Some of the people...

[skyring]

OK, it was the end of a twelve hour shift at the end of a week of same and maybe I didn't express myself clearly.

I thank everyone for giving their opinion.

I agree with those who commentated, yes, if McCain had given better speeches, he might have won. That's the point. But that's not what the original poster was saying.

Here's my paraphrase, watering down the original poster:

...it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that, otherwise he might have won.

She wasn't saying that if he'd given better speeches McCain might have won. That's just stating the obvious. She was saying, in strong terms, that it was a good thing he wasn't more attractive to the voters. Otherwise he might have won.

Well, just how do you judge a political candidate? How do you make your mind up who to vote for? Wouldn't the things a candidate says in public be an excellent way of deciding whether to vote for him or her? Isn't that precisely how Obama won his magnificent victory?

I think that the original poster was saying that the people can be fooled by what a candidate says, but she can't.

She's not an American, but she knows better than the American people which way they should vote. Regardless of what the candidates actually say to their fellow Americans.

Well, I disagree with that attitude, and I disagree strongly. The bottom line is that in America, after more than two centuries the strong and thriving ancestral home of modern democracy, the voters get a chance to vote any way they please for whatever private reasons they have.

Comments

[drutt.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but from here it still looks like the end of a long week for you.

In your decision to paraphrase what someone else said, you're deriving a sentiment that frankly isn't there.

I don't get what your issue is here, sorry. *shakes head*

[reggiesgirl2.livejournal.com]

And I still say that I agree with her and that you are making something out of her statement that isn't there and never was.

IMO, had anyone else said the same thing, you would not have blinked an eye over it. I've now come to believe that you've chosen this route because of past bad feelings between you and the lady in question.

I'm through here. You'll believe what you want to believe no matter what we say.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe I read her wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

But I read a certain attitude towards the voting public into her comments, and it's an attitude I see and hear constantly. That the voters get it wrong now and then.

In a free and fair election, where the opinions and platforms are well-known and freely discussed, the voters can't get it wrong. That's the nature of republican democracy. Power flows from the people, not those who know better.

[newkaligula.livejournal.com]

"In a free and fair election, where the opinions and platforms are well-known and freely discussed, the voters can't get it wrong. That's the nature of republican democracy. Power flows from the people, not those who know better"

I ain't buying into anything here...and I don't even know what's going on, that's the truth.

But that is a good sentiment well expressed. Much debate could and obviously has flowed about this however!!

best wishes to pete!!! I'd duck my head mate

[skyring.livejournal.com]

It's not the supposed "bad feelings" that prompted my response, though you are quite right that I would have passed over it without comment if it were someone else.

It's several years of reading her posts on political points, gaining an understanding of her beliefs and attitudes, as expressed here and in other places. I'm pretty confident that, unless she's changed her opinions radically, I'm pretty close to the mark.

[atenea-nike.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I still don't get it.

I think that the original poster was saying that the people can be fooled by what a candidate says, but she can't.

What she said is what's written on her post. What you think she might be saying if you read between the lines is your own personal subjective interpretation. I read the same post and I didn't think she was saying that.

Neither did she say or imply that "she knows better than the American people which way they should vote".

In the end it all boils down to her having an opinion. Your previous post was all about defending everybody's right to have an opinion, no matter on what it was based, and on voting based on that opinion. Now all of a sudden you attack her opinion that Obama is a better choice and that McCain's campaign speeches were worse than his conceding speech.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to fight anybody's battles on their behalf, and that person in particular is exceedingly well prepared to defend herself. It's just that I really, truly fail to see your logic in this subject. Oh well.

[lizmopuddy.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry Pete, yet again I have to agree with everyone above. You are reading sentiment into the post, that simply isn't there. I, too, have been reading posts from the person in question for many years, and I must say, there is usually no doubt about what she is saying, and I don't think there is any hidden agenda here either.


In this case, I believe you are wrong, and this is not an opinion on a topic, but a personal attack on a poster, so as I previously mentioned, I believe an apology/retraction is in order.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

After sober, and not so sober, reflection, I think you're wrong.

I dare say that the Reverend Tim Costello thought that his plan to shield the voting public from candidates he didn't like was a capital idea, rather than an elitist and arrogant attack on the foundations of democracy.

And I see other people similarly blinkered. Zealots who put their own well-meaning notions above all. Maybe they act polite when they knock on your door in their neat suits, religious tracts in hand, but they follow a higher ideal than you and I, and they know better.

Looking back on the public postings of the lady in question, I see the same sort of attitude. I see years of frustration, hatred, anger and stress when discussing US politics.

I see a lot of other things. Some quite bizarre and rude posts in the BC forums.

Now, I wasn't writing to attack or offend anybody with my original post. I read her statement about McCain, and my response was immediate and unforced, as a general criticism of a certain attitude. I didn't mention anybody specifically.

My own reaction to Obama's election was heartfelt and positive. Realistically, I preferred Hillary Clinton, but that didn't happen. McCain, I thought, was far too old in mind and body, with a good chance of not lasting the term out, and Sarah Palin ready to step into his shoes.

But that's my opinion, irrelevant, largely kept to myself, and not founded exclusively on a hatred of Bush.

On the subject of hatred, the tone of the messages sent by this lady to my friends make any question of an apology or retraction doubly inappropriate.