discontentued at link....
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-87-us-disapprove-congress-195659914.html
AP-GfK Poll: 87% in US disapprove of Congress
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
discontentued at link....
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-87-us-disapprove-congress-195659914.html
Yeah. Things are awesome in American politics right now. We all know it. What's the solution?
Let's kill the 2 party system. It isn't working. Mostly, they are the same party. Also, the posturing makes me want to puke. Throw a couple more parties in, and watch politicians work a lot harder to work together.
:2 cents:
Let's kill the 2 party system. It isn't working. Mostly, they are the same party. Also, the posturing makes me want to puke. Throw a couple more parties in, and watch politicians work a lot harder to work together.
:2 cents:
Deserved.
Now theoretically these people will be turned out if the electorate does their part responsibly in our system.
Everyone wants to blame the politicians (who are worthy of blame) but the electorate is the main problem IMO.
I never understood how people persist in blaming the politician first when it's weeeeee the peeps who are sending them there.
Shows you how fast people lost faith in the teabaggers...I though the last election was bring a Conservative swing to America?
If 'swing' is synonymous with 'gimmick' ...it did.
Funny thing would be if in overplaying their hands trying to make O a One termer....they inadvertently cemented a 2nd term for him...while getting turned out themselves...:1orglaugh
It could happen....sorry guys.:o
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Term limits are the answer.
Let's see...wasn't that supposed to be done by the GOPers in the contract on America nearly 2 decades ago when they duped people into giving them power?
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.
UH, lesse
Voter, you have 2 choices this election season. Your decision will effect the direction of government in the future. Choose wisely.
Your choices:
The vote doesn't matter one iota. Because whichever "choice" you get - it is wrong.
thats kinda the thing, though....we're expecting all voters to have to wade through all the subterfuge, lies, propaganda FROM THE MEDIA then broadcast their own "those aren't the issues we need to talk about" message on their own
)/images/drinkability_04.jpg)
and more to the point was the false equivalency of the bullshit qualifiers.
If you drink beer, you don't speak in terms of "drinkability", "cold-filtered", or what kind of bottle it pours out of. These are bullshit qualifiers, like lapel pins, faith, family values and "tough on crime".
Our national discourse is flooded with red herrings, so how do you really think you're going to have a rational discussion on "issues"?
Voting is just a three-card monty (with only one card)
you're correct to an extent, but this is like the "invisible hand" of free enterprise model.
It assumes that the environment (market) isn't being manipulated
People will believe anything if you push the right buttons.
You have a deluge of information and images bombarding mass media consumers. How do they push back against the tide when the entire nation's discourse follows the current of whatever corporate media program?
PEOPLE aren't coming to these "hot-button" conclusions on their own.
Folks not consuming radio/television/print don't come out from under their rock and declare that abortions, low-income home owners, and muslims are the source of all our ills.
This is why it is so easy (such a science) for campaign managers to effectively predict what impact their strategies will have.
TheOrangeCat
AFK..being taken to the vet to get neutered.
I hear Ghadaffi is currently looking for employment opportunities. Let's give him a go.
87.9999% disapprove of congress!!
A tad bit wrongheaded IMO.
You see the absence of clear demarcation between candidates...(or policies I presume) evidence of no choice.
I disagree. For the most part these people have their agendas when the get in office but they can and do bow to political pressure all the time.
And they get voted out too as evidenced by the Demos getting turned out for Tea Baggers and GOPers for Demos previous.
If the electorate STAYS ON THE JOB holding them accountable...things will change.
But the onus is ON US!
I like the idea but I would be afraid that working together would lead to party merging. Two smaller parties getting together to become larger than the sum of the rest.
Sorta like the Tea Party and the Republicans. Alone the Tea Party wasn't much but inside the Republicans they're not only screwing up that party but taking a large part of gov. down the toilet.
A tad bit wrongheaded IMO.
You see the absence of clear demarcation between candidates...(or policies I presume) evidence of no choice.
I disagree. For the most part these people have their agendas when the get in office but they can and do bow to political pressure all the time.
And they get voted out too as evidenced by the Demos getting turned out for Tea Baggers and GOPers for Demos previous.
If the electorate STAYS ON THE JOB holding them accountable...things will change.
But the onus is ON US!
But arent' the results always the same?
You change people but the results are the same because the people pulling the strings are always there and always the same. The people being those with money and often corporations backing them up.
I wouldn't say that's bowing to "political" pressure; it's bowing to the captains of industry.
I don't think so. Example, would the debt limit issue have culminated into what it did if the Tea Baggers weren't in charge of the purse strings?
It is my bet that we would have invaded Iraq in the '90s for regime change but for Clinton's two terms. Clinton was pressured all the way up to signing some goofy document crafted by Bush I era neocons saying he supported regime change.
The fact that he wouldn't commit to actually doing it militarily in the language meant they just had to settle for using it as a talking point while hoping like crazy and possibly ginning up shenanigans in GWB's election.
There are real differences in policy in electing some of these people.
The problem, extremists...left, right and even extremist indies like (Ragin IMO) have stakes in perpetuating extreme myths. Lefties claim the world will end if GOPers get elected, righties claim the world will end if Demos are elected and indies just bitch that the world will stay terribly the same for electing Demos or GOPers...
It's up to us to make what we have work better. The system isn't broken beyond repair and to the extent that it is, that has mostly to do with US electorate.:2 cents:
idk if I can sign onto that yet. It's not just the myths it's more important things. Do tax cuts work in creating jobs? Tax increases? Is debt really a negative? Is it also a positive? No one knows and both parties take the side of whatever gives them votes or dollars for re-election.
There's no science to it. It's all emotional whim to me. Tax is a bad word so we'll speak out against it. Tax increase for services you want like fire depts. or police etc sounds good so we'll say that.
In the end it's never what you expected because they lied to everyone in the media or didn't realize how impossible their promises were before they got there. Their failures get spun into successes and the triumphs get hushed or blown out of proportion.
They say don't kill the messenger but what do you do when the messenger is the person that's also doing the job? And the job is being done completely incorrectly?
It's in essence saying. "How well do you think you are at your job? Keep in mind before you answer; If you say you're not doing your best you'll lose it. So how are you doing?".
Atar you know.....just use common sense, everyday logic that you applies in most cases to a personal budget.
We have record of whether tax cuts 'work' in creating jobs. There is no evidence; clear, anecdotal or even in understanding business principles which supports the notion that tax cuts to employers encourage job creation.
Again, companies exist to be profitable not hire people. Understanding this, how would a tax cut for a business meeting demand encourage them to add an employee at the expense of using the additional money to pad their profits?
That doesn't need right, left or indifferent spin to understand. That's just a common sense question of the policy when a person understands the business realities.
Is debt negative? Just like in your personal finances the answer is, it depends.
Going into debt for extravagances then using more debt to pay off that debt is bad debt...no doubt about it.
However, catching a good deal on an investment and assuming the risk by going into debt to take advantage of it (because in the end it will benefit you more) is good debt. I don't think a person with a $80K income buying a $400K home for $320 is going to turn around then start complaining about his $320K debt against his $80 annual income.:dunno:
Allot of these examples are analogous to our personal finances sometimes. A deficit is a deficit no matter if it's the g'ment talking billions or trillions...or you talking tens or hundreds of dollars.
Similar threads
