Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by a legacy reborn, Oct 26, 2012.
I just thought that everyone should watch this:
Until enough of the populace comes to this conclusion the results of third party candidates will remain the same which is in the snowballs/hell category.
Maybe one day...after the revolt.
America's political system is broken.
Moody's downgraded American debt based on political problems.
Wasn't that enough to wake people up ?
I think it almost was ... but there is nothing to do about it !
The structure of Washington almost encourages grid lock and partisanship ... so nothing gets done.
I've been thinking about this .... how do you change a political system ?
There really is no way.
Other than a revolution.
Part of the problem is that the polarization that has happened among the populace has also happened within the structure of the two parties. It used to be that they would at least try to work together. Now, you have so many more conservatives that have moved to the extreme end (legislating morality) and liberals (or worse, progressives) that have moved to their extreme end, (outlaw morality).
The only way to fix this other than revolt is to have enough new people come to the Hill that are willing to come to the center and fix the problems. But even that is difficult if they are truly doing their jobs, as they should be doing what their constituents want, and so many of them fit into the two previous categories.
Until the polarization of the country's populace changes, revolt will be the only option...some days I think we'd be better off to get on with it already..... :/
It's the system that doesn't work.
Other political systems prevent gridlock.
I'll give you a Canadian example.
The government comes up with a bill (any piece of legislation). If they have a majority ... it's probably going to pass (ie. all their own members vote for it). If they have a minority (less than 50%) but are still the leaders ... their bill is at risk of failure if the other parties vote it down. The minority government will sometimes say the bill is a "Confidence Vote" bill. The implications of that is if the bill is voted down by the opposition parties (which are in the majority and can easily do so) ... an election is automatically triggered.
In practice, elections are rarely triggered, because it has been shown that voters punish the opposition for being needlessly obstuctionist (plus we don't want to constantly be voting) and vote down the opposition parties ... sometimes giving an all out majority for the ruling party.
I used to think it was a bad system, because there are constant threats to trigger an election. But I see that it works better than the filibusterer-filled system in the USA.
Why are the United States so divided ?
Divided States of America ?
I was thinking that politics is like in the animal kingdom where males will fight to the death to procure a mate.
Male1: I want her.
Male2: I want her too.
> cue the Fight to the Death scene.
actually, the filibuster has been around since the days of Rome and practically every country on earth has used it, including Canada. The problem in the US is the overuse of recent years, mostly due to unwillingness to work together as previously stated. The House solved the problem with rules limiting it's use, but the Senate has failed to implement such so far. Hopefully, enough newly elected Senators that truly want to serve the people will make that one of their first priorities.
One can always hope, right....
As I said, there are defenses against needless filibusters in Canada.
I watched a documentary about America's broken political system a few days ago. They made a case that Fox News invented (helped create) the Tea Party. They also made the case that Fox News attempts to incite frustration and then tries to channel those negative feelings into voting Republican.
Let me guess...you were watching MSNBC....or CBS...or Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, or any one of the other side of the coin networks....LOL
Fox News is far more even handed than the other networks. The problem the rest of the media outlets have with them isn't that they are to the right, which independent media studies have shown isn't true, but that they aren't left leaning.
The problem with the US system isn't only the two party system, its the media being firmly in one camp. In the 60s and 70s, when the news media was truly about the news and remaining impartial, the system worked better.
Its a bigger problem than just a two party system. Its the media, the PACs, SuperPACs, campaign financing, political influence selling, and a system that creates a political ruling class because there is no term limits
I’m seriously thinking of running for President in 2016.
Like many Americans I’m strongly disappointed where our nation is heading. I’m long past worried about our political stance in the world and am very pressingly concern about our economical and social stance, which has been infected by our political system.
If you ask anyone single American about what is wrong with our country, you are likely to get dozen or more different answers. And it is not because we as Americans do not know what is wrong, in fact most of us do. The reason why you will get so many different answers is because there are so many things wrong. It has “snow balled” out of control for sometime now and the list of things just keep on growing.
The root of all is the corruption.
We as Americans, every 4 years go to the polls wanting to vote for change. Has anyone ever really stop to ask themselves why do they always want or feel the need for change every 4 years (if not sooner)?
Because nothing changes, because we always vote for politicians; When we should be voting for a fellow citizen. I honestly believe the average citizen has better intentions for our great nation, than any man or women currently running for office.
No matter Republican, Democrat, or Independent, the message changes, who gets us there changes, and sometimes how we get there changes, but we still get there (here). And here (there) is where The American People do not want or need to go. And so we always vote desperately wanting and feeling a need for change.
The party system has become nothing more than a label to further divide and confuse Americans into thinking that voting for another politician will some how change America. The truth is we do not need or want another politician, we need and desperately want a fellow American.
We hear so much about the need for “bipartisanship”
Bipartisanship is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise.
The truth is we have enough “Bipartisanship”. Because the “common ground” between all political parties, among all politicians seems to be profiteering and selling out The American People. This is what our elected politicians, who claim to be the most qualified and well educated do best.
And every 4 years we all go to the polls and vote for the lessor of 2 or more evils. But the problem is we’re still voting for some form of evil. And we justify the whole concept by telling ourselves that these individuals are the most qualified and educated politicians and perhaps the least corrupt individuals from the gene pool that Congress or a corporate sponsor has to offer.
Can we honestly expect real change from that? How long can we lie to ourselves and believe that voting for a different side of the same coin will yield a different value?
America does not need more politicians. America needs citizens.
FWIW, here's one Democrat's take on the American media:
Here's the poll Mr. Caddell was referring to:
Gallup: Only 8% of Americans Have 'Great Deal' of Trust in News Media--a New Low
^ TRUTH ^
Although I DO NOT support Mitt Romney or his campaign. He used the the news media to get where he is today.
Everyone should give Austrian economics a chance, go to mises.org and check it out for yourself. Austrian economics is the only way for us to get out of our current economic mess.
Fox News is an advertisement network for the Republicans.
It's certainly not a news station.
Looking forward to Obama's easy win ... for the sake of the United States and the Xenforo license you'll owe me.
I don't think it will be that easy, but, in the end, he will win. I also don't believe that it is for the sake of the U.S. as I don't think he'll bring about any real change, but instead will bring more debt, less security(our presence in foreign nations actually makes us less secure), and will weaken our currency even more. Don't get me wrong, Romney would do the same thing, but for anyone to claim that either of them is better than the other is just fundamentally wrong and baseless. Gary Johnson 2012, for real change.
2008-2012: shows that change can be filibustered.
I do agree that not much can be done with the US economy / overall outlook.
The political system in the US is broken and must be modernized.
How is it possible to do that ?
A weakened currency could bring jobs to America and could be a good thing. Unless Romney the Job Exporter gets in.
A weak currency? This is not just a weak currency. It is on the verge of hyperinflation that will make it impossible to purchase goods. I disagree that the filibuster is what prevented change. It hindered it, yes, but it should not have completely thwarted it. Obama and Romney are on in the same, end of story. There are a ton of things that a President could do, many of which wouldn't require Congressional approval. The President could submit a balanced budget(Keynesian economics and Marxism/Socialism are dead, get over it.) This will obviously hinge on Congress' willingness to cooperate, but there are a bunch of other things the President could do to eliminate waste. 1) Bring all of our troops back, cut down on our 900+ military bases, and cut the military budget by roughly half(taking us back to early 2000 spending levels and actually making us safer.) 2) Submit legislation to bring us back to the gold standard(I know, this one will require Congress.) 3) End the Fed(Again, Congress.) 4) End the war on drugs. Legalize it or not, the President can refuse to actively seek the prosecution of people using illicit substances, thereby bringing American cities to a better state with less crime. 5) Abolish the IRS and the income tax in general. This would instantly make businesses want to flock to the U.S. once they see that they won't pay taxes on their income. 6) Actively support bills and perhaps propose ones which deregulate the economy. Again, this would bring about prosperity. 7) Propose legislation to make immigration easier and allow for illegal immigrants to get green cards and let them pay consumption taxes. 8) Abolish unnecessary bureaucracy that not only is wasteful but also inefficient and ineffective. Things such as the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, along with organizations such as the NSA and CIA are wasteful and have not helped the American economy or advance their respective industries. These areas are better left to the states and the free market. 9) Repeal Obamacare and allow for private industry to do what it does best, succeed. 10) Begin to phase out programs such as Social Security and other Socialistic programs that are unsustainable by allowing people to opt out of such programs until a time that the programs can stop accepting new members and will then wait until the final member pool is gone and then they will permanently done away with. 11) Stop all foreign aid immediately. Not only is this an immoral practice but it is also ineffective, inefficient, and infringes on the sovereignty of other nations. 12) Get Congress to repeal the Patriot Act. If it is not repealed then ban the FBI(an executive agency) from using it. 13) Issue an executive order undoing the majority(if not all) of the previous executive orders of previous Presidents.
If a President is truly amazing enough to do all of this then we will not only be out of debt but we will probably have a surplus, a more robust economy(probably even eclipsing China's), more civil liberties will be granted/given back, American's will be safer and more wealthy, we will earn respect in the international community once again, and, most importantly, we will have Gary Johnson, or any Libertarian for that matter, in office and not Mitt Obama or Barack Romney.
For the record, I like alot of those ideas.
I am fiscally conservative. I would expect Obama's second term to cut alot of expenses. Nothing he can do will save the broken American economy and poorly designed political system. As far as I can see.
Private sector healthcare is about charging more and providing less. It's not cheaper. It's more expensive. The Health sector can't be fixed by private industry .... healthcare is an EXPENSE. It's always going to be an expense. It's about helping people who aren't as healthy (the unlucky people).
If America wants to have any dignity ... it needs to provide basic healthcare for all Americans. Having third world healthcare for people living in America is disgusting. Why would America think they can be a "World Leader" when they can't take care of their own people ? Disgusting. Pathetic.
Repealing Obamacare would be a bad idea ... fixing it ... Yes. improving it ... Yes. Not repeal.
The Democrats tried to pass a good Affordable Care Act and the Republicans forced it to be watered down so badly it almost is a failure. It sure was never going to make healthcare more affordable (which really is the most important issue).
- this video is a joke. It's mindless useless, incorrect, purposely misleading 100% spin.
- pretty much *EVERY* reasonable country in the world has better healthcare than America and they do it by having a strong public healthcare system.
I'm not sure having Gary as the president would be better than Obama. But I am sure more people will think that in 2016 when jack sh*t gets done in the next 4 years.
The corruption in Washington and the unworkable political system is what is America's undoing. We did talk about that here.
Politicians are like wives ... they are a package deal. Just because I don't like his stance on Healthcare ... doesn't mean he wouldn't be better than Romney or Obama.
A non-democrat, non-republican president ..... I wonder how that would go.
I think it could be great !
I think it is worth a try considering how terrible things are now.
Could it mean less fighting ? Hmmm ... I see that because of Ross Perot, they changed rules for Presidential debates ... you have to poll at 15% to be in the debates. Wow .... major scam. I see that's how the Washington establishment runs. Upping the requirement to 15% is just like closing a loophole to keep the establishment in power. Keeps out the dissenters.
I think the world has changed since Ross Perot. I think America needs more voices, not fewer.
But considering Americans seem allergic to changing their votes ..... hard to say if he'll get 5% of the vote.
Separate names with a comma.