Bit of a political rant (from my facebook page)

[Psychoholic]

So this was yesterday's post that started it:
"*slightly political and a bit self righteous*
So according to my feed today I'm either an idiot for voting, an idiot if I didn't vote (I did), I'd be an idiot if I voted for democrat, I'd be an idiot for voting republican, an idiot if I threw my vote away on libertarian candidates. Just a flurry of angry diatribes and vitriol towards anybody or anything with a conflicting viewpoint, often based solely on the label the candidates carry and not the platform on which they stand.
I can't even imagine what it must be like to be so full of hate towards so much, and so afraid of the world."

And later on I posted this:

My friend Az summed himself up pretty much the same way I would:

"I am very socially liberal (don't care who you marry, what gender you prefer, what foods you eat, what religion (if any) you are, or what you want to smoke). I am very fiscally conservative (small government, anti-longterm-welfare, stop spending money on other countries' issues until we fix our own, support your local businesses). I am somewhat neutral on big corporations (who decides what is "big", who decides what is "too much profit", etc.), but also don't trust them and would like them to stop receiving so many tax breaks. I am pro-infrastructure (I'm all for dams, roads, bridges, schools), but want to see waste reduced. I am rather neutral on government supplied healthcare - I can see how handy it is for the poor, but the government can't do anything right. Obamacare is a HUGE clusterfuck. I believe in freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, but also think churches (of any sort) should stop being tax free. I am pro-military, but think we need to stop being the world's police force. I am pro-gun rights, but think we need to get our police under control. I am pro-death penalty, but only when there is 100% proof they are guilty (DNA, video, photographic, etc.). I think we need to stop jailing drug USERS, but also stop letting career criminals out to commit crimes again, over and over.

Not easy to pigeonhole me, is it?"

(This next bit is me and it is probably going to piss at least some people off)



For me it's incredibly difficult because I don't wholly believe in one thing in pretty much anything and there are only a few things in my world that I hold absolute positions on (and most of those things are usually dealing in personal freedom/liberty and the right to execute on them [I have never been good at being told what to do or what to think] - and coconut, I f'n hate coconut).

Politics *SHOULD* be the ultimate exercise in middle road moderation because it is one of the most extreme versions of 'for every winner, there is a loser'.
You provide healthcare, someone else pays for it.
You bomb for freedom, other people suffer and die.
You create absurd laws, someone has to be punished for not following them.

I honestly don't even really know what people are running on anymore other than hate (that is hyperbole, I usually do exhaustive research on candidates - except this time, I went for the L where I could). There was one candidate whose entire position was 'the other person is literally Obama's love child' or something absurd like that. The entirety of the political ad barrage was fear mongering and no substance. I realize the last politician who tried that was probably Dukakis, and we see how that turned out.

If we base our views on politics on what we have seen actually on TV and in action, then is it fair to say that 'Republicans hate Obama, want corporations to do everything for everybody without fear of reprisal, bomb the piss out of brown people who aren't immediately in our pocket, fellate the engorged member of 'our friend and ally Israel' at every available option, and are anti-gay people, anti-marijuana, anti-personal freedom, and big government 'we're not here to help you'. ' and 'Democrats also seem to hate Obama most of the time when it's convenient, don't have much of a position on much other than 'we aren't Republicans', are also pro-bomb brown people, not so much fellate but tickle lovingly the inner thigh of Israel at every available option, big government 'we're here to help you in the most inefficient manner possible', privately love big business and want them to run everything but publicly deride them, pro-gay, anti-gun, anti-personal freedom in as much that in a perfect Marxist society nobody acts out because everyone is being watched' and for some reason both parties seem to think the Libertarians are sitting in a corner alone happily eating asbestos laden glue as it is their right to do so?

I don't want more government. I don't want more laws. I don't want to 'let's get America back!' - because that little romanticized time machine undoes more social progress than you can imagine (although slightly ironic if you think about some areas that were less taboo in the 70's than now) - you want to go back to pre-WWI? How about depression era? How about post WW2? Korea? Vietnam? We want women and black people to still be able to vote an own property, right? The 70s? Certainly nobody wants to go back to the 80s except for the TV and video games. The disaffected 90s? Tell me when we're taking America back to? You want to go 'back' to a solidly Christian nation under God? Doesn't that start with helping your fellow man and giving everyone an opportunity for success? As near as I can figure (and I'm pretty sure I'm wholly accurate in this) Jesus was literally the most socialist and liberal dude in recorded history, so wouldn't that be taking our politics to a more socially liberal direction? If we are basing any kind of modern politics on biblical teachings then the GOP are the Romans in this story and not the apostles as some seem to fancy themselves and the Democrats were chasing oiled up eunuchs and popping them in the butt with towels in the bath houses.

And while I'm ranting about that little unicorn populated utopia that some people seem to think used to exist here - IT NEVER ACTUALLY DID! You want a government that is based fairly accurately on a Holy Book, go find f'n ISIS - they seem to be *real* keen on the literal interpretation thing. I love that people have differing views on things, I have had the great fortune to be friends/family with such a diverse group of people that I couldn't find 2 out of a thousand friends who are almost identically alike in all ideologies (Nikki and I are close, but damn I hate coconut and she just loves it), but those differences are what make people special and fun and unique and worth keeping around.

Maybe it's the dated system that is that which is flawed - I might single issue vote for someone whose total platform was the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine into news organizations and maybe we could quit sniping from across the aisle, and turn off both sides of the hate mongering that only breeds more contempt and more fear of what's in the minds of the unknown.

Hate - hate deeply, hate with every fiber of your being! For to hate so completely means that you also understand love to the same depth, but don't hate for hate's sake (and spit at thee).

[Psychoholic]

Short short answer - I can't help but feel that our political system is so fundamentally flawed by the 2 party system pushing to be as far from each other as possible that it leaves no room in the middle for moderates.

[Otto Baron]

The problem is you have hundreds of millions of people who vote, and in order to reach power, you have to convince as many people as possible that what you are pushing is in their best interest. To get something or someone to the ballot, you are going to need to convince as any people as possible what you're pushing is in their best interest. Unfortunately, if you bring in a third party, it is then possible to get in something (Like Adolf Hitler, or Woodrow Wilson, who gave us both income taxes and brought us into WW1) that is not in the best interest of the country. I would not be concerned, when some calls you "stupid" for voting on something they disagree with. Exactly how smart is that person who see's name calling as a legitimate from of political debate? All name calling does is alienate people who already don't share your point of view, and shows exactly how uninformed they are on what it is they're supporting.

[sgath92]

I am a big believer in the idea that the only person competent for the presidency is someone who is qualified & doesn't want the position. George Washington was practically forced into the presidency. He did not want it, only served two terms, and then decided he had enough, retired, and went home to live out his retirement. Words cannot describe how radical this was in the time of absolute monarchs. That someone could have such a powerful position, and eagerly pass it on to someone else was just not done. Countries all over Western Civilization mourned his loss. It is rumored that while on his death bed, Napoleon made some comment about how he was "no George Washington" [meaning he actually wanted the power and would have kept it].

It seems that one of the biggest problems facing our country today is that the people we have running for our most important offices are running either because they want the power, or because they want to use the position as a get rich scheme. Washington DC is one of the biggest hotspots in the world when it comes to insider trading. If someone isn't rich when they enter the house or the senate, they will be by the time they leave. Our regulatory agencies are even worse, because of that revolving door between regulatory bodies & big business. The country cannot benefit from a cable TV executive running the FCC; a chemical company executive running the EPA; a pharmaceutical executive running the FDA...

The problem with modern conservatives is they fail to fully recognize the danger posed by big business.
The problem with modern liberals is they fail to fully recognize the danger posed by big government.

There is definitive proof that our country is no longer functioning as a republic, and instead is functioning as an oligarchy. Universities have looked at all major legislation of the passed thirty years and found when a powerful faction, to use a term from James Madison, wants one set of laws and the people wants something else. Every time the people loose. Doesn't matter if whatever it is being discussed is being spun as a liberal or conservative agenda.

The people are mad because the people are suffering. Wealth distribution is at its worst since the Great Depression. The job participation rate is tanking because there aren't mathematically enough jobs for everyone who needs one. Our trade deficit, not the debt, is bleeding the country's wealth dry. All our state secrets, the one thing we have that the rest of the world doesn't [high tech defense stuff] is being stolen by insiders, high tech plants in on visas, and hackers putting the lives of our military at high risk, yet this is not even taken seriously or prosecuted when it is possible to do so.

All of this was predicted decades ago by an American War hero named Admiral James Stockdale. He was the highest ranking POW of the Vietnam War, and the only eye witness to the Golf of Tonkins Incident. He spent his life trying to tell anyone who would listen that the excuse for the Vietnam War was a farce. In 1992 he ran for vice-president under Ross Perot. During which time he and Perot told us that globalization would cause a great sucking sound as all the jobs and wealth left this country. And you know what happened? The country laughed at Stockdale like he was some loon and forgot about him. The only people in this country, other than libertarians, who know who he is are philosophers. Stockdale was a Philosophy professor at Stanford University and is internationally known in that field for his writings talking about his experiences as a POW.

There was another way of doing things. For aprox the first hundred years of this country's existence the federal government was funded almost entirely, not by the middle class, but by tariffs. This protected American jobs. Supply side economics does not work. If the only jobs that exist are "servicing" someone else [customer service, healthcare service, education service] how does anyone acquire the wealth necessary to pay for these services? Why do you think the only countries with thriving economies right now have their GDP based on a solid foundation of manufacturing?

This political cartoon is from the 1880s.


What did our great grandparents know that we don't?

The answer is simple: You cannot compete with foreign labor. It is impossible. There are countries like China that have prisons full of political dissidents that are kept in inhumane conditions and are barley supplied food, housing, and healthcare. I can understand competition between two similar countries where the amount of education among the populous, and the cost of living is similar. But how do you compete with free!?

Globalization is nothing more than a farce to rob our population and our government. A city near where I live debated selling their water grid, which was paid for & built by the local tax payers, to a private company in India. How is this not unethical? How is this not treasonous? Adam Smith, the founding father of capitalism, wrote in the 18th century that essential services like infrastructure should only ever be owned by the government, and it is dangerous to a civilization to do otherwise. If you don't want to believe me, believe him. He invented the idea of the free market that we're taught about in grade school.

There is something greater at risk here than what the public faced during the worst of the robber baron era. Today's rich don't have a "country" that they belong to and have an invested interest in advancing. Today's multinationals think they're above any government. They're the real NWO the conspiracy theorists are worried about. The founder of Paypal wants to build a floating island/ship for the world's most wealthy people to live on in international waters, to be protected by mercenaries, so they will not be subject to any country's jurisdiction, taxes, or laws. Does anyone see the problem with this? Where is the outrage over it?

The WW2 generation built infrastructure that once made this country the envy of the world. All those nuclear power plants? Those were meant to be owned by the taxpayers. I know, my grandfather helped design them. You know what happened when PA privatized the grid? The thieving politicians said it would encourage competition, thereby driving down prices. Instead the rates went up 25% immediately. That money didn't go into infrastructure, it went to "profit" for the board of investors. You know what they did with that money? They invested it into the country's remaining publicly owned power plants in hopes of one day owning a controlling share. We're told that public utilities are a financial black hole, inefficient, and unreliable. Then why does the private sector think its a good investment!?!?!?

Oh I see, people rather fight over gays, abortion, and contraceptives. They don't even know what's been stolen from them and their children.