Ignore the extremists - on both sides. This is a very vitriolic election. We all stir the pot when we repost and engage in discussion about the extremists but amplifying their voices.
I'd say this is a typical US election . This is neither more vitriolic than in the past ,or more divisive. The US is like that . What we consider a landslide is plus or minus 55% of the electorate voting for one ,and 45% voting for the other candidate.
Lyndon Johnson received the largest percentage of votes any president has ever had in 1964, taking 61.5 percent of the vote. Three other presidents broke the 60 percent mark: Warren G. Harding in 1920, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. Except Roosevelt ,none of them are considered exceptional Presidents.
By contrast ; Lincoln ,Kennedy , Woodrow Wilson (twice ),Clintoon (twice ) ;a total of 18 Presidential elections were decided by the winner receiving LESS than 50% of the vote...
Five times with 45 percent of the vote or less.
26 U.S. presidential elections, the winner received less than 52 percent of the vote. Add to that , a significant segment of our population registers their preference by not voting at all.
We are a divided nation by nature;political parties having been formed by Washington's 2nd term.Only once did the issues fracture the nation.(not surprising... the 1860 election had one of the highest voter turnouts) .
Ideologues have always played a role in our politics;but the vast majority of both political parties are moderates and vote that way. Elections are decided by Reagan Democrats ,and Clintoon Repubics.
This election there is a centrist who had to schmooze the right before swinging back to the center against an ideologue lefty who pretends to be centrist.
Many times I've documented the rhetoric used in campaigns in our history to show that there is nothing new in the way the game is played. Again I'll refer to the 1800 Jefferson v Adams election between 2 of our most famous founders. Their contest best illustrated the philosophical divide that is still present today. They were bitter rivals but remained best of friends until they both passed away on July 4,1826 ,the 50th Anniversary of the day they both signed the Declaration of Independence.
But when they campaigned ,they or their surrogates rhetoric was much nastier than anything we see today.
Jefferson's campaign said that John Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." Adams' campaign said that Jefferson was "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
That Michael Moore video production is comically infantile .I would expect nothing less from the Moore-on. It just shows the desperation of the left.
Desperation of the left? Gee, I thought it was Tea Party desperation (and desperate people are never witty) that's been hyping the few random threats any campaign elicits, and this little satire is a funny response.
PS: thanks for those interesting tidbits of American history.
If it was satire it is doubly strange in that it is mocking left wing scares about Republican voter suppression etc. It also threatens violence ,something you are not hearing from Tea Party factions. When taken together with the Obama favoring ads that included a young women equating voting for Obama with losing virginity ;Samuel Jackson telling us to "Wake the F up " ;it shows a big contrast to the soaring rhetoric of the 2008 campaign. Vulgarity is a sign of desperation .
What tom just said. Contrast the left's filth (or most any Obama ad to Romney's) to this ad by an openly gay Republican in Massachusetts. Yeah, that's what I said...
Been to the Gloucester , Rockport ,and the Cape Ann area. I highly recommend it as a place to take a restful retreat or vacation. Gloucester is also famous as the home port of the Andrea Gail ;the boat depicted in the movie 'The Perfect Storm'.
Filth?? FILTH?? This morning I woke up to to adds telling me that my president ARMED Al Quaida, the people who killed 3,000 of us, by GIVING them weapons... The implication, of course, is that our president is a Muslim, terrorist, traitor.
And, I found out that because we're about to make gay marriage legal in Washington, that homosexuality WILL absolutely be TAUGHT in Washington schools...
The fact that you will most likely AGREE with these two outrageous propositions, removes ANY credibility YOU have to DISS the other side...
I know nothing about any such ad, you'd have to post it.
P.S. Again putting words in my mouth, I've never implied Obama is a Muslim though I have defended him against such nonsense (here, here and here for instance) and I would never make such a dumb connection to teaching homosexuality in your schools... although PP would teach damn near anything if given the chance.
I would never make such a dumb connection to teaching homosexuality in your schools.
And, I would NEVER foment VIOLENCE if Romney is elected...
But, you IMPLY that I would.. If you're NOT making that implication, WHY make THIS post? Therefore, I have NO problem IMPLYING that you wear your tin foil hat all day.
I haven't heard you SAY Obama is a Muslim, but you're all over the "coverup" at Benghazi.. Now, I know what you THINK he covered up..
Good grief ex, I just gave you 3 links where I've rejected the Obama/Muslim connection, what do I have to do, beat you over the head with it?
Is it really that impossible for a liberal to believe we don't like Obama for his policies and behavior, like failing to protect his own guys then lying out his a$$ about it?
And, I found out that because we're about to make gay marriage legal in Washington, that homosexuality WILL absolutely be TAUGHT in Washington schools...
Do you understand the difference between "could be taught" and "WILL absolutely be TAUGHT?" You're so overly dramatic these days, are you in a panic like those pitiful rich white libs in San Fran?