"X's are calling on X to publically apologize ..."

[BlackShanglan]

Please tell me that I'm not the only one who wants to throw something at every politician in America at this point. It seems that none of them have anything better to do than to wait, hawk-like, for any person associated with the other party, however insignificant, to say anything that they can run to the media with and self-righteously demand apologies. Everyone on both sides of these things needs a good kick in the pants.

Grrr. The joys of a two-party system. This entire election seems to be focused on trying to make the other side look even more worthless.

 

[slyc_willie]

Personally, I'd love to hear Rush Limbaugh apoligize for his ego ("The democrats are campaining against me!") and Hillary apologize for hers (damn that cackle!).

Will professional politics ever get away from personal politics?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Personally, I'd love to hear Rush Limbaugh apoligize for his ego ...

*laugh* I like that plan! Damn thing is starting to affect the tides.

Hillary, I think, I'd prefer to see apologize for responding to her friend and associate's untimely death by running to his office and shredding documents.

 

[slyc_willie]

*laugh* I like that plan! Damn thing is starting to affect the tides.

Hillary, I think, I'd prefer to see apologize for responding to her friend and associate's untimely death by running to his office and shredding documents.

Neither side holds much ardor for me. At first, I really liked Giulliani. He, I felt, could make me vote republican. But then he became more of a politician. Rocked my world, and not in a good way.

Hillary? Nope. Can't tell what she stands for.

Obama? Can't say as I'd back him, either, though he may surprise me.

McCain? No comment.

Damn . . . at this rate, I'll be voting for Perot, and he's not even running!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Indeed. It's the most depressing field of candidates I've seen in a long while. The general effect on me is horror. One of these people will eventually be our president.

 

[joeys-game]

Looking in through a 'window'..all I can say is i'm glad i'm up here at the present time.
no offense, just sayin

 

[slyc_willie]

Indeed. It's the most depressing field of candidates I've seen in a long while. The general effect on me is horror. One of these people will eventually be our president.

Thank God for checks and balances. I hope they hold.

 

[S-Des]

Indeed. It's the most depressing field of candidates I've seen in a long while. The general effect on me is horror. One of these people will eventually be our president.

At this point, I can't find anyone on the Democratic side I like. The only candidate I support in general is McCain, but he has almost no hope. There are a few who seem like they believe what they're saying, but pretty much all of them are just sucking up to the people who give them money. The latest debacle with Pelosi wanting to scold Turkey (an important ally) for an atrocity from 100 years ago is just another attempt for politicians to take the spotlight away from their lack of ability to accomplish anything significant. They really do all suck.

 

[BlackShanglan]

S-Des, that's the feeling I'm getting. The continual "Who can we shame now?" foraging on both sides seems to be a desperate attempt to avoid having to offer any substantial ideas or take a firm stance on anything.

 

[shereads]

Democracy is a failed experiment.

What should we do?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Democracy is a failed experiment.

What should we do?

Blame we, the people.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Indeed. It's the most depressing field of candidates I've seen in a long while. The general effect on me is horror. One of these people will eventually be our president.

If the office were much more significant than a steering wheel on a locomotive, it might be cause for panic.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Democracy is a failed experiment.

What should we do?

Burn the heretics?

 

[shereads]

One of these people will eventually be our president.

Look on the bright side:

1) To get a worse president than the one we have, we'd have to elect one of the lower invertebrates. The Constitution clearly states that the president must be a mammal.

2) Things are in such a mess, a great president wouldn't be able to accomplish much more in four short years than a mediocre one. Whoever wins will inherit a stack of unsolvable problems, and be blamed for failing to solve them. It will almost certainly be a one-term presidency.

I'll vote in '06, but just barely. All I hope to accomplish is to prevent the loss of another Supreme Court seat to the right wing.

Nothwithstanding that the Bush presidency has seemed to go on forever, presidents are temporary. Supreme Court justices, we are stuck with until they mummify.

[threadjack]

Speaking of which, has anybody here read "The Nine"?

[/threadjack]

 

[Byron In Exile]

S-Des, that's the feeling I'm getting. The continual "Who can we shame now?" foraging on both sides seems to be a desperate attempt to avoid having to offer any substantial ideas or take a firm stance on anything.

That would be like announcing which way you're going to turn the wheel before you know which way the train will turn.

In order to maintain the illusion of driving a train, one must turn the wheel as the train turns, and in the same direction. If one announces a future left turn, for example, and the train, when the time arrives, turns to the right, one is then in the uncomfortable situation of either turning the wheel to the right and continuing to appear in control while being denounced as a liar, or holding to one's word and turning the wheel left, revealing that one is not really in control of the train.

In addition, if one's words are plain and understandable, the same fault might be found with them by many different people. Whereas, if they are incomprehensible, arguments against them are more likely to be in conflict with each other, making one's opponents appear confused.

Therefore, "to offer any substantial ideas or take a firm stance on anything" might be tempting in the heat of a campaign, but would certainly produce problems later, and the best strategy is to project confidence, use as many words as possible, and say nothing meaningful.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Therefore, "to offer any substantial ideas or take a firm stance on anything" might be tempting in the heat of a campaign, but would certainly produce problems later, and the best strategy is to project confidence, use as many words as possible, and say nothing meaningful.

This is the basis of the sole plank in my single-issue party platform: that all adults be required to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" once per year, and three times on election years.

Thank you for your support on polling day.

 

[matriarch]

Democracy is a failed experiment.

What should we do?

Unfortunately, there is no other option.
Humans as a species are inherently flawed, so until everyone is gene-bred to only speak the truth, and do what is best for all, we're stuck with it.

Unfortunately, the stuck with it means we're also stuck with personal agendas of not only the candidates, but the voters....with those stuck in their quasi-religious, better than thou, righteous bubble seeming to hold more power over the vote. It's not good, but it's the best we have.

I am so glad that we in UK only have the responsibility of voting for our local representative. If we want a say in who then leads the party we voted for, and inevitably (sometimes) the country, then we have to get off our arses, join the party and make an effort.

 

[shereads]

This is the basis of the sole plank in my single-issue party platform: that all adults be required to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" once per year, and three times on election years.

Thank you for your support on polling day.

You want voters to be not only able to read, but willing to read?

You're dreaming.

 

[rgraham666]

Burn the heretics?

I beg your pardon?

Don't blame me. People like me have so little power I couldn't even change the light bulbs in the Oval Office.

 

[rgraham666]

The big problem is marketing. Political candidates are products and are marketed like products.

That means they don't dare do anything that will offend a potential voter. And that they will lie a lot. Because the truth is an uncomfortable thing and people don't like products that make them uncomfortable.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You want voters to be not only able to read, but willing to read?

You're dreaming.

Well, I suppose mostly that I want to put them into Room 101 for not reading. Is that wrong of me?

The big problem is marketing. Political candidates are products and are marketed like products.

That means they don't dare do anything that will offend a potential voter. And that they will lie a lot. Because the truth is an uncomfortable thing and people don't like products that make them uncomfortable.

*nods* With you on that. What they want is not a coherent platform carefully planned with the complexities of modern socio-economic conditions in mind, but a brand image. Ideas are awkward, tedious, and difficult to convey; fuzzy emotional reactions are quick and simple.

 

[Recidiva]

You are not the only one.

 

[CharleyH]

It seems that none of them have anything better to do than to wait, hawk-like, for any person associated with the other party, however insignificant, to say anything that they can run to the media with and self-righteously demand apologies. Everyone on both sides of these things needs a good kick in the pants.

Grrr. The joys of a two-party system. This entire election seems to be focused on trying to make the other side look even more worthless.

Personally? I can't recall a time when politicians didn't do the "hawk" thing. What does amuse me is the two-party system in a 'cough' democracy. Either/or, this/that, me/them, black/white, hero/villain.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]*nods* With you on that. What they want is not a coherent platform carefully planned with the complexities of modern socio-economic conditions in mind, but a brand image. Ideas are awkward, tedious, and difficult to convey; fuzzy emotional reactions are quick and simple.

You've encapsulated the essence of post-modernism - not bad for someone whose fellows have generally aspired to stomping their hooves to solve simple arithmetic!

Bemoan the state of modern politics, but as you point out, it's a broader problem than just politics. I think schools should bring back 'civics' classes, but add a strong component of media studies and mass-communication. 'Truth' has become fungible in today's media, and contrasting sound-bites have taken the place of debate. It's simplistic to blame the media, and that's exactly the reaction that has been promoted by the Republicans for the last four decades at least, all the while gaining greater control and influence over the very media they decry. People have to learn to read between the lines and be comfortable with an area of gray that they must look at actions, not words, to understand.

Either Hillary or Obama would be a symbolic milestone; in that sense alone, either would represent a new era of American politics. Healthcare and War are two major issues where there are clear differences between the two parties - on those two issues alone, one should be able to at least narrow the field by half.

 

[rgraham666]

Did some thinking about this, and I'm coming to the conclusion that out problems with politics reflects a deeper conflict.

That conflict, in my mind, is between the myth we believe in and the reality that we exist in.

Our myth is that of democracy. In a democracy the individual matters. They have rights, privileges and duties. They are citizens of a nation, of a society.

The reality we live in is that of corporatism. In a corporatism the individual does not matter. The rights and privileges fall to the corporations, which have no duties except to themselves. The individual belongs to their corporation and politics consists of a battle for power between the corporations. Corporatism, to my mind, obviates the need for society, they are the society.

Our politicians are funded by these corporations. Why do you think lobbyist is a major occupation these days? But they have to pretend that they are our representatives and not beholden to the corporations. They have to pretend the citizen, the society is still important.

No wonder our politics are in such a mess. The dichotomy between myth and reality is too wide to create effective policy. Or allow wise people, true citizens, into office.