I am deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States

Some folks at work were talking about it yesterday--and they were treading very carefully. But I thought it was interesting; pretty much everyone came away with the following conclusions:

Probably the two best candidates in the field that anyone could see themselves voting for are Bush and Sanders. We can't decide if this is good (they're two quality candidates, and even though I disagree with both on some major issues, I think they're both capable of the job) or bad (the best we can do is guy who is perceived to be very far to the left and a guy who's dad was "meh", and brother was borderline atrocious?)

If it came down to Clinton vs. Trump, it is going to be a very difficult decision to pick the lesser of the two evils for most people. I have to agree, although I'd just vote 3rd party. Again.

I thought the "conclusions" were pretty interesting.

mtn wrote: Some folks at work were talking about it yesterday--and they were treading *very* carefully. But I thought it was interesting; pretty much everyone came away with the following conclusions: Probably the two best candidates in the field that anyone could see themselves voting for are Bush and Sanders. We can't decide if this is good (they're two quality candidates, and even though I disagree with both on some major issues, I think they're both capable of the job) or bad (the best we can do is guy who is perceived to be very far to the left and a guy who's dad was "meh", and brother was borderline atrocious?) If it came down to Clinton vs. Trump, it is going to be a *very* difficult decision to pick the lesser of the two evils for most people. I have to agree, although I'd just vote 3rd party. Again. I thought the "conclusions" were pretty interesting.

Huh, In my house is was Kasich and Sanders.

In reply to alfadriver: We're comfortable. It didn't happen by accident and the powers-that-be realize that if your unwashed masses are kept comfortable they are much less likely to break out the guillotines.

Civilization is only veneer thin however, we see this at every disaster (Katrina for example) when some rise to the occasion, some rape and pillage, but most simply go along with the path of least resistance. Honestly I think we've made life too easy for most people and without having any skin in the game most people simply don't care.

During our latest war in the middle east I had a cousin turn 18. He was well on his way to becoming a complete E36 M3-bag but he had shown an interest in the military. I took him aside and encouraged him as strongly as I could which caused a huge flare up in my exceptionally liberal/left/anti-military family. Basically his mother said "I don't care who else goes but MY son isn't going to be sacrificed for this country." Well, if not him then who?

Upshot of that was that cousin did not enlist and instead finished his journey of becoming a trick-turning-junky. But at least his precious life wasn't threatened in a war.

**** Sorry, that turned into a rant. My point was that too many people seem to feel that "someone else" will take care of things. There is no "someone else", we're it. Us. We are the politicians, military, police, criminals, and all the rest. And WE need to start stepping up even if it makes us uncomfortable.

I am thinking of going to the store today to buy some molasses and then make some gingerbread men cookies. I'm not sure I have the required cookie cutter though.

T.J. wrote: I am thinking of going to the store today to buy some molasses and then make some gingerbread men cookies. I'm not sure I have the required cookie cutter though.

You should GRM it with a bent hack saw blade and an O2 socket.

In reply to EvanR:

I honestly don't think there has been a wholesale decline in civil discourse. Nor do I think anything else about "us" as a nation has really declined. There is a tendency to romanticize the past and overlook the strife, turmoil and strait up evil E36 M3 that was going on in our country throughout it's history.

The thing that depresses me about this election cycle and some of the rhetoric I've been hearing is not that we have declined. It is that we have failed to progress beyond some of the ugly ideas and behaviors of the past.

petegossett wrote: As a non-sports fan I see quite a similarity between the two. It's largely an irrational and emotional fervor for your "team" regardless of whether or not they're any good. So it makes perfect sense, given the economic scope of professional sports, that a high percentage of the already large number of sports fans would approach politics with the same mindset they approach sports with.

Right on. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I'm seeing similarities between fans and voters.

I been left, I been right... then I bounced to center.

I really like the view from here. Not much clout for us tho.

Flight Service wrote:

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....

You both got that right! Gawd, you should read some of things our "Founding Fathers and First Continental Congress" were saying about each other in the newspapers of the day. Every bit as nasty and vicious as today. The difference was that they went out of their collective way to use flowery and intellectual language to insult each other; it was like a contest to see who could come up with the most subtle and cleverest zingers. It's really entertaining reading.

In reply to KyAllroad:

You are absolutely correct.

But the current comfort level of most of the citizens means that they don't feel the need to get involved.

It's interesting that you note the whole "somebody else" thing- but even when there was a draft, MOST of the people who are sacrificed are the lower end of the economic society. The higher end had ways of getting around (if they chose to) the actual fighting. And the fact that few are forced into serving makes it a lot easier for politicians to send our citizens into harms way.

And now, how we treat our veterans is deplorable. We call them heroes, but treat them like crap. Give them a standing ovation at sporting events, but don't bother making sure all of them are housed and taken care of.

WildScotsRacing wrote:

Flight Service wrote:

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....

You both got that right! Gawd, you should read some of things our "Founding Fathers and First Continental Congress" were saying about each other in the newspapers of the day. Every bit as nasty and vicious as today. The difference was that they went out of their collective way to use flowery and intellectual language to insult each other; it was like a contest to see who could come up with the most subtle and cleverest zingers. It's really entertaining reading.

A sample from the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson:

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

Trump's an amateur compared to these guys.

T.J. wrote:

Flight Service wrote: Seriously, if you don't vote, you are directly part of the problem.

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.

This isn't meant as an attack against you at all, but as an open question in the spirit of abstract political discussion: There ARE more than 2 parties on the ballot. Why NOT vote for a third party candidate?

I understand the "lesser of 2 evils" complaint perfectly. My signature below hasn't changed in years. What I don't understand is the unwillingness to even consider a third party candidate. Hell, at this point, it almost doesn't matter which third party you vote for - all that matters is that the Big Two get the message that a large number of people aren't going to take their E36 M3 anymore.

That being said, a bunch of my acquaintances (both D and R varieties) are absolutely locked in the political equivalent of commuter road rage: it doesn't matter if I actually get where I'm going, as long as I'm beating YOU. Seriously, the gloating I heard for every supposed victory by their side sounded like 4th grade all over again. "Oh YES WE DID, Republican shiny happy people!" "Suck it, Democrats!"

WilD wrote: In reply to EvanR: I honestly don't think there has been a wholesale decline in civil discourse. Nor do I think anything else about "us" as a nation has really declined. There is a tendency to romanticize the past and overlook the strife, turmoil and strait up evil E36 M3 that was going on in our country throughout it's history. The thing that depresses me about this election cycle and some of the rhetoric I've been hearing is not that we have declined. It is that we have failed to progress beyond some of the ugly ideas and behaviors of the past.

I had a post a while back in another thread. If you watched the specials on the Roosevelt's a while back, you will see that nothing has changed and they are in fact using some of the exact same terminology.

Ian F wrote: 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.

There's very little preventing third-party representation, except that people largely refuse to vote for them, either through ignorance or inertia or both.

Duke wrote: This isn't meant as an attack against you at all, but as an open question in the spirit of abstract political discussion: **There ARE more than 2 parties on the ballot. Why NOT vote for a third party candidate?** I understand the "lesser of 2 evils" complaint perfectly. My signature below hasn't changed in years. What I don't understand is the unwillingness to even consider a third party candidate. Hell, at this point, it almost doesn't matter *which* third party you vote for - all that matters is that the Big Two get the message that a large number of people aren't going to take their E36 M3 anymore.

Because if actually voting for anyone other than the Big 2 actually meant something - actual representation in the government - like it is just about every other "elected representation" society, then maybe voting for one of those other two or three parties might be worth doing. Otherwise it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Does the establishment care if one of those parties gets votes? Not in the least.

Personally, I consider a parliamentary system to be better. All parties get representation. No one party is likely to have an out-right majority. With no majority, parties are forced to form coalitions and create compromise.

I just want to thank everyone for keeping this conversation civil.

Keep calm and carry on.

Kia_Racer wrote: You should try being a moderate and live in TX. Most of the people I have talked politics with think I am a liberal. I have often wondered what happened to all the moderates that used to populate the USofA. It seems today that everyone wants you to be all the way to the right or left. If you are a moderate today you are just thought of as wishy-washy. Just my $0.02

I mostly just nod my head and move on ... regardless of whether I agree or disagree with whomever is flapping their lips

I realize that it doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree ... mostly they are trying to get something started .... and as often as not, I prefer to disassociate myself with them and their opinion, regardless of what that is ...

sort of a modern version of the old saying "that I'd rather keep my mouth shut and have folk perceive me an idiot, that to open my mouth and remove all doubt"

Duke wrote:

Ian F wrote: 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.

There's very little preventing third-party representation, except that people largely refuse to vote for them, either through ignorance or inertia or both.

Yes and no. Yes, it is legally possible. In reality, it's not practical to go up against the Big 2. Why do you think Sanders is running as a Democrat after years of serving as an Independent in the Senate? In a state like VT or NH, a candidate can pull off the Independent thing. In the other states, the politics of the general population are considerably more polarized and very often based on family tradition: "I vote X because my father voted X and his father before him and for as long as anyone can remember." I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just the way it is. That inertia you speak of is very powerful. Just ask any race car driver who has hit a wall. If anyone can figure out a way to force a cultural shift away from that inertial thinking (and without a second civil war), they'll win a Nobel Prize.

But as mentioned above, for the most part, everyone is "comfortable" if not completely happy. But "comfortable" is generally "peaceful", although some of the latest outbursts are a telling. A feeling of cultural frustration combined with a lack of comfort and a bit of mental instability can form a lethal combination.

Another sci-fi idea from the past was from Heinlein in Starship Troopers. Only veterans are considered citizens and have earned the vote. Everyone else is a resident, they may pay taxes and enjoy the protections of the society but do not have a say in how it is run.

It goes back to my "skin in the game" issue.

The view from outside the fishbowl is quite different. While y'all been at each-others throats about who is going to run the country and how it should be run, these guys came in an took over. It is surprising how few even realize this.

On the individual level a lot of the nation's attention is being devoted to blindly defending a particular political dogma. It would be in my cynical nature to think that this dog-fight situation did not happen without someone making it happen.

There is a great scam being pulled on the US population, but you wont see it from inside the borders. Follow the money trail.

Ian F wrote:

Duke wrote: This isn't meant as an attack against you at all, but as an open question in the spirit of abstract political discussion: **There ARE more than 2 parties on the ballot. Why NOT vote for a third party candidate?** I understand the "lesser of 2 evils" complaint perfectly. My signature below hasn't changed in years. What I don't understand is the unwillingness to even consider a third party candidate. Hell, at this point, it almost doesn't matter *which* third party you vote for - all that matters is that the Big Two get the message that a large number of people aren't going to take their E36 M3 anymore.

Because if actually voting for anyone other than the Big 2 actually meant something - actual representation in the government - like it is just about every other "elected representation" society, then maybe voting for one of those other two or three parties might be worth doing. Otherwise it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Does the establishment care if one of those parties gets votes? Not in the least. Personally, I consider a parliamentary system to be better. All parties get representation. No one party is likely to have an out-right majority. With no majority, parties are forced to form coalitions and create compromise.

Well, I have to agree that voting for who you actually want to represent you is the 1st (and easiest) thing you can do to help improve the whole shebang. If you let someone tell you that a vote one way or another "doesn't mean anything" then they have prevailed over who you would otherwise have voted for. (A non-vote for my enemy is just as effective as a vote for me).

The big 2 don't care about third parties right now because no one votes for them right now. Everyone only votes once.

Duke wrote: That being said, a bunch of my acquaintances (both D and R varieties) are absolutely locked in the political equivalent of commuter road rage: it doesn't matter if I actually get where I'm going, as long as I'm beating *YOU*. Seriously, the gloating I heard for every supposed victory by their side sounded like 4th grade all over again. "Oh YES WE DID, Republican shiny happy people!" "Suck it, Democrats!"

We touched on polarization but it seems that the 24 hour news/entertainment channels have really exacerbated the issue. Fox and CNBC being the worst offenders by staking out their claim to respective parties and either refusing to see the forest for the trees or they simply don't care and the news has evolved to entertainment so all that matters is ratings and laying claim to a viewership.

Human nature is such that it is very difficult not to insert your own bias into reporting but it is so thinly veiled now it is painful to watch. Maybe it's always been like that. Who knows? I'm not that old. Again in-group vs out-group mentalities.

I'm not enthralled with anyone running this term. That could be because I've grown up a bit or it could be that the current crop of candidates doesn't view things even remotely the same way I do. I will admit though it seems a bit more civil in congress now that Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the House.

NOHOME said: On the individual level a lot of the nation's attention is being devoted to blindly defending a particular political dogma. It would be in my cynical nature to think that this dog-fight situation did not happen without someone making it happen.

I admit to having similar cynical thoughts. More so this cycle than usual... I find some candidates so shocking that I am starting to think they are only in the race (and saying the things they say) to steer the electorate to certain other candidates. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

We had a local election that was decided by ONE vote.

So yes, even in a larger scale, your Vote does count.

We need to do away with the Electoral College and let the popular vote count.

How many times have I had to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Maybe we should have a national nomination instead of the present system.

Do away with political party's.

Just my thoughts on the sorry situation

Robbie wrote: The big 2 don't care about third parties right now because no one votes for them right now. Everyone only votes once.

Not to mention that they are the ones benefiting most from their "a vote for a third party is just a wasted vote for Darth <insert name of scary opponent here>". Growing up in a country where third party candidates did (and do) matter as long as the make it above 5% of the vote, I can state it's not the case. But the big parties over there (Germany) didn't like it either and tried their best to scare people away from voting for them.

The British system is closer to the US one (two big parties, a medium size one and a couple of very small ones), but even they started caring about issues that the third parties brought to the table once they started getting votes.