The_Jed wrote:petegossett wrote: In reply to mazdeuce: The biggest problem with the increase of information was/is the significantly larger increase of *disinformation*, and the difficulty in trying to distinguish between the two.^THIS!!!
Werd. I mean Obama Hussein's a Muslim born in Kenya who wants to take our guns, and Cheney is Illuminati who is behind the 9-11 inside job.
My Facebook feed has turned into the anti-Snopes.
I asked my Grandpa who he voted for.
He told me "If you don't vote, don't bitch."
I said "That doesn't answer my question..."
He said "You don't see me bitching do you?" He never did.
Seriously, if you don't vote, you are directly part of the problem. People who don't vote, tend to be in the middle in their views when you talk to them. If they voted the two party system wouldn't have the effect it has on politics today.
What makes it really interesting this year is you have splits in BOTH parties. For all intents and purpose there are 4 parties running.
You have the Tea Party, Establishment GOP, Establishment Democrat, and the Sanders/Warren Democrats. Although only the Tea Party has tried to split, all are jockying for control of their respective sides.
So essentially we have came down to a play off system. The primaries are the semi-finals and general is the final. Each team has their bracket. Whoever win the primaries basically has control of their party, who ever wins the general definitely does.
Now if you want to really cook your noodle, just short of 20% Tea Party guys would vote for the Sanders/Warren Democrat if they win and their guy doesn't but won't vote for the Establishment Democrat. Neither Establishment will vote outside establishment.
This has been a fun year for human studies in politics. Now back to work for me.
EvanR wrote: I got involved in a political discussion with several co-workers today. I won't say the specific topic nor who took which side because I do not want this to become a political thread, which would be (rightfully) shut down by the moderators. What I found profoundly disturbing was the speed with which the discussion became irrational as well as the depth of irrationality reached. Both sides spouted off "facts" that were only backed by perceptions, not hard data. Voices were raised, and long-term friendships threatened. I believe the foundation of the United States, and its greatest strength for over 200 years, was the ability and willingness for true discourse - exchanges of thoughts, positions, and ideas. Not that this was the case in every single situation. Humans are not perfect, and deep passions can lead to irrationality - that's human nature, but it was mostly kept in check for two centuries. If discourse was indeed the foundation of this nation, and what made it strong and well-respected over the past 240 years... and feel free to correct me if you disagree... and my perception that the days of the ability to have civil discourse are behind us is correct, what does the USA have left to stand on? And if we as a nation have nothing left to stand on, how much longer can we stand?
Seems like we have been hovering on this political fence of disaster or profit for about 240 years now. From my limited sight of our history, the discourse has not changed since the dawn of our country.
One difference, though- harsh political differences are not solved via a dual.
Some have mentioned that friendships have ended, and conflicts arose within families.
Sounds a lot like 1860. But then, the conflicts turned to a civil war- which was to date, the bloodiest war the US has fought in. Among ourselves.
People have met increases of rights to minorities with very harsh violence. Which was ignored for many decades. You think facts were a part of lynch mobs?
You have noted 240 years of US history in one paragraph. Nothing has changed, nothing will, and realistically, it should not, too. The imbalance we have keeps us on our toes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_violence
Nothing new, nor limited to the us. Congressmen used to arm themselves in defense. All while getting basically nothing done(no change there).
Flight Service wrote: I asked my Grandpa who he voted for. He told me "If you don't vote, don't bitch." I said "That doesn't answer my question..." He said "You don't see me bitching do you?" He never did. Seriously, if you don't vote, you are directly part of the problem. People who don't vote, tend to be in the middle in their views when you talk to them. If they voted the two party system wouldn't have the effect it has on politics today.
That sounds good, but I think it is exactly wrong. I think those who vote are directly part of the problem. We get presented a small list of pre-selected candidate to choose from every 4 years. It doesn't matter who we vote for because in the end the two parties are exactly the same. Voting for the lesser of two evils (or even worse, thinking that one of the candidates will actually work for your interests) is foolhardy in my opinion. The only way the people can win is to not play the game and just not continue to give our consent to what 'our' government has become.
At this point, I don't see the U.S. being able to pull out of the dive and I am just waiting for it all to go boom so maybe we can start over. We, as a country, have little to nothing in common with the values we were founded on, but most people just don't see it.
T.J. wrote:Flight Service wrote: I asked my Grandpa who he voted for. He told me "If you don't vote, don't bitch." I said "That doesn't answer my question..." He said "You don't see me bitching do you?" He never did. Seriously, if you don't vote, you are directly part of the problem. People who don't vote, tend to be in the middle in their views when you talk to them. If they voted the two party system wouldn't have the effect it has on politics today.That sounds good, but I think it is exactly wrong. I think those who vote are directly part of the problem. We get presented a small list of pre-selected candidate to choose from every 4 years. It doesn't matter who we vote for because in the end the two parties are exactly the same. Voting for the lesser of two evils (or even worse, thinking that one of the candidates will actually work for your interests) is foolhardy in my opinion. At this point, I don't see the U.S. being able to pull out of the dive and I am just waiting for it all to go boom so maybe we can start over. We, as a country, have little to nothing in common with the values we were founded on, but most people just don't see it.
I understand the thought process but because people don't vote and don't get invovled you get the pre-selected candidates.
Not pushing anyone here but he is a good example. Sanders. He started out as a small town mayor and worked to get those who didn't vote involved. He ran as an independent from local to state all the way to the Senate. The only reason he isn't doing it nationally is a three way split guarantees a certain outcome he is less comfortable with.
I can understand your point of view for the every 4 year voter, but elections in most areas happen every year or multiple times every two years. Most of your life isn't decided by the people in DC (well unless you live there) it is decided by the jerk down the street. Failing to vote, get involved, or run for office yourself, shows that for all the talk as a nation of sovereignty and freedom and liberty isn't something you actually care about because you are willing to give that up because lack of options. Well, go make an option.
Staying disengaged allows the establishment to keep playing on the merry go round.
(please understand I have re-read this multiple times as I do not want it to come of as argumentative in tone or context. Here is a picture to help set the mood and voice...)
In reply to Flight Service:
I had something more substantial typed up here but I don't want to be the one to take the thread into what I dislike about the stance of either party. Suffice to say despite how I put my previous statement I am the guy that "throws his vote away" because I'm disillusioned with both sides. Your grandfather is correct though: if you don't try to affect change you don't have the right to complain.
In reply to The0retical:
Go get on a ticket. If you want to run PM and I will help you set a campaign plan.
T.J. wrote: At this point, I don't see the U.S. being able to pull out of the dive and I am just waiting for it all to go boom so maybe we can start over. We, as a country, have little to nothing in common with the values we were founded on, but most people just don't see it.
What values are those? The pretend ones that were used to rile up the patriots to start a revolution, or the actual ones that were largely economic?
It's not as if the period between 1776 and about 1810 had no conflicts- there were many arguments for and against the constitution, and some very glaring holes in the words to the actions that we are still feeling the reverberations over. The whole thing about "all men are created equal" line in the Declaration was never really universally true until arguably the 13th amendment, or until women could vote ~100 years ago.
The IDEAS were good, the application of those ideas hasn't been really universally applied...
For the record, this is the civil political discussion I wish we could have as a country
BTW, if you want to have a say in who your party puts up for election, as you feel that they are losers, get involved.
If anything should be clear about this current Presidential election cycle, if you want to make a real change- get involved early. I'm still pretty stunned by how early the cast of Republicans really got out there and worked. Less than 6 months into this current 2 year term, and we have to deal with this.
If we get a crappy President- again, it would not be the first time. Grant was a pretty crappy President even after finishing the Civil War. Some that are considered quite powerful also did really crappy things- FDR pulled us out of a depression, but also put citizens of certain decent into prisons. Or some scandalous Presidents did great things- Nixon will always be remember for Watergate and how the end of Vietnam played out- but we can't forget his legacy with China or the environment.
Humans are not perfect. In either leadership or voting. But we keep trying. And that's the point.
Some things I would like to talk about are, in no particular order:
If everyone was more involved in government/politics at the local level, I wonder what the impact would be on national politics. If the local politics started to really represent the wishes of the people (and not the local big business or other power players), would the change start to 'trickle up'? I don't see how the will of the people will ever make a difference when voters are just involved at the national level. Of course, it's still hard to get people engaged at the local level.
Just a theoretical question that popped in my head.
In reply to mapper:
I have an answer for that.
About 10 years, but you will see a difference in about 4~6. As you get involved at the local level, if you do something that gets you popular people will notice and it will move you up the food chain. Local election to state is about 10 years if you focus as that as your goal.
RossD wrote: Some things I would like to talk about are, in no particular order: 1. Term Length. They need to be limited to minimize corruption. 2. Dropping all political parties: Can we transition to not name calling (Saying someone is Republican/Democrat/... for someone on the other side of the line it might as well be an insult. It's very polarizing.) 3. Isolationism: Did it work in the 1930s with the Neutrality Acts? I don't like the US being the World Police. Being at constant war with a non-uniformed enemies is part of the wedge driving the country apart. Part of this train of thought would be to remove US bases from other countries. How would you feel if Japan or Turkey had a military base in Ohio or California?
I get the idea of trying to minimize corruption with term limits. But the flip side to that is churn of people who don't really have a long term interest in governing vs. arguing. If you have a career Senator who has to manage for his constituent vs. one who gets 12 years and is done- the actions are different. We see the fault of term limits right now in Michigan. With term limits, it's a whole lot easier to be ideological vs compromising to get something done. When you don't have to worry about re-election- you don't have any recourse of not getting something done.
Corruption in branches is why we need three of them in each state watching each other, and the 4th of a rational press.
alfadriver wrote:T.J. wrote: At this point, I don't see the U.S. being able to pull out of the dive and I am just waiting for it all to go boom so maybe we can start over. We, as a country, have little to nothing in common with the values we were founded on, but most people just don't see it.What values are those? The pretend ones that were used to rile up the patriots to start a revolution, or the actual ones that were largely economic? It's not as if the period between 1776 and about 1810 had no conflicts- there were many arguments for and against the constitution, and some very glaring holes in the words to the actions that we are still feeling the reverberations over. The whole thing about "all men are created equal" line in the Declaration was never really universally true until [redacted] the Civil Rights act of 1964. The IDEAS were good, the application of those ideas hasn't been really universally applied...
It kind stings to remember we had color TV before we got rid of colored water fountains.
Oh and even more recently than 1964 is letting the last 10% getting married. I'm ashamed it took so long.
RossD wrote: Some things I would like to talk about are, in no particular order: 1. Term Length. They need to be limited to minimize corruption. 2. Dropping all political parties: Can we transition to not name calling (Saying someone is Republican/Democrat/... for someone on the other side of the line it might as well be an insult. It's very polarizing.) 3. Isolationism: Did it work in the 1930s with the Neutrality Acts? I don't like the US being the World Police. Being at constant war with a non-uniformed enemies is part of the wedge driving the country apart. Part of this train of thought would be to remove US bases from other countries. How would you feel if Japan or Turkey had a military base in Ohio or California?
Term Limits - Almost unanimous agreement in the electorate but you are asking the established to say they will no longer be. Good luck with that.
No more parties - I have been saying this one for years and it will never happen. In some states you are put on the ballot without your party affiliation or if you are the incumbent or not. Other states have both. Some are mixed. there are no standards nationally on this.
Isolationism - I don't think it is possible to be isolationist and not collapse the economy but I think we can draw back from being the global beat cop. This requires alot more thought and study for a better answer.
Here's the big fallacy. We are assuming that at some point in history there was a polite and informed political discourse. I haven't found evidence of that
RossD wrote: It kind stings to remember we had color TV before we got rid of colored water fountains.
That is a powerful statement right there
mapper wrote: If everyone was more involved in government/politics at the local level, I wonder what the impact would be on national politics. If the local politics started to really represent the wishes of the people (and not the local big business or other power players), would the change start to 'trickle up'? I don't see how the will of the people will ever make a difference when voters are just involved at the national level. Of course, it's still hard to get people engaged at the local level. Just a theoretical question that popped in my head.
One of the "issues" with getting locally involved is need. However we feel out government is ineffective, for the most part it allows us to live our lives rather nicely.
On a local level- I have roads that are mostly good, I get clean water when I turn the faucet on, when I flush, it goes someplace, when it rains, it does not flood, garbage is picked up, snow is cleared, the system supporting food movement is strong, we have safe banks. Regionally- I can drive from one city to another to work, there are airports that I can go places with, I have power to turn lights on, there's gas delivery for my home and my car. Nationally- I can move through most of the world pretty safely, one can not be worried about enslavement, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to invade- for that matter- it's virtually impossible for groups like ISIS or any other radical group to over throw our country.
Vs. many other countries- our level of corruption is REALLY small- there's much less worry that building codes are not being met for power plants, bridges, buildings, etc- that they are there to be safe. We generally have a very clean environment.
All in all- however much we bitch about it- our various systems of government are pretty darned effective.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Here's the big fallacy. We are assuming that at some point in history there was a polite and informed political discourse. I haven't found evidence of that
Define polite and informed. I mean Burr and Hamilton were polite and informed....
What we have no is the end result of a two party system, which has essentially turned into an oligarchy. Until we can figure out how to allow representation of additional parties in our government, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, what we have now favors the oligarchs, so I'm not holding my breath.
In reply to Flight Service:
Hahaha. Eggs ractly
You'll need to log in to post.
