Odd thought on friends and available categories

[redbird]

I mentioned this to wild_irises and she said to go ahead and post it.

If I'm ever tempted to think that my LiveJournal friends list is a valid cross-section of anything (with the possible exception of my social circle as a whole), I need only remember that there are more transgendered people on my friends list than there are Republicans (or Tories [1]). There may, in fact, be more space probes and fictional characters on my friends list than there are Republicans/Tories (and that is not an accurate reflection of my social circle as a whole).

If anyone who thinks I'm wrong about the numbers or proportions wants to come out as a Republican, please do.

[1] My first thought was just "Republicans," but considering the geographic distribution of my friendslist, it seemed only fair to throw Tories into the mix.

Comments

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

What's the political affiliation of the space probes? I know Rover and Opportunity aren't old enough to vote, but Voyager is. And some kids are politically active for years before they grow into voting. Might there be there lingering connections with politicians that pulled strings for funding?

[snippy]

I'm registered as a Democrat, but I'm probably voting Republican for president this year.

[ckd]

Even though you wrote this, which implies more than a little disagreement with GWB?

[snippy]

Yes. I think the risk that Bush will have any legally-enforceable effect on expansion of marriage rights is low. I think the war on terror is important, and I don't believe we need or should seek UN (or other ally group) approval of our actions. Although I abhore the civil rights violations the Bush administration has put in place, I believe they will be temporary aberrations. And there is no believable Democratic candidate that would have promised to protect my Second Amendment rights, and that's an issue on which I have occasionally been a single-issue voter.

My basic theory of voting is to pick the candidate who is the least risk to the issues I think important. There isn't a one of them I've ever seen that I actually agreed with on most of the issues I consider important.

I don't like Bush, but I'll hold my nose and vote for him over Kerry.

I would have been happy to vote for Edwards; I worked on his campaign and donated money to it.

[freeimprov.livejournal.com]

Dean had an A rating from the NRA.

(now i will hide behind my Deaniac buttons and hold my nose and vote for Kerry)

[snippy]

The NRA is an accommodationist organization that compromises too much and is too willing to focus on hunter's rights.

I am more closely aligned with the positions of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

[ckd]

I think the war on terror is important, too; so important that we should have used those extra troops in Afghanistan first before doing anything with Iraq. I also think that I want a president who'll create jobs...starting with John Ashcroft's. Habeas corpus? Medical records privacy? States' rights, as in the twice-passed Oregon death with dignity act? I think all of those are important issues, and Bush's AG has been swatting them all as hard as he can.

[snippy]

We disagree. That's fine with me; I understand that most people don't see things the way I do. But presenting me with the same facts I already have and expecting that to change my mind is naive. I *live* in Oregon, I'm well aquainted with what the feds are doing to our laws. I fully expect the citizens of Oregon to keep fighting--that's our history. We've voted down sales tax at least five times, and voted down pump-your-own-gas at least that many, too. That doesn't seem like an area of great risk to me, unlike fighting Muslim extremists, which I believe to be the most important (and most likely to lead to damage) risk western culture faces right now.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I think the war on terror is important

So why are you voting for Bush? He doesn't consider the war on terror to be important: certainly not important enough to override PNAC plans to divert resources from the war on terror and invade Iraq instead. And then there's the Plame Affair, and the lack of support for rebuilding Afghanistan, and .... oh, never mind. If you're determined to vote Republican, you probably will anyway. But be aware that if you do, you will be treating the war on terror as a mere electoral campaign issue, because that's all it is to Bush.

[snippy]

I disagree with your assessment of what the war on terror means, and I also disagree with your assessment of what it means to the president.

I don't think we have a huge interest in rebuilding Afghanistan, not nearly as much interest as we do in rebuilding Iraq.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I disagree with your assessment of what the war on terror means

I didn't say what I thought the war on terror meant.

and I also disagree with your assessment of what it means to the president.

Then you haven't been observing Bush's behaviour very closely over the past two and half years.

I don't think we have a huge interest in rebuilding Afghanistan, not nearly as much interest as we do in rebuilding Iraq.

Morally and ethically, I believe that the US has a responsibility towards Afghanistan, given that the war that damaged Afghanistan in the 1980s was essentially started by the CIA. Practically, the US can certainly afford the fifteen billion that it is estimated Afghanistan needs over the next five years. And given that the US attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 was justified by the claim that the Taliban supported al-Qaeda and that the al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan were the source of the attack on America on September 11, you would think that those who supported the attack on Afghanistan two and a half years ago, would not want the situation likely to arise in Afghanistan if the US refuses to support rebuilding Afghanistan.

But I guess if you think it unimportant that the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, and that the US can dismiss all responsibility towards the country it so greatly injured over the past twenty years, well, you're right, and so is Bush. But I disagree.

[peake.livejournal.com]

The war on terror may or may not be important - but that is one thing that George W. Bush has conspicuously NOT pursued. Rather than attack terror, he has attacked nation states. The war on Iraq was so ill-planned and so catastrophically executed that it has significantly increased the risk of terror around the world. The policy on Israel and the Palestinians has similarly increased the activity of terrorists. Bush policies have actually strengthened terrorism rather than defeat it - he has contributed to the threat that America and the rest of the world now face.

And in pursuing his so-called war on terror, he has systematically undermined those freedoms that he is supposedly working to defend. Homeland Security has restricted the rights and movements of Americans - and of visitors to America. While Guantanamo Bay is the greatest affront to civil liberties we have seen for many years. If a single American citizen had been subjected to what has been experienced by the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, any American president would have had to send in the air cav or face being hounded out of office. And believe me, Guantanamo Bay has been the greatest recruiting poster that al Qaida and other terror groups have ever had.

If the war on terror matters to you at all, you cannot, in all conscience, vote for Bush.

[snippy]

We disagree.

I didn't originally respond on this post to argue, I only wanted to explain my position. I certainly didn't expect to be challenged by so many people who seem to be interested in convincing me that I'm wrong, which I think is rude.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I certainly didn't expect to be challenged by so many people who seem to be interested in convincing me that I'm wrong, which I think is rude.

Let me see if I understand correctly: it's OK for you to state your opinions in public, but when other people state their opinions -- which happen to conflict with your own -- it's "rude"?

[redbird]

I had the same reaction you did at first, but on consideration, I think what's going on here is similar to a Usenet pile-on: she said her thing once, and four or five different people answered, often making similar points.

That can make a person feel put upon, even though each individual in the interaction is behaving reasonably. I don't have a good solution for it, but identifying the problem at least helps me be calm about it.

[snippy]

Yes, I think arguing with me when the subject was what variability there was in redbird's reading list and I commented to explain what category I filled is rude.

I didn't ask anyone to help change my mind, or to offer me facts and analysis to contradict my opinions. I have not asked anyone to agree with me, I have not argued with other people's facts and analysis. I simply explain my own. I don't care whether my opinion makes sense to anyone but me; I am not attempting to convince anyone that I am right; I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I only tried to explain why I will vote for Bush over Kerry. I'd much rather be voting for Edwards.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

If your only comment had been your original comment where all you said was that you were voting Republican, I'd agree with you. But by replying to ckd's and others' comments and elaborating your views, you invited debate. You can't have it both ways -- you can't give detailed expositions of your views in a public forum and expect people to refrain from stating their own views in response. If you truly didn't want to argue, the best strategy would have been to ignore anyone who replied to your original comment.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think arguing with me when the subject was what variability there was in redbird's reading list and I commented to explain what category I filled is rude.

FWIW, I do sort of half agree with you: you spoke up to identify yourself as a Republican, and shouldn't really have got piled on as a result. Even though I was one of the ones who did it.

[snippy]

Just to clarify: I am not a Republican; I have been a registered member of the Democratic party since I began voting (sometime in the early 1980s). I will likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but I am not changing my party affiliation.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

We don't do formal party affiliations in the UK: you're either a member of a political party (which is not usual) or you generally define your affiliation by the party you intend to vote for. (There is also an informal process of assessment "She's a typical Tory," or "very Old Labour", or "a natural LibDem", but this has no formal basis.)

I would consider myself to be in general a Labour voter, though the lies and hypocrisy of Tony Blair over the Iraq war have turned my stomach: at the last Scottish elections, I voted for my local MSP, who is Labour, because I liked him: my list vote went to the Green party, because I find more and more that the Scottish Green party matches my political views: and my vote for a local councillor went to the Scottish Socialist Party candidate. (I had been so focussed on the Scottish Parliament elections that I'd forgotten to think about the local council elections, and ended up picking the SSP candidate for a bunch of small reasons. She didn't get in.)

Generally speaking, I find that it makes more sense to define politics by the things I'm for rather than by party affiliation. So I'm basically a socialist and strongly for equal rights for all. At one time this would have meant I had to vote Labour, but Labour has been drifting rightward, and in Scotland there are other alternatives, thanks to our fairer voting system.

I know that in the US Democrats are right-of-centre (mostly rather like moderate Tories) and Republicans are further right than would ever be electable over here, and you basically don't have a national left wing party: your two-party system is much, much more entrenched than ours.

[redbird]

The war on terror might be important, if they ever actually decide to fight it. Refusing to reveal what, if anything, they knew or did about Al-Qaeda before 11 September 2001 is, I hope, covering up only embarrassment, rather than complicity. Taking money and troops away from fighting terrorism to attack Iraq does not reduce the chances that I'll see another smoking crater downtown. Neither does making nice speeches at Ground Zero and then not sending the promised funds to help rebuild our decimated Fire Department.

Terrorism can be usefully defined as deliberately scaring a large group of people in order to get them to do what you want. Yes, that's the method of Al-Qaeda. It also seems to be the method of George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and the rest of that gang. Terror and the Big Lie.

[snippy]

I'm not interested in arguing about it, I simply wanted to explain my position. We disagree that Iraq is not a rightful target in the war on terrorism. I don't like Bush, I just think he's less risky to my issues than the other candidates.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

What evidence do you have that the civil rights violations are likely to be temporary aberrations?

I know history doesn't repeat itself exactly, but from my experience of how these kinds of things have happened historically, the pattern they make, those civil rights violations terrify me.

And as I said at the time of the 2000 election, I thought the reason it was so important to keep those guns was to prevent tyranny and the trampling underfoot of democracy.

[snippy]

No evidence per se, but in my opinion the state of enforcement of civil rights is swinging on a pendulum like it always has. The government has violated our civil rights in a systematic fashion before, and it will again; when enough outrage arises (and I see it rising among the very people who supported Bush, rising to levels of disenchantment that may rob him of their votes in this election) the cultural pressure will move the pendulum back some.

[snippy]

Reasonable people can disagree about the same facts.

oh well, what's the use. I guess none.

apology

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

Reasonable people can disagree about the same facts.

if you mean that reasonable people can form different opinions given the same facts, then i agree, otherwise not necessarily. and of course not all disagreement is reasonable; one of my greatest regrets about this unholy mess is that there is too much motivation by primal and whipped-up fear, and not by reason. (that's a general comment, not directed at you in specific; i don't know what motivates you.)

however, be that as it may, i agree it was rude of me to argue with you here when all you had done was identify yourself as a bush voter-to-be as a datapoint for redbird -- i was flabbergasted is my only excuse. :). i'll delete my post; my apologies.

[quility.livejournal.com]

I see that you are getting frustrated by the fact that most(all?) of the other responders seem to be disagreeing with you - but if you are still up for a question:

I was wondering what the other remaining presidential hopefuls have said that makes you think their proposed approaches to the war on terror won't work?

Just curious to understand.

[snippy]

You've misread; I'm not frustrated that people disagree with me, it's the normal condition in my life. I'm just not interested in arguing about my political beliefs anymore--it seems like a pointless waste of time. No one is going to change my mind by arguing with me on Livejournal (or Usenet, for that matter), and I'm not going to change anyone else's mind (nor do I want to). I just want to be known for the truth of myself, so I explain what I think.

Maybe that's why I don't fit so well in fandom.

Why I don't think the other Democratic candidates's approaches to the war on terrorism will work: because they are concerned with the UN and the opinion of Europe, and with "why they hate us" as both an explanation and method of prevention of future terrorism. Because they don't believe in unilateral action against an enemy that has taken a unilateral action against us. Because they portray what the president has done as unilateral simply because he took action (authorized by both the UN and the U.S. Congress) without waiting for France and Germany to give their stamp of approval. There, that's my explanation of why I've rejected the other Democratic candidates on the issue of terrorism.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

authorized by both the UN and the U.S. Congress

Well, except that Bush lied to US Congress to get their authorisation (making claims that Iraq was a threat to the US, which it was not), and could not get UN authorisation for his attack on Iraq (because the UN was less easily fooled than Congress).

they don't believe in unilateral action against an enemy that has taken a unilateral action against us

And you seem to be confusing al-Qaeda with Iraq. No connection.

[avram]

When did Iraq take unilateral action against the US?

[freeimprov.livejournal.com]

My political affiliation is whatever the orbital mind control lasers tell me to be.

[peake.livejournal.com]

Would it surprise you to know that I am a Republican?

but of course republican means something very different over here (just as it means something different again in Ireland).

[redbird]

I was hoping the capital letter would carry that distinction.

No, I lie--I hadn't even thought about "republican" in the sense of "one who favors a republic"; in that sense I too am a republican.

[dhole.livejournal.com]

Hmm. In the next election, I can see myself voting Likud, Green, or Shas, depending on what the parties look like ideologically and the number of mandates they're likely to get -- so, center right, far left, centrist, I suppose.

I'm not sure if I'll be voting in the next US election, either -- I don't have any particular problems with Kerry, but it seems highly unlikely that NY is going to be contested, and I lack sufficient information to make an informed vote on the other things that are going to be on the ballot.