The problem with politics in America

[Lord George]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

I fail to see how this is a problem. Oh I guess its a problem for the voters but there not important. A career in politics beckons.

 

[the_hessian]

That's a problem you'll find with the politics in most countries... They really don't know what to say or do and tend to just go with what the party "should" be doing, then put in things they want, thusly giving a bit of a mixed up manifesto.
When New Labour headed by Tony Blair came into power his speeches including the infamous "education education education" one made you think they'd do something good, but more government run industry like the NHS and schools have become privatised during their time in power since the conservative reign... that should be the other way round... but the reason is, no one reads the goddamn manifestos to know what any party actually intends to do. They go by the name and the association, the speeches and the propaganda, and vote for the pretty populare one. New Labour's manifesto actually had nothing to it when they came into power, because they didn't have one, they said they would basically be continuing the conservative rule, and they have done. That's how they got into power and that's how they have stayed there. Most working class people don't watch political shows, or go to the convrences and will vote Labour everytime, Labour was set up by the working class for the working class after all, but the middle and upper class knew what labour were going to do so they just got most of the votes because it has bearly affected them at all.
Ugh... right... sorry... rant over...
Conclusion:
Politics is a load of crap these days, it once had promise before our time, but not even Obama sways me, we need a world wide reformist party, set up by internets people for everyone, who will actually make the world a better place and change things. Use social networking sites to get people educated on the cause. Youtube for political party broadcasts. Make use of the wealth of crap we have at our disposal and get the votes in for a party of people that will no doubt fail terridly if they did get into power, or just take over the world with their sheer awesomeness that no one can stand in their way...
WHO'S WITH ME!!!

 

[schubi]

The root of all evil is really the Lobby system. The biggest problem is (for us non-US residents) that it's starting to gain validity in our countries as well.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

Your post is too long for my poor eyes to read right now.

So you suggest that we should have a system that promises nothing and delivers what it promises?

That, my friend, is a strange utopia.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

You win the thread.

EDIT: Wait, not quite/ I do have one or two nits to pick. Just because the republicans are defending the status quo, their opinion is that a status quo in which government has moral legitimacy is correct. This implies they feel government is a legitimate actor for making binding moral decrees. The problem (and part of my initial claim) is that this conflicts with their view that in the economy, government tends to be inefficient and generally bad.

Also, the gay marriage debate is currently being debated both federally and at the state level, so it is an example of a federal intrusiveness issue.

Damn, I was about to take a curtain call. The Republicans aren't holding to a status quo in which the government has any acting regarding moral decrees in this matter, which is the point. The Republican belief is that the baseline is a lack of gay marriage (the point of inaction on the part of the government), and that it's taking government intrusion to create the institution of gay marriage. It's completely dependent on where one draws the starting line. The Democrats' starting line is that gay marriage is a right, so for them the Republican response is government interference, while they're simply using government to try to protect people's rights (consistent). The Republicans' starting line is that gay marriage isn't a right, and doesn't exist in and of itself, so it takes government intervention to create it, which they want to prevent (consistent). If you start with the baseline that Judeao-Christian values control the country, anything deviating from that requires government intervention, and anything staying with those values is simply a wall against intervention.

You're viewing the issue from your own starting point, rather than the starting points of the parties and their members (to whom the parties must be consistent, or at least as consistent as they can be with the voters being as crazy as they are). That's fine, but without the ability to say one view is inherently "right", there's no more validity to your view than either of theirs, meaning that you should really view consistency from the perspective of whether it is consistent based on where they view the lines, not where you view them.

sorry to kill the win. I'll grant your points about the starting point used, the problem is that the only way to avoid a contradiction is to use a sort of neutral eye to observe the issue and find the problems with the two sides. My point is essentially the same point you make in your second paragraph, and that as a result if you view the issues from the neutral position both sides are problematic with regards to conflicting views on the role of government.

 

[Daveman]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

Your post is too long for my poor eyes to read right now.

So you suggest that we should have a system that promises nothing and delivers what it promises?

That, my friend, is a strange utopia.

I guess we would have to deliver for ourselves. Bit more utopian? Anarchy is a fun idea to toy with but ultimately not practical in this day and age.

 

[xChevelle24]

The problem with politics is that no matter what the issue is, the democrats and republicans always have to fucking argue.

If the democrats think that stem cell research is good, then the republicans MUST think it's bad.

If democrats agree with killing babies, then the republicans must destory the art of killing babies.

It's ridiculous...They have completely forgotten that they're campaigning to run a country, not to run the fucking debate team in High-School.

HAVE YOUR OWN FUCKING OPINIONS, POLITICIANS!

 

[Seldon2639]

sorry to kill the win. I'll grant your points about the starting point used, the problem is that the only way to avoid a contradiction is to use a sort of neutral eye to observe the issue and find the problems with the two sides. My point is essentially the same point you make in your second paragraph, and that as a result if you view the issues from the neutral position both sides are problematic with regards to conflicting views on the role of government.

Centrist isn't neutral, it's just centrist. A view that there's no existing "stance" on an issue is not inherently more valid. You view yourself as being an impartial observer, and thus able to see the contradiction, but the contradiction only exists from your perspective. It could be that you have the "right" perspective and the members of the parties are wrong, but there's no empirical evidence for that. Hard-line neutrality is just as biased.

Let me put it this way: on the issue of gay marriage your "neutral" view would be that the government has no stance on something; one side is trying to make it legal, and one side is trying to make it illegal. Except we have to take into account what actually happens when the government has no position. If the government did nothing on the issue of gay marriage in either direction, it wouldn't exist. The Republicans, then, are trying to remain consistent with what would happen without government interference. The Democrats are consistent with what "should" happen with government interference.

A centrist perspective is a fine one, but it's simply a perspective. There may be an objectively "correct" view, but you've made no argument that your view is the right one. You see the fact that there is contradiction if viewed from your perspective as evidence in and of itself of the existence of actual contradiction, but that itself is contradictory in its own way if viewed from another perspective.

All three viewpoints are consistent from their own beliefs, and inconsistent from either of the other two's viewpoints. You're being circular in your argument, defending your viewpoint by presuming the existence of the inconsistencies which only exist from your viewpoint. Here's what it ends up in syllogism form

There are inconsistencies which can only be seen from a certain perspective and
The perspective which can view these inconsistencies is best
Therefore: the viewpoint ZZ-Tops holds is the best

And

ZZ-Top's viewpoint is the best
In ZZ-Top's viewpoint, there are inconsistencies,
Therefore: there are inconsistencies.

Do you see the internal issue? In order to prove your viewpoint to be best, there must be inconsistencies; in order to prove the existence of the inconsistencies, your viewpoint must be best.

 

[JWAN]

those problems are in more places than just America, politicians are bread to cheat lie and steal and I guarantee you that bad politicians are all over the planet

 

[Sk3nv0y]

The problem with both sides compromising is that it would defeat the purpose of two partys.

Also im i the only non american who cant "spot the defirence" between a democrat and a republicans.

or whatevere...

From were im sitting the whole thing looks like a bloated mess.

 

[FinalGamer]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

 

[Mozared]

You have to wonder what's better though... Here in Holland we have the 'poldermodel' as we call it. Basically, we've got over 8 LARGE participating political parties and we generally have 3 or 4 of them in the government. Seeing as there aren't two large parties the parties that go in the government have to find a way to get along until their time runs off - what happens is that everything gets compromised into hell.

Take our 'support in Irak' for example; the lefties initialy shouted "make love not war" (here in holland, lefties are actually left instead of folks who are less right than right-wingers) while the right-wingers wanted to stay friends with uncle bush. As a result, we've sent *some* troops and the media are more or less keeping quiet about it.

But then again, the extreme politicians we have are idiots. Our lefties have created a party called "party for the animals" which basically... wants everybody to love to animals and get rid of all the bioindustry (which is a good idea in theory except that we're simply not ready for it yet), while our right-wing extremist is Geert Wilders. Wilders, who made somewhat of a point about 'Muslims being stupid' when half the muslim-world was whining about his movie before it was even released. He then proceded to demolish any credibility he might've earned by showing a couple of middle-eastern muslim-extremists in the movie itself with the message that "this is why muslims are dangerous" and that "this is going to happen to Holland if we don't make the whole religion illegal right now".


Regardless, as much fun as politics are to discuss, it's in fact rather pointless as everything Max has said is completely right. Wilders is really only playing into the stupid people who are developing racism towards religions they don't even know while our left-wingers abuse the ever so slightly smarter ones who simply want love and peace. Nobody truely has an idea what the fuck is going on in our country regarding immigration and how christianity is technically just as bad/good (take your pick) as islam.

Ever since I started learning about religions (I know, wikipedia's a bad source, but you've got to start somewhere) I feel somewhat 'enlightened' and have realized that the media and the government are putting FAR too much stress on "muslim terrorists". I'm starting to think the "threat" is about as real as a cannon that fires fluffy yellow buttons. I'm slowly starting to wonder how much about Zeitgeist is true.


Edit: Yeye, I know you can't develop racism towards a religion, I had a bad night, gimme some slack.

 

[Doug]

The problem with politics, period, is that it is the art of lying to the masses, promising everything and giving nothing.

Your post is too long for my poor eyes to read right now.

Meh, doesn't really work over here in UK land. We're so fucked off with our politicans that voting rates are typically down to 30-40%, and the party who is the least annoying seems to win. Mainly because we don't actually believe a word any of them say.

Its sad really, there probably is a good leader amongst our politicans, but like a company who actually manage to develop a working penis enlargement cream, they can't get their message across and be believed.

 

[Doug]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

Are you saying the Daily Mail might be alittle bias? Ok, I'll admit its like "If Fox News man ran a newspaper..."

"JOHNY FOREIGNER POLES STEALING YOUR JOBS AND BRINGING IN SWINE FLU! GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO KICK'EM BACK TO BONGO-BONGO LAND!" is today's frontpage probably.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Every country has it's political problems. As an Australian I actually like the US approach to election much more than ours. Because everyone has to vote the parties put alot less effort into campaigning and advertising. No one really cares about who our Prime Minister is. To be honest I cared more about Obama's race for the Oval Office than Kevin Rudd's election.

As for the topic.. every political party has it's seeming contradictions but you have to consider them on the large scale. They have to construct an overall policy that consists of every little policy decision taped together and alot of those conist of 'not what the others are doing'. So it's almost inevitable that you find mismatches.

I think the democrats have a better approach to things though. The fundamental principles behind the Republican party are legitimate.. but I think, to a large extent, they're compromised by the people who join the Republican party.

 

[FinalGamer]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

Are you saying the Daily Mail might be alittle bias? Ok, I'll admit its like "If Fox News man ran a newspaper..."

"JOHNY FOREIGNER POLES STEALING YOUR JOBS AND BRINGING IN SWINE FLU! GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO KICK'EM BACK TO BONGO-BONGO LAND!" is today's frontpage probably.

Don't forget about the Muslim asylum-seeking paedophiles hiding under your children's beds!

 

[Doug]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

Are you saying the Daily Mail might be alittle bias? Ok, I'll admit its like "If Fox News man ran a newspaper..."

"JOHNY FOREIGNER POLES STEALING YOUR JOBS AND BRINGING IN SWINE FLU! GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO KICK'EM BACK TO BONGO-BONGO LAND!" is today's frontpage probably.

Don't forget about the Muslim asylum-seeking paedophiles hiding under your children's beds!

And the EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE, HIDING NEXT TO THE MUSLIM ASYLUM-SEEKER PAEDOPHILES, WAITING TO RIP AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS AND CHAIN YOU UP TO BE THEIR SEX SLAVE!

 

[FinalGamer]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

Are you saying the Daily Mail might be alittle bias? Ok, I'll admit its like "If Fox News man ran a newspaper..."

"JOHNY FOREIGNER POLES STEALING YOUR JOBS AND BRINGING IN SWINE FLU! GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO KICK'EM BACK TO BONGO-BONGO LAND!" is today's frontpage probably.

Don't forget about the Muslim asylum-seeking paedophiles hiding under your children's beds!

And the EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE, HIDING NEXT TO THE MUSLIM ASYLUM-SEEKER PAEDOPHILES, WAITING TO RIP AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS AND CHAIN YOU UP TO BE THEIR SEX SLAVE!

OH GOD SAVE ME PIERS MORGAN WITH THE GHOST OF ROBERT MAXWELL AND POOR JOURNALISM!