7 ms·

Hillary is the front-runner in the democratic field. And the republicans are putting Jeb Bush forward as "most electable", whatever the hell that means. I sup

Hillary is the front-runner in the democratic field. And the republicans are putting Jeb Bush forward as "most electable", whatever the hell that means. I suppose the power elites are freaking out right now because neither of those bluebloods should be allowed anywhere near the white house. Will status quo go out the window with the next president, or will we continue with the endless war, bailout, QE, and surveillance policies of the Clintons, Bushes, and Obama?

JustSomeNobody 12y ago
Oh, definitely more of the same. Until this nation's citizens stop the my party is better than your party BS and actually start paying attention to what these people are doing to our country, we'll never have change.
- shortoncash 12y ago
  I don't blame the public for this. I blame the media. Elections aren't won on the votes of principled liberals or conservatives. They're won based on the easy-votes of people who haven't dedicated the time to investigating whether there's substance behind any of the marketing claims of the two major parties. So what happens to these people during election season? Candidates are hidden from them, some candidates are given more time to speak during debates, and some major candidates aren't even discussed. Someone who doesn't pay attention to politics and is looking for a quick answer just simply will not get an honest view of the situation from the press. Jon Stewart had a good piece about an example of this a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw
  - JustSomeNobody 12y ago
    While I certainly agree the media has an agenda and feeds us what they want, the public has to take responsibility as well. Each of us is responsible for our own actions (in this case, votes). Also, that video was hilarious.
    - jgrowl 12y ago
      There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. Personally I feel like our entire system is antiquated and is due for a modern update. Unfortunately, it would probably take a complete collapse to ever get real change and it would be a really dangerous during the transition period. Things are bad, but they could be a whole lot worse for sure.
  - EdSharkey 12y ago
    The media has a huge hand in this, sure. But fiscal conservatives have been complaining about the corporatists and big spenders in the gop since Goldwater at least. There should have been a popular backlash. You can claim Reagan was that backlash, but he was just another big government guy. Tea party is interesting, but it seems like it has too many social conservative cranks to breakthrough.
    - shortoncash 12y ago
      How do you expect there to be a popular backlash if the the public is misinformed? It was even worse in the Goldwater days because there was no internet for the public to use.
- EdSharkey 12y ago
  I was going to reply, "I'm not so sure this time." But, you're right, the status quo parties are what most people cling to.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  The "everything's terrible!" tone of your comment is one of the major problems and main contributors to the partisan divide. It would be harder to get people riled up for their pet party if more people were aware that, hey, things are going pretty well! It would make the things that aren't going as well easier to identify and work on.
  - JackFr 12y ago
    Everything is terrible -- in that the two leading parties in the United States are doing a poor job of representing the values of the people. They need to be fundamentally readjusted or be replaced by better alternatives, and that is not accomplished easily. In nerdy terms, if there are N dimensions to public policy and individuals are represented as N dimensional vectors, the ideologies of our current parties do a terrible job of dimensional reduction.
    - sanderjd 12y ago
      That perspective is absolutely what I'm arguing against, and I believe it is one of the main contributors to exactly the problem it decries. Convincing people that everything is terrible is the first step to convincing them that it's the other side's fault and you have the solution, which is how we end up with the divisiveness that fails to represent the mostly moderate values of the people.
      - JackFr 12y ago
        No -- I think you missed my point. Everything is terrible, because there is no other side. Neither party represents my interests adequately, and both parties are sclerotic and resistant to change because of symbiotic relationships with rent-seeking interest groups. What should I do?
        sanderjd 12y ago
        I didn't miss your point. The divisiveness that follows from convincing people that everything is terrible isn't just bi-directional, it also divides many people (like you and me) into a helpless feeling "nobody speaks for me" group. I don't know what you should do, but current my strategy (as you can see) is to call out what I see as unhelpfully hyperbolic rhetoric (both negative and positive, though that's rare these days) when I talk to people and point out good things about our society while not papering over things I'd like to see improved. There are quite a few axes on which to measure how well things are going, and the adequate representation of your (and my) interests is just one of them. I totally agree the system doesn't do a great job of that, but it does a good job of lots of more important things.
- jazzyk 12y ago
  This. A hundred times!
frostmatthew 12y ago
> Will status quo go out the window with the next president, or will we continue with the endless war, bailout, QE, and surveillance policies of the Clintons, Bushes, and Obama? If either Clinton or Bush win and get re-elected to a second term it would mean, ten years from now we would have had either a Clinton or Bush as President for 28 of the previous 36 years...and yet people will wonder why nothing ever changes.

JustSomeNobody 12y ago

Oh, definitely more of the same. Until this nation's citizens stop the my party is better than your party BS and actually start paying attention to what these people are doing to our country, we'll never have change.

shortoncash 12y ago
I don't blame the public for this. I blame the media. Elections aren't won on the votes of principled liberals or conservatives. They're won based on the easy-votes of people who haven't dedicated the time to investigating whether there's substance behind any of the marketing claims of the two major parties. So what happens to these people during election season? Candidates are hidden from them, some candidates are given more time to speak during debates, and some major candidates aren't even discussed. Someone who doesn't pay attention to politics and is looking for a quick answer just simply will not get an honest view of the situation from the press. Jon Stewart had a good piece about an example of this a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw
- JustSomeNobody 12y ago
  While I certainly agree the media has an agenda and feeds us what they want, the public has to take responsibility as well. Each of us is responsible for our own actions (in this case, votes). Also, that video was hilarious.
  - jgrowl 12y ago
    There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. Personally I feel like our entire system is antiquated and is due for a modern update. Unfortunately, it would probably take a complete collapse to ever get real change and it would be a really dangerous during the transition period. Things are bad, but they could be a whole lot worse for sure.
- EdSharkey 12y ago
  The media has a huge hand in this, sure. But fiscal conservatives have been complaining about the corporatists and big spenders in the gop since Goldwater at least. There should have been a popular backlash. You can claim Reagan was that backlash, but he was just another big government guy. Tea party is interesting, but it seems like it has too many social conservative cranks to breakthrough.
  - shortoncash 12y ago
    How do you expect there to be a popular backlash if the the public is misinformed? It was even worse in the Goldwater days because there was no internet for the public to use.
EdSharkey 12y ago
I was going to reply, "I'm not so sure this time." But, you're right, the status quo parties are what most people cling to.
sanderjd 12y ago
The "everything's terrible!" tone of your comment is one of the major problems and main contributors to the partisan divide. It would be harder to get people riled up for their pet party if more people were aware that, hey, things are going pretty well! It would make the things that aren't going as well easier to identify and work on.
- JackFr 12y ago
  Everything is terrible -- in that the two leading parties in the United States are doing a poor job of representing the values of the people. They need to be fundamentally readjusted or be replaced by better alternatives, and that is not accomplished easily. In nerdy terms, if there are N dimensions to public policy and individuals are represented as N dimensional vectors, the ideologies of our current parties do a terrible job of dimensional reduction.
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    That perspective is absolutely what I'm arguing against, and I believe it is one of the main contributors to exactly the problem it decries. Convincing people that everything is terrible is the first step to convincing them that it's the other side's fault and you have the solution, which is how we end up with the divisiveness that fails to represent the mostly moderate values of the people.
    - JackFr 12y ago
      No -- I think you missed my point. Everything is terrible, because there is no other side. Neither party represents my interests adequately, and both parties are sclerotic and resistant to change because of symbiotic relationships with rent-seeking interest groups. What should I do?
      - sanderjd 12y ago
        I didn't miss your point. The divisiveness that follows from convincing people that everything is terrible isn't just bi-directional, it also divides many people (like you and me) into a helpless feeling "nobody speaks for me" group. I don't know what you should do, but current my strategy (as you can see) is to call out what I see as unhelpfully hyperbolic rhetoric (both negative and positive, though that's rare these days) when I talk to people and point out good things about our society while not papering over things I'd like to see improved. There are quite a few axes on which to measure how well things are going, and the adequate representation of your (and my) interests is just one of them. I totally agree the system doesn't do a great job of that, but it does a good job of lots of more important things.
jazzyk 12y ago
This. A hundred times!

frostmatthew 12y ago

> Will status quo go out the window with the next president, or will we continue with the endless war, bailout, QE, and surveillance policies of the Clintons, Bushes, and Obama? If either Clinton or Bush win and get re-elected to a second term it would mean, ten years from now we would have had either a Clinton or Bush as President for 28 of the previous 36 years...and yet people will wonder why nothing ever changes.