Humorless Politics Thread

[cavorting with nudists]

This all seems incredibly vague and ungrounded. How is policy not going to be on the table? If you want to solve a problem--say, the increasing unaffordability of healthcare--you actually have to put a proposal forward. Merely wishing that the people who believe that government should address that problem will come to some compromise with the people who think that anything but leaving it to the free market is the road to communism, or thinking that will magically happen if "the majority takes that voice back," seems goofy to me on a nearly Zach-from-Richmond level.

[Raad_Man]

where are the ass kicking republicans?  mitt romney sucks.  i wish it wasn't too late to just pick the oldest general in the army and let us vote for him.  he's gotta be better than any of the republicans we got to choose from this time.

[Kormod]

where are the ass kicking republicans?  mitt romney sucks.  i wish it wasn't too late to just pick the oldest general in the army and let us vote for him.  he's gotta be better than any of the republicans we got to choose from this time.

Best post ever.

[Gilly]

It's not about policy anymore. It's ridiculous how much of a struggle it is even to achieve change in policy, so I think taking it off the table and asking our leaders to work together would be the best change we could ever hope for. But, people aren't asking for that. There's plenty of complaining about it, but there isn't a centralized effort to bring that type of change to Washington and honestly, you can take to the streets about policy but as long as there is an us vs. them mentality it's not going to change. Again, take a look at Occupy. That was an effort that should have really energized the entire country, but it was about policies and money, two things that are easy to divide people on. As soon as we stop looking to divide and start looking to show our leaders that the majority of us aren't that far apart politically, we'll see positive change. People on the far ends of the political spectrum or completely tied to a political party will never understand that I guess.

[InspectorHound]

The only way we'll get more than two viable parties is if we move to proportional representation.  Even then, you can end up with useless coalition governments a la David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

[cavorting with nudists]

Work together on what? Maybe we are using the term "policy" two different ways, but it sounds to me like what you're saying is that the people should rise up and say "OK you guys, we want you to work together. But not on anything specific, because once you start addressing specific issues, you might start coming up with specific proposals, and we're taking those off the table."

As for Occupy, I'm a little gobsmacked by the idea that it would have been more successful if it hadn't been about money.  What do you think "We are the 99%" refers to exactly?

[Gilly]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying government needs to stop worrying about creating policy. Obviously that's insane. What I'm saying is that people need to stop worrying about policy and start getting more involved with an non-partisan effort to get government to work again. It really doesn't matter what the policies are because there's still going to be a divide, and to me that divide is artificially created. The majority of people aren't that far apart when it comes to the major issues, but politicians and news will tell them different. If you rip policy out of protest, you're going to get a lot more people receptive to your issues because there won't be a debate- the majority of people think both parties are doing a terrible job and compromise is obviously a big reason why people believe that way. People are going to get behind that movement.

Obviously, Occupy had to talk about money, what I'm saying is, the reason it didn't reach more people is because money divides people ideologically. It was a pointless protest because it could never reach the amount of people it needed to. Again, if you take the policy out of public protest, you get down to main issue which the majority agree with. Why isn't government working?

[fonpr]

Why isn't government working?

It is working, Gilly, for those who own it. 

[Gilly]

Why isn't government working?

It is working, Gilly, for those who own it.

They own public emotion, that's for sure.

[Keith Whitener]

Start getting more involved with an non-partisan effort to get government to work again.

This sounds good. What efforts are you involved in?

[Kormod]

Start getting more involved with an non-partisan effort to get government to work again.

This sounds good. What efforts are you involved in?

Hehe.

[Gilly]

Start getting more involved with an non-partisan effort to get government to work again.

This sounds good. What efforts are you involved in?

A couple PACs in the past few years, the major one being a non-partisan effort to get Michelle Bachmann out of office (I live in her district) and a promise to myself to not vote for either of the two parties.

[fonpr]

Start getting more involved with an non-partisan effort to get government to work again.

This sounds good. What efforts are you involved in?

This group is trying to help out around these parts: http://www.integrityfl.org/

[Flood]

Why don't conservatives get upset with their leaders lying so much?

[Drew D]

[This sounds good. What efforts are you involved in?
[/quote]

A couple PACs in the past few years, the major one being a non-partisan effort to get Michelle Bachmann out of office (I live in her district) and a promise to myself to not vote for either of the two parties.
[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you want as an ends.  But its the means I think I disagree with.  I disagree with a TON of Democratic policies and decisions.  But they have created meaningful, REAL change in public policy.  People will be better off under the heath care changes, IF we have Dems in power to let those changes roll out.  The republicans have not even moved a finger to try.  There is no comparing them.  Our best hope for a more fair political system is to do what is actually happening; continue (hopefully!) to crush the republicans in national elections until we weaken them to a point where they must change.  They are sick right now, and wont give up their old school, hardline, racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, all around bigoted  rhetoric.  I mean, Romney had a chance to at least compete, if not win, this election by being reasonable and moderate, but no, he went all out PSYCHO.  Obama's rhetoric, by comparison, has gotten even more bleeding heart and compassionate.  And the crux of this whole thing is; he can actually deliver on that.  Not miracles, but at least moving us closer to where this country needs to be.