The Progressive Case Against Obama

[thekingsmen]

A voice of reason in HL in these election times, when this board has degenerated into a cheer-leading festival as if in anticipation of some sporting event, devoid of critical thought and worthwhile ideas. It's a complete circus, in perfect emulation of mainstream media.

American politics has been a duopoly for generations. The parties aren't interested in a free market of ideas. As evidenced in the tightly controlled and ridiculous Presidential debates where even the questions are lies. "The main issue of security for the United Sates is Iran..."

Nah, the main issue of security is the outright theft of all meaningful government and control of public discourse by oligarchical, corporate wealth. And the creation of the largest, enslaved incarceration population in world history.

how effectively campaigns manage to limit every discussion to the recitation of talking points, focus-grouped spin, and how effectively they manage to exclude new ideas and substantive arguments. But I digress.

I see intelligent and knowledgeable posters supporting Obama and frankly I find it baffling. Obama been ambivalent on civil rights issues, sucks up to big corporations, is continuing full steam ahead in all the unwinnable wars (terrorism, drugs), and couldn't give a shyt less about the plight of the common citizen. As is clarified in the article in the OP.

In defense of Obama, people say that he's been obstructed by the opposition. If he actually had a track record showing integrity then he could've credibly made this case to the voting public and probably retain their trust. But he doesn't, and he can't. This is one of the problems with politics today and it seems to be universal in Western democracies - that is, stand-up people of integrity with a real backbone are simply weeded out or become crooks as they advance in their careers.

This is not about naive idealism or unrealistic expectations. Tune out a bit from mainstream reporting and look at what's actually going on. Infrastructure and public services are crumbling throughout the nation, while the militarization process of police and law enforcement continues unabated. You have more or less obvious courses of action that need to be taken in public policy in a wide range of matters that are being left totally off the table, with no redeeming qualities or efforts to be found in a single instance of action taken by Obama and his administration.

Societies live, grow and die. They die because they become captive to an entrenched minority who games the social cultural political system and secures for itself some positive feedback loop that reinforces their power and permits them to write the rules of society to their personal, narrow advantage. Thenceforward, at every decision point, their local, short terms needs are serviced first and in the American case, almost exclusively. Obama has proven in his first term to be every bit a part of this mess.

The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the police are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.

When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles are considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.

At this point it is comical to see people arguing about Romney vs Obama vs third party as if there is any real difference between the two first mentioned. In the ways that matter, Obama is neither a change for the better nor a lesser evil in any substantive sense. His presidency has shown him to be A) an incapable leader or B) dishonest. In my mind Americans have no time to waste by voting in favor of the status quo, and the sooner third parties grow into a force to be reckoned with the better off the country will be.

http://i.imgur.com/PVpFY.jpg

Now go ahead dismiss me as a low-information dummy.

Post of the Week.

 

[Brown_Pride]

A voice of reason in HL in these election times, when this board has degenerated into a cheer-leading festival as if in anticipation of some sporting event, devoid of critical thought and worthwhile ideas. It's a complete circus, in perfect emulation of mainstream media.

American politics has been a duopoly for generations. The parties aren't interested in a free market of ideas. As evidenced in the tightly controlled and ridiculous Presidential debates where even the questions are lies. "The main issue of security for the United Sates is Iran..."

Nah, the main issue of security is the outright theft of all meaningful government and control of public discourse by oligarchical, corporate wealth. And the creation of the largest, enslaved incarceration population in world history.

how effectively campaigns manage to limit every discussion to the recitation of talking points, focus-grouped spin, and how effectively they manage to exclude new ideas and substantive arguments. But I digress.

I see intelligent and knowledgeable posters supporting Obama and frankly I find it baffling. Obama been ambivalent on civil rights issues, sucks up to big corporations, is continuing full steam ahead in all the unwinnable wars (terrorism, drugs), and couldn't give a shyt less about the plight of the common citizen. As is clarified in the article in the OP.

In defense of Obama, people say that he's been obstructed by the opposition. If he actually had a track record showing integrity then he could've credibly made this case to the voting public and probably retain their trust. But he doesn't, and he can't. This is one of the problems with politics today and it seems to be universal in Western democracies - that is, stand-up people of integrity with a real backbone are simply weeded out or become crooks as they advance in their careers.

This is not about naive idealism or unrealistic expectations. Tune out a bit from mainstream reporting and look at what's actually going on. Infrastructure and public services are crumbling throughout the nation, while the militarization process of police and law enforcement continues unabated. You have more or less obvious courses of action that need to be taken in public policy in a wide range of matters that are being left totally off the table, with no redeeming qualities or efforts to be found in a single instance of action taken by Obama and his administration.

Societies live, grow and die. They die because they become captive to an entrenched minority who games the social cultural political system and secures for itself some positive feedback loop that reinforces their power and permits them to write the rules of society to their personal, narrow advantage. Thenceforward, at every decision point, their local, short terms needs are serviced first and in the American case, almost exclusively. Obama has proven in his first term to be every bit a part of this mess.

The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the police are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.

When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles are considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.

At this point it is comical to see people arguing about Romney vs Obama vs third party as if there is any real difference between the two first mentioned. In the ways that matter, Obama is neither a change for the better nor a lesser evil in any substantive sense. His presidency has shown him to be A) an incapable leader or B) dishonest. In my mind Americans have no time to waste by voting in favor of the status quo, and the sooner third parties grow into a force to be reckoned with the better off the country will be.

http://i.imgur.com/PVpFY.jpg

Now go ahead dismiss me as a low-information dummy.

Best post in months.
So what's the course of action, how does it get fixed in your mind? Does it get fixed?

 

[No1]

Why does it have to be classified as a hissy fit?

Some of us find issues such as NDAA, killing American Citizens with a Presidential signature, indefinite detention, TSA, Raiding of Dispensaries, wall street lobbyists/former bigwigs in the cabinet, and tap dancing for the film and recording industries a sign of an ineffective leader.

Just because you don't feel those things are important, doesn't mean they aren't.

They are important to me and a lot of people on the left. It seemed to be VERY important to Democrats and the left when they were opposing Bush, including people on this board. Now we have to give a pass because he's better than the alternative?

No thank you.

Look, it's simple, you have an all or nothing personality, a short-sighted one. The worst part is that you then try to back up these false scenarios with people giving a guy a pass because he's black, a democrat or whatever else. Do you think I forgot you being so flabbergasted with how to debate me that you tried to insinuate that I support some of Obama's decisions just because I'm black? Please.

You keep bringing up stuff that VVD, myself and others have clearly and continue to be against. You can crying that it's so important to some liberals that they're not willing to budge on it. Bullshyt, most liberals have more pragmatism than you're demonstrating. It's simple, you're not a liberal. You read some philosophy books, adopted some of those principles and you vote based on two issues. The greater nation be damned.

You keep trying to falsely claim that these issues aren't important to me just because I know the likelihood that they'll affect the greater populace vs. college costs, a serious look at education, the odds of another conservative supreme court justice, a jobs bill, healthcare, etc. It's simple, those things don't affect you in your comfy life so you don't care. You have the luxury of sitting around and arguing the principles of Locke all day. You are not most of America.

I took one of those "who should I vote for" questionnaires before and I was leaning to where Jill Stein is (who isn't that far from Obama on a lot of issues, she just seems more earnest in their pursuit). But I still know better.

In what setting in the real world do mature adults act like you're acting? Seriously, tell me. In what setting in the real world do individuals insist on having things their way or no way at all? If everyone thought like you then we'd get nowhere. You think you're standing on principle, but aside from the most extreme examples, principles almost always yield to pragmatism. I'm not telling you to vote for him, but get off your high horse, it's an illogical one.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

What the commander in chief says goes

this is not always the case. Also what the comander in chief says on the campaign trail will always change, once they get in office and actually start making descisions.

Such as? What has he actually fought for that he couldn't get through? He wanted Obamacare he got Obamacare. He wanted out of Iraq we got out of Iraq. He wanted stimulus we got stimulus. Plus don't forget he had a Democratic congress when he got in office, and yes while the economy was bad it also presented a huge vacuum of power he could have used to push some FDR level shyt through. If he couldn't get shyt through then what makes you think he will get it through now?

From healthcare to wall street reform Obama has had to compromise as any other president would. Most of the stimulus was bush's obama wanted more and couldn't get it. You mention fdr yet neglect to mention it took 11 years to pull America out of the depression, we have moved forward, and I believe under obama we will continue to improve. If Obama can't get shyt through with half the country's support, what makes you think a third party candidate can?

FDR accomplished more under more dire constraints. Plus you keep tempering expectations + making excuses for dude's inability to execute. "The economy was bad" The economy is still bad. "Republicans blocked everything" Republicans will continue to block everything. Not to mention he has blocked some key progressive openings himself (the mortgage writedowns for example. Who gained from those being blocked???).

FDR had support from both parties AND 8 years, yet halfway through his presidency there was another recession, and at the time people complained his stimulus wasn't enough either. And the economy didn't really return to pre depression levels until many years later. The economy is better, and almost all economists say Obama took the correct steps. The only complaint is that the stimulus should have been larger. You are correct republicans will continue to block everything. If a third party gets in then republicans and democrats will get in the way.

Obama has done well? By what metrics? What progressive causes/goals has he furthered/accomplished? What indications has he made that he will be able to overcome the obstacles that kept him from achieving his goals over the last 4 years? We have to stop enabling failure. That is not to say vote for Romney. But again. Democrats don't have a monopoly on progressivism.

By the metrics of many economists who say Obama did the right thing, and had he not done what he did we'd be worse off.


He has passed healthcare, wall street, and financial aid reform. Dont ask dont tell, and plenty of other things. And he's kept our economy afloat and has begun repairing it. The recovering economy is an indication, that his policies have worked and will continue to. In no way has he failed as president. Doesn't matter who you are or what you satnd for, if you say this president has failed you are not looking at the facts.

Obama never ran as a progressive and has never pretended to be. He has delivered on a lot of promises and fallen short at others. He has not changed his overall ideologies or policies.

 

[No1]

A voice of reason in HL in these election times, when this board has degenerated into a cheer-leading festival as if in anticipation of some sporting event, devoid of critical thought and worthwhile ideas. It's a complete circus, in perfect emulation of mainstream media.

American politics has been a duopoly for generations. The parties aren't interested in a free market of ideas. As evidenced in the tightly controlled and ridiculous Presidential debates where even the questions are lies. "The main issue of security for the United Sates is Iran..."

Nah, the main issue of security is the outright theft of all meaningful government and control of public discourse by oligarchical, corporate wealth. And the creation of the largest, enslaved incarceration population in world history.

how effectively campaigns manage to limit every discussion to the recitation of talking points, focus-grouped spin, and how effectively they manage to exclude new ideas and substantive arguments. But I digress.

I see intelligent and knowledgeable posters supporting Obama and frankly I find it baffling. Obama been ambivalent on civil rights issues, sucks up to big corporations, is continuing full steam ahead in all the unwinnable wars (terrorism, drugs), and couldn't give a shyt less about the plight of the common citizen. As is clarified in the article in the OP.

In defense of Obama, people say that he's been obstructed by the opposition. If he actually had a track record showing integrity then he could've credibly made this case to the voting public and probably retain their trust. But he doesn't, and he can't. This is one of the problems with politics today and it seems to be universal in Western democracies - that is, stand-up people of integrity with a real backbone are simply weeded out or become crooks as they advance in their careers.

This is not about naive idealism or unrealistic expectations. Tune out a bit from mainstream reporting and look at what's actually going on. Infrastructure and public services are crumbling throughout the nation, while the militarization process of police and law enforcement continues unabated. You have more or less obvious courses of action that need to be taken in public policy in a wide range of matters that are being left totally off the table, with no redeeming qualities or efforts to be found in a single instance of action taken by Obama and his administration.

Societies live, grow and die. They die because they become captive to an entrenched minority who games the social cultural political system and secures for itself some positive feedback loop that reinforces their power and permits them to write the rules of society to their personal, narrow advantage. Thenceforward, at every decision point, their local, short terms needs are serviced first and in the American case, almost exclusively. Obama has proven in his first term to be every bit a part of this mess.

The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the police are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.

When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles are considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.

At this point it is comical to see people arguing about Romney vs Obama vs third party as if there is any real difference between the two first mentioned. In the ways that matter, Obama is neither a change for the better nor a lesser evil in any substantive sense. His presidency has shown him to be A) an incapable leader or B) dishonest. In my mind Americans have no time to waste by voting in favor of the status quo, and the sooner third parties grow into a force to be reckoned with the better off the country will be.

http://i.imgur.com/PVpFY.jpg

Now go ahead dismiss me as a low-information dummy.

This reads like a paper I wrote my freshman year. Of course the TUHs, BPs, etc. will like this but again, it is short-sighted. Mostly because you claimed that on the issues that matter there are no differences between the two major parties. Define the major issues in your opinion and I can show you where they differ. Now if you want to post that chart and say that proves that there is no difference between the two parties, that's not saying much. That's nothing that anyone doesn't know. Just like how ivy league schools dominate government positions. We all know we have a plutocracy. I've said time and time again to vote for third parties at the local and congressional level.

But none of that proves your point. Like TUH you state things in generalities. Seeing how I've worked with people who work on legislation and have friends on both campaigns and have sat in on policy the discussions the statement that there are "no differences" on important issues is merely subjective. But again, define what you consider important. But even bigger you ignore the fact that politicians in every society have always been reactive. Where are the ballot initiatives criticizing the prison industrial complex? Did you forget how the Civil Rights Bill came about? Do you even remember that legislative process? The point is, you all claim that discussion is limited, but no one ever enacts any measures to broaden the discussion. So there is a collective action problem. Congressmen only respond to organized groups, i.e. the Tea Party shyt.

So your discussion should not begin with the two parties, but happened that caused society to become so pacified, disinterested and lazy? Ask yourself how the same people who marched for the right to vote turn out in low numbers? I can go on and on. Here's something that you don't want to hear, most of society doesn't give a fukk and there are just people like us stressing ourselves out over stuff that most could care less about.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

this is not always the case. Also what the comander in chief says on the campaign trail will always change, once they get in office and actually start making descisions.

Then why do we even bother listening to campaign speeches? How do you determine what a candidate will ACTUALLY do/be capable of?

From healthcare to wall street reform Obama has had to compromise as any other president would. Most of the stimulus was bush's obama wanted more and couldn't get it. You mention fdr yet neglect to mention it took 11 years to pull America out of the depression, we have moved forward, and I believe under obama we will continue to improve. If Obama can't get shyt through with half the country's support, what makes you think a third party candidate can?

FDR had support from both parties AND 8 years, yet halfway through his presidency there was another recession, and at the time people complained his stimulus wasn't enough either. And the economy didn't really return to pre depression levels until many years later. The economy is better, and almost all economists say Obama took the correct steps. The only complaint is that the stimulus should have been larger. You are correct republicans will continue to block everything. If a third party gets in then republicans and democrats will get in the way.

FDR managed to gather bipartisan support and implement change. You claim things will get better under Obama, but admit he can't get any of his policies through. See the contradiction?

By the metrics of many economists who say Obama did the right thing, and had he not done what he did we'd be worse off.

He has passed healthcare, wall street, and financial aid reform. Dont ask dont tell, and plenty of other things. And he's kept our economy afloat and has begun repairing it. The recovering economy is an indication, that his policies have worked and will continue to. In no way has he failed as president. Doesn't matter who you are or what you satnd for, if you say this president has failed you are not looking at the facts.

Obama never ran as a progressive and has never pretended to be. He has delivered on a lot of promises and fallen short at others. He has not changed his overall ideologies or policies.

Obamacare is a compromised clusterfukk that is a poor excuse for not being able to pass a public option. Dodd-Frank is a compromised clusterfukk Wall St is currently rewriting to expand TBTF and open more loopholes. Financial aid reform has not addressed the underlying cause of skyrocketing tuitions, which is the govt subsidizing loans.

He said he would be hard on Wall St. Wall St has expanded and become more intertwined with the Fed. He said he would scale back military operations. Drones. He is pissing away our rights. The wealth/income gap is expanding. At best his resume over the last 4 years is a mixed bag.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I think its a good post simply because it does highlight the fact that the liberals on this board (myself included) have been giving Obama a pass for a lot of stuff recently because it's election season. But its hard for me to balance personally- like for example this disposition matrix he's been working on? I'm not a fan of that at all. In fact it's another terrifying step forward. But the point is that nobody really cares about this stuff except for the people really into politics. The average American gives no shyts.

So i appreciate any recognition of it.
@She Agree That I'm Looney there is in fact a loophole that essentially grants you a public option. Did you not read about this?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Kool G whats the loophole

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Kool G whats the loophole

in a nutshell

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html?_r=3&

 

[Brown_Pride]

This reads like a paper I wrote my freshman year. Of course the TUHs, BPs, etc. will like this but again, it is short-sighted.

not sure i like the implied sentiment here....

So your discussion should not begin with the two parties, but happened that caused society to become so pacified, disinterested and lazy? Ask yourself how the same people who marched for the right to vote turn out in low numbers? I can go on and on. Here's something that you don't want to hear, most of society doesn't give a fukk and there are just people like us stressing ourselves out over stuff that most could care less about.

this I agree with.

The sentiment of Nacimiento remains though. This political system is dominated by two parties. The difference in their responses to disaster and larger scale items are not to far apart.

Granted there are some differences, those differences though are largely in areas that will never see any movement, i.e. the require 2/3 vote.

Regardless of your approach to Nacimentos comments most would agree that shyts broken and in need of change. It soulds like you're saying vote 3rd party locally, which i can't argue against, but will say that locally tends to mimic national and the same fool as people who vote nationally vote locally as well, ergo your vote on a 3rd party candidate tends to mean nothing more than lost votes for the lesser of 2 evils.

There IS a duopoly, there is a problem.

The solution though, IMHO is not feasible as it would require to many people to actually start giving a fuk.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

in a nutshell

U.S. to Sponsor Health Insurance Plans Nationwide - NYTimes.com

Did I read it, the article was published yesterday lmao.

This is a start, but still does not address the inherent inefficiencies of the system, and most importantly, makes no mention of how they plan to pay for it

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I am weary of the opinions of folks who work in the system. They have a personal agenda. It takes a pretty strong person to admit that something they worked hard on and accomplished little milestones on is broken... so I don't blame Bar None for being knee-jerkingly defensive of the political process. But that doesn't mean its not not working.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Then why do we even bother listening to campaign speeches? How do you determine what a candidate will ACTUALLY do/be capable of?

No matter what party they are from politicians will always tell you what you want to hear. A better indication of what people wil do/be capable of is their record, and the state of the rest of government, and our standing in the world. For example most economists knew obama couldn't follow through on things like raising minimum wage because the economy was/is too weak.

FDR managed to gather bipartisan support and implement change. You claim things will get better under Obama, but admit he can't get any of his policies through. See the contradiction?

Times are different, Fdr didn't have congressmen willing to let the country default on it's loans just to label him as a failure. Obama has gotten some things through and his policies have worked fairly well so far. Hopefully congress does whats right for the country and gets some things done, a third party candidate will have even more trouble getting things passed.

Obamacare is a compromised clusterfukk that is a poor excuse for not being able to pass a public option. Dodd-Frank is a compromised clusterfukk Wall St is currently rewriting to expand TBTF and open more loopholes. Financial aid reform has not addressed the underlying cause of skyrocketing tuitions, which is the govt subsidizing loans.

Yes obamacare is a compromise, but he got done what plenty of people before him tried to do and failed. Same with Dodd-frank and financial aid. Some things were accomplished, more needs to be done, but he was able to get a lot done considering the circumstances.

He said he would be hard on Wall St. Wall St has expanded and become more intertwined with the Fed. He said he would scale back military operations. Drones. He is pissing away our rights. The wealth/income gap is expanding. At best his resume over the last 4 years is a mixed bag.

Obama has no control over the fed. Military has been scaled back, but the reality is it's a very dangerous world, and military tensions are very high the world over. As for our part, the drones are better than the alternative of large scale millitary action. What rights are he pissing away? The wealth income gap has been expanding for over 50 years, was Obama supposed to stop it single-handedly? And i agree his resume is a mixed bag, but not a failure by far, and it has been a success on a lot of issues.

 

[No1]

not sure i like the implied sentiment here....

this I agree with.

The sentiment of Nacimiento remains though. This political system is dominated by two parties. The difference in their responses to disaster and larger scale items are not to far apart.

Granted there are some differences, those differences though are largely in areas that will never see any movement, i.e. the require 2/3 vote.

Regardless of your approach to Nacimentos comments most would agree that shyts broken and in need of change. It soulds like you're saying vote 3rd party locally, which i can't argue against, but will say that locally tends to mimic national and the same fool as people who vote nationally vote locally as well, ergo your vote on a 3rd party candidate tends to mean nothing more than lost votes for the lesser of 2 evils.

There IS a duopoly, there is a problem.

The solution though, IMHO is not feasible as it would require to many people to actually start giving a fuk.

I don't mean you nearly to the extreme that I meant TUH. But at times you also exercise the same idea of "what's the point?" I didn't mean to group you in with him though. I don't have all the time in the world to do post right now, but this idealism about third parties just isn't the case even in places where they exist. You can vote for whoever you want there and all it equates to is bargaining for larger parties to adopt some of your platform in order to pass their greater agenda. In fact lots of research shows that there is greater intra-party bargaining than there is inter-party bargaining in those European nations. It's not all that different from how independents choose to caucus with one of the two parties.

Maybe this is arrogant or presumptious of me. But anyone who knows politics who is a senior in high school or a freshman in college can say what he just said. That's my point. We all know that it's a duoploy. We know it's a plutocracy. Cool. What else did he say? What solutions did he present? That's my point. If you were to ever go back to SOHH and look at how I posted at 18 ears old, it would mirror a lot of what he just said. But that's not problem-solving. It no longer has an effect on me, I assume it as a given in every discussion.

I GUARANTEE if we all sat down right now, pulled up an issue we disagree with the major parties on (outside of something easy like drug policy) and said let's write up a better policy. You would get a bunch of this:

That's my point, even the people who know that the current system needs to be fixed aren't clear on the alternative. They take self-righteous stances on issues, but have no idea how to get something enacted. That's why TUH gets annoyed by me. Whenever he says anything, I tell him all the reasons why it's not feasible. As far as the local level mirroring the national level, perhaps it does but that's only because the money flows downward from the party chairs. Pass legislation limiting the money that can be donated from major parties. That's a whole nother issue about campaign finance.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I don't mean you nearly to the extreme that I meant TUH. But at times you also exercise the same idea of "what's the point?" I didn't mean to group you in with him though. I don't have all the time in the world to do post right now, but this idealism about third parties just isn't the case even in places where they exist. You can vote for whoever you want there and all it equates to is bargaining for larger parties to adopt some of your platform in order to pass their greater agenda. In fact lots of research shows that there is greater intra-party bargaining than there is inter-party bargaining in those European nations. It's not all that different from how independents choose to caucus with one of the two parties.

Maybe this is arrogant or presumptious of me. But anyone who knows politics who is a senior in high school or a freshman in college can say what he just said. That's my point. We all know that it's a duoploy. We know it's a plutocracy. Cool. What else did he say? What solutions did he present? That's my point. If you were to ever go back to SOHH and look at how I posted at 18 ears old, it would mirror a lot of what he just said. But that's not problem-solving. It no longer has an effect on me, I assume it as a given in every discussion.

I GUARANTEE if we all sat down right now, pulled up an issue we disagree with the major parties on (outside of something easy like drug policy) and said let's write up a better policy. You would get a bunch of this:

That's my point, even the people who know that the current system needs to be fixed aren't clear on the alternative. They take self-righteous stances on issues, but have no idea how to get something enacted. That's why TUH gets annoyed by me. Whenever he says anything, I tell him all the reasons why it's not feasible. As far as the local level mirroring the national level, perhaps it does but that's only because the money flows downward from the party chairs. Pass legislation limiting the money that can be donated from major parties. That's a whole nother issue about campaign finance.

i excersise the "what's the point" approach because i don't see any clear solutions. I'm on record...more or less, stating that this country is on borrowed time. BARING some type of change. I want to be proven wrong, I want to know who, what, where and when on that "change". As it stands I don't see anything fixing this sinking boat.
That's why at the end of my quote of his post I asked for solutions.

There are to many broken parts right now and we're asking the people who broke them on purpose to fix them. I just don't see that happening.

I think his comments are what any informed person taking a God's honest approach to the situation would arrive at. Sounds like you agree to a degree, you're just saying that it's a given.

I don't have solutions to the problems, i'd love to see some...