I am deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States

WOW Really Paul? wrote: As far as the OP, the biggest problem between the two sides has been a growing shift towards the extremes and then telling constituents that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR choices/party/interests they are either idiots, racists, teabaggers, libtards, etc.....berkeleying learn how to think critically and actually look outside your E36 M3ty political she'll every once and a while.....

Except we don't have that, we have a Very Right and a Slightly Right. The US doesn't have a left-wing party of any significance.

In reply to Knurled:

I would tend to disagree with you. About half of the people in the country tend to vote for whichever candidate promises to give them more of other people's money. I agree that there really is little to no distinction between the two parties though when it comes down to it. Judge people by their actions and not their words and then it is hard to tell the two parties apart. I wish more people were aware of the other axis and look at whether a candidate is authoritarian or libertarian.

WildScotsRacing wrote: I believe this is all a result of the school systems, as a group beginnig about 1990 or so, starting to teach kids (from K through doctorate) that how you "feel" about something is the only thing that matters in life, and further more, "we will teach you exactly HOW you should feel about everything". Critical Thinking and rational thought process is no longer ALLOWED to be taught; teachers actually get fired doing so. So we now have two full generations of adults who, for the most part, cannot, will not, refuse to even attempt to reason out an issue with scientific method. They can tell you what something looks like, but cannot actually define it. Ergo: sheeple.

The other day, I was chosen for jury duty. One of the questions asked by the defense atty. was, "Does anybody here like puzzles?". She seemed quite annoyed when I answered that I liked Sudoku, crossword, and minesweeper. I was never asked another question. I did not make the final six or alternate.

Being the curious sort, I called my cousin, who is a lawyer that handles cases similar to the one I was interviewed for. He told me that they are looking for emotional thinkers for the jury. Any critical thinkers, no matter how much they might be inclined to vote in favor of your client, are not what you want on a jury. They want people who can be swayed by emotional testimony, and especially, an emotional closing argument.

5 pages of civil exchange of views. Thank you to the participants.

One of the things I love about GRM is that there is such a wide cross section of the US on here. It is entirely too rare to have place where you this.

IT seems to me that everyone of us has been plugged into someones stereotypes. We have all been summarily dismissed for our political or social views. We have all been ridiculed or seen someone we agreed with ridiculed for their beliefs, choices, or values.

The normal reaction to that is be angry. It is really hard to listen and try to understand when you are angry.

Western civilisations, not just the us, seem to be on a bit of a slippery slope at the moment. Some more so than others.

I live in a country where we are onto our 5th prime minister in 5 years. This is predominantly the result of 2 party politics and a continuous news cycle. Instead of politicians being elected for having the best solution or visions for the future, they gain power by slagging off the opposition and telling you how bad 'they' are. The political ambitions of a few are constantly put ahead of the interests of the majority.

To me, it seems a great many people can't or don't want to see past the spin. They'll swallow party dogma and media bias hook line and sinker without ever stopping to think objectively about what's happening and what's being said.

We seem to be in an age where intelegent debate is becoming ever more elusive, where personalities and popularity come before all else, while getting the job done and working towards a better future seem to be a very distant second. Perhaps even third or fourth.

Generating fear and outrage currently holds more value than generating solutions and understanding.

Throughout time, all great civilisations have sooner or later fallen and perhaps the west is beginning to see its own demise... That said, it won't go quietly, and that in itself is something to worry about.

Knurled wrote:

WOW Really Paul? wrote: As far as the OP, the biggest problem between the two sides has been a growing shift towards the extremes and then telling constituents that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR choices/party/interests they are either idiots, racists, teabaggers, libtards, etc.....berkeleying learn how to think critically and actually look outside your E36 M3ty political she'll every once and a while.....

Except we don't have that, we have a Very Right and a Slightly Right. The US doesn't have a left-wing party of any significance.

Saunders has moved the dems slightly more left recently.. but yes, ten years ago I was a very moderate, slightly left socially, slight right fiscally.. now I am some sort of flaming liberal as I am where I was, but both parties took a right turn.

WOW Really Paul? wrote:

Duke wrote:

Ian F wrote: What we have no is the end result of a two party system, which has essentially turned into an oligarchy. Until we can figure out how to allow representation of additional parties in our government, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

There's very little preventing third-party representation, except that people largely refuse to vote for them, either through ignorance or inertia or both.

Well, Sanders was considered even too socialist for the left, hence why he was/is an Independent. As far as the OP, the biggest problem between the two sides has been a growing shift towards the extremes and then telling constituents that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR choices/party/interests they are either idiots, racists, teabaggers, libtards, etc.....berkeleying learn how to think critically and actually look outside your E36 M3ty political she'll every once and a while..... I have friends that are hardline left and right, I have discovered most of my time on Facebook these days is disproving the arguments made by both sides. It's annoying, but someone has to do something to put an end to misinformation.

Sanders choose to be independent. It had nothing to do with how the party viewed him.

I love how Sanders almost mirrors FDRs domestic policy and people call him names. Sanders policies, when the "socialist" name is stripped of of them, is shared by about 80% of populace.

He actually has the most widely accepted policy positions of any of the candidates. But you start putting names like socialist and leftist on it in a mass campaign against him by the establishment you get what you got.

FWIW I am glad this has remained civil after 5 pages.

This is very nice

Flight Service wrote: I love how Sanders almost mirrors FDRs domestic policy and people call him names.

I'm not a big fan of FDR's, either, but I'll just leave it at that. And I'll leave this here:

When fdr was president they called him a socialist.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: When fdr was president they called him a socialist.

And rightfully so! What's your point?

Recently heard a talk about the age of governments. Before thinking about it, it was a little surprising to think of the U.S. as having one of the oldest government systems in the world at 240ish. But I'm a bit pressed to think of who's government system is older since most were wiped out once or twice in the past century.

The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence - Bukowski

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: When fdr was president they called him a socialist.

And there have been some sections of our political spectrum that have been hard at work to undo all the "socialist" programs he put into place that we all now take for granted and need. If they had their way, Social Security, Welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment insurance would all go away

Knurled wrote: Except we don't have that, we have a Very Right and a Slightly Right. The US doesn't have a left-wing party of any significance.

It's not only the US. The "left" major parties in Europe have been moving to the right since before Tony Blair in the UK and Gerhard Schröder in Germany got elected. Borrowing, err, adopting neo-conservative policies especially when it came to economics helped getting both elected. That movement helped moving the overall center further to the right as well.

In reply to mad_machine:

While the yelling for the dismantling of the "socialist" safety net seems to be louder over here recently, that's been going on in Western countries since the 80s. I remember my stepdad getting rather annoyed that the mandatory German state-run pension scheme kept cutting benefits and hiked contributions at the same time back then, and that's been happening all over Europe since then.

(deleted post about Sanders and Trump)

Flight Service wrote: Sanders choose to be independent. It had nothing to do with how the party viewed him. I love how Sanders almost mirrors FDRs domestic policy and people call him names. Sanders policies, when the "socialist" name is stripped of of them, is shared by about 80% of populace. He actually has the most widely accepted policy positions of any of the candidates. But you start putting names like socialist and leftist on it in a mass campaign against him by the establishment you get what you got. FWIW I am glad this has remained civil after 5 pages. This is very nice

" ..."socialist" is now how Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has described himself throughout his career. "

He calls himself a socialist, so this isn't anything new. After reading his web page, I'd agree, socialist he is. He's not someone I would ever vote for for any government office. I have to wonder, seeing as how we are trillions in debt already, where would he get the money to pay for the programs he thinks we need. It looks like he wants to buy votes with OPM, just like most politicians.

All in, this next election cycle is going to be disgusting. It's going to look like the WWE. Full of fakes, lies and rigged matches.

mad_machine wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: When fdr was president they called him a socialist.

And there have been some sections of our political spectrum that have been hard at work to undo all the "socialist" programs he put into place that we all now take for granted and need. If they had their way, Social Security, Welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment insurance would all go away

So you DO understand!

In reply to Toyman01:

Uh, I think Sanders would put in place taxes that even things out again. Where the uber rich don't have a lower actual tax rate than people who make less than them (see IRS stats).

I'm pretty sure that he has an idea how he would redistribute the wealth so that our consumer based economy would have some more inner strength. That opinion based on what Sanders has consistently said.

In reply to alfadriver:

So, much like all the rest of the politicians, he has a "plan".

A "plan" that we know, from past experience, won't work because no politician's plan survives congress. It gets hacked up, they kick the can down the road another term or two. Then we, the American people, get another bullE36 M3 piece of legislation, that costs trillions, doesn't work, adds to the debt, and generally makes life harder for those of us that aren't rich or poor.

I have no faith in the federal government. None. They have proved to be untrustworthy and dishonest. I won't vote for anyone that wants to add to their power. I will vote for anyone that will limit their power, balance the budget, and pay down the deficit. Unfortunately I might as well cast my vote for Santa. There is a better chance of him actually existing.

Sanders is interesting because he's genuine about what he is. It's sad that even if people don't agree with his stance on many platforms they'd still be willing to vote for him because he is genuine.

I can't pin down personally which way the US is moving. Some days it seems like we're headed down a free market oil barons wet dream (new UBER legislation.) Other days it seems like we're going to turn into Orwells nightmare (the encryption backdoors.) Other times it looks like we're going to hop on the same social agenda pushed by our European allies (Affordable healthcare act, trade pacts, and expansion of social welfare programs.)

Really the difference between the parties is so slim now that it comes down to single issue special interests. Those Super PACs seem to be gaining more and more influence as time goes on which is making the problem worse. Occasionally it backfires like the NRA propping up Harry Reid over Sharron Angle and everyone loses their minds.

Ideally I'd like to see the election season cut short, ie: no campaigning until 3 months prior to the primaries. Then enforce election silence two or three days before both the primaries and the general election. I know there's a number of free speech arguments to be made against that but I think part of our problem is this two year runoff simply brings out the worst in politics as the constant polling and discussions leave nothing of substance to talk about.

Yep... the 10 months leading up to the election will be brutal. Made all the worse by it being generally pointless. The "establishment" wants Hillary. Even the Republicans, despite what they may posture. Why? Because it'll essentially be 4 more years of what we have now. Congress will be grid-locked and nothing will change. The "establishment" doesn't want change. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Life will carry on.

It's kinda depressing, really...

In reply to Ian F:

Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

Something useful to consider for the coming months is what powers the president ACTUALLY has.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

People tend to assume and candidates love to imply they can do and have control over many things they really don't.

Other then commander in chief probably the most significant power is the approval or veto of laws. This of course means he/she must work with (argh) congress. This is actually a practical reason why third party candidate are less appealing.

In reply to aircooled:

You are correct on the limited power front but the President is also quite visible in the political landscape. The president is out there quite a bit more than the Speaker of the House or the Chief Justice. So from that standpoint a third party president could either work with congress to pass things that match his agenda, veto bills and then use his pulpit to explain why it was a raw deal, and/or simply continually exert pressure to get congress to address an issue rather than jumping to the crisis of the moment (not that congress is required to address those issues.)

Unfortunately you would need someone like Bernie Sanders who is fully committed to their agenda but willing to work within the system to affect change. Those people are few and far between and many voters are unable to understand what limits are put on each branches power. Then they wonder why the candidate didn't deliver on the campaign promises.

We have lost our ability to be comfortable with disagreement.

Effective discourse is not possible without legitimate and respectful disagreement.

It is especially evident on media and websites, including this one. Rather than accepting differences so we can learn from people with varying perspectives, we stifle discussion because we are so afraid of disagreement.

It's a very immature attitude.

My best friend are not the ones who agree with me. Those are just head-nodders. My best friends are the ones who choose to trust me enough to take a risk and challenge me on my opinions and help me expand my understanding.

I like people different than me. There is nothing sadder (and more boring) in my opinion than a room full of people like me.

I think there's an interesting mentality shift happening as well. With the advent of social media, comment sections, even forums like this we are given a voice. The subtext being that our opinions and thoughts are important jewels that NEED to be shared with everyone else.

I'd also like to commend everyone in this thread for keeping it on topic and civil. It was threads like this one, where an open and intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions are maturely discussed, that caused me to finally join after lurking. As the subject of this thread will attest, it's truly rare to find a place like this these days.