The Phantom on 7/8/2012 at 13:30
Quote Posted by mgeorge
While I've never really watched these shows before, I've been hearing this same old shit my whole life with and without the aid of the boob tube. Blah blah blah de fuckin blah. I haven't even voted in the last two elections I've gotten so cynical about the whole political process. Both candidates always promise the world and say anything to get a vote. Once there're in, nothing changes.
That has a obvious cause according to an interesting article in an English newspaper ("US voters contribute to political gridlock", The Guardian Weekly 12.08.11). The columnist argues:
"How has America been reduced to one party holding a gun to the US economy and the other trading away its principles to stop the trigger from being pulled? The problem is that the US has one party intent on using government resources as a force for social good and another that rejects any significant role for the public sector ...
... When in power they [the Republicans] made little effort to deal with the nation's many challenges. In opposition, and particularly in the two and a half years since Obama took office, they have used the tool of the Senate filibuster and other procedural impediments to try to stop nearly all Democratic initiatives in their tracks ...
Thus for Democrats, gridlock is their most pernicious enemy: a point Republicans understand all too well. The more they stop government from operating the more it emphasises their key political narrative that there is no reason to have any confidence in public institutions ..
Why do voters put up with such a situation? The answer lies in the apathy of the US people toward their own government. The ultimate check on Republican nihilism would be voter revolt. But in the last congressional election, voters rewarded unprecedented Republican obstructionism with control of the House."As for my personal view, I don't watch MSNBC or Fox News but hope Obama gets another term for President in the White House, although there will be another tough four years ahead of him.
Jason Moyer on 7/8/2012 at 14:38
I don't know if it's a foreign misconception or what, but the Democratic party's social policies aren't based on what's "good" but on what's popular. Right now they champion gay rights because that's what's popular - it wasn't part of their platform even 12 years ago. They didn't politicize race until the civil rights movement was well underway and highly popular. They're a populist party, not a progressive or liberal one. As soon as the legalization of marijuana breaks it's current 50/50 deadlock in popular opinion, you'll see that make it onto their platform. That's how they work. They supported going to war in Iraq until it was no longer popular. This is probably why they tend to have a reputation as the party without a backbone.
DDL on 7/8/2012 at 14:50
Isn't that sort of ideal for a party, then?
As in, they'll do what people seem to actually want, rather than what they, the politicians want? If people are getting more progressive, then you get a more progressive party? Sounds ideal.
I mean, I suppose you run the risk of "hanging gays" becoming popular again and thus becoming policy, but that's an inherent problem with democracy anyway, right?
Obviously it would be nice to have a political party that inherently agrees with my own fairly liberal viewpoint, but I'll take one that agrees with my viewpoint "because it's popular" over one that steadfastly sticks to its outdated throwback principles because of "integrity" or something.
(though yes, I'd totally swap my viewpoint if 'outdated throwback principles' became popular :p)
Jason Moyer on 7/8/2012 at 15:00
I'd support the Democratic party if they actually did something progressive, like nominating an atheist presidential candidate whose campaign was based around the importance of supporting education and science. And the full decriminalization of drugs. Oh, and the full de-mobilization of the military outside of humanitarian missions.
Papy on 7/8/2012 at 15:04
Quote Posted by DDL
Isn't that sort of ideal for a party, then?
Democracy is not supposed to be a tyranny of the majority. So no, it shouldn't be an ideal for a democratic party.
DDL on 7/8/2012 at 15:52
[Citation needed]
LarryG on 7/8/2012 at 17:51
Will Rogers (4 November 1879 – 15 August 1935) on politics & related topics, how little things change!
Quote:
I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.
Quote:
You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one.
Quote:
Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with.
Quote:
This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation.
Quote:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.
Quote:
Be it pestilence, war, or famine, the rich get richer and poor get poorer. The poor even help arrange it.
Quote:
This would be a great time in the world for some man to come along that knew something.
Quote:
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.
Quote:
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?
Quote:
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
Quote:
Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can't buy enough to eat.
Quote:
When the Judgment Day comes civilization will have an alibi, "I never took a human life, I only sold the fellow the gun to take it with."
Quote:
We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.
Quote:
So when all the yielding and objections is over, the other Senator said, "I object to the remarks of a professional joker being put into the Congressional Record." Taking a dig at me, see? They didn't want any outside fellow contributing. Well, he had me wrong. Compared to them I'm an amateur, and the thing about my jokes is that they don't hurt anybody. You can say they're not funny or they're terrible or they're good or whatever it is, but they don't do no harm. But with Congress — every time they make a joke it's a law. And every time they make a law it's a joke.
Quote:
Communism is like prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work.
And a few that may take some thinking about to apply to politics:
Quote:
Always drink upstream from the herd.
Quote:
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Quote:
Letting the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier than putting it back.
I end with this, having never followed the advice,
Quote:
Never miss a good chance to shut up.
scumble on 7/8/2012 at 19:26
That guy sounds vaguely like an anarchist of the same period.
To me it still looks like the US has two versions of the same party with different publicity departments.
june gloom on 7/8/2012 at 22:16
The origins of zipperhead are somewhat apocryphal but come from either the Korean war (tire imprints on the enemy as jeeps go over them) or, more dubiously and less frequently claimed, the Vietnam war (shoot the enemy in the face with high-powered weapons, their head is going to 'unzip' messily.) The term saw frequent use, particularly during Vietnam, though has fallen out of favor by now (I think anyone who wants to insult Asians just defaults to 'gook' these days)
I'm not entirely sure what Kolya's trying to say, especially since he's the traditional "get offended" guy.
LarryG on 7/8/2012 at 22:45
Quote Posted by scumble
That guy sounds vaguely like an anarchist of the same period.
Not at all. He was fervently pro-Roosevelt and a democrat. He believed in the value proposition that a national government offers. He just liked poking fun at how messy a democracy really is in practice.
Quote Posted by scumble
To me it still looks like the US has two versions of the same party with different publicity departments.
Not at all. Up close and personal they represent two very different ideological points of view about the role of government in the nation.
