in...

A: "i support X"

B: "but X lied"...

A: "well, so did Y, and since i have to choose between X and Y i am choosing X BECAUSE i like his/her views on bla bla bla..."

know what i mean?

i really don't believe that, if you have really thought about the issues, that you can support everything a particular candidate is in favour of 100%... but one still has to choose... i would say that i choose the candidate based on a few issues that are important to me... however, i may agree with the other candidate on other things...

and needless to say, if both candidates are flawed, and you are only judging them on their flaws then (a) something is sadly sadly wrong out there and (b) you are presumably choosing the one with the fewest flaws...

[TristaFL]

LOL! Perfect quote!!