OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peen Simmons said:
I am not entirely confident that there won't be a Civil War II in my lifetime.

America has always been bad at resolving differences without bloodshed (e.g., "hey we want some more protection on the frontier" "okay, but we're gonna tax your tea to pay for it" "FUCK YOU, GEORGE"). And it seems like a) lots of people kinda secretly are hoping for an opportunity to hoist the black flag, sharpen knives, and play-act apocalypse and b) there are at least two (broadly speaking) very different ideas in this country of how we want to live. And one half of the argument has the guns and the other half has the money and clout.

The failures to actually enact Reconstruction, to fully implement the New Deal, or to resolve the shit fits of the '60s have left us with the free floating animosity and general cynicism and wholesale political rancor that is not unlike the vibes of the 1850s. Corruption and ineffectualness on that kind of scale might be fine in a place with modest goals, but the sole universal belief in this stupid country seems to be in American Exceptionalism...which means when some circumstance or another tells us that our national butt looks fat in our jeans we freak the fuck out and start cracking skulls. If we can't see ourselves as totally 100% awesome, we will probably jail, shoot, or conscript a shitload of people until our general sense of awesomeness is restored.

This stupid election year seems to be the moment when even the pretense of "serious business" is being dismantled. This whole thing is like clown college spring break. Icky, a little scary, and only kinda funny. I mean, come on, we've created an environment where the Libertarians can prance around acting like a viable, sensible alternative. And they smell like a bong fire raging in a fedora factory.
Click to expand...
The point I see you making is that America needs to move aggressively away from a 2-party system. At least that will dilute the influence of big money a bit.
 
LeftyTom said:
The point I see you making is that America needs to move aggressively away from a 2-party system. At least that will dilute the influence of big money a bit.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think the parties or their stupid systems are the biggest part of the problem. I think the issue is with Americans ourselves. The parties are a product of (as well as a product marketed to) the audience. And we are a poorly informed, reactionary audience raised by Manechean blockbuster entertainment culture wherein punching someone until they fall down a conveniently placed shaft or off of a flaming building is how you demonstrate moral superiority. We, the American peopl, cannot be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.
 
Peen Simmons said:
Actually, I don't think the parties or their stupid systems are the biggest part of the problem. I think the issue is with Americans ourselves. The parties are a product of (as well as a product marketed to) the audience. And we are a poorly informed, reactionary audience raised by Manechean blockbuster entertainment culture wherein punching someone until they fall down a conveniently placed shaft or off of a flaming building is how you demonstrate moral superiority. We, the American peopl, cannot be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.
Click to expand...
Because my generation has failed as parents.
 
Peen Simmons said:
We, the American peopl, cannot be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.
Click to expand...
that's why we never have been trusted with them.

that is also why the system to launch requires National Command Authority (POTUS and Sec Def have to agree that a launch is necessary) and a chain of people, that can, refuse the order.
that's why the actual launchers are locked at the bottom of 20 story silos in the middle of nofuckingwhere and have to turn the launch keys simultaneously and are 10 feet apart.

with every attack in the USA, the nerves of americans get more and more frayed and we 'demand' answers to stop the attacks and somehow we think that 'passing a law' is going to fix everything. and it won't. 100 laws won't fix things. no one wants to contemplate the commitment necessary to fix things. it costs lots of money, it will cost lots of lives and it would divorce the corporations from any kind of control over the government. and it just ain't gonna happen politely.
 
mongooz said:
with every attack in the USA, the nerves of americans get more and more frayed and we 'demand' answers to stop the attacks and somehow we think that 'passing a law' is going to fix everything. and it won't. 100 laws won't fix things. no one wants to contemplate the commitment necessary to fix things. it costs lots of money, it will cost lots of lives and it would divorce the corporations from any kind of control over the government. and it just ain't gonna happen politely.
Click to expand...

Not every attack, as not every attack is truly motivated by outside forces set on destroying the U.S. (despite the desire of some to spin them that way). The most disturbing attacks of late are in-house using too readily available weaponry that no citizen has any need to own. Changes in this area would be easy barring the horribly vocal minority that thinks has justified gun ownership based on outdated constitutional inclusion. And if those folks want to go head-to-head with trained military personnel that would be part of the effort to reclaim these weapons, thinning out that part of heard...
 
Last edited:
My first and only political bumper sticker is on the way. Pray (or prey :embarrassed:) for my soul.

giant-meteor-2016-just-end-it-already-400x209.jpg
 
Peen Simmons said:
Actually, I don't think the parties or their stupid systems are the biggest part of the problem. I think the issue is with Americans ourselves. The parties are a product of (as well as a product marketed to) the audience. And we are a poorly informed, reactionary audience raised by Manechean blockbuster entertainment culture...
Click to expand...
A lot of truth there. I think a lot of folks make their election decisions based entirely on campaign ads, especially at the state and local level. :facepalm:
 


Some interesting thoughts from Dan Savage, a flamboyant radio show guy from Seattle, and LGBT advocate. Peppered with occasional moments not filled with profanity. But some decent thoughts nonetheless. For your consideration.
 
sunvalleylaw said:


Some interesting thoughts from Dan Savage, a flamboyant radio show guy from Seattle, and LGBT advocate. Peppered with occasional moments not filled with profanity. But some decent thoughts nonetheless. For your consideration.
Click to expand...


I've voted for those candidates he seems to have no awareness of, who can't get past xyz roadblock set up so they don't get anywhere and don't have megabucks from ACME Skullfucking Co. to the nth power. Dan Savage is kind of a dope on politics. This isn't the first time he's said something this facile.
 
My buddy who posted on FB the link I posted to savage here (with whom I have argued endlessly about Hillary) added this post.

"I also would offer a caveat to Savage's assessment: what he says is true *in the current system,* but if we were to adopt FairVote's Public Primary and IRV, there would be no need to vote for anything but your first preference first (and what you'd settle for second, or second and third, etc.). Parties like the Greens would thrive in exactly the way (locally) that Savage says they must, as well."

I admit I don't know enough about either of these and plan to learn more.
 
Aye. A few of us have been proponents of it for a long time.

It wouldn't even be complicated to implement.

It would however take some power away from the status quo.
 
The truth is, nobody knows how Americans would handle instant runoff voting, because it’s still too rare here to draw conclusions for the entire nation. It’s entirely possible that everybody would get over the novelty after one election and the minor parties would remain irrelevant.

That said, I’d be happy to give it a shot. But I don’t believe it has any more chance of spreading nationally than automatic voter registration, election day being a holiday, or a campaign finance amendment.
 
Here's some perspective from Stephen King on Trump from his recent Rolling Stone interview:

Are you disappointed in your country that Donald Trump has proven to be so popular?
I am very disappointed in the country. I think that he's sort of the last stand of a sort of American male who feels like women have gotten out of their place and they're letting in all these people that have the wrong skin colors. He speaks to those people. Trump is extremely popular because people would like to have a world where you just didn't question that the white American was at the top of the pecking order.

Do you think he might win?
I saw a poll the other day that said, Hillary Clinton is only leading him by three points. If that's true, you have to go back to that time when he rode that escalator down and announced the presidency, and everyone thought that it was a joke. The press thought it was a joke.Rolling Stone thought he was a joke. Jon Stewart said, "Oh please, let him continue to run; he's the best joke material that we’ve had." Well, nobody is laughing anymore.

Of all the candidates who ran this year, the only one who is remotely qualified to do the job is Hillary Clinton. There's a lot of prejudice against her, just because she's a woman. Having been raised by a woman and lived in a family where my wife has, like, six sisters, I hate that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top