stip wrote:
no, it is political science. And you are factually incorrect about this. The fact that we have two parties does not mean they are always the same distance apart from each other, or that the general level of interparty animosity stays the same. This is about as ugly as it has been in many many generations.
Distance how? Distance what? The fact is there's too many variables changing to ever quantitatively test this theory of yours. I know it's spun in the media constantly, so I know it's easy to recite. But, to me, it's bullshit. The only possible way to get data on this is survey data, and like I said, it's flawed because of controls.
People today simply don't like their politicians (Rs and Ds) the way they have in the past - that I'd agree with. But, that it's more polarized... I wouldn't. It's always "the most polarized EVER". Seriously, it has been (according to the news) for the past 20 years. It's laughable.
stip wrote:
The point I am making is that launching a public campaign against a public figure can turn the public against that figure, which means whatever issue you take issue with needs to be weighed against that larger fact. It creates a dilemma for people who may be broadly sympathetic to someone (or ferociously opposed to their enemies). Calling them out on one issue undermines them on others. there's no two ways around that.
Democratic Senators cannot easily avoid the issue. If eddie was pinned down I suspect he'd be against it. But maybe it is just easier to talk about something else. I only saw one show this tour. He bitched about wall street, which seemed appropriate enough for NYC. I don't know what he said elsewhere.
Ed's not a Senator or a politician. He's a fucking rock star. Why's he so worried about Obama, who's already secured a second term? He campaigned for him already... there's nothing left for Barry O. There's no reason to not disagree with his admin's policy outwardly on this. I bet Obama would disagree with himself on this outwardly if he weren't President! It makes logical sense to disagree about this.
Also, it's not a fucking game. If Ed really is picking his upsetment based on polls and how it will affect his political team, rather than on issues he really thinks matters to the nation, then he's a giant douche...... rock star.
stip wrote:
See above. I've only heard gun control and the shot at bankers. There may be others. Or he may just not be talking much about politics.
The shot at the bankers, didn't really seem like a shot at all. If it's what I heard. He dedicated a song to them, right? Ouch.
stip wrote:
What specific political issues outside of abortion was he really vocal about under Clinton? These are open questions, btw. I'm not being defensive about this. Eddie's public pronunciations were never something I followed closely. I listened to a lot of bootlegs from 2000-2006 so I heard a lot of concert ramblings. I don't know much prior or post.
Ed didn't like Clinton at all.
Clinton's policies are a theme in insignificance and grievance, and were the subject of many rants. He didn't like Clinton/Gore thoughts on nation building. Which was one reason he supported Nader (who hinted that Bush may be better than Gore in terms of that).... which led to Bushleaguer lyrics...
"I remember when you sang that song about today, and now it's tomorrow and everything has changed".
That was directed at Bush and basically was saying - you said you wouldn't nation build and would be isolationist. Also, somewhat ironic, given Obama's continuation of Bush policies, and extention in some cases.
stip wrote:
I don't think Eddie blindly supports the democrats. I think he really really hates republicans which traps you into supporting democrats. It's also completely valid to call out a party even when you are a partisan. People do it all the time. But there are consequences which make you less likely to do it when someone you are sympathetic to is in power.
Regardless during the 2012 election he's going to spend time attacking Republicans, and I don't know what he's done since.
He's not trapped into anything. It's not that complicated. Anyone who says it is, is lying to themselves and trying to form teams. One's vote (be it for Democrat, Rep, or other) still matters if they say X, Y or Z about a Democrat, Rep, or other. Saying otherwise is false.
stip wrote:
No, I see it as anything other than a game, and I despise that analogy. that's what makes politics so complicated. But the fact that it is not a game does not change the fact that all individual political issues are situated within a vast and immensely complicated contextual web. Stands do not happen in vacuums. I bet this is something he is particularly sensitive to post 2000.
Politics isn't complicated. People should support issues they agree with and be against issues they aren't. That's not complicated. They don't need to side with an party on a singular issue because they side with that party on the majority of other issues. Drones and sheep do that, normal people don't have to. One can tally the importance of each issue and vote accordingly, but politics shouldn't stop with voting. You can alter policies also by speaking out on issues you don't agree with... you can do this even with administrations you support in other areas...
,...which is why Ed should speak out about the NSA.
