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

BoxheadTim wrote:

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 ". 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.

I really wonder how much the electoral college system is affecting everything. I knew a few people who lived down state Illinois who didn't vote in Presidential elections because their vote really would not have counted. Illinois goes Democrat, pretty much no matter what, thanks to Chicago. They'd definitely vote if each individual vote mattered though. And then on that point, you might be able to make a third party actually get some traction--Ross Perot got about 20% and 8% of the popular vote. And 0% of the votes that actually matter.

I think people whose politics are on either side of the spectrum (not necessarily that actually are politicians on either side) would agree that money is steering the ship too much these days. The fact is that its too easy for companies to make politicians owe them for contributions and money is used as a meteric (not the only one, but you would have to admit that its a major one) for how much support a person has. More money = more media exposure = more votes coming to them, even if only based on name recognition (which is a lousy thing, but face it, some idiots vote based on that).

The populace is too controlled by mass media on the election and the overwhelming controlling factor for mass media is profit motive. The other alarming thing is that alarmist stories gather more attention than other stories even if they arent based on any fact, so media in pursuit of ratings pushes alarmism which is a factor pushing the polarization of politics.

If you follow the medias alarmism motive, you see that the politicians do that too. I personally am convinced that it is the life blood of the extremist ends of either party and especially easy (for me with my views, not meant to ignite a debate or argument) to see the Tea Party as a blatant example of this. (I could go on it that line of thought, but better not to get derailed into flounder bait)

I work in DC and do stuff involved with the government, from this vantage point its painfully obvious that problems exist and also painfully obvious that so much momentum exists that making even the smallest turn is going to take a gargantuan amount of public effort by any moderating force. Much less what it would take to reverse the course.

In the end voting based on actual thought needs to happen, but too many people buy into the cult of mass media punditry that is only based on how many people they can influence into following.

And yes, the words Career and Politician should be forceably removed from being in proximity.

Duke wrote: ...**There ARE more than 2 parties on the ballot. Why NOT vote for a third party candidate?**...

While not a bad idea, it does seem to make the assumption that a third party is more aligned to the voter and that if given enough votes, they would not come under the same influence of the larger parties.

I said in before, I will say it again. Certainly not a perfect solution, but it would solve a lot of the issues. Certainly would be fun to try. I cannot imagine it would be worse, but I am sure someone would find out how to exploit it eventually:

Sortition: In governance, sortition (also known as allotment) is the process of selecting officers as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.

Similar to how juries are selected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Political correctness is just a euphemism for censorship.

Back when we burned books, people could at least see that their voices were being stifled, now we’re silenced without a trace; very dangerous.

I agree with you Apexcarver on most everything except the news being profit driven. I used to work in media, and many these days care little about profit as they have a big brother financing their agenda. That is true on the local to some degree too. Now, they would prefer ratings for bragging rights, but money in the news room is not a primary concern as much these days. If that were true we would have a fleet of Fox News Channels.

I personally prefer CNN in US media 24 hours news, but they all have their slant attached. Sadly I find getting your news overseas is typically more accurate, or at least without so much of the personal bias.

I remember a guy that used to work on a local paper that autocrossed with us. He love doing headlines. I was thinking about him this morning. A brief example of what he was talking about when he said he could control people's thoughts on a story simply by the headline. For instance, if a dog got hit by a car on main street. One could read "Menacing Threat Eliminated" or "Family Pet Brutally Run Down". Both might tell the story, it's simply words and phrasing. Anyway, just thinking about him this morning.

Duke wrote:

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 have voted for a 3rd party candidate in the past 3 presidential elections and I will do so again the next time around. I believe my vote matters for the local offices and that it is important to vote in them. I am happy to 'throw my vote away' in the Presidential election instead of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Ian F wrote:

Duke wrote: **There ARE more than 2 parties on the ballot. Why NOT vote for a third party candidate?**

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.

And that's my point in a nutshell. As KY said above, things will never change until we change them. This is a long game. It may be a decade or two before the third parties start to show up meaningfully in representation - but you can bet that the Big Two will start to take note as soon as third party voting consistently gets into the double digits. As it is, third parties are at worst a minor annoyance that is easily swatted away. If everybody hates the government so much, why do we keep voting for exactly the same type of assclowns just because we know that type of assclown can get elected?

We as citizens need to stop letting that happen.

In reply to Duke:

Why? For the majority of people voting, it's someone else's representation that's the problem. Which is 99% the reason for term limits- it's not my guy, it's theirs.

Sure, the losers in each area would like to force a change, too. But when you are in the minority voting block, that's what you get.

I do agree with the OP's premise, but I would suggest that our "political" differences are not the root of the problem. More significant is the move away from--indeed the very demonization of--traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are the very foundation upon which this nation was founded.

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/07/02/author-tells-morning-joe-crew-that-america-was-forged-in-faith-video/

RX Reven' wrote: Political correctness is just a euphemism for censorship.

No, it's a euphemism for "being civil to each other." See also:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-critics-political-correctness-have-it-backwards/

1988RedT2 wrote: I do agree with the OP's premise, but I would suggest that our "political" differences are not the root of the problem. More significant is the move away from--indeed the very demonization of--traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/07/02/author-tells-morning-joe-crew-that-america-was-forged-in-faith-video/

I vehemently disagree... but I generally have disagreements with most people (well... so far everyone) when it comes to the principles upon which this country was founded on.

1988RedT2 wrote: I do agree with the OP's premise, but I would suggest that our "political" differences are not the root of the problem. More significant is the move away from--indeed the very demonization of--traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/07/02/author-tells-morning-joe-crew-that-america-was-forged-in-faith-video/

Thomas Jefferson removed every unrealistic mention of miracles in the Bible, but still called himself Christian. He did the same thing with the Koran.

1988RedT2 wrote: I do agree with the OP's premise, but I would suggest that our "political" differences are not the root of the problem. More significant is the move away from--indeed the very demonization of--traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/07/02/author-tells-morning-joe-crew-that-america-was-forged-in-faith-video/

Had this country actually been built upon those beliefs, you would have a point.

But we were not.

The fact that there's specific direction to not include religion in government, it's pretty easy to see that the country was not built on faith, certainly not Christian faith.

Edit- and if it were, it becomes pretty easy to think there attacks from other religious bases. Which is a dangerous perception.

Many of the US' founders and the people who contributed to the country's founding philosophy called themselves "Deists," which interestingly enough, was the closest you could get to admitting that you were an atheist without getting lynched in those days.

KyAllroad wrote: 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.

I guess he caught a lot of crap for writing that.

On the other hand, in universe, the only reason why they had that system was inertia. That was the system that just sort of happened after society collapsed and rebuilt itself, and it hadn't proven to be broken yet, so they kept it.

Knurled wrote:

KyAllroad wrote: 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.

I guess he caught a lot of crap for writing that.

A fair bit, yes. The Starship Troopers society was highly militaristic at best, or arguably fascist at worst.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Knurled wrote:

KyAllroad wrote: 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.

I guess he caught a lot of crap for writing that.

A fair bit, yes. The Starship Troopers society was highly militaristic at best, or arguably fascist at worst.

Well, you could 'earn' your vote in other ways, like perhaps, graduating from high school. However that has its own problems when the government you are voting for is also the one 'educating' you.

racerdave600 wrote: I agree with you Apexcarver on most everything except the news being profit driven. Now, they would prefer ratings for bragging rights, but money in the news room is not a primary concern as much these days.

Hm, I see the point of your argument but realize that I lack the information to offer a well informed counterpoint. I guess from the outside I figured that Ratings = Money on some level, though perhaps not in being directly driven by persons in the newsroom but through a corporate culture type motive (are there such things as pay bonuses for higher ratings? is some of the bragging rights mindset linked to career advancement, which could be interpreted as a monetary gain?). Would be an interesting thing to dig into, but is probably just a semantic debate of little overall consequence. I believe we agree in base that they are more interested in alarmism and ratings than in truth at the core of it, though I doubt many would admit it and possibly lack the self awareness to realize it in truth.

I think that separation of church and state is something of a contradiction within the views of the current conservative end of the spectrum. I think it is part of the constitution they downplay because much of their constituency is perhaps more interested in religion-ism than in what I might perceive as true conservative politics. They dont want to separate their base and perhaps attract those who might otherwise be liberal if they were not raising the issue. At the very least, that is an argument that could be made, though perhaps not altogether correct.

In reply to Apexcarver:

Re: media...

So who is the real winner with the whole "citizens United" thing?

Some claim that R will gain due to massive advertising, but D's can also advertise heavily.

Which means that the media is getting MASSIVE AMOUNT OF POLITICAL advertising. Causing a stir and making people mad is in their best interest. And even the "liberal media" realize that it's ok to demonize Citizen's United, as long as they profit a lot from it.

Seems like a conspiracy theory. But the true winners in any advertising war is the ones getting paid for the ads. Positive ads, attack ads, whatever- 30 seconds cost $$.

In reply to alfadriver:

I am not the most informed on that issue, but it seems that you likely have a good grasp on it from what I do know. I guess the only real response I would have to your question is to say that absolute winning or losing is an illusion in this type of case (as in most things). I certainly think it was a bad idea overall if that's what you are asking (though my thoughts dont matter any more than anyone else's).

I would even go so far as to say that absolutes are one of the things inherent in politics that I wish the system had a way to overcome. It is unlikely however as peoples attention spans tend to make them prefer the shorter answer, even if it isnt the best one.

People need to think for themselves, but they are too lazy to do it and the money in politics allows people to control the messages getting to the people too lazy to take the time to sit back and actually think it through. It could be said that most of our discussions in this thread are addressing aspects deriving from that, but then again, its a simplification of very complex problems.

alfadriver wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I do agree with the OP's premise, but I would suggest that our "political" differences are not the root of the problem. More significant is the move away from--indeed the very demonization of--traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/07/02/author-tells-morning-joe-crew-that-america-was-forged-in-faith-video/

Had this country actually been built upon those beliefs, you would have a point. But we were not. The fact that there's specific direction to not include religion in government, it's pretty easy to see that the country was not built on faith, certainly not Christian faith. Edit- and if it were, it becomes pretty easy to think there attacks from other religious bases. Which is a dangerous perception.

This. Very, very much this.

I think much of our founding was based on the freedom to practice your religion, whatever it was. Many of the people who came here were actively persecuted in their home country because of their beliefs.

In reply to Duke:

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

It's worth the read.

Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both of which distort the Founders’ views.

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.

Well, Sanders was considered even too socialist for the left, hence why he was/is an Independent.

As far as the OP, the biggest problem between the two sides has been a growing shift towards the extremes and then telling constituents that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR choices/party/interests they are either idiots, racists, teabaggers, libtards, etc.....berkeleying learn how to think critically and actually look outside your E36 M3ty political she'll every once and a while.....

I have friends that are hardline left and right, I have discovered most of my time on Facebook these days is disproving the arguments made by both sides. It's annoying, but someone has to do something to put an end to misinformation.

spitfirebill wrote: I think much of our founding was based on the freedom to practice your religion, whatever it was. Many of the people who came here were actively persecuted in their home country because of their beliefs.

Including those from Britain.