CBS/NYT poll: everybody is mad at everybody

[EVAY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/us/politics/12poll.html?ref+today'spaper.I may be reading this all wrong, but it seems to me that all this poll says is that noone in either political party should assume to have the country in their back pocket for this year's elections. Bottom line, it could go either way because folks are so angry. Bipartisanship should be something that both parties are striving to show voters. Whoever does that best between now and November, comes out ahead, imho.

[101A]

Vote against every single incumbent (for any 3rd party candidate if there is one on the ticket). They ALL have had a hand in where we are today; if you are still taken in by the tribal instinct of it's simply the (Dems or Republicans) other guys fault - you just aren't paying attention.

We need a "Clean the House (and a 3rd of the Senate) Party"

[EVAY]

sorry folks,

I cannot get the url in the above reference to go back to the original page. I don't know what is wrong with it, but the url doesn't open the pages, which means I've screwed it up somehow.

Just never mind...it probably wasn't worth pursuing anyway...moderation rarely gets much play in these boards in any case, and i'm not in the mood to argue with anyone about it.

[EVAY]

Vote against every single incumbent (for any 3rd party candidate if there is one on the ticket). They ALL have had a hand in where we are today; if you are still taken in by the tribal instinct of it's simply the (Dems or Republicans) other guys fault - you just aren't paying attention.

We need a "Clean the House (and a 3rd of the Senate) Party"

But realistically, no third party has the economic wherewithall to get started. With the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding corporate ads having free speech protections on an unlimited basis, what corporation would allow a 'newcomer' to oust someone they have already paid for?

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12poll.html

[spurster]

Here is a particularly apt quote from the article:

"unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing."

[spurster]

Here is a particularly apt quote from the article:

"unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing."

[Wild Cobra]

We need a "Clean the House (and a 3rd of the Senate) Party"
I agree.

Too bad we cannot kick out 90some of the senators, and start over there too.

[ElNono]

Interesting most people in the poll still blame Bush for the economic woes...

[101A]

But realistically, no third party has the economic wherewithall to get started. With the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding corporate ads having free speech protections on an unlimited basis, what corporation would allow a 'newcomer' to oust someone they have already paid for?


Only if a third party is one ballot, otherwise simply vote for the Dem or Rep that is NOT an incumbent. Simple formula.

[101A]

Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.


...and yet over 90% will probably be reelected.

We should have a simple, nationwide, up or down vote on ALL of them; then when the Congress as a whole goes down; new elections with fresh faces. Need to read up on the Constitution; see if an amendment can occur without Congressional involvement.

[boutons_deux]

What these dumbfuck Americans don't understand is that the usual "throw out the bums", both parties, means we get a new crop of Congress critters to be corrupted inevitably, by the corps and capitalists.

The US political system is irretrievable broken, and the Repug-packed SCOTUS made the bribery and extortion legal, and SCOTUS will continue for decades to favor institutions over citizens, EXACTLY the opposite of what the Founding Father intended.

Tell me again how many wonderful successes the Repugs have visited on the USA these last 30 years! :lol

The non-proportionality of the Senate and the electoral college are historical anomalies that need abolishing.

oops, excuse me. Even for me, myths Die Hard. Voting makes no difference, proportional or not.

[101A]

Can do it via State houses.

[101A]

Tell me again how many wonderful successes the Repugs have visited on the USA these last 30 years! :lol



I don't think anyone can, legitimately. But neither have the Dems; and I'll give you 80 years to scan their records.

[EVAY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12poll.html

Thank you very much.

[baseline bum]

The non-proportionality of the Senate and the electoral college are historical anomalies that need abolishing.

This. It's ridiculous that a ballot in Nebraska is worth more than one in California.

[spursncowboys]

I agree.

Too bad we cannot kick out 90some of the senators, and start over there too.

+1.
Then make a law that they cannot live their entire adult life in congress.

[ElNono]

+1.
Then make a law that they cannot live their entire adult life in congress.

Congress make laws...

[baseline bum]

Rofl

[Marcus Bryant]

The last thing we need is to rewrite the Constitution, for I shudder to contemplate what the American people would agree to as a replacement.

Further, the reason that there's equal representation in the Senate is that the states were to provide a check on power of the federal government. Or, if you are concerned about certain interests buying power in DC over your life, that's only accelerated the more political power is concentrated in DC.

[boutons_deux]

"reason that there's equal representation in the Senate is that"

... the writers needed to get the underpopulated Western (not-yet) states, territories on board for joining the country, ratifying the Constitution, because those outliers feared being dominated by the proportional representation of the populous states.

So the writers tried to equal the field and gave 2 Senators to every state.

Another distortion of proportionality is the winner-take-all-by-state of the electors, rather than proportionally to the popular vote.

The founders' paranoia didn't need the states to check the power of the feds. The states are represented in 2 of the 3 branches in the checks-and-balances scheme.

I note LOUDLY that it is the Repugs who want to make the Exec more unConstitutionally powerful than the other two branches and effectively above the law, as was achieved by dickhead and Black Addington.

[Marcus Bryant]

The representation was certainly a check on the power of the federal government, as well as a check on the people.

Yes, both parties have had a hand in this, no doubt. Still, a move to a pure democracy would be worse than the status quo and the eviscerated Constitution. Sure, we'd have a much more efficient federal government if we dispensed with the states and made those artifacts of the past and created a dictatorship of the people.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This. It's ridiculous that a ballot in Nebraska is worth more than one in California.

Bullshit. The Framers did it that way for a reason.

I would rather not have the same mob rule that has run Cali to financial ruin getting the same power in D.C., thank you.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

the writers needed to get the underpopulated Western (not-yet) states, territories on board for joining the country, ratifying the Constitution, because those outliers feared being dominated by the proportional representation of the populous states.

So the writers tried to equal the field and gave 2 Senators to every state.

Fail. It was a check on power.


I note LOUDLY that it is the Repugs who want to make the Exec more unConstitutionally powerful than the other two branches and effectively above the law, as was achieved by dickhead and Black Addingon

LOL. That's why you have Pelosi whining about how the Senate should only need 51 votes to pass a bill.

That's why you have Obama appointing 11 billion czars that report to him, make policy, but aren't accountable to Congress or We the People.

Among other things.

[baseline bum]

Bullshit. The Framers did it that way for a reason.

I would rather not have the same mob rule that has run Cali to financial ruin getting the same power in D.C., thank you.

It's fucking ridiculous that all votes are not equal in our national elections. Having a senate is retarded.

[Marcus Bryant]

So is having a Constitution. Let's make this majority rules, whatever that majority decides, including all of your liberty and be done with it.

Hey, maybe those old white dudes were on to something.

[Nbadan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/us/politics/12poll.html?ref+today'spaper.I may be reading this all wrong, but it seems to me that all this poll says is that noone in either political party should assume to have the country in their back pocket for this year's elections. Bottom line, it could go either way because folks are so angry. Bipartisanship should be something that both parties are striving to show voters. Whoever does that best between now and November, comes out ahead, imho.

I told you after Massachusetts...this isn't about Democrats or Republicans, it's about anti-incumbency and anti-establishment...the American People want to 'kick the bums out', but the Supreme Court is saying, Corporations have just as much rights as you, even more because it has the money to push it's agenda....where it the teabagger outrage?

[Wild Cobra]

It's fucking ridiculous that all votes are not equal in our national elections. Having a senate is retarded.
No, what is retarded is the passage of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment should be repealed.

[baseline bum]

So is having a Constitution. Let's make this majority rules, whatever that majority decides, including all of your liberty and be done with it.

Hey, maybe those old white dudes were on to something.

I know questioning the constitution is worse than going against the bible here, but once in a while it's full of shit. I don't see what's so crazy about giving every voter equal power in deciding the representatives who make law. The electoral college and the laws for electing a president are ridiculous too. You can't tell me you agree with the House electing the president in the event there's a 3rd party candidate strong enough to keep anyone from getting a majority of the electoral votes.

[baseline bum]

No, what is retarded is the passage of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment should be repealed.

If you mean letting governors appoint senators, I completely agree that should be removed.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, do away with the antiquated Constitution and make our lives subject to majority rule. Why be bound by the ancients? How much could be accomplished if we didn't worry about individual liberty! So exciting.

[baseline bum]

Way to dodge a question with sarcasm.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure, do away with the antiquated Constitution and make our lives subject to majority rule. Why be bound by the ancients? How much could be accomplished if we didn't worry about individual liberty! So exciting.
The problem is how we have given congress the power. Every time we have elections, we, as a people, let them buy our freedom, by electing people who promise things the states are responsible for. Why do people keep voting for the "nanny state?"

As a people, it's our own fault.

[baseline bum]

The problem is how we have given congress the power. Every time we have elections, we, as a people, let them buy our freedom, by electing people who promise things the states are responsible for. Why do people keep voting for the "nanny state?"

As a people, it's our own fault.

Someone so gung-ho for blowing billions of dollars in useless wars should never criticize anyone about nanny states.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sarcasm is appropriate. The president was never meant to be the emperor of our lives. So what if the House Subcommittee on the Electoral College elects a president? I know, life is more meaningful if you're at the bottom of the pyramid.

[Marcus Bryant]

Come to think of it, the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, are outdated. How much more effective the federal government would be if we did away with all that old bullshit? I mean, states, and rights and all that shit? Damn.

[baseline bum]

Sarcasm is appropriate. The president was never meant to be the emperor of our lives. So what if the House Subcommittee on the Electoral College elects a president? I know, life is more meaningful if you're at the bottom of the pyramid.

As someone who constantly complains about Democrats and Republicans I can't see why you like how our system neuters third parties in presidential elections.

[Wild Cobra]

Someone so gung-ho for blowing billions of dollars in useless wars should never criticize anyone about nanny states.
Please keep in mind that gun-ho is not how I am about war. Consider that financing war is addressed in the constitution. Redistribution of wealth isn't.

Try to see me in that perspective instead. As someone who believes in the constitution, or freedoms, and that we should keep more of our money that the government lets us.

[Marcus Bryant]

Look at China, they got their shit together because the people, I mean, the individual people, aren't shit. It's the nation that matters, man. That's what's important.

[Marcus Bryant]

As someone who constantly complains about Democrats and Republicans I can't see why you like how our system neuters third parties in presidential elections.

ROFL. As if.

What part of the Constitution does that? Perhaps the two dominant political parties of the age have, but that document has not.

[Marcus Bryant]

Every Man a King, Mofos! Fuck the Constitution.

[baseline bum]

Look at China, they got their shit together because the people, I mean, the individual people, aren't shit. It's the nation that matters, man. That's what's important.

Where the hell are you going with this? Devaluing an individual's vote is your way to empower individuals?

[baseline bum]

ROFL. As if.

What part of the Constitution does that? Perhaps the two dominant political parties of the age have, but that document has not.

So you think there's ever a chance the house is going to elect a third party candidate if no one pulls 270 electoral votes?

[Marcus Bryant]

Where the hell are you going with this? Devaluing an individual's vote is your way to empower individuals?

What's more important, a vote for politicians or your rights? My God.

[Marcus Bryant]

So you think there's ever a chance the house is going to elect a third party candidate if no one pulls 270 electoral votes?

Which, of course, assumes that we're dealing with two parties. Further, so what? It's just the presidency. We're not electing an emperor.

[baseline bum]

What's more important, a vote for politicians or your rights? My God.

Because I'm obviously talking about scrapping everything in the constitution?

[baseline bum]

Seriously, what's the point of voting for a third party candidate for president? So Republicans and Democrats can pick one of their own and disregard our votes if the third party guy is at all successful in making it a legit 3-way race?

[baseline bum]

Which, of course, assumes that we're dealing with two parties. Further, so what? It's just the presidency. We're not electing an emperor.

I don't get the so-what part either. The power of 17 senate votes and 72 house votes via the veto isn't something to be concerned about?

[Marcus Bryant]

Then what's the import of doing away with equal representation in the Senate?

As for parties, well, perhaps parties are about more than just a presidential race.

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't get the so-what part either. The power of 17 senate votes and 72 house votes via the veto isn't something to be concerned about?

What about that? Why don't we want one branch to check the other? Is the goal here to maximize national power or individual liberty?

[PixelPusher]

Sure, do away with the antiquated Constitution and make our lives subject to majority rule. Why be bound by the ancients? How much could be accomplished if we didn't worry about individual liberty! So exciting.

lol "the ancients". The Constitution is only as antiquated as whichever of the 27 admendments Marcus Bryant thinks "went to far".

[Marcus Bryant]

Right. 27 amendments in 223 years. It doesn't change because your vag queefs.

[PixelPusher]

Right. 27 amendments in 223 years. It doesn't change because your vag queefs.

May 7, 1992 - the day upon which the Constitution was perfected. Why the fuck is this sacred tome preserved on paper? Carve that sucker into stone tablets.

[baseline bum]

Then what's the import of doing away with equal representation in the Senate?

As for parties, well, perhaps parties are about more than just a presidential race.

The fact that one area of land has more lines going through it than another shouldn't mean its has more votes proportional to the number of lines crossing.

[Marcus Bryant]

So an amendment to address a technicality means that the document itself should not be revered? Hey, if you feel your personal liberty should be subject to change at the hands of a majority, sobeit.

[PixelPusher]

So an amendment to address a technicality means that the document itself should not be revered? Hey, if you feel your personal liberty should be subject to change at the hands of a majority, sobeit.

I don't think any document of any kind should be "revered". The same goes for the "ancients" who crafted it, who apparently had the crazy idea that they weren't demigods sent down from Mount Libertaria to impart their immortal wisdom upon all future generations...hence the admendment clause.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, so we can dot the i's and cross the t's. I'll take the ancients over the truthers, teabaggers, birthers, MSNBC and FoxNews addicts. "Mount Libertaria" over that crew anytime.

[PixelPusher]

For the record, I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights, and I'm sorry to see them erroded - I just don't wallow in religious despair that we modern dolts "ruined" something that "got it just right" way back then...whatever year that "then" happens to be for whatever that particular declinist marks as the high water mark.

[PixelPusher]

Sure, so we can dot the i's and cross the t's. I'll take the ancients over the truthers, teabaggers, birthers, MSNBC and FoxNews addicts. "Mount Libertaria" over that crew anytime.

lol, everyone in 1776 walked 6 inches above the ground on a cloud of rational bliss. Not a partisan mob to be found.

[Marcus Bryant]

lol, everyone in 1776 walked 6 inches above the ground on a cloud of rational bliss. Not a partisan mob to be found.

Hey, those old fuckers weren't perfect. But compared to what passes today as wisdom and probity I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. Speaking of drinking, the people saw fit to amend the work of the ancients to prohibit that once upon a time.

[Nbadan]

on topic...

_yh3A7Ur_KA

[Marcus Bryant]

Hey, TYTy is back. Relative of yours?

[Nbadan]

..thought I'd wake up the crowd after your PMSing about the constitution...

:sleepy

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, who cares about the big things?

TYTy just posted a clip about a failed appointment to the NLRB. :jack

[Nbadan]

it was actually about changing Senate closure rules from 60 to 55...no need to amend anything, just a simple majority vote...

[PixelPusher]

Speaking of drinking, the people saw fit to amend the work of the ancients to prohibit that once upon a time.

Yep, and later they saw fit to amend it yet again, further illustrating the corrective power of admendments.

[MannyIsGod]

Its so easy to advocate a pipe dream of wiping the slate clean but its not about the people that are there and all about the people who put them there. Unless you wipe the slate clean with our population the problem remains because the people in congress aren't the problem.

People in this country just don't care. Sure, the polls say they don't like anyone there but the fact is that what they really mean is they don't CARE about anyone there. You take any measure of attention and the people in DC are superseded on so many levels. If you put new people in DC they're going to moved by special interests once again because special interests are the ones who actually give a shit and are motivated to use the system that is in place.

How active are you in civics, Marcus? You bitch and moan on this forum constantly but how active are you in the libertarian party? How about your local government? I don't know but if you're like the average person then the chances that you vote more than once every four years are exceedingly low. The chances that you're active in a political party are even less. The chances that you actively participate in the events of any political party are even smaller.

[Winehole23]

Oh God, the LP-USA.

Run away. Run away fast.

[Winehole23]

I'm basically content to have a somewhat sentimental, somewhat academic mindset. It bothers me not a whit that my political orientation isn't au courant or progressive.

What is au courant and progressive is the decay of freedom and the US republic, before my very eyes, something I never really expected to see in my lifetime, even as recently as ten years ago.

Now, I'm not too sure I can rule it out.

[Winehole23]

The USA has a great future behind it at this point.

[Winehole23]

I will drink heavily with the weird old whigs (and with very many others who share my political views in no wise) and tell tall tales about the weird old republic, until the relentless pressure of novelty blots out its all its traces and all the weird old whigs with it.

[Winehole23]

There is no existing political party in the US suitable for someone like me. They're all in the past.

[Winehole23]

I refuse the the choices given me.

[Winehole23]

They suck.

[Winehole23]

They all suck. Demonstrably. Life is the lesson.

[MannyIsGod]

Apparently things suck but they don't suck enough for you to really care. All I see here all I see pretty much everywhere else: Apathy. Things are so horrible that we're going to bitch about it but not actually do what it takes to change it.

[Ignignokt]

are you saying that once you worked for the obama campaign, you felt that the constitution was useless?

[Ignignokt]

I refuse the the choices given me.

the biggest liar ever.

[George Gervin's Afro]

the biggest liar ever.

Bigger liars lie about making war and stuff...

[EVAY]

There is no existing political party in the US suitable for someone like me. They're all in the past.

I would probably agree with this statement for myself.

My reaction to the situation, however, is to become more involved than I ever have been in the past.

Not involved in a "show up at meetings and argue for policy points way"...both major parties are too narrow minded for me to be able to do that. Plus, I just don't want to argue with people about their position on things enough to actually do it. But I have begun sending money to candidates in selected races based on the participants in the race. Not based on what party they are from. I think that more Americans do that sort of thing than actively get in party organization.

I have actively considered moving to another country. If I could get my family to go along with it, I think I would.

And yet, I love my country.

[Winehole23]

the biggest liar ever.I vote on a candidate by candidate basis. I am registered as an independent and always have been. Not that it's any of your beeswax, but I got nothing to hide.

[Winehole23]

Apparently things suck but they don't suck enough for you to really care. All I see here all I see pretty much everywhere else: Apathy. Things are so horrible that we're going to bitch about it but not actually do what it takes to change it.You don't know what it takes to change it any better than me. And it's pretty arrogant to for you to assume the answer to my problems is to be found working for political parties rather than tending my own cabbage patch.

[Winehole23]

And yet, I love my country.Amen to that. Despite our serious, serious problems, I'd rather live and die here in the USA than anywhere else.

[Marcus Bryant]

There is no existing political party in the US suitable for someone like me. They're all in the past.

Same here. Both major parties today are excessively nationalistic and assume the subordination of the individual to what each holds as the path to national greatness. The end of American governance as individual liberty is a dead letter.

[Marcus Bryant]

I do wonder what I'm supposed to do that I haven't done to change the system. Does it not start with questioning the status quo and voting against it?

[Winehole23]

Apparently, if you're not a flunkie to some existing political party with real political clout, you don't really care. Or so I've heard.

[MannyIsGod]

Apparently, if you're not a flunkie to some existing political party with real political clout, you don't really care. Or so I've heard.

No - simply bitching about it on an internet forum is the appropriate manner to change things. I asked the political party as an indicator but I did not once say it was the end all be all.

But I'll ask you this: who effects more of their will upon the system? Those who use it actively or those who bemoan what it has become and do nothing?

I'm not trying to get you to do anything you don't want to do, my point was simply that you (and everyone else) don't want to do it.

As for knowing the best way to change things, I'm not sure that I do nor did I ever claim as much. I do however, know that our posts on this forum don't do shit to change anything and that when those special interest groups hit the ground and do their thing they do a hell of a lot to impact the system.

[Winehole23]

But I'll ask you this: who effects more of their will upon the system? Those who use it actively or those who bemoan what it has become and do nothing?It matters whether that will affects us for good or for ill. There's no inherent virtue in having and exercising political power. Principles inevitably are sacrificed to get the deal done and people, inevitably fucked over.

But politics isn't the only deal, nor is political power the only relevant power in life. Society, philosophy, religion, culture, discipline, sport, hobby, pastime, whatever. In the everyday sense there are a lot of important things that don't seem very political at all. There's no accounting for the effect we have or might have on others in our non-political capacities -- you yourself made reference a minute ago to how important it is, how limiting, momentous and objectively defining it is for politics that people don't really care.

So please don't stand there and tell me the only sort of contribution or change that counts is straightforward political activism. Bullshit. Not only is that not substantially true, it's probably objectively false. It takes more than politicians and political activism --way more -- to make a world.

Every fuckin day, dude.

[Winehole23]

I like to talk politics, but it's not a be all and end all, though it is very fucking important. At the granular level of life, there's way more personal choice than than there is political control. And therefore (in a rather diffuse sense, admittedly) more real power.

Society conditions politics but the levers are not always political. Mores, customs, traditions, voluntary associations, family, habit, superstition, opinion, knowledge and *spiritual conditions* like confidence and zeal for ideals (and personal prosperity, naturally) preponder. You can't change everything by participating in interest groups and your local political precincts.

Not by a long shot.

[MannyIsGod]

It matters whether that will affects us for good or for ill. There's no inherent virtue in having and exercising political power. Principles inevitably are sacrificed to get the deal done and people, inevitably fucked over.

But politics isn't the only deal, nor is political power the only relevant power in life. Society, philosophy, religion, culture, discipline, sport, hobby, pastime, whatever. In the everyday sense there are a lot of important things that don't seem very political at all. There's no accounting for the effect we have or might have on others in our non-political capacities -- you yourself made reference a minute ago to how important it is, how limiting, momentous and objectively defining it is for politics that people don't really care.

So please don't stand there and tell me the only sort of contribution or change that counts is straightforward political activism. Bullshit. Not only is that not substantially true, it's probably objectively false. It takes more than politicians and political activism --way more -- to make a world.

Every fuckin day, dude.


I like to talk politics, but it's not a be all and end all, though it is very fucking important. At the granular level of life, there's way more personal choice than than there is political control. And therefore (in a rather diffuse sense, admittedly) more real power.

Society conditions politics but the levers are not always political. Mores, customs, traditions, voluntary associations, family, habit, superstition, opinion, knowledge and *spiritual conditions* like confidence and zeal for ideals preponder. You can't change everything by participating in interest groups and your local political precincts.

Not by a long shot.



People in this country just don't care. Sure, the polls say they don't like anyone there but the fact is that what they really mean is they don't CARE about anyone there. You take any measure of attention and the people in DC are superseded on so many levels. If you put new people in DC they're going to moved by special interests once again because special interests are the ones who actually give a shit and are motivated to use the system that is in place.

I don't see you doing anything but reinforcing my point. I'm just not sure why it makes you so angry.

[Winehole23]

I'm not angry. I'm just explaining my POV.

[MannyIsGod]

I like to talk politics, but it's not a be all and end all, though it is very fucking important. .

Your opening sentence says it all, WH. You like to talk politics, but its not that important to you otherwise. Sure, you through in the "very fucking important" line as an afterthought but actions speak louder than words and I think thats simply lip service from someone who likes to talk politics.

When people actually think something is "very fucking important" they act.

[Winehole23]

Sorry it's not enough for you that I try to be a good husband, a good friend to my friends, a good wine guy, a good teammate, a faithful correspondent, and *whatever I may choose to give back* in my spare time.

If I'm given a spare life, maybe I'll get around to trying to making you a little happier about the way I live it. Fair enough?

[Winehole23]

Anyway, you seem to have missed my point entirely.

Good night, MIG.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry it's not enough for you that I try to be a good husband, a good friend to my friends, a good wine guy, a good teammate, a faithful correspondent, and *whatever I may choose to give back* in my spare time.

If I'm given a spare life, maybe I'll get around to trying to making you a little happier about the way I do things. Fair enough?

Do with your life as you wish. You don't owe me anything and thats not what I'm trying to say so you can stop with the victimization here as if I'm trying to drag you out to start knocking on doors.

I am simply pointing out that these political matters are lower on your priorities list than many other things. You simply keep reinforcing this.

The vast Americans feel the same way you do. They are apathetic about politics and care far more about things they have going on in their day to day lives and this is why government officials aren't held accountable.

I simply find it amusing to read the posts in here that advocate tossing out everyone in DC as if that somehow will make it an entirely different situation (I realize you did not say this so before you bring that up notice that you responded to my original statement - i did not aim it at you - so I can only surmise that you agreed with that POV)

You're the one who turned it around and made this about you. If anyone could have done that it was MB although me invoking his user name was simply to make the point that someone who had a higher awareness of political matters and a more refined opinion on the issues was in all likely hood still not active in the political process for many of the same reasons held by others and not an attack on him or some kind of call to action.

[EVAY]

Actually, this last series of posts between WH and MIG seems to me to reinforce the thread title, i.e., everybody is mad at everybody.

Political activists (perhaps like you, MIG, I don't really know) seem to take the position that if one bitches about the political status quo, and yet does not belong to a political party, or somehow involve oneself in political activism
that their opinions are somehow less valid or reflect a 'lesser' status of 'caring', than is characteristic of the 'true believers'.

To me, the above (and if this is a straw man at your expense, MIG, I apologize in advance) sentiment reflects a sort of 'purity' test that I have found to be true among the rank and file of lots of organizations, including political ones. That is, if one is not willing or able or inclined to 'knock on doorbells or engage in the party process' that one is somehow of a lesser status, and therefore, ineligible to partake in the critical assessment of it.

Most of us Americans reject that approach. If the 'true believers' were a bit more accomondating and a bit less judgmental of those who do not 'go all the way that they do', more of us might be more inclined to participate. In any event, everyone's opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. At least that is still true in this country.

[EmptyMan]

I used to care about politics, but I was blessed/cursed with understanding the game at too early an age. I now couldn't care less what happens one way or the other.

There really is not point in getting heated over politics, because you have no control.

I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you. Enjoy that operation waiting list homie. :lol

[jack sommerset]

I'm not mad at everyone, just Obama and his administration.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not mad at everyone, just Obama and his administration.
I'm not mad at them. We knew how they were. I'm mad at those who voted for them.

[boutons_deux]

"just Obama and his administration"

... who have actually done very little, and certainly nothing very different from the Repugs who started TARP and are as owned by corporations.

But you aren't mad at Repugs?

Not even for allowing 9/11,
not for the lying US into the bogus Iraq war and
not for the botched Afganistan war?

yeah, I know, all that is "old" history, to be forgotten. We gotta put it down, get past it, let it go, move on, going forward. 4000+ dead, wasted US military, fuck 'em, we gotta move on.

[ploto]

Creating a culture of anger is a strong political weapon best wielded by the Republican party. Democrats of late do not seem capable of making people afraid or mad like conservatives can.

[Winehole23]

Your opening sentence says it all, WH. You like to talk politics, but its not that important to you otherwise. Sure, you through in the "very fucking important" line as an afterthought but actions speak louder than words and I think thats simply lip service from someone who likes to talk politics.

When people actually think something is "very fucking important" they act.Bullshit. That's like saying if I don't like ice cream best of all -- even going to the trouble to make it myself -- then I must not like it very much. How silly, MIG.

That's not even an argument, and it works about as well as a straightforward gloss of what I said -- not at all. I said:


Not the be all and end all, though very important. You took that to mean I don't care at all, but really, you ignored the plain sense of my words so you could display your contempt for me for not sharing your own view of the matter IMO.

Well and good. C'est la guerre.

[Winehole23]

I simply find it amusing to read the posts in here that advocate tossing out everyone in DC as if that somehow will make it an entirely different situation (I realize you did not say this so before you bring that up notice that you responded to my original statement - i did not aim it at you - so I can only surmise that you agreed with that POV)If you mean the POV that everyone who bitches about politics but does not satisfy your criteria of responsible civic involvement, is a just feckless whiner, or they don't really care, you'd be wrong.

We've already been over this. You think the only responsible activity is "working for political change". You seem to think politics and politics alone can accomplish that. That's a very simplistic and naive view of life, IMO.

[Winehole23]

You're the one who turned it around and made this about you. If anyone could have done that it was MB although me invoking his user name was simply to make the point that someone who had a higher awareness of political matters and a more refined opinion on the issues was in all likely hood still not active in the political process for many of the same reasons held by others and not an attack on him or some kind of call to action.Do you really know to what degree MB, myself and all the others you are driving into the same ditch are, have been or will be politically active, or did you just assume all that?

What did you base it on? Knowledge, rumor, or hostile inferences PFA?

[Marcus Bryant]

Americans should be mad at both political parties. And, yes, both parties hold an oligopoly over our electoral process, particularly when it comes to presidential politics. Little wonder, of course, since the executive branch has grown exponentially in power, beginning in the 1930s. Imagine if presidential debates included a couple of candidates from other political parties. But, of course, it is difficult for that to occur, based upon the rules of the bipartisan commission which controls those. American politics is much like American (big) business, governed by rules which protect and insulate those at the top.

True "change" will not come from within this framework. Voting for one party to end the rule of the other only perpetuates the hold of the oligopoly. Case in point, the last presidential election.

I've voted for and donated to 3rd parties. And, yes, I like to bullshit about American politics and the political topics of the day in this forum. At least I didn't fall for the latest major political party presidential candidate offering "change."

[MannyIsGod]

If you mean the POV that everyone who bitches about politics but does not satisfy your criteria of responsible civic involvement, is a just feckless whiner, or they don't really care, you'd be wrong.

No - the POV that you can change all the leadership in DC without changing level of involvement and expect anything but the current situation to evolve yet again.



We've already been over this. You think the only responsible activity is "working for political change". You seem to think politics and politics alone can accomplish that. That's a very simplistic and naive view of life, IMO.

No. Thats so ridiculous and I even explained it to you above but you're too busy thinking this is about you and your apparent lack of involvement. Stop trying to justify that (read: I don't care what you do, WH). You're one of the most cryptic posters on the site half the time so I'm amazed I have to explain this yet again.

I think the only way to avoid leadership who lacks accountability is to be more involved so when people say they wish to replace leadership they ignore that apathy is the cause of leaderships actions. Replacing leadership and continuing on with the same apathy will merely result in more politicians who do what special interests want because those are the ones who actually care.

Also, I'm pretty sure that anything that is involved in working for political change is by definition politics so I'm not sure how you plan on separating the two.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you really know to what degree MB, myself and all the others you are driving into the same ditch are, have been or will be politically active, or did you just assume all that?

What did you base it on? Knowledge, rumor, or hostile inferences PFA?


How active are you in civics, Marcus? You bitch and moan on this forum constantly but how active are you in the libertarian party? How about your local government? I don't know but if you're like the average person then the chances that you vote more than once every four years are exceedingly low. The chances that you're active in a political party are even less. The chances that you actively participate in the events of any political party are even smaller.

You realize that I ASKED questions here right? SO why are you asking if I assumed anything? You never answered them of course, you just skipped over that and went straight to being angrily defensive.

[Winehole23]

No - the POV that you can change all the leadership in DC without changing level of involvement and expect anything but the current situation to evolve yet again.I don't.


I think the only way to avoid leadership who lacks accountability is to be more involved so when people say they wish to replace leadership they ignore that apathy is the cause of leaderships actions. Replacing leadership and continuing on with the same apathy will merely result in more politicians who do what special interests want because those are the ones who actually care.The idea that "involvement" and pressure politics alone will keep politicians on the straight and narrow is a bit pollyanna-ish. Voting them out of office in masse, election after election, would send a much stronger message IMO, though in no way do I think that would be a solution -- but it would relate the true state of mind of Americans about our own political system, one that is self-dealing, overly dependent upon special interests and unresponsive to exogenous (i.e.,democratic) steering.

That said, I would view more civic involvement on the part of Americans as a definite plus.

[MannyIsGod]

Americans should be mad at both political parties. And, yes, both parties hold an oligopoly over our electoral process, particularly when it comes to presidential politics. Little wonder, of course, since the executive branch has grown exponentially in power, beginning in the 1930s. Imagine if presidential debates included a couple of candidates from other political parties. But, of course, it is difficult for that to occur, based upon the rules of the bipartisan commission which controls those. American politics is much like American (big) business, governed by rules which protect and insulate those at the top.


Yet if enough people cared about it this would not be the case. However, most Americans don't care about how the debates are done.



True "change" will not come from within this framework. Voting for one party to end the rule of the other only perpetuates the hold of the oligopoly. Case in point, the last presidential election.


Its either going to come from within this framework or its not going to change barring a violent revolution. I'm not holding my breath for a violent revolution in one of the most advanced countries in the world where the people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.



I've voted for and donated to 3rd parties.


Then you're more involved than the average person. Good. Imagine if everyone where at this level of involvement? Would there or would there not be a much different atmosphere in DC?



And, yes, I like to bullshit about American politics and the political topics of the day in this forum. At least I didn't fall for the latest major political party presidential candidate offering "change."

:lol

While Obama has been a major disappointment I would argue that his influence over foreign relations alone and actions toward removing don't ask don't tell are enough "change" to have earned my vote.

Here's the thing, it doesn't have to be a perfect solution. If someone offers me a 5 dollar or a 10 dollar bill I'm not going to turn them both down because they're not offering a 100 dollar bill. I'm going to take the 10.

[Winehole23]

You never answered them of course, you just skipped over that and went straight to being angrily defensive.Emphasis and annoyance aren't anger, but even if I was angry, instead of merely being annoyed, tired and a little drunk, so what?

[MannyIsGod]

Emphasis and annoyance aren't anger, but even if I was angry, instead of merely being annoyed, tired and a little drunk, so what?

You realize I'm not Mojo right, WH?

I actually like you dude. Calm down. :lol

[Winehole23]

Sure. But if fling some weak bs around, vaguely directed at me, you can expect some passion in the reply. Does that bother you?

[Marcus Bryant]

Yet if enough people cared about it this would not be the case. However, most Americans don't care about how the debates are done.



Its either going to come from within this framework or its not going to change barring a violent revolution. I'm not holding my breath for a violent revolution in one of the most advanced countries in the world where the people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.


Why would it take a "violent revolution"? Though there are problems with this country's politics and governance, the tools and opportunity are there to challenge the status quo.



Then you're more involved than the average person. Good. Imagine if everyone where at this level of involvement? Would there or would there not be a much different atmosphere in DC?

Sure, improved engagement and understanding would be great among the people. But do the people even have that capacity, regardless if they want it?




:lol

While Obama has been a major disappointment I would argue that his influence over foreign relations alone and actions toward removing don't ask don't tell are enough "change" to have earned my vote.

Here's the thing, it doesn't have to be a perfect solution. If someone offers me a 5 dollar or a 10 dollar bill I'm not going to turn them both down because they're not offering a 100 dollar bill. I'm going to take the 10.

It's perhaps a nickel, at best. Maybe there's a change in diplomatic tone, but otherwise the 'War on Terror' hasn't deviated much from the prior administration's course, despite Cheney's protestations.

[EVAY]

I'm not mad at them. We knew how they were. I'm mad at those who voted for them.

I'm mad at the Republicans for doing such a disastrous job with the budget and the economy and foreign policy for 8 years that the American people were livid, and then for letting the right wing base overinfluence the nominating process for president that they ended up with a McCain-Palin ticket.

The Republicans have nooone but themselves to blame for the Obama presidency.

[spursncowboys]

I would probably agree with this statement for myself.

My reaction to the situation, however, is to become more involved than I ever have been in the past.

Not involved in a "show up at meetings and argue for policy points way"...both major parties are too narrow minded for me to be able to do that. Plus, I just don't want to argue with people about their position on things enough to actually do it. But I have begun sending money to candidates in selected races based on the participants in the race. Not based on what party they are from. I think that more Americans do that sort of thing than actively get in party organization.

I have actively considered moving to another country. If I could get my family to go along with it, I think I would.

And yet, I love my country.
1. Do you mind saying which candidates?
2. Where would you go?

[spursncowboys]

I'm not mad at them. We knew how they were. I'm mad at those who voted for them.

McCain would do the same thing.

[boutons_deux]

"the tools and opportunity are there to challenge the status quo."

The corps and capitalists will always outspend and nullify the voters.

Magic Negro talked about change, got elected, but has been totally co-opted by corporate/Wall St money.

Even Dems just talking about financial regulation sends intimidating $Ms to the Repugs, who bitch, faking populism, about TARP and bailouts, but would would have done TARP and bailouts and will never vote serious financial sector regulation.

[EVAY]

1. Do you mind saying which candidates?
2. Where would you go?

I'm not ready to answer No.1. I might in a day or two. I'm just sort of opposed to letting out that info. I'll think about it.

I have considered Australia, Canada, or England. I am unalterably a product of our initial heritage, I think. I actually spoke to an Australian about it 2 years ago. I know that they require a proof of financial independence, and I can prove that. I am ashamed to say that my problem with Canada is that it is so cold. How's that for admitting spoiling?

My tendency toward England is that I always feel that I have gone home when I go there. I truly love England. Having said that, I know, intellectually at least, that they love to denigrate the U.S. when it doesn't deserve it.

As I said to WH, the fact is that I love my country, warts and all. No matter how long I have been elsewhere, no matter how much I love it, I end up loving America more. It is sort of like being Roman Catholic. I have all sorts of problems with it...I hate certain parts of it...I just can't be anything else.

I can tell that I'm drunk... Otherwise, I would never be admitting this much personal info.

Regarding voting...I have almost always voted Republican...but I cannot vote for current Texas republicans when they associate with so much social conservatism that I find it at odds with the 'hands-off government' that I used to associate with Republicans of the national stage until the days of Ronald Reagan, actually.

I am a social libertarian with fiscal and military conservatism. That is probably why I seem so schizoid on this forum.. Also why my family fought on both sides of the the Revolution and the Civil War.

Honesty, SnC. Not always pretty,heh?


Your question is fair. I just am unwilling to share the answer. Sorry.

[EVAY]

SnC,

Plus, I just cannot tolerate Sarah Palin. No way. No how. Not ever.

[Marcus Bryant]

You can love your country and disagree with your government.

One problem is that in this country (as in many others), the country and the government are considered the same.

As for what conservatism has become, true, but consider that in spite of that and in spite of the general trend of state encroachment, there is still a considerable amount of personal liberty you enjoy in these United States.

And, on a personal note, please don't leave. If anything, you'll enjoy seeing Cobra Commander melt down as more swarthy Catholics enter his WASPy kingdom.

[Wild Cobra]

And, on a personal note, please don't leave. If anything, you'll enjoy seeing Cobra Commander melt down as more swarthy Catholics enter his WASPy kingdom.
Think what you want.

On a side note, the women who went to Catholic schools as girls seem to be the funnest in bed... Must be that rebellion from the teachings.

[ChumpDumper]

That was important.

[Wild Cobra]

That was important.
I'm just making light Marcus' silly attacks directed at me.

[Winehole23]

I'd call them descriptions.

[PixelPusher]

You can love your country and disagree with your government.

One problem is that in this country (as in many others), the country and the government are considered the same.


Ironically, it's much easier to hold this kind of separation in other countries that have long cultural histories that predate whatever form of government that currently resides there. To be "Italian" and love your country of Italy has nothing to do with the Italian government. Unfortunately, the United States has a government based more on Enlightenment ideals, and our "nation identity" is a mish-mash of whatever cultural values various immigrant groups brought with them (and continue to do).

[mogrovejo]

Creating a culture of anger is a strong political weapon best wielded by the Republican party. Democrats of late do not seem capable of making people afraid or mad like conservatives can.

They seem to succeed in making you mad and angry, that's for sure.

[Winehole23]

No, I generally don't like to discuss people. You know, that "great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" stuff.

[Winehole23]

No, what is retarded is the passage of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment should be repealed.
At last Thursday's Clear Lake Tea Party debate between the four Republican candidates for lieutenant governor, both the incumbent, David Dewhurst, and one of his challengers, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, declared their support for repealing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, a Progressive Era reform that provided for the direct election of U.S. senators by the people, rather than by state legislatures as the Founders intended.http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/first-reading/2013/oct/10/tea-party-principles-dewhurst-and-patrick-want-do-/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/first-reading/2013/oct/10/tea-party-principles-dewhurst-and-patrick-want-do-/

... because once the red staters have gerrymandered enough districts to be safely, eternally red, they will have enough district reps to elect red senators, even while losing the senators lose the popular vote (like Gore 2000 and the anachronistic electoral college disaster)

[Winehole23]

there's no chance the 17th Amendment will be repealed. being for such a repeal is a pure sop to Tea Partiers.

[EVAY]

The article is revealing to me because I had no idea that politicians running for state-wide office would actually say such a thing in public. Even in Texas.

Moreover, learning that Scalia is similarly minded just made me scared.

[EVAY]

The notion that all the Tea Partiers are in favor of this strikes me as consistent with their belief that they do not trust 'the people' to get it right. If 'the people' as a whole cannot vote directly for senator (and by logical extension, President), then the Tea Party has more influence beyond their current voting support status.

It is consistent with trying to get what you want by means other than elections as they have operated in this country for over a hundred years.

The Tea Party folk seem more than willing to upend most anything to effect their vision of 'right'. They have great energy. What they don't have yet is votes to be a majority. This is simply one more attempt to mitigate the extent to which they can enact their vision without voter support. I keep wondering why they are in America. If one is unwilling to abide by 'one person, one vote', why don't they go somewhere else and start a theocracy from scratch.

They keep threatening secession...why not just leave?

[RandomGuy]

there's no chance the 17th Amendment will be repealed. being for such a repeal is a pure sop to Tea Partiers.

It is just the newest flavor of Cool-aid.

The groupthink of the nutty right is not to be underestimated.

[RandomGuy]

The notion that all the Tea Partiers are in favor of this strikes me as consistent with their belief that they do not trust 'the people' to get it right. If 'the people' as a whole cannot vote directly for senator (and by logical extension, President), then the Tea Party has more influence beyond their current voting support status.

It is consistent with trying to get what you want by means other than elections as they have operated in this country for over a hundred years.

The Tea Party folk seem more than willing to upend most anything to effect their vision of 'right'. They have great energy. What they don't have yet is votes to be a majority. This is simply one more attempt to mitigate the extent to which they can enact their vision without voter support. I keep wondering why they are in America. If one is unwilling to abide by 'one person, one vote', why don't they go somewhere else and start a theocracy from scratch.

They keep threatening secession...why not just leave?

I wish they would. Find two or three good contiguous good bible-thumping states in the south, and GTFO.

The rest of us can carry on quite nicely on our economic union.