A Government for the People

[CKFresh]

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78

The one with rich people in it.

(That's one f-uckin' good answer if I do say so myself )

So, the party with fewer rich people is better?

(tark, my response to you in back one page)

[buckeyefan78]

What are my other options? Not voting, or voting for someone who can't win. Either way, nothing changes.

The thing that disturbs me here is that you actually got a degree in history and political science and believe this.

I'm not sure if that is necessarily true - it is probably true, but not definitely true.



Don't get pissy when old folks get angry at s-hit like this. Just sayin'...

I still believe that the system can be changed little by little. In my view, Barack Obama is better than George W. Bush. If he is elected, and people see a little change, maybe they will elect somebody better than him - and so on.

Why would you then vote for Obama over McCain? I mean, if you already know one would be "better" aren't you wasting your vote on a methodology you've already proven? Isn't there a chance things aren't improving for some folks regardless of who is in power? I sense the ethnocentrism angle again...

Call me naive, I know you will, but I don't think that is such a far fetched idea.

The idea is flawed in that you don't want to see how others view improvement in their world.

So what is your solution?

Secondly I would ask - do you think any president, or senator, or any elected person - has ever done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

It ain't directed at me but ...

1. My solution isn't more of the same. Didn't someone say insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?

2. Government of, by and for the people with officials held accountable not only at the ballot box but in American culture. Often laws and political positions are what people want to hear - not what is right or can help. Until accountability is required...by the people...for themselves and elected officials...self-interest will rule the process.

Has any elected official done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

Sure.

Real question:

Has any elected official ever done anything to improve the lives of Americans in the process of gaining/protecting their own political power?

Another sure.



So, the party with fewer rich people is better?

Yeah, cuz that shows they care more.

[Tarkus]

Originally Posted by CKFresh

What are my other options? Not voting, or voting for someone who can't win. Either way, nothing changes.

Dear Lord, that's a defeatist attitude.

I would have to say with a major in history that you could & should have examples of how change has been wrought over time.

It's a symptom of this country in that if you can't see immediate results, it's not worth doing which couldn't be further from the truth.

Actually, as desperate as so many issues have become for the people of this country, the easier it should be to demand change & ultimately get people off their asses to vote it in. Both parties have done an outstanding job for so long in looking like double talking, inefficient clowns to help a 3rd party candidate to narrow the gap a little. Only by voting for the people...& yourself, will you influence anything. Plus, as the major parties see the shift each election, you'll find them react by mysteriously 'adopting' a lot of the 3rd party views to win back votes.

So nothing happens overnight but refusal to do anything but follow the herd will bring more of the same & ultimately worse...

I'm not sure if that is necessarily true - it is probably true, but not definitely true.

Once a party is entrenched in office with no outright competition, the promises go by the wayside only to make a cameo appearance at the upcoming next election to try & keep their candidate in office.

The most ridiculous part in this system is the amazing amount of time politicians are in office but actively campaigning to stay in office or help their next choice to be voted in. It's part time politician for the people & part time campaigner for the party.

I still believe that the system can be changed little by little. In my view, Barack Obama is better than George W. Bush. If he is elected, and people see a little change, maybe they will elect somebody better than him - and so on.

Call me naive, I know you will, but I don't think that is such a far fetched idea.

I'll by-pass the 'naive' comment but point out that 'strategy' has been a staple in most people's style of voting when it comes to the major parties. Once again, settling for 'less damage' while 'wishing' for better treatment.

So what is your solution?

For people that love the pomp & pageantry of "The Big Race"? Quit voting on party lines & start voting for the outright health of the government/people even if it means taking a go with a lessor known candidate who at least hasn't the stench of the Elite Blue Blood party compromises that are always evident.

Secondly I would ask - do you think any president, or senator, or any elected person - has ever done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

It's not as tho there isn't ever any good in this country's Government, it's all the waste/contradictions that are abundant that negates progress of any sort. Good stuff usually is nothing but leverage to stay in office for the parties. It's called 'Big Business' & any who think in a capitalistic society that somehow that Government is for all the people should go back to school & bone up on how history is boning them...

[CKFresh]

The thing that disturbs me here is that you actually got a degree in history and political science and believe this.

What disturbs me is that you teach history and can't understand the value in voting for a major party.

Why would you then vote for Obama over McCain? I mean, if you already know one would be "better" aren't you wasting your vote on a methodology you've already proven? Isn't there a chance things aren't improving for some folks regardless of who is in power? I sense the ethnocentrism angle again...

Things improved for "those folks" when Kennedy and Johnson were in power... You know, when poverty was cut in half.

The idea is flawed in that you don't want to see how others view improvement in their world.

No, I DO see how others view improvement in their world. You are the one who lacks understanding of opposing views.

I agree with you on most things, but find your methods unrealistic. That doesn't mean I don't understand your "cause."

1. My solution isn't more of the same. Didn't someone say insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?

I don't want to do more of the same. More of the same would be electing Democrats, then Republicans, then Democrats, then Republicans.

I want to elect Democrats, Democrats, Democrats, Socialists, etc...

2. Government of, by and for the people with officials held accountable not only at the ballot box but in American culture. Often laws and political positions are what people want to hear - not what is right or can help. Until accountability is required...by the people...for themselves and elected officials...self-interest will rule the process.

That's not a solution, that's an idea. We all want that. How do you suggest we make it happen?

Has any elected official done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

Sure.

Real question:

Has any elected official ever done anything to improve the lives of Americans in the process of gaining/protecting their own political power?

Another sure.

If you really believe that EVERY politician is a self-serving person, not interested in the well being of Americans then you are just as ethnocentric as you accuse others of being.

Isn't it possible that Barack Obama REALLY wants to help people?

I can give you several reasons to believe he is, can you give me reasons to believe he is not?

So, the party with fewer rich people is better?

Yeah, cuz that shows they care more.

No, that doesn't show they care more, but their policies due - minimum wage, union support, equal pay for equal work, welfare-to-work, guaranteed benefits, over-time compensation, health care, etc...

There are plenty of reasons that the lives of the working poor improve under Democrats and get worse under republcans.

[CKFresh]

Sorry Tark... gotta run.

I will respnd to you when I get back...

Frisbee golf is calling my name!

[buckeyefan78]

Originally Posted by CKFresh

What disturbs me is that you teach history and can't understand the value in voting for a major party.

Ah, a good old fashion wordsmith response. That's what I come to expect from young folks who believe philosophical rhetoric is the key to outcomes on the ground. Both parties serve their interests. In the course of serving their interests, certain segments of the American people have been served well or treated better.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

Things improved for "those folks" when Kennedy and Johnson were in power... You know, when poverty was cut in half.

You tout gains and crucify losses under such a narrow view of which party held the White House it amazes me. No other institution, persons (government or otherwise) or movement brought about the poverty reduction in the 1960s? These guys are representatives of the people and people themselves...let's not go the Obama-is-Jesus route here.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

No, I DO see how others view improvement in their world. You are the one who lacks understanding of opposing views.

I agree with you on most things, but find your methods unrealistic. That doesn't mean I don't understand your "cause."

What opposing view....yours? Your set for life. I have little concern for folks of your ilk. I'm talking about the people the government routinely compromises in their bid for power.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

That's not a solution, that's an idea. We all want that. How do you suggest we make it happen?

How the hell are you this jaded and defeated at your age? Solutions are for the politicians. Processes are for the people. Everytime you ignore the process and "hope" for a solution you are going against the process. You don't hold anyone accountable everytime you vote so they have no reason to change the way they work.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

If you really believe that EVERY politician is a self-serving person, not interested in the well being of Americans then you are just as ethnocentric as you accuse others of being.

It isn't a matter of ethnocentrism. I have no clue where you got that from. It's a matter of assuming everyone is out for themselves. I understand this concept may be difficult for you to understand but when you choose to empower the empty, hollow rhetoric I can see how one can be so inclined to do so.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

Isn't it possible that Barack Obama REALLY wants to help people?

I can give you several reasons to believe he is, can you give me reasons to believe he is not?

Why are we bringin' this scumbag's name up? I don't care what he WANTS to do. I care what he's DONE. That's how you judge a person.

Originally Posted by CKFresh

No, that doesn't show they care more, but their policies due - minimum wage, union support, equal pay for equal work, welfare-to-work, guaranteed benefits, over-time compensation, health care, etc...

There are plenty of reasons that the lives of the working poor improve under Democrats and get worse under republcans.

If you want to wow me with numbers and the such there really is no need to CK. Again, this conversation is about the actual people on the ground...not political grandstanding. Everytime you write something like this...

Originally Posted by CKFresh

Even using your analogy, one could argue, "the bloods kill more than the crips," or "the crips only sell weed and the bloods sell heroin."

Therefore, one might be "less bad," than the other.

You grandstand and/or show you have no clue about the reality of the political pawns you like to showboat.

If you can't understand this...there is nothing anyone is going to be able to do for you to realize it...IMO. You believe in "acceptable losses" when solutions are readily available. You did so in the levee discussion and in this poverty debate. You're so busy in trying to prove which side does the least harm you can't see that either side...at any time...could SIGNIFICANTLY alleviate the problems of this nation if they actually governed properly.

Read the post by Tarkus again. I don't know what else to do.

[Tarkus]

Originally Posted by CKFresh

Sorry Tark... gotta run.

I will respnd to you when I get back...

Frisbee golf is calling my name!

:lol:

You're like talking to somebody who, in the middle of saying something, goes:

"Oooh, ooo, something 'shiny' "....& walks off.

[HibachiDG]

Actually, as desperate as so many issues have become for the people of this country, the easier it should be to demand change & ultimately get people off their asses to vote it in.

Really?

This is the part of the argument I don't really buy. Because...

I would have to say with a major in history that you could & should have examples of how change has been wrought over time.

You can take all of those examples and look at the landscape behind them and see that they are drastically different to the current landscape in the United States.

People mention change and talk it up, but I think for the most part people understand that it's change within a set of conditions that aren't going to change a whole lot...and that people don't necessarily want to change a whole lot.

It's a symptom of this country in that if you can't see immediate results, it's not worth doing which couldn't be further from the truth.

With regards to voting specifically, then it's a symptom of this country from early on. As CK mentioned 3rd party success in this country is very limited, especially in the Presidential election.

For myself personally, I believe in trying to make the Democratic party better rather than leaving it behind. I don't believe what CK is throwing out about the lesser of two evils and I believe that a strong democratic party can lead to a strong nation more so than anything else that I've seen presented in terms of how we should shape the country.

[Tarkus]

Originally Posted by HibachiDG

Really?

This is the part of the argument I don't really buy. Because...

You'd argue that it doesn't take desperate times to get the average American off his ass & put the effort into putting the parties feet to the fire? Or that the average American who gives up cuz they think they can't change anything & just goes along with the masses is doing the right thing? Or that we aren't in desperate shape on numerous fronts? Or...well...what?

You've got me confused...

You can take all of those examples and look at the landscape behind them and see that they are drastically different to the current landscape in the United States.

Ya really got me here, Doug. Surely you don't mean that going thru history looking for the exact set of circumstances, which of course you won't find, is the only answer to facilitate change are you?

Otherwise, my original point stands in answer to the comment of 'what good would it do?' Paraphrasing there, of course.

People mention change and talk it up, but I think for the most part people understand that it's change within a set of conditions that aren't going to change a whole lot...and that people don't necessarily want to change a whole lot.

You actually believe that the average American is pleased & content with the direction this country is taking? Please explain how?

With regards to voting specifically, then it's a symptom of this country from early on. As CK mentioned 3rd party success in this country is very limited, especially in the Presidential election.

So because of no immediate change, you just allow the system to be what it is? Staggering...

For myself personally, I believe in trying to make the Democratic party better rather than leaving it behind. I don't believe what CK is throwing out about the lesser of two evils and I believe that a strong democratic party can lead to a strong nation more so than anything else that I've seen presented in terms of how we should shape the country.

How exactly does punching a certain box at election time make a party stronger? How does following the status quo with no participation beyond picking a group make either party bend to the people's will & react to their dissatisfaction?

If you truly believe that a "strong Democratic Party" is the right way, what's going to make them strong? Just by voting them in?

Hate to tell you but your voice isn't being heard beyond your vote, Doug.

[HibachiDG]

You'd argue that it doesn't take desperate times to get the average American off his ass & put the effort into putting the parties feet to the fire? Or that the average American who gives up cuz they think they can't change anything & just goes along with the masses is doing the right thing? Or that we aren't in desperate shape on numerous fronts? Or...well...what?

You've got me confused...

I would argue that we are not in desperate shape on numerous fronts. The first two questions you posed have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

Ya really got me here, Doug. Surely you don't mean that going thru history looking for the exact set of circumstances, which of course you won't find, is the only answer to facilitate change are you?

I absolutely did not mean to go through history looking for the exact set of circumstances. Just would say to go through those historical contexts and look at why change occurred, then look at the United States currently. We're a lot better off than what you're going to find when you look back through history and find moments were people rose up as one and fought the establishment, so to speak.

You actually believe that the average American is pleased & content with the direction this country is taking? Please explain how?

Absolutely.

I think it is hard to square the concept of displeasure as a whole with reality. Of course when you look at any situation you are going to find displeasure. As well, you're going to find levels of displeasure. If you phrased the question to people as "pleased and content" or "bad, desperate needs" then I think the large majority of people in this country will answer with pleased and content. Same with if you phrased it as simple good or bad. If the majority of people were to answer bad, desperate needs, then I would agree with some of what you're saying about generating a significant change.

Now, within saying good over bad, there are levels of discontent, displeasure and even "desperate" situations. Which is where I think the two parties come into play. I think one of the things that you're doing is confusing the levels of discontent within an overall favorable situation with a bad situation overall. That's just not the case. And, for people that think the country is generally good, but there are things that we can improve as there always are, the argument stays between the two major parties.

So because of no immediate change, you just allow the system to be what it is? Staggering...

Nah, the point I was trying to make there is that we have certainly had great moments in this country despite this perceived symptom you threw out.

How exactly does punching a certain box at election time make a party stronger? How does following the status quo with no participation beyond picking a group make either party bend to the people's will & react to their dissatisfaction?

If you truly believe that a "strong Democratic Party" is the right way, what's going to make them strong? Just by voting them in?

Just by voting who in? You mean now against the Republicans? Or in the process of selecting the candidate? I don't think I've ever said I would just simply vote for a Democrat because that's the Democratic candidate. If the Obama/Clinton race hadn't been as close as it was I likely would not have voted for Clinton. In 2004, I forget who I voted for, but it was either Kucinich or Sharpton just because the nominee was decided and I felt like those two candidates talked about some things the other candidates did not. I have no idea if this paragraph answered what you were saying, but I really didn't understand what you were getting at.

[Tarkus]

Originally Posted by HibachiDG

I would argue that we are not in desperate shape on numerous fronts.

Really?

I guess that can only be explained away by figuring it's the setting from which you view things.

If it weren't for where you were sitting, you might find the growing unemployment rate to be a desperate issue. Or the million+ home foreclosures. Or the fact that the 2 biggest mortgage giants, Fannie May & Freddie Mac are sinking into oblivion. Or the housing slump that has severely hurt the manufacturing/construction/retail market.

Or the hundred of thousands of jobs that have been eliminated since the 1st of the year as companies downsize or go under. Or the tax rebate that was a thinly veiled attempt at kick starting consumer spending to forestall a recession. Or the ever rising bankruptcy filings in record #s. Or the amazing shrinking US dollar decreasing abroad. Or the billions spent outside of our borders while the American citizens continue to suffer.

Or the ever rising gas cost as it inches toward $5 a gallon while no party had any foresight to the Russian Roulette game we were playing with the oil barons & refused to react due to who they were in bed with. Or the ever rising energy costs...natural gas/electricity...that has record #s of citizens being cut-off due to payment arrears. Or the disappearing middle class. Or...etc., etc., etc.

If this short list of examples aren't desperate enough, do we wait for Armageddon to use the term?

Part of this countries problems can be traced back to a great % of people who only get alarmed when it directly affects them which is a misplaced reaction when ultimately most everything has an effect somewhere down the road on everyone if not more immediate in a lot of instances.

I absolutely did not mean to go through history looking for the exact set of circumstances. Just would say to go through those historical contexts and look at why change occurred, then look at the United States currently. We're a lot better off than what you're going to find when you look back through history and find moments were people rose up as one and fought the establishment, so to speak.

I guess I'm one who doesn't buy into the "Hey, things could be worse" or "Hey, things are better than the past" theory.

While it's good that some things have gotten better in some cases, it definitely has no bearing on progress that needs to be ongoing every day in this country & isn't. Besides, some of the current issues are unique in their own right of corporate entities having even more power & influence than ever before & has the Government playing the sycophant to new lows.

As far as "fighting the establishment":

There is still a place & always will be a place for fighting the establishment. Governments will always be run by people & always have some knuckleheads trying to abuse the power in their favor. So while, for example let's say back in the '60s, there was a time for mob-like & at times, violent demonstrations, to pass along the public view, today's 'voice' should be used in the present setting where it's not necessary to use old methods but still as important to lend a voice to 'elected' officials conduct & efficiency, or lack thereof. Mind you, they're still 'elected' & they still are public servants but shame on the people if they constantly allow them to act like they're more than that or above the fray.

So don't mistake that being involved can only be by using old examples that were necessary back then. Today is a different time but don't belittle or write off the change that can still come from involvement.

I think it is hard to square the concept of displeasure as a whole with reality. Of course when you look at any situation you are going to find displeasure. As well, you're going to find levels of displeasure. If you phrased the question to people as "pleased and content" or "bad, desperate needs" then I think the large majority of people in this country will answer with pleased and content. Same with if you phrased it as simple good or bad. If the majority of people were to answer bad, desperate needs, then I would agree with some of what you're saying about generating a significant change.

Now, within saying good over bad, there are levels of discontent, displeasure and even "desperate" situations. Which is where I think the two parties come into play. I think one of the things that you're doing is confusing the levels of discontent within an overall favorable situation with a bad situation overall. That's just not the case. And, for people that think the country is generally good, but there are things that we can improve as there always are, the argument stays between the two major parties.

Spoken like someone interested in law...

That's just a lot of misdirection without bearing. The list above that entails just a few of the issues that the public has been crying about is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'd venture a guess that you, personally, aren't affected by much if any of those above issues or your frustration & dissatisfaction would be well evident. I wouldn't wish any of them on you but I'd say your view would be forever altered if you were.

As far as the questions to people & what particular words:

Yea, if you want to get out of taking ownership of issues, whether as a politician or an apathetic voter, by going for a 'general' question that answers problems/issues with a positive thing, sure...you'd be horseshoeing people into saying "I guess it's still the best place to live".

The reality is that these issues should & aren't being addressed for a myriad of reasons...all unacceptable. No one should be accepting things in lump sum issues like some sort of silly Bill being passed in tonnage with the 'good things' on top while the 'bad things' are hidden from view. It's just a smoke screen of BS.

So I'm not "confusing the levels of discontent" but you're definitely tap dancing around the issues while dismissing responsibilities of this Government as tho it's not the job they're in office to do. I guess I just was raised in a different time where 'accountability of the responsibility' was part of the job description if you took the job.

Nah, the point I was trying to make there is that we have certainly had great moments in this country despite this perceived symptom you threw out.

Sorry, Doug, but useless wordplay. I never implied there wasn't some great things done & being done in this country in one way or another, just that sitting on one's ass pointing at 'the plaque on the wall', bragging how great we are as a country using particular examples, doesn't take the responsibility for all the crap that goes on & is swept under the carpet by the people it doesn't directly affect which mysteriously is always the Blue Bloods, never the common man.

Just by voting who in? You mean now against the Republicans? Or in the process of selecting the candidate? I don't think I've ever said I would just simply vote for a Democrat because that's the Democratic candidate. If the Obama/Clinton race hadn't been as close as it was I likely would not have voted for Clinton. In 2004, I forget who I voted for, but it was either Kucinich or Sharpton just because the nominee was decided and I felt like those two candidates talked about some things the other candidates did not. I have no idea if this paragraph answered what you were saying, but I really didn't understand what you were getting at.

I guess I mistakenly took your choice of a strong Democratic Party as being the right choice who you were loyal to from your wording. Sorry about that but...

The idea that you can't even remember who you voted for in the last election tells me that the process isn't so important to you nor the issues & if you believe in a strong Democratic Party, you're sure not doing anything I can see to help that along.

& if by saying "Sharpton" you mean Al... whew

[Ellis]

Originally Posted by HibachiDG

I would argue that we are not in desperate shape on numerous fronts. The first two questions you posed have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

Easy for you to say, in your ivory tower, suing whoever you want just for money, bathing in coin, and spitting on people just because you can.

There are people like me: we scrap for every dollar. If we don't get our next paycheck, we go two weeks without eating. If we get sued by some ruthless lawyer, we move to the streets and leave our families behind, shamed... shamed at what our lives have become and what our parents would think of us if they were still alive.

It's a cruel world for us-- a world that you wouldn't last a day in. I just hope that the generations in front of us don't have to endure what I have endured.

[Tarkus]

:lol::lol::lol:

[HibachiDG]

For the first part, I've never said America is not without problems. I don't feel as if the problems you pointed out lead to desperate situation. Not one where we need some kind of desperate change. I mean, I could easily add to that list with other problems that America faces, but that isn't the point.

So, we change from the current politics to something else. Maybe these problems subside, but we're always going to have problems. To just list them off doesn't really do a whole lot of good for the point of whether America is generally doing good or bad. I haven't heard one piece of information that would lead me to believe that Americans as a whole don't generally think this is a successful country. I have heard plenty of information about problems that Americans face.

I guess I'm one who doesn't buy into the "Hey, things could be worse" or "Hey, things are better than the past" theory.

While it's good that some things have gotten better in some cases, it definitely has no bearing on progress that needs to be ongoing every day in this country & isn't. Besides, some of the current issues are unique in their own right of corporate entities having even more power & influence than ever before & has the Government playing the sycophant to new lows.

I do buy into the things could be worse argument. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should stop moving forward.

I'd venture a guess that you, personally, aren't affected by much if any of those above issues or your frustration & dissatisfaction would be well evident. I wouldn't wish any of them on you but I'd say your view would be forever altered if you were.

Eh, that's a cop out. I don't think you need to try to deflect from the issues.

Yea, if you want to get out of taking ownership of issues, whether as a politician or an apathetic voter, by going for a 'general' question that answers problems/issues with a positive thing, sure...you'd be horseshoeing people into saying "I guess it's still the best place to live".

Right, but we're talking about people rising up and saying change this now. My original point is that it's going to be hard to get people to do that when they're still, even if begrudgingly so, under the belief that this is the best place to live.

The reality is that these issues should & aren't being addressed for a myriad of reasons...all unacceptable.

Absolutely, but this isn't what we're debating, is it?

You said earlier to CK, "It's not as tho there isn't ever any good in this country's Government," under that premise, if these unacceptable things all occur under the umbrella of still a place where people are going to want to live, what good is radical change in the system? If people generally feel government is ****ed up, but can be good, why are they going to go out of there way to rally together for major changes? I jumped into this argument mainly on the point where you said that times are so desperate that it should "demand change". All I'm trying to do is point out that we're not in that situation.

& if by saying "Sharpton" you mean Al... whew

In 2004 Al Sharpton was the only candidate talking about problems that faced cities. Hell, he was the only candidate really talking about education.

I don't disagree with you when you say,

Only by voting for the people...& yourself, will you influence anything. Plus, as the major parties see the shift each election, you'll find them react by mysteriously 'adopting' a lot of the 3rd party views to win back votes.

I really don't. I just don't like the idea that we need to change dramatically in order to get something accomplished. That these are desperate times and people are doing a disservice to everyone by voting for a major party.

[Tarkus]

First off, I think you should have gone with Ellis's post. It was much more entertaining.

Originally Posted by HibachiDG

For the first part, I've never said America is not without problems. I don't feel as if the problems you pointed out lead to desperate situation. Not one where we need some kind of desperate change. I mean, I could easily add to that list with other problems that America faces, but that isn't the point.

Who said desperate issues, ones that if you look are not singular in nature but domino effect issues tied together, call for "desperate change"?

My posts have always been clear that there is nothing at all being done except the same sheep-like following to the polls to follow who the money people put of front of them. No one, especially me, said to 'storm the castle walls'.

So, we change from the current politics to something else. Maybe these problems subside, but we're always going to have problems. To just list them off doesn't really do a whole lot of good for the point of whether America is generally doing good or bad. I haven't heard one piece of information that would lead me to believe that Americans as a whole don't generally think this is a successful country. I have heard plenty of information about problems that Americans face.

Does your hair have to be on fire for you to smell the smoke?

If you followed my posts, I didn't say that even a 2 party didn't have room for improvement but that the parties aren't being put in a position of making changes, ones promised & never followed thru on or ones that are glossed over & left to the side. Hell, it's just like the levees where we're doing a half-assed fix that will guarantee to bite the public & the economy in the ass in the future. But hey, NOs is not flooded again...yet...so let's not have any vision or use any common sense, right?

I do buy into the things could be worse argument. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should stop moving forward.

That's fine but whenever I hear someone answer a question on any issue with a counterpoint of something good, that's just avoidance since a 'good' doesn't cancel out a 'bad' IMO.

Eh, that's a cop out. I don't think you need to try to deflect from the issues.

I guess that comment must have insulted you cuz it isn't a cop out at all but a possible explanation of why all those issues don't seem to be serious at all. If there's another reason, let me know cuz it's still a curiosity of why that is.

Right, but we're talking about people rising up and saying change this now. My original point is that it's going to be hard to get people to do that when they're still, even if begrudgingly so, under the belief that this is the best place to live.

Rising up?

More like get involved. That problem has been addressed by me before where some are too lazy, some don't know what they can do, & others are insulated from the problems & aren't affected in the least which translates to 'don't care...everything is great'.

Absolutely, but this isn't what we're debating, is it?

You said earlier to CK, "It's not as tho there isn't ever any good in this country's Government," under that premise, if these unacceptable things all occur under the umbrella of still a place where people are going to want to live, what good is radical change in the system? If people generally feel government is ****ed up, but can be good, why are they going to go out of there way to rally together for major changes? I jumped into this argument mainly on the point where you said that times are so desperate that it should "demand change". All I'm trying to do is point out that we're not in that situation.

What's major to you? What's major to me is that voters start using their heads & not be sheep. Demand more from your party you choose. Get heard during occupancy of office where things aren't being done without that fear that it might open the door for the opposing party. Vote for politicians who do things & not just promise. Etc., etc., etc.

That's not too hard, is it?

In 2004 Al Sharpton was the only candidate talking about problems that faced cities. Hell, he was the only candidate really talking about education.

I really don't want to insult you...honestly. I just have such a low opinion of Sharpton & his usual motives that even when the message may be true, the 'messenger' ruins it for me.

I don't disagree with you when you say,

I really don't. I just don't like the idea that we need to change dramatically in order to get something accomplished. That these are desperate times and people are doing a disservice to everyone by voting for a major party.

Then you misunderstood my posts cuz I said even if someone votes major party, just demand they do what you vote them into office to do & accept no excuse if it doesn't get done. That hasn't been done for so long, it's ridiculous.

That's not only 'not radical' or 'not desperate', it should be a rule of thumb with any elected official.