Is The Problem In Our Country Too Much Entertainment?

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Too much leftist bullshit /thread

 

[Dante Reawakened]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

The Problem In Our Country is too many choices of paper to wipe the big fat asses of the American public.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

So want to take away people's choices? And force feed them political information that many won't be able to comprehend?

Politics didn't interest me when I was younger because perhaps instinctively I understood that none of our "representatives" actually represented me. Additionally I had no idea of how everything works, nor of our laws or how things actually get done away from all of theatrics.

The first time I was ever motivated to vote was when former governor of California started running on a platform of providing illegal aliens (this is what they were called then) with driver's licenses (How Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Led to Gray Davis’ Recall - CAPS). This after having found the Supreme Court stop the counting of the votes in Florida in the race between Al Gore and George Bush thoroughly disgusting.

My interest peaked in 2008 when Obama ran and then won the White House which I believe did give hope to many people in the U.S. however I didn't REALLY start paying attention until Trump announced his candidacy. And that's also around the same time I started educating myself further.

A lack of interest in a particular topic will almost always impede one's ability to comprehend the material. That's not something you can force, to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Nah....the problem with our society is dems legalizing drugs to make the populace more malleable.

 

[DudleySmith]

In the 18th and 19th century, saloons were the center of political life for most; booze consumption per capita was three times what it was in Europe, and was the cause of a lot of violence and domestic abuse. The govt encouraged alcoholism because booze taxes were a major source of its tax revenues from the founding of the country right up to Prohibition. After Prohibition, consumption didn't reach pre-Prohibition levels again until the 1960's; car crashes killed more people every year than the entire death toll of the Viet Nam war, and maimed and crippled a lot more.

 

[basquebromance]

i don't know what you're talking about

*about to watch Kevin Nash's podcast in 10 minutes" lol

 

[Votto]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

Is the problem distraction or is the problem general stupidity within society?

I reckon it is a combination, but the Founding Fathers certainly disdained a pure democracy and seemingly because they felt the same sort of way about the general voter.

Their disdain for the average voter is apparent in how they created Congressional elections.

Those voted for directly in the House

1. Serve only 2 years
2. There are a gazillion of them, based on population. The more representatives, the more their votes are diluted in terms of significance.
3. Having them voted for directly by the people increases the power of the people, but only to the extent that they are educated to vote in their own interests. Most of what they know comes directly from the media which is full of political propaganda. And if the propaganda is controlled mostly by the Federal government, then it is only power to the Federal government and not really the people. Back then though, the Federal government did not have more money than God to spew propaganda everywhere. For example, there was not Federal income tax and no Fed to print money out of thin air for them for revenue they could not raise with taxes at that time.

Those in the Senate who were appointed by states

1. Serve 6 years.
2. There are only 2 per state, making their votes much more powerful
3. They decide important matters like approving a SCOTUS member, etc.
4. Having states appoint a member to Congress increases the voice of states that are run by more educated people. Although they are susceptible to corruption, they at least had to consider defending their state power in relation to the Federal government, which helped keep the Federal government in check at times. But with the Federal government having more money to throw at every man, woman, and child on the planet today because of the reasons cited above, those at the state level are more prone to being bought off by the Feds.

Looking at these facts, it would appear to me that what destroyed the system was the imbalance of power between the state and Federal level brought on by changing the Constitution with the Federal Income tax, and with Senators being elected directly by the people instead of appointed by the states. Oh, and the creation of their own personal bank that is now inflating the rest of our wealth away.

 

[Hellokitty]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

Unfortunately politics specifically MSM news has blurred lines with entertainment. MSM news anchors and talking heads have become their own category of celebrity propelled in the spotlight by a sometimes cultish following Hollywood Elite. In turn the new MSM celebrity promoted political elites further blurring the lines of politics/policy and entertainment.

 

[1srelluc]

Ever notice that you can get more "hard news" from the business channels?

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Distractions will have not adverse impact on us in terms of production, pathology, and mental well-being IF we have personal discipline. The left lacks discipline and, in fact, preaches AGAINST it.

 

[Vastator]

When I see videos like the Obama Phone lady, or when shows send somebody out into the street to ask people political questions, or when I see Biden has a 35% approval ratings, I often ask myself how is this possible?

One answer I thought of is too much entertainment. Many of us have 300 plus cable/ satellite channels, several video game systems, pay-per-view and Netflix, smart phones, so who has time to follow politics?

People who are polled on politics don't want to look stupid. But the cat is out of the bag when they try to answer questions. I think if we had much less entertainment and politics was nearly the only game in town, more people would have no choice but to read or follow it and we would get much better leadership in the end.

I understand partisans. I understand people that belong to services like USMB are political junkies myself included. But the people that screw up our elections are the people that know little to nothing on what they're voting for. It's something our founders never foreseen in the future. Otherwise they would have had elections much more restrictive than we have today.

Elections were much more restrictive in the founders day. Our current system is barely a shell of its former self…

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unfortunately politics specifically MSM news has blurred lines with entertainment. MSM news anchors and talking heads have become their own category of celebrity propelled in the spotlight by a sometimes cultish following Hollywood Elite. In turn the new MSM celebrity promoted political elites further blurring the lines of politics/policy and entertainment.

That is a problem because entertainment is getting more and more political by the year and we all know who's side they're on. This augments the problem because I'm sure there are a large enough group of people that get their political knowledge from those outlets. It's bad enough many Americans get their political news from social media.

Social media platforms are increasingly used for political news and information by adults in the United States, especially when it comes to election time. A study by Pew Research conducted in November 2019, found that one-in-five US adults get their political news primarily through social media. 18% of adults use social media to get their political and election news.[11] In small research conducted by McKeever et al in 2022, they found that 269 out of the 510 United States participants had noted that they got most of their information about gun violence from social media sources.[12]

Social media use in politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Distractions will have not adverse impact on us in terms of production, pathology, and mental well-being IF we have personal discipline. The left lacks discipline and, in fact, preaches AGAINST it.

Why shouldn't they? It's working in their favor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is the problem distraction or is the problem general stupidity within society?

I reckon it is a combination, but the Founding Fathers certainly disdained a pure democracy and seemingly because they felt the same sort of way about the general voter.

Their disdain for the average voter is apparent in how they created Congressional elections.

Those voted for directly in the House

1. Serve only 2 years
2. There are a gazillion of them, based on population. The more representatives, the more their votes are diluted in terms of significance.
3. Having them voted for directly by the people increases the power of the people, but only to the extent that they are educated to vote in their own interests. Most of what they know comes directly from the media which is full of political propaganda. And if the propaganda is controlled mostly by the Federal government, then it is only power to the Federal government and not really the people. Back then though, the Federal government did not have more money than God to spew propaganda everywhere. For example, there was not Federal income tax and no Fed to print money out of thin air for them for revenue they could not raise with taxes at that time.

Those in the Senate who were appointed by states

1. Serve 6 years.
2. There are only 2 per state, making their votes much more powerful
3. They decide important matters like approving a SCOTUS member, etc.
4. Having states appoint a member to Congress increases the voice of states that are run by more educated people. Although they are susceptible to corruption, they at least had to consider defending their state power in relation to the Federal government, which helped keep the Federal government in check at times. But with the Federal government having more money to throw at every man, woman, and child on the planet today because of the reasons cited above, those at the state level are more prone to being bought off by the Feds.

Looking at these facts, it would appear to me that what destroyed the system was the imbalance of power between the state and Federal level brought on by changing the Constitution with the Federal Income tax, and with Senators being elected directly by the people instead of appointed by the states. Oh, and the creation of their own personal bank that is now inflating the rest of our wealth away.

What they didn't think about is that politics would eventually become a lucrative career instead of performing a service to our country, sort of like joining the military today.

Now had they thought of that, Congress would have never been allowed to vote on their own raises. I think they assumed that we would always be paying such close attention to politics that those who increased their salary would be voted out of office unanimously. They would have allowed the voters to decide on pay increases instead.

But here we are, having elections that cost tens of millions of dollars, and Congress people retiring as multi-millionaires with a cushy retirement plan and wise investment choices as payback for political favors. It's happening right in front of our eyes and nobody cares or even pays attention.

 

[Votto]

What they didn't think about is that politics would eventually become a lucrative career instead of performing a service to our country, sort of like joining the military today.

Now had they thought of that, Congress would have never been allowed to vote on their own raises. I think they assumed that we would always be paying such close attention to politics that those who increased their salary would be voted out of office unanimously. They would have allowed the voters to decide on pay increases instead.

But here we are, having elections that cost tens of millions of dollars, and Congress people retiring as multi-millionaires with a cushy retirement plan and wise investment choices as payback for political favors. It's happening right in front of our eyes and nobody cares or even pays attention.

No, Ben Franklin knew that the Constitution would not last forever. Here is what he said.

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views.

But when it comes to the corrupt nature of human nature and human government, there is no "fixing" it forever. You are just buying time till despotism sets in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So want to take away people's choices? And force feed them political information that many won't be able to comprehend?

Politics didn't interest me when I was younger because perhaps instinctively I understood that none of our "representatives" actually represented me. Additionally I had no idea of how everything works, nor of our laws or how things actually get done away from all of theatrics.

The first time I was ever motivated to vote was when former governor of California started running on a platform of providing illegal aliens (this is what they were called then) with driver's licenses (How Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Led to Gray Davis’ Recall - CAPS). This after having found the Supreme Court stop the counting of the votes in Florida in the race between Al Gore and George Bush thoroughly disgusting.

My interest peaked in 2008 when Obama ran and then won the White House which I believe did give hope to many people in the U.S. however I didn't REALLY start paying attention until Trump announced his candidacy. And that's also around the same time I started educating myself further.

A lack of interest in a particular topic will almost always impede one's ability to comprehend the material. That's not something you can force, to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

I was merely asking a question. I did not suggest that we forcibly remove entertainment choices. But when I see how people vote, how little they understand politics, the results of polls being taken, I think my assumption is a pretty good one.

I don't know how old you are, but as an older person myself, I remember very limited choices in entertainment. We had an old 12" black and white television set with rabbit ears, only three channels to watch, and in the summer time, nothing but repeats of shows they ran during the winter months. That's why back then most people spent their summers outside. Like our television, we only had one landline phone for the family and all your news came from newspapers or the 6:00 and 11:00 news. That was it.

But even as a child I recall the grown ups much more involved in politics. It was often the main discussion at family gatherings, bars or most any social event. Because our entertainment was so limited, a lot more people were involved with politics which helped keep our reps in line unlike today where they are totally out of control.

On a side note, what the Supreme Court did in the Bush/ Gore race was absolutely correct. The Florida law was all ballots be turned in and certified in 5 days, no if's and's or but's about it. If you want a recount, have your recount but have the ballots tuned over in 5 days.

What the Florida courts did is called judicial legislation. In other words they said "screw Florida law, this is our buddy Al Gore, and Al Gore gets to count votes for as long as he wants!" Judges are not allowed to change laws on the bench, they are to rule if laws were properly followed. That's why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, Ben Franklin knew that the Constitution would not last forever. Here is what he said.

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views.

But when it comes to the corrupt nature of human nature and human government, there is no "fixing" it forever. You are just buying time till despotism sets in.

Only if you allow it to happen like we are today.

 

[Votto]

Only if you allow it to happen like we are today.

You prevent it as long as you can, but Leftist dictatorship is like facing the Grim Reaper, it's only a matter of time.

 

[22lcidw]

Is the problem distraction or is the problem general stupidity within society?

I reckon it is a combination, but the Founding Fathers certainly disdained a pure democracy and seemingly because they felt the same sort of way about the general voter.

Their disdain for the average voter is apparent in how they created Congressional elections.

Those voted for directly in the House

1. Serve only 2 years
2. There are a gazillion of them, based on population. The more representatives, the more their votes are diluted in terms of significance.
3. Having them voted for directly by the people increases the power of the people, but only to the extent that they are educated to vote in their own interests. Most of what they know comes directly from the media which is full of political propaganda. And if the propaganda is controlled mostly by the Federal government, then it is only power to the Federal government and not really the people. Back then though, the Federal government did not have more money than God to spew propaganda everywhere. For example, there was not Federal income tax and no Fed to print money out of thin air for them for revenue they could not raise with taxes at that time.

Those in the Senate who were appointed by states

1. Serve 6 years.
2. There are only 2 per state, making their votes much more powerful
3. They decide important matters like approving a SCOTUS member, etc.
4. Having states appoint a member to Congress increases the voice of states that are run by more educated people. Although they are susceptible to corruption, they at least had to consider defending their state power in relation to the Federal government, which helped keep the Federal government in check at times. But with the Federal government having more money to throw at every man, woman, and child on the planet today because of the reasons cited above, those at the state level are more prone to being bought off by the Feds.

Looking at these facts, it would appear to me that what destroyed the system was the imbalance of power between the state and Federal level brought on by changing the Constitution with the Federal Income tax, and with Senators being elected directly by the people instead of appointed by the states. Oh, and the creation of their own personal bank that is now inflating the rest of our wealth away.

With the Senators the 17th Amendment screwed the nation over.