georgeob1 wrote:nimh wrote:
.... Even if sometimes you drive me to "a certain impatience" much like Diest and I did to you - and for a surprising number of the same reasons. It's always easier to see it in the other, I suppose, especially if stark differences in style cloak the essential similarities of one's flaws.
Very perceptive and well said. You are right.
I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.
I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.
That's fine and all ob1, but I'm not arguing that people don't vote based on their perceptions, I'm just saying that it's dumb. I'm saying that we should have a higher standard.
It's true that people vote this way, but it's not because it is superior, it's because it's easier. Anyone can just look at the cover of a book. I reject outright the notion that those who make judgements on the cover are on a equal playing field as those who take the time to read the book.
You seem to critisize Obama supporters as if they are irrational in their support, yet you simultaneously through out some idea that you can't be critisized for your view on making choices? If you think it's okay to make a choice on your intuition, then you wouldn't be attacking Obama supporters like you are.
I assure you, my intuition lines up nicely with my views on Obama based on his platform and his history. So even if you were to convince me to abandon my "meaningless" method to vote, and adapt yours, there would be no change.
T
K
O
T
K
O