CBS/NYT poll: everybody is mad at everybody

[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 ing 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 ing important" they act.

Bull . 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 es 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 bull 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 es 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 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 bull 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."

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.

[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?

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 , 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 iden y" is a mish-mash of whatever cultural values various immigrant groups brought with them (and continue to do).