Disclaimer: This is NOT a thread for a political debate. Please do not crap on this thread with political rhetoric.
That being said, why is it that people get so infuriated over the political views of others? I mean, this subject has always puzzled me. I was having a discussion with a family member -- who, as it just-so happens, sees things differently than I do -- and it got to the point where he seemed deeply traumatized by my opinion. I just can't seem to understand this sort of thing; why would you be offended by something as inconsequential as an opinion? Do people not understand that what people say and what they do are rarely the same?
my friend even with the disclaimer odds are a debate will ensue. that aside, i think those that get butthurt over say an election or a debate or even a vote, is that it didnt go completely their way.
Aaron
I'd say it's because most people select a political party affiliation due to one or two primary issues they hold near and dear. The American two-party system encourages this type of conflict. In the spirit of not inciting a political debate among friends, I'll leave it at that. :cheers:
I like rscottlow's description.
I will add that this year's was especially heated because it wasn't just a nation divided on a man/woman and his/her policies such like it typically is, it was an election of emotion.
It wasn't "I'm not voting for Hillary because she is insanely corrupt" and "I AM voting for Donald because he has some good points and might be a radical change that could wake the country up."
Instead it was "I'm not voting for Donald because he's a racist piece of garbage" and "I AM voting for Hillary because she seems like she actually cares about all people, not just pure-blood Americans."
Nobody could see the big picture, and if the ones who did tried to converse with the ones who didn't it was like trying to mix oil and water.
Seemed to me the majority Hillary voter was fighting Trump's supposed racism. Seemed to me the majority Trump voter was fighting Hillary's obvious corruption and ongoing criminal investigations.
You can't fight emotion with logic. You can't fight logic with emotion. So we have an impasse and one of the most destructive elections of the modern world.
I loved stirring the pot. Seemed like all I did was go on Facebook and play devil's advocate all November.
Had one friend who had numerous people stop talking to him over this damn thing. Honestly if someone's political affiliation has the power to strip years of friendship away they must have had a weak quasi friendship to begin with. He took it as merely "pruning", lol!
Quote from: Watcher on December 28, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
You can't fight emotion with logic. You can't fight logic with emotion. So we have an impasse and one of the most destructive elections of the modern world.
I believe a man far wiser than myself once said something to the effect of, "If you are not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain."
I also enjoyed stirring the pot quite a bit this year. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the fence (we typically refrain from political conversation since we know that we each have reasons for taking a particular side). When the topic did come up though, we had some nice, heated debates.
I actually bought a Trump shirt at the county fair this year, just to wear it in public and to see the reactions I got. I wore it to an Oktoberfest in the fall, and it attracted quite a bit of attention. It was best that I left before I had too many beers and started saying things I didn't mean :D :cheers:
People get upset about politics because a lot of people have a hard time separating their opinions from their self-identity. When you disagree with their political ideology, you are disagreeing with their idea of themselves, which causes an emotional response rather than a logical one. Emotional responses get people all riled up and political debates end up all muddied with personal attacks rather than actual discourse. Like rscottlow said, a lot of voters are one or two issue voters, and those few issues are things they are very passionate about (abortion, guns, race issues, etc.). If those people can't separate their opinions on those issues from their self-identity, then any disagreement with their beliefs is a direct insult to them. When someone takes your belief as a insult, its very difficult to get them to discuss something with you rationally. This is most likely why your family member reacted the way they did, OP. They get offended by your opinion because to them, that opinion is not just a simple disagreement (as you see it), it is rejection of their entire identity.
Also, rscottlow has a point regarding the two-party system in America. Two-party systems typically breed an "Us vs. Them" mentality in politics, which is detrimental to the free exchange of ideas. Political beliefs are a spectrum, and barely anyone fits squarely into "Democrat" or "Republican" and their beliefs can change over time.
Side note: I've heard that saying about being liberal when you're young and conservative when you're older before, and I'm not so sure it holds as true as some people would like to believe. Older people do tend to be more conservative, but the relationship is more complex than just young=liberal, old=conservative. Read this article (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/) if you want more info.
However, there's no denying that people can and do switch parties and people's personal political ideologies do evolve over time. But a system that seems to glorify "party loyalty" and vilify "flip-flopping" discourages people and (more importantly) politicians from changing their minds, even if they realize a different viewpoint is more reflective of their personal belief. A wider range of political parties that more accurately reflects the views of the public at large would probably help this a bit. However, mathematically, a first-past-the-post voting system trends towards two big, largely unrepresentative parties. So until the US adopts an instant runoff system, finds a solution to gerrymandering, and makes legislative bodies more representative, this is going to be something that we have to deal with in the US.
Before anyone says anything, yes, I am a riot at parties.
I hate the whole country self identifying as a "two party system".
It's not. There are a lot more options than just Rep and Dem.
It's just that because of gerrymandering, major political power gained throughout the years, purchased media bias, and general ignorance of the public, all parties present except for Rep and Dem are all but ignored.
It really has gotten out of hand, and I doubt the founding fathers forsaw this.
It's literally to a point where voting "3rd party" is throwing your vote away. Sure, plenty of people argue "It's not throwing your vote away, if everyone who was undecided (who would ultimately settle for Rep or Dem) voted 3rd party we can elect someone else!" It's literally impossible in the modern world. I did some math on it and no longer have the figures or the reasoning, but if I remember correctly i somehow came to the conclusion that even if you could convert 60% of the voting population away from Rep or Dem a Rep or Dem would still win. It's due in no small part to the mass majority of voters not being active politically and basically just being lemmings.
Whole families voting Rep because daddy is the strongest policial minded and he says Rep is good, for example.
You would literally have to clean house and start anew.
Nobody is willing to do their own research or make their own informed decision and just eats whatever is spoon fed to them via media outlets, personal connections, and popular opinion. So until we have equal representation of all parties through unbiased media we have a two party system...
It really is infuriating.
I abstained from this vote. I'm usually a pretty particular "use it or lose it" kind of guy, and pretty patriotic, but I identify as a constitutionalist.
And while in my voting "career" no constitutionalist ever had a chance and I ended up siding with one of the big two, this year was a honest to God shaZam! show.
There was no way in hell I was voting for Hillary, and while Trump I felt at least would "shake foundations" and "wake people up" I couldn't in good faith vote for him either.
And I knew that voting for anyone else was going to be an exercise in futility.
So I stayed home. Tuned into CNN with a bottle of Bourbon and watched events unfold.
Quote from: Watcher on December 29, 2016, 12:51:27 PM
So I stayed home. Tuned into CNN with a bottle of Bourbon and watched events unfold.
Sounds like a good time. I was at a hotel bar doing much of the same.
I'm with you, though. I didn't really want to see either of the major party candidates win. I had already ordered an absentee ballot since I knew I was going to be traveling for work, so I checked the box for Gary Johnson and went on with my life. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either of the major party candidates.
Quote from: Watcher on December 29, 2016, 12:51:27 PM
I hate the whole country self identifying as a "two party system".
It's not. There are a lot more options than just Rep and Dem.
It's just that because of gerrymandering, major political power gained throughout the years, purchased media bias, and general ignorance of the public, all parties present except for Rep and Dem are all but ignored.
It really has gotten out of hand, and I doubt the founding fathers forsaw this.
It's literally to a point where voting "3rd party" is throwing your vote away. Not for the sake that if enough people voted outside RvD that a 3rd candidate still wouldn't win, but simply due to the mass majority of voters not being active politically and basically just being lemmings.
Whole families voting Rep because daddy is the strongest policial minded and he says Rep is good, for example.
Nobody is willing to do their own research or make their own informed decision and just eats whatever is spoon fed to them via media outlets, personal connections, and popular opinion. So, in effect, we have a two party system...
It really is infuriating.
...
Your points about public apathy/ignorance and media bias are valid, but another thing to consider is that, like I said before, the actual voting system we use (first past the post) is a big part of why we have two major parties, and all 3rd parties are basically irrelevant. Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo for more info regarding this.
It isn't just the media and voter apathy (which are also problems, don't get me wrong), its a mathematical inevitability. Even if a 3rd party were to do really well, it would cause minority rule. Case in point: the republican primary. Trump almost never won a majority of the primary votes in each state's primary, just the largest plurality. And Republican primaries are winner take all rather than proportional, so even when he only got 35% of a state's votes, he got 100% of that state's delegates. So, most republicans (I think the average per state was around 66%, but don't quote me on that lol) wanted someone else to be their party's candidate, but they didn't agree on exactly who, so they got Trump. And I don't really think that's fair. I want to be clear though:
I don't mean that as a dig on Trump, just as a dig on the system as a whole.
Well, "winner take all" when it comes to narrowing down the playing field may be a harsh approach but it is appropriate, I guess.
If a guy only gets 20% of the votes but everyone else got less, he's still popular, so he would get the primary position as that party's candidate.
The same thing would happen with a presidential.
If 5 people were equally in the running realistically someone could win with only 21% of the country's vote.
The whole "not my president" bullshit would be even worse, now.
Quote from: Watcher on December 29, 2016, 01:32:20 PM
Well, "winner take all" when it comes to narrowing down the playing field may be a harsh approach but it is appropriate, I guess.
If a guy only gets 20% of the votes but everyone else got less, he's still popular, so he would get the primary position as that party's candidate.
The same thing would happen with a presidential.
If 5 people were equally in the running realistically someone could win with only 21% of the country's vote.
I guess in this sense having the people in the running weeded out until we have a black and white choice between two people would ultimately result in a country less divided. Unhappy, but less divided...
Exactly, and that is a big problem. (at least I think so lol). I think the US should switch all elections to Instant Runoff or Single Transferable Vote. In either those systems, you rank the candidates in order of preference rather than just voting for 1 person. Then, if no candidate has >50% of the votes, the candidate with the least amount votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes go to the voter's second choice. This repeats until a candidate has >50% of the vote. This leaves the voters with a candidate more voters are comfortable with. Also, people can vote for smaller candidates without fear of "throwing their vote away" because if their candidate can't win, their votes will be re-allocated to their second (or maybe even third or fourth) choice rather than just being discarded.
This can help foster a more supportive environment for smaller parties, although without other measures in place it does trend towards 2 major parties (albeit over a much longer timeframe then FPTP).
ETA: Yes, if 5 candidates ran for pres and someone won with 21% of the vote, the "Not my president" cries would be much much worse. Extremely unlikely, but under the current rules, it's totally possible and legal.
Another thing: stuff like voting system reform is hard for politicians to garner support for because it is by and large BORING. Who (besides math geeks like me, I suppose lol) really wants to spend all day talking about mathematical efficiency, Condorcet conditions, and proportional representation? SNORE. Barely any voter is going to hear a congressional candidate shouting about Single Transferable Vote and go "Wow! That guy/gal really inspired me today, I'm gonna make sure to get out and vote for them!" But if they hear someone shouting about abortion or guns (or whatever the emotional issue of the day is), that's when they get fired up.
My absolute favorite thing about this recent election was people calling for a repeal of Electoral College.
I'll admit, I didn't understand it so well when I first came of voting age, but it is CRITICAL to our system of government and to our country.
People be like "Switzerland is a republic, we should be like Switzerland!" and I'm like "Dude, Switzerland is the size of the Austin Texas Metro area. Literally.
Found a great population map that blatantly shows how LA, NY, Chi, Miami, and Austin alone basically dominate the country. If we went by popular vote alone not only would the people in farming and ranching states be underrepresented, but we'd succumb to "mob rule" where all you have to do is convince a simple majority that you're right to win. Every instance of popular vote in this country falls to SUPERmajority for this very reason, and getting a Pres elected by 2/3 of this country is figuratively impossible.
Probably your offended family member understands that it's not your opinion that is his problem, it is the potential consequences of that opinion.
Opinions can result in mysery, oppression, trauma and death, -they have throughout history. That's why people can get offended, if they perceive that a particular opinion can be damaging.
Quote from: Watcher on December 29, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
My absolute favorite thing about this recent election was people calling for a repeal of Electoral College.
I'll admit, I didn't understand it so well when I first came of voting age, but it is CRITICAL to our system of government and to our country.
People be like "Switzerland is a republic, we should be like Switzerland!" and I'm like "Dude, Switzerland is the size of the Austin Texas Metro area. Literally.
Found a great population map that blatantly shows how LA, NY, Chi, Miami, and Austin alone basically dominate the country. If we went by popular vote alone not only would the people in farming and ranching states be underrepresented, but we'd succumb to "mob rule" where all you have to do is convince a simple majority that you're right to win. Every instance of popular vote in this country falls to SUPERmajority for this very reason, and getting a Pres elected by 2/3 of this country is figuratively impossible.
Well, technically ranching states wouldn't be underrepresented, they would be represented exactly as they are. The electoral college gives less populated states an over-representation. Whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of intense debate. Tyranny of the majority is an interesting thing to talk about.
Also, not wanting to start a debate about the EC here since I doubt I could change your mind, and OP specifically asked for no debates. But I feel obliged to point out, your numbers are a bit off regarding the size of those cities:
NYC: 8.406 million
Los Angeles: 3.884 million
Chicago: 2.719 million
Austin: 885,400
Miami: 417,650
Total: 16.312 million
The total US population is 318.9 million. Even those cities combined is only 5% of the country. Even if you expand those to total metro areas rather than just city limits, you don't even come close to a majority. That said, the majority of the population does live on the coasts, mostly in urban and suburban areas. Just not in those 5 cities.
Feel free to PM me if you want to talk more about the EC, I won't get offended if you disagree with me lol. I still would share a beer with you any day :cheers:
I wasn't trying to be specific or anything.
Of course those few cities aren't literally half the population. Just exaggerating, a lot, but the point remains.
And I don't think being represented "as they are" is necessarily a good thing.
This is going to be ridiculous but it's the only really good way I can think to make my point.
Lets say a town has 10 people, and of those people only 2 are farmers. One merchant in town arranges to sell the crop to a nearby settlement, and one courier loads a truck and drives it over. The settlement in return provides a cheap source of fuel, so the truck returns with a full tank and barrels of fuel to run the farmers' equipment.
A bill comes up that proposes the town sell the crop to a DIFFERENT settlement that will instead provide the town with iPods instead of fuel.
Almost everyone goes "YAY! iPods! We love music!"
But the farmers, the courier, and the merchant go "Wait a minute... If we stop selling to the former settlement they'll stop giving us a discount on fuel, and it'll be harder for us to produce more crop and cost more to transport it to the settlement we trade with. We can't do that!" And everyone else replies "That's not a concern for us, we have iPods! You're the farmers, you figure it out."
So they vote. 6-4, the town sells the crop for iPods instead of Fuel...
The farmer has smaller yield because he didn't have the fuel to plow as many rows, the courier has to spend more in fuel surcharge so he pockets less, and the merchant makes less off commission both due to the lower yield from the farmer AND the increased fuel surcharge the merchant used. So now, overall, the town is less profitable... But they have iPods... Maybe they realize they're worse off, and the next election a towns-person might side with the workers, but one person isn't enough to really change anything.
If we simply expand the 10 person town to a 1000 person town with the same ratios the result is still the same. 400 to 600. But if we assign 5 people to represent the workers and 5 people to represent the townsfolk, there will be some semblance of fairness in major decisions, despite there being unequal representation which can be taken as being, in it of itself, unfair.
Keep going. Make it a half billion population country, the principle remains. To keep one from screwing over the other, you have to hold them to equal value.
I know that's incredibly remedial, I'm FAR from an expert in these things. You'll let me know if I came close?
Over Non-trivial subjects I will never dislike someone.
But if our moral beliefs conflict, there is going to be some discomfort :kiss3:.
i lovve the local people who would stay out of voting AND Buddha Loves You about its outcome. there is the write in option. futile? sure :) but its a vote cast with the desire of the one who cast the vote. and no one else.
Aaron
take the following as my own POV. nothing more. those that dont vote, give up the right to biatch about the outcome. i.e. dont blame me i voted for ( insert candidate here) regardless of how much or little power your individual vote carries. if you lost your right to vote USUALLY is your own fault. unless you emigrated elsewhere. even then tech. still your vote loss is your own . or was your own. just saying for arguments sake, you always had the option of pulling a richard pryor and vote " none of the above" m8st of the time id vote split ticket anyways. id vote as though every candidate was applying for a particular job and i had to choose who i felt was best qualified. i could have confounded those who processed the presidential vote by writing in "Donald Clinton" or hillary trump, there was a lady in town id enjoy political debates with. she was involved with the DNC here in town... i wasnt. yet our discussions were quite civililised. and i respected her opinions. as she also respected mine.
Aaron
There's an amusing dissenting position that says if you DID vote you have no right to complain about the outcome.
Think of it in terms of a spectator sport. Let's take football, the Bears vs Packers. Packers win and Bears loose, as per usual.
As a packer you can celebrate the victory, and as a Bear you must suffer defeat, but in the end you can only blame yourself for the loss. You weren't good enough, you fumbled that pass on 4th down, you did a bad job as coach, etc.
As a bystander, you can say "What was the coach thinking? What game were the refs watching? This is BS, etc".
So as the result of an election if your candidate lost all you can do is sit back and say "The people have spoken, my guy (or gal) wasn't good enough."
As an abstainee I can say "Americans are stupid, I can't believe they voted X into office!"
In the end, as a natural born US Citizen I have the 1st amendment behind my back. Saying "you lost the right to say anything because your refusal to vote was unAmerican" is just as unAmerican in it of itself.
It's like flag burning as ruled a constitutionally protected act of free expression. You can hate it as being unAmerican, but trying to stop people from doing it is ALSO unAmerican.
It's an interesting duality.
fair enough. for arguments ( or for lack of) sake, i can accept this as well you may have this view, i still hold onto mine. . the green boy peckers vs bears analogy that made me chuckle. if i was still a drinker id cast my vote THEN partake of a good drink and not worry about the results. i feel personally whichever side won, if i did nothing to affect the end result, i couldnt gripe at the winner or loser. i at least had a miniscule percentage of input on it.
Aaron
Quote from: Watcher on December 29, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
I wasn't trying to be specific or anything.
Of course those few cities aren't literally half the population. Just exaggerating, a lot, but the point remains.
And I don't think being represented "as they are" is necessarily a good thing.
This is going to be ridiculous but it's the only really good way I can think to make my point.
...
I know that's incredibly remedial, I'm FAR from an expert in these things. You'll let me know if I came close?
I think I get what you're trying to say, although the situation in your example seems better suited as an argument for limitation of federal power and/or representative democracy instead of direct democracy, rather than an argument for the EC. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you, but I took your point as "what's objectively best for a community may not necessarily be the same as what the majority
believes is best." And I get that, sure. I just disagree with the way the EC addresses that concern because, as you said, deliberately introducing inequality in voting power is unfair in and of itself. Like I said before, I don't really want to get into a debate about the EC here as the OP asked for no political debates. I'm always up for a healthy discussion though if you want to start another thread or PM me lol.
As for my opinion on the whole "if you did/didn't vote, you have no right to complain" thing, I think everyone has the "right" to complain, but usually I would be more inclined to listen to the complaints of someone who at least participated in the only way to enact any kind of change. This year is a little bit different though since both candidates were so disliked overall. So while I don't necessarily agree with those who didn't vote, I at very least get where they're coming from this time around. In any case, I'm not really one to talk down on people who didn't vote. You have every right to abstain from an election. The constitution is cool like that.
Also I think its important to say: I don't think anyone is arguing that you
literally lose your right to complain, as that would be unconstitutional no doubt. I think the mentality is just that if you are unhappy with the results of the election, you should have voted to at least try to make some kind of difference.
Kinda what I meant tbh. As far as ones gripe having a bit more weight if a vote in any direction were cast. I've run into a few of the don't blame me folks, yet several hadn't voted in 8+ years. Imho last few presidential elections were a bit of a circus. The two main contenders this time scared me almost as much as Vladimir putin. I love it when people are quite certain that this candidate will do this or that. Yet barring executive power or whatever its called, lawmaking resides in the house. Anyhow it is what it is, I guess we've got who we've got for at least 4 years, I guess we sit back with a guarded optimism and hope for the best Eh?
Aaron
Truth.
People getting bent up over politics and "their" candidate?! .. When the government machine will continue to run regardless of which stooge is in the hotseat? .. Bloody ridiculous!
Society has been trained to focus on "we won" thru sports, school results, overseas trading & conflicts plus a whole heap of "awards for being there regardless" ... Not winning is now a insult and personal affront to many!
Plus it keeps us focussed on popular "white noise" issues and the power blocs can keep doing as they wish almost unnoticed! Social media does not help this!
Sent from my LG-K500 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Janx101 on January 01, 2017, 12:13:34 AM
... plus a whole heap of "awards for being there regardless" ... Not winning is now a insult and personal affront to many!
This really is a bigger issue than most would perceive.
I hate that I'm lumped in with "millennials." I hate the thought that a bunch of "not my president", entitled, safe-space, weak, gutless, "pussified" children will be the people "in charge" of this country in just a couple of short decades...
It scares me possibly more than it should, but it's a real problem.
Quote from: Watcher on January 01, 2017, 11:21:06 AM
Quote from: Janx101 on January 01, 2017, 12:13:34 AM
... plus a whole heap of "awards for being there regardless" ... Not winning is now a insult and personal affront to many!
This really is a bigger issue than most would perceive.
I hate that I'm lumped in with "millennials." I hate the thought that a bunch of "not my president", entitled, safe-space, weak, gutless, "pussified" children will be the people "in charge" of this country in just a couple of short decades...
It scares me possibly more than it should, but it's a real problem.
People said the same thing about the generation that's in power now.
Well, I'd say one of the biggest problems with the system we have in place is the media's involvement. I understand free press and freedom of speech and all of that, but honestly.... It's gotten to the point where the media plays a pivotal role in the elections, and we all know how biased the media can be. I know that media and news is a necessary evil, but they shouldn't be allowed to "spin" things and make one candidate look good versus the others or vice versa.
Quote from: Kijona on January 10, 2017, 05:34:13 AM
Well, I'd say one of the biggest problems with the system we have in place is the media's involvement. I understand free press and freedom of speech and all of that, but honestly.... It's gotten to the point where the media plays a pivotal role in the elections, and we all know how biased the media can be. I know that media and news is a necessary evil, but they shouldn't be allowed to "spin" things and make one candidate look good versus the others or vice versa.
While I agree that the media should strive to be objective, trying to police what the media says is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's spin and what isn't?
Quote from: Kijona on January 10, 2017, 05:34:13 AM
Well, I'd say one of the biggest problems with the system we have in place is the media's involvement. I understand free press and freedom of speech and all of that, but honestly.... It's gotten to the point where the media plays a pivotal role in the elections, and we all know how biased the media can be. I know that media and news is a necessary evil, but they shouldn't be allowed to "spin" things and make one candidate look good versus the others or vice versa.
Ain't this the truth. But, it's our own fault for watching. If we could just stop watching and listening to they garbage they're selling it would end. Same thing with our leaders. It's always been my view that if even a portion of the voting public where to vote for their 1st choice candidate they might loose that election but it would send a message to the "machine" that they don't have control. Imagine what they would do in subsequent elections if they where not sure they had voters it their bag before the election (elections are usually won by narrow margins). Surely they would not be willing to spend 100's of millions of dollars to get elected. It would be an end to the 2 party system in one election cycle.
But sadly no, most will vote for the lesser of 2 evils to avoid being ridiculed and told they are throwing their vote away. I cannot remember an election where we didn't have a single candidate that was my, or anyone I know, 1st choice. It's always 2 jokers we get conned into voting for.
I'm pledging to "waste" my vote in the next election (in 4 years) unless of course Turmp really turns things around. I pledge not to fall victim to the another Hollywood circus politics election. Don't let the bought and paid for media pit us against each other.
Quote from: qcbaker on January 10, 2017, 06:31:08 AM
Quote from: Kijona on January 10, 2017, 05:34:13 AM
Well, I'd say one of the biggest problems with the system we have in place is the media's involvement. I understand free press and freedom of speech and all of that, but honestly.... It's gotten to the point where the media plays a pivotal role in the elections, and we all know how biased the media can be. I know that media and news is a necessary evil, but they shouldn't be allowed to "spin" things and make one candidate look good versus the others or vice versa.
While I agree that the media should strive to be objective, trying to police what the media says is a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's spin and what isn't?
while he was alive, Hussein in Iraq knew what was going on by watching CNN. Back during ww2, when we/allies invaded Normandy, we had the Nazis thinking we were hitting further away than what we did. If we alter or censor the media, we are no better than who we despise, back during the Clinton time in wash., abc news was "All Bill Clinton" NBC was nothing but Clinton and CBS was Clinton broadcasting service. And sure fox was biased in the other direction. Most of the time when I had net running id get my news overseas. I.e.. Bbc etc. Less of an apparent bias. Someone made a comment on talk radio once, seems one side gets 8 years, then the other. Etc. In getting older now and my patience is wearing thin. Politicians need to remember, they produce NOTHING. Our taxes pay them. The apparent demise of the AcA HAS ME AT WITS END. Sometimes I think the party system needs to be done away with. Each person runs on their own merits, and votes accordingly. Also think congress should have term limits like executive branch and others do too. Anyhow ill stop before I get wound up.
Aaron
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on January 10, 2017, 10:33:17 AM
...
Sometimes I think the party system needs to be done away with. Each person runs on their own merits, and votes accordingly. Also think congress should have term limits like executive branch and others do too. Anyhow ill stop before I get wound up.
Aaron
Technically political parties aren't an official part of our political process. But they might as well be with how ingrained into people's minds they are. Like I've said before, I agree that the 2 party system is detrimental to political discourse, but for that to change you have to change the mechanics of the voting systems we use, and that's pretty hard to do. The people in charge of changing the system were put in place by the current system, so they have very little incentive to try to change it. Why would they want to make it harder for themselves to get re-elected?
As for term limits, they present a weird problem. With term limits, you avoid career politicians and (in theory) reduce corruption which is good. But, then you're left with relatively inexperienced politicians who are less familiar with the processes of federal government and are more easily taken advantage of by lobbyists and special interest groups. Politics is the only field where previous experience is sometimes seen as a negative rather than a positive... Its a weird catch-22 that I'm not sure anyone has a great answer for right now.
One of the biggest problems we have in the USA is that the interests of the people are sometimes out of sync with the interests of the people we elect to govern. The public wants the government making decisions that benefit the people of this country as a whole (what they were elected to do), but senators/representatives often just make decisions that benefit themselves, rather than the people. Politicians often seem most concerned with lining their pockets with campaign contributions rather than being concerned with what is actually best for the people.
A quote to think about:
"It's said that "power corrupts," but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. When they do act, they think of it as service, which has limits. The tyrant, though, seeks mastery, for which he is insatiable, implacable."
-David Brin
Very similar to something Frank Herbert said in Dune, but I think Brin worded it better. Anyway, the point is that the kind of people attracted to powerful positions are often the people worst suited to wield that power.
... And just like that the political storm in a teacup was becalmed!
I'm a Crazy MotherTrucker!!