Americans really REALLY hate government

[Interpol]

Behind the OP's poll numbers are facts in other polls that help us understand why people don't like gov't right now.

For starters, 75% of the country, including two-thirds of Republican voters want Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare to be strengthened, not cut or even worse, privatized.

Nearly 80% of the country, including 70% of Republican voters, feel that the rich should pay higher taxes.

The vast majority of Americans want more investment in veterans, particularly on mental healthcare.

All of these things are things that Republicans in the House and Senate oppose. They want to privatize everything and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to maintain current funding levels for veterans, let alone actually giving them the help they need.

The country wants investment in a jobs program. Republicans oppose it.

Republicans are intent on making gov't work as terribly as possible so they can bandy about polls like this in some stupid effort to support their plan to just get rid of gov't altogether even though people on both sides want services that help them for the taxes they pay.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The gov does 1000s of things . People hate highways and national parks ?

I bet if u asked any American they can come up with a list of things they do like about the gov .

Bingo!!! Sure there's things that some people dislike about government but there's a thousand times more things that they like. Without government we'd be like Haiti or Somali. I am sure people would hate that more.

Wrong. There are far more things they hate about government than things they like about government.

The problem in most of the world is instability caused by no government or weak government. Look at somalia, Haiti, Central Africa republic or even Syria..Most businesses wouldn't even be able to function in this land if it wasn't for the stability of government.

There's a lot I disagree with Obamas government but to say that I wouldn't want government...Well, that is just really short sighted.

Here we go again

If one criticizes government not only do they hate roads and bridges they want to be like Somalia

Our government has never been weak in fact I posit that because it is so bloated and bound in red tape that it is less effective now than it has been in the past

And you have changed the argument.

The argument was "When will you realize that government causes more harm than good?"

If anyone points out that Somalia, with very little effective govt, isn't a good place to live or work, then all of a sudden we're being told that we "want to be like Somalia". No, people are point out, using EVIDENCE, that there are places in the world with extremely limited govt, often people have NO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT controlling their lives, and you dismiss it by making odd claims that we want the US to be like Somalia.

Maybe the US govt is less effective now than it was before, however that doesn't mean you would call for the end of government for that reason. If you want govt to be more efficient, vote in people who will make it more efficient. Personally I don't see a politician out there who is calling for more efficiency.

I've not see anyone say the printing dollar bills is inefficient, that the health service is extremely inefficient, or that the military going abroad spending billions in order to make some companies rich is efficient, or paying multi-national corporations millions in order to be in one part of the US rather than another part of the US is inefficient.

They just play a game, make you think things, but never actually commit to anything, never have principles by which they are guided.

There are probably two guys running for presidency that have principles about their thoughts, Sanders and Paul, and most people hate both of them FOR HAVING PRINCIPLES.

As Colin Powell said about why he wouldn't be running for President, he said he'd piss 99% of the people off by saying what he thought. People don't WANT TO HEAR what politicians think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Government does not prevent war. It starts wars.

And usually for no good reason

The problem is, you can't see a govt preventing wars. You can see them starting them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Behind the OP's poll numbers are facts in other polls that help us understand why people don't like gov't right now.

For starters, 75% of the country, including two-thirds of Republican voters want Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare to be strengthened, not cut or even worse, privatized.

Nearly 80% of the country, including 70% of Republican voters, feel that the rich should pay higher taxes.

The vast majority of Americans want more investment in veterans, particularly on mental healthcare.

All of these things are things that Republicans in the House and Senate oppose. They want to privatize everything and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to maintain current funding levels for veterans, let alone actually giving them the help they need.

The country wants investment in a jobs program. Republicans oppose it.

Republicans are intent on making gov't work as terribly as possible so they can bandy about polls like this in some stupid effort to support their plan to just get rid of gov't altogether even though people on both sides want services that help them for the taxes they pay.

Maybe the Republicans should talk to you since you speak for most of America and know what Americans want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hey Bub...it is the 21 century yet government is still corrupt, ineffective, and terribly inefficient as it has always been. Politicians are still liars and thieves. When will you realize that government causes more harm than good?

Just because they are corrupt and can be ineffective, doesn't mean they cause more harm than good.

Go to Somalia and see what no government does. Go to South Africa and see what corrupt govt does. Go to North Korea, Zimbabwe and other places to see what dictators do.

None of these are better than the US govt.

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Nobody but the people are stopping a change in our two party system.

We are becoming more and more divided in this country that there is no longer any middle ground; no room for a third or fourth candidate. When we vote, many of us don't vote our favorite candidate in, we vote to make sure the other candidate stays out. If the Republicans nominated Mickey Mouse, I would still vote for him just to keep Hillary or that other Socialist out of power.

My father and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I told him Nanny Bloomburg was thinking about getting into the race, and what an election this would be if Trump was not nominated and decided to run as an Independent as well. It would probably be the most interesting election in our lifetime because all candidates would have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. I don't see that happening, but it's always possible.

If Nanny decides to run, whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next President of this country.

 

[gipper]

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Government does not prevent war. It starts wars.

What your saying doesn't add anything to this debate. It's a meaningless soundbite.

Do you want to talk about this, or throw soundbites at me?

I don't believe it will do any good. I have found that those who believe in government, can't be effectively debated because they are so delusional.

If you can't agree with this statement; "Government starts wars and always have"...then we can't ever find common ground.

 

[gipper]

Just because they are corrupt and can be ineffective, doesn't mean they cause more harm than good.

Go to Somalia and see what no government does. Go to South Africa and see what corrupt govt does. Go to North Korea, Zimbabwe and other places to see what dictators do.

None of these are better than the US govt.

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia A has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Nobody but the people are stopping a change in our two party system.

We are becoming more and more divided in this country that there is no longer any middle ground; no room for a third or fourth candidate. When we vote, many of us don't vote our favorite candidate in, we vote to make sure the other candidate stays out. If the Republicans nominated Mickey Mouse, I would still vote for him just to keep Hillary or that other Socialist out of power.

My father and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I told him Nanny Bloomburg was thinking about getting into the race, and what an election this would be if Trump was not nominated and decided to run as an Independent as well. It would probably be the most interesting election in our lifetime because all candidates would have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. I don't see that happening, but it's always possible.

If Nanny decides to run, whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next President of this country.

A large segment of the people don't care or are easily misinformed by the deceptive and divisive practices of the media, political parties, and other nefarious forces. So, thinking the American people will fix things at the ballot box, is likely wishful thinking. Proof of this are the candidates both parties have nominated for about three decades.

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell is a "closed government policy?" The bottom line is that the ACA is where government tells people "either by this policy or pay this fine or we'll shoot you in the head."

 

[bripat9643]

The gov does 1000s of things . People hate highways and national parks ?

I bet if u asked any American they can come up with a list of things they do like about the gov .

Bingo!!! Sure there's things that some people dislike about government but there's a thousand times more things that they like. Without government we'd be like Haiti or Somali. I am sure people would hate that more.

Wrong. There are far more things they hate about government than things they like about government.

The problem in most of the world is instability caused by no government or weak government. Look at somalia, Haiti, Central Africa republic or even Syria..Most businesses wouldn't even be able to function in this land if it wasn't for the stability of government.

There's a lot I disagree with Obamas government but to say that I wouldn't want government...Well, that is just really short sighted.

Haiti, Central African Republic and Syria all have governments. Government causes far more problems than it solves. Government killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, and they are well on their way to breaking that record in the 21st century.

 

[bripat9643]

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Government does not prevent war. It starts wars.

And usually for no good reason

The problem is, you can't see a govt preventing wars. You can see them starting them.

Name one war that wasn't started by government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better.
.

I do not agree. Our media, government, and the elite are all working in tandem to deceive and divide Americans. Plus there millions of uninformed Americans who will do as they are told. You make it sound as if all Americans freely evaluate the issues and make informed decisions. Nothing could be more wrong.

Of course he is wrong.

The guy is fearful of taking a strong position on almost any subject.


My recommendation would be for the fence sitter to pick up some of the works of JL Talmon....
1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
Totalitarian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mac1958]

Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better.
.

I do not agree. Our media, government, and the elite are all working in tandem to deceive and divide Americans. Plus there millions of uninformed Americans who will do as they are told. You make it sound as if all Americans freely evaluate the issues and make informed decisions. Nothing could be more wrong.

Of course he is wrong.

The guy is fearful of taking a strong position on almost any subject.


My recommendation would be for the fence sitter to pick up some of the works of JL Talmon....
1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
Totalitarian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you don't see is that you sit on a fence, too.

The fence on which you sit is off in one little corner of our playground. It gives you an excellent view of your little corner, but a lousy view of the rest of the playground.

Worse, it's a tiny fence, and you don't put any effort into hopping off it and taking a walk around. See, the binary world in which hardcore partisan ideologues exist (both ends) keeps stuff easy for them, no doubt, but it also robs you of your intellectual elasticity.

I'll say it again - I notice you didn't take me up on it the first time - toss out an issue or two or three and I'll provide not only a clear opinion, but perhaps even a link or two to posts I have made in the past on that topic.

Let's see if you have the nerve to do that.

So, again: Bring up a few issues. Let's go.
.

 

[bripat9643]

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Government does not prevent war. It starts wars.

What your saying doesn't add anything to this debate. It's a meaningless soundbite.

Do you want to talk about this, or throw soundbites at me?

I don't believe it will do any good. I have found that those who believe in government, can't be effectively debated because they are so delusional.

If you can't agree with this statement; "Government starts wars and always have"...then we can't ever find common ground.

It's not just that they are delusional. The main problem is that they are irrational. they aren't capable of seeing a fallacy even after it has been pointed out to them The AGW cult members keep bleating about the "consensus" even though it has been explained to them countless times that science isn't done by consensus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better.
.

I do not agree. Our media, government, and the elite are all working in tandem to deceive and divide Americans. Plus there millions of uninformed Americans who will do as they are told. You make it sound as if all Americans freely evaluate the issues and make informed decisions. Nothing could be more wrong.

Of course he is wrong.

The guy is fearful of taking a strong position on almost any subject.


My recommendation would be for the fence sitter to pick up some of the works of JL Talmon....
1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
Totalitarian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you don't see is that you sit on a fence, too.

The fence on which you sit is off in one little corner of our playground. It gives you an excellent view of your little corner, but a lousy view of the rest of the playground.

Worse, it's a tiny fence, and you don't put any effort into hopping off it and taking a walk around. See, the binary world in which hardcore partisan ideologues exist (both ends) keeps stuff easy for them, no doubt, but it also robs you of your intellectual elasticity.

I'll say it again - I notice you didn't take me up on it the first time - toss out an issue or two or three and I'll provide not only a clear opinion, but perhaps even a link or two to posts I have made in the past on that topic.

Let's see if you have the nerve to do that.

So, again: Bring up a few issues. Let's go.
.

The post to which you've linked explains concisely why you are wrong in this post"
"Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better."


The is no informed decision by the public unless the press does what it was meant to do.

A large part of your problem is that you don't understand that.

 

[Mac1958]

Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better.
.

I do not agree. Our media, government, and the elite are all working in tandem to deceive and divide Americans. Plus there millions of uninformed Americans who will do as they are told. You make it sound as if all Americans freely evaluate the issues and make informed decisions. Nothing could be more wrong.

Of course he is wrong.

The guy is fearful of taking a strong position on almost any subject.


My recommendation would be for the fence sitter to pick up some of the works of JL Talmon....
1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
Totalitarian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you don't see is that you sit on a fence, too.

The fence on which you sit is off in one little corner of our playground. It gives you an excellent view of your little corner, but a lousy view of the rest of the playground.

Worse, it's a tiny fence, and you don't put any effort into hopping off it and taking a walk around. See, the binary world in which hardcore partisan ideologues exist (both ends) keeps stuff easy for them, no doubt, but it also robs you of your intellectual elasticity.

I'll say it again - I notice you didn't take me up on it the first time - toss out an issue or two or three and I'll provide not only a clear opinion, but perhaps even a link or two to posts I have made in the past on that topic.

Let's see if you have the nerve to do that.

So, again: Bring up a few issues. Let's go.
.

The post to which you've linked explains concisely why you are wrong in this post"
"Our Constitution allows us to vote people in who reflect and act upon our desires.

Nothing more constitutional than that.

If the country is moving Left, and it sure looks that way, then that's what it wants to do.

Those who don't like that need to do a better job of convincing the electorate that their way is better."


The is no informed decision by the public unless the press does what it was meant to do.

A large part of your problem is that you don't understand that.

That's it?

Are you going to pop out a few issues or are you going to keep avoiding?
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just because they are corrupt and can be ineffective, doesn't mean they cause more harm than good.

Go to Somalia and see what no government does. Go to South Africa and see what corrupt govt does. Go to North Korea, Zimbabwe and other places to see what dictators do.

None of these are better than the US govt.

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Nobody but the people are stopping a change in our two party system.

We are becoming more and more divided in this country that there is no longer any middle ground; no room for a third or fourth candidate. When we vote, many of us don't vote our favorite candidate in, we vote to make sure the other candidate stays out. If the Republicans nominated Mickey Mouse, I would still vote for him just to keep Hillary or that other Socialist out of power.

My father and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I told him Nanny Bloomburg was thinking about getting into the race, and what an election this would be if Trump was not nominated and decided to run as an Independent as well. It would probably be the most interesting election in our lifetime because all candidates would have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. I don't see that happening, but it's always possible.

If Nanny decides to run, whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next President of this country.

The country is becoming divided BECAUSE OF the system.

People see only two choices, and then these two choices have become such powerful voices, that people don't see past the voices.

Debate is stifled along the lines that suit the two main parties. Without change in the way people vote, nothing will change in the way people think.

You look at other countries.

Germany has a duel system, you vote Proportional Representation and First Past The Post at the same time. So people have a choice in who they want to be their representative at a local level and which party they would like to have in Berlin.

The last elections saw the CDU gain 37.2% of the constituency votes and 34.1% of the PR votes.

So 3.1% of the voters felt the desire to vote for them at a local level and NOT at a federal level.

The SPD got 29.4% at the constituency level and 25.7% at a national level, so 3.7% of people decide to vote for them locally but not nationally.

And the CSU (Sister party of the CDU) also saw 0.7% of the voters choose not to vote for them nationally when they voted locally.

That's 7.5% of the voters chose not to vote for one of the main two parties who would undoubtedly control the govt on a national level, but did so on a local level.

Why? Maybe they were being tactical. On a local FPTP level they didn't want the other party to get in.

But maybe a CDU/CSU voter wanted other things nationally, they might have wanted to choose the coalition partner. The CDU would got with FDP and the the SPD would go with die Linke or the Greens.

The FDP didn't get in. They got 2.4% of the constituency votes and 4.8% of the national vote, meaning they didn't reach the 5% needed.

The Greens and die Linke gained more votes and were there too.

In the end the two main parties had to have a coalition.

What this means is that the govt is more representative, these people have to work together, they can't do what they do in the US, because then the govt will fail and new elections will happen, which puts pressure on party finances and so on, and no one is confident of winning.

Such a system in the US would open things up. People could vote main party at a local level, and at a national level choose someone else, it'd force cooperation onto the main parties, get rid of the silly bravado they keep shouting off and it would put opinions into the system that simply don't exist because it's not in the interests of the two parties nor those who control them.

More parties means the money gets spread out more, it's harder to control one party and get what you want if you're rich. It gives more power to the people.

 

[gipper]

Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.

I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.

The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.

Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.

Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.

Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.

In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?

I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.

I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.

The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.

Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.

The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.

Nobody but the people are stopping a change in our two party system.

We are becoming more and more divided in this country that there is no longer any middle ground; no room for a third or fourth candidate. When we vote, many of us don't vote our favorite candidate in, we vote to make sure the other candidate stays out. If the Republicans nominated Mickey Mouse, I would still vote for him just to keep Hillary or that other Socialist out of power.

My father and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I told him Nanny Bloomburg was thinking about getting into the race, and what an election this would be if Trump was not nominated and decided to run as an Independent as well. It would probably be the most interesting election in our lifetime because all candidates would have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. I don't see that happening, but it's always possible.

If Nanny decides to run, whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next President of this country.

The country is becoming divided BECAUSE OF the system.

People see only two choices, and then these two choices have become such powerful voices, that people don't see past the voices.

Debate is stifled along the lines that suit the two main parties. Without change in the way people vote, nothing will change in the way people think.

You look at other countries.

Germany has a duel system, you vote Proportional Representation and First Past The Post at the same time. So people have a choice in who they want to be their representative at a local level and which party they would like to have in Berlin.

The last elections saw the CDU gain 37.2% of the constituency votes and 34.1% of the PR votes.

So 3.1% of the voters felt the desire to vote for them at a local level and NOT at a federal level.

The SPD got 29.4% at the constituency level and 25.7% at a national level, so 3.7% of people decide to vote for them locally but not nationally.

And the CSU (Sister party of the CDU) also saw 0.7% of the voters choose not to vote for them nationally when they voted locally.

That's 7.5% of the voters chose not to vote for one of the main two parties who would undoubtedly control the govt on a national level, but did so on a local level.

Why? Maybe they were being tactical. On a local FPTP level they didn't want the other party to get in.

But maybe a CDU/CSU voter wanted other things nationally, they might have wanted to choose the coalition partner. The CDU would got with FDP and the the SPD would go with die Linke or the Greens.

The FDP didn't get in. They got 2.4% of the constituency votes and 4.8% of the national vote, meaning they didn't reach the 5% needed.

The Greens and die Linke gained more votes and were there too.

In the end the two main parties had to have a coalition.

What this means is that the govt is more representative, these people have to work together, they can't do what they do in the US, because then the govt will fail and new elections will happen, which puts pressure on party finances and so on, and no one is confident of winning.

Such a system in the US would open things up. People could vote main party at a local level, and at a national level choose someone else, it'd force cooperation onto the main parties, get rid of the silly bravado they keep shouting off and it would put opinions into the system that simply don't exist because it's not in the interests of the two parties nor those who control them.

More parties means the money gets spread out more, it's harder to control one party and get what you want if you're rich. It gives more power to the people.

A simple fix might be outlawing political parties entirely. Each scumbag politician must stand on his own. No money to political parties and limit donations to any one candidate.

I suspect the elites won't much like this plan.