But what will THEY say? Why we vote based on what WE think is right, not what THEY want

[robbedvoter]

A lot of stupid decisions in Congres were made based on the "what will they say" concept.
The Patriot Act, IWR, condemning Moveon...
Now some posters whose real intentions I question, bring this RW intimidation tactic to the elections - here, on DU:

I've seen already on several threads (attacking either of our two candidates) that we need to run our election in accordance to "their" standards
Like this anti-Obama thread started by a Coulter fan and recommended multiple times
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4024473
or this anti-Hillary thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4031459&mesg_id=4032156

A few points:
"THEY"didn't win a national election since 1988
"THEY" - will say anything:
lies- Hillary & Obama are pink commies who will take your bible away and force you marry someone of the same sex
slurs - "but a woman/black man can't be elected in America - not my opinion, my friends' and neighbors'" of course

And a special place in my heart goes to the "unity" BS:
That luminary, Mike Bloomberg should dictate our primaries now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4018301
or, let's not forget listening to this up and coming Journalist, Karl Rove:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4017722

We need to stop listening to "THEM" .
I'd love not to see the "work" of Rove, Paglia or Dowd given credence on DU.
It's now a two candidates race - I'd love to not see here objections connected to race or sex - under the convenient cloak of "electability"

Also, keep in mind, that like in 2004 when we had freepers posing as Dean supporters to create havoc in the primaries, we seem to have pretenders of both candidate. Look at the argument before recommending a thread just because you think it favors your candidate.

[Mythsaje]

1. It's NOT a two-person race YET.

Though they'd sure like you to think so.

[robbedvoter]

3. "They"?

As my OP shows, I pay no attention to "they". I made my judgment based on a host of factors which I learned how to read in 2004.Not buying into hijacking my thread, but saying "they" do not tell me what to think.

[Mythsaje]

4. You know quite well who THEY are.

And if you don't want your thread "hijacked" don't start it with a bullshit assumption.

[robbedvoter]

6. I am assuming you refer to MSM - and telling you my "BS assumption"

is based on my own judgment based on facts I observed here and in direct news (as opposed to spin)

[Mythsaje]

7. Sure. Whatever. n /t

[Fresh_Start]

2. There is a true dichotomy in what we expect of our government

we want them to listen to the people except when we don't want them to listen to the people

I for one, want a government that listens to the people rather than a government that decides what is best for the people
and I'll take with that the bad that sometimes the people are wrong.
People wanted extreme measures after 9/11 (I didn't I was even against war on Afghanistan, I wanted black ops on Al queda).
People wanted welfare reform when Clinton did it.

The biggest problem with what the people want is that we don't have a good news reporting process anymore. We have entertainment news. We have soundbytes so people make lots of bad decision based on biased views of fed to them. We have corporate control of the news which paints a corporate friendly view of the world.

[robbedvoter]

5. All good points. "THEY" for me however was "GOP and their MSM propaganda arm"

rather than the government. The "dialogue establishers".

[Fresh_Start]

8. the problem was never the GOP itself

as indeed the problem was never Bush himself

It was that the citizens bought the BS that the GOP or Bush sold them and the citizens allowed their government to do wrong.
We need to expect that everyone in power will be corrupted by the power to some degree.
We need to be vigilant against our government whether its a Republican government or a Democratic government.
It serves its own needs first before it ever considers our needs.

[robbedvoter]

9. Somehow, you use "government" the way Rue Paul woud...when in fact there's

a cabal of corporations/neocons/ that are using the government to serve the politics of one party that cannot get elected democratically at least since 1988.
It's not the government who tells us whom to vote for. The government is used by the corporations, neocons to manipulate elections through media, dirty tricks,diebolding
etc.
We hold elections because we want power over the government - which is to serve us indeed - rather than be "the enemy" or the peeping Tom or the warmonger.

Somehow, the words "vigilant" and government" in the same sentence raise my libertarian BS radar.

[Fresh_Start]

10. elections do not give us power over the government

You read me wrong. I don't want the government vigilant over us. I want us vigilant over the government.
Like the recount discussion. Whats the point of the recount if you have the same people doing it? If you didn't trust them to do it to begin with, you can't trust them to do the recount.

I want citizen oversight of government all the time, not just at election time.

[robbedvoter]

11. Me too- but to me, in this context, government is the goal, the prize not the enemy

And we should get some control over the government if we are able to elect a candidate who shares our views on war/peace, civil rights, separation of church and state etc. That kind of control.

[Fresh_Start]

12. Government is not our friend

at its best, its a tool and its worst its an enemy

Its not enough to pick a candidate. We all need to get more involved in what our government does