Why bother voting anymore?

[Defiant47]

Which the American system already has. The Constitution spells out very clearly how to go about changing the system.

Which I addressed is infeasible.

Then they're accepting the current system by default.

Semantics much?

If that was true, Obama never would have gotten elected in the first place. The claim that solution #3 is fail, is fail.

If that were true, Obama would not be able to effectively govern because of the heavy influence from the Republican base via Republican voters. It is, and he's not.

That's option #1 in disguise: accepting the current system. Also, keep this in mind: the only reason that opposing party has "heavy-handed influence" is because the voters gave it to them. It's what the voters want.

I meant influence as in influence on voters.

A brand name that pays big into advertising will do better than one that doesn't, usually regardless of quality.

 

[madviking]

YEA! APATHY!

 

[BasketCase]

Which I addressed is infeasible.

No it isn't. The proper mechanisms for changing the system get used all the time.

Semantics much?

As far as the semantics behind "actions speak louder than words" goes, yes. If a person doesn't move out of the United States, his actions constitute acceptance of the United States political system.

If that were true, Obama would not be able to effectively govern because of the heavy influence from the Republican base via Republican voters.

And Obama is not able to effectively govern. Because of Republicans. Which I'm fine with.

Previous point lost in the shuffle: the rich didn't want Obama as President, they wanted McCain as President. If the rich actually had the influence you claimed they do, they would have used it. Since they didn't use it, it's clear they don't have it.

I meant influence as in influence on voters.[/QUOTE]
Same reply as last time: the Democrats have been there and done that. For decades. The Great Shellacking of 2010 still happened. Further getting-out-in-the-street-and-whining isn't going to change anything, it's just the way Democrats already work.

 

[Millman]

What do you want as an answer? People and governments come and go. On time scales on billions of years(about how long the known universe has been around)you mean almost nothing. You've probably heard this many times.

But right now in your life if you want to make a change take control of it. You should try to live your life as though nobody else had control of it unless you're under 18. Would you preserve yourself or perish?

I mean well for my leaders but I have to consider one scenario they're not there to help me and/or they get evicted. In this day and age, if that happened, I might not have time to ask why.

 

[Defiant47]

No it isn't. The proper mechanisms for changing the system get used all the time.

The system doesn't change. It only slightly shifts the gradient.

As far as the semantics behind "actions speak louder than words" goes, yes. If a person doesn't move out of the United States, his actions constitute acceptance of the United States political system.

I meant semantics as in the interpretation of my answer. Yes, technically, staying to try to change the system that is wrong because you love the country, is in a weird roundabout system "acceptance of the system". But it doesn't mean anything in that sense.

And Obama is not able to effectively govern. Because of Republicans. Which I'm fine with.

Previous point lost in the shuffle: the rich didn't want Obama as President, they wanted McCain as President. If the rich actually had the influence you claimed they do, they would have used it. Since they didn't use it, it's clear they don't have it.

Same reply as last time: the Democrats have been there and done that. For decades. The Great Shellacking of 2010 still happened. Further getting-out-in-the-street-and-whining isn't going to change anything, it's just the way Democrats already work.

I never said they had complete influence and control. Just a great deal. This election, just not enough to win presidency, by a small margin.

But this influence is great regardless, seeing as they can convince the common people against things that would help them immensely in overturning an inequitable system, like healthcare reform.

 

[civver_764]

Dude yes.

Now you just need to take that apathy and turn it into dissent.

 

[BasketCase]

The system doesn't change.

The system changes. Every changed law, every proposed amendment. Maybe the system simply isn't changing the way you want it to. But then, that's not your call.

I meant semantics as in the interpretation of my answer.

I disagree with your answer, therefore bringing up semantics won't change anything because I disagree with your interpretation of the semantics. Inaction constitutes acceptance. Grudging acceptance is still acceptance. If you don't accept whatever system you happen to be living in and your attempts to change it fail, then move.

I never said they had complete influence and control. Just a great deal.

The rich don't have a great deal.

But this influence is great regardless, seeing as they can convince the common people against things that would help them immensely in overturning an inequitable system, like healthcare reform.

How do you know the common people didn't simply reach that conclusion on their own? I did. I don't watch TV advertisements, I block all online ads, I hang up the phone whenever any political douchebag gives me a call--there was no possible way for the Republicans to get at me; I made my decision that Obamacare sucks entirely on its own merits (or, rather, lack of merits).

Your claim here is unproveable and therefore worthless.

 

[Defiant47]

The system changes. Every changed law, every proposed amendment. Maybe the system simply isn't changing the way you want it to. But then, that's not your call.

The system isn't changing the way the people want it to, and the way it helps them best. And it's not their call. That's the problem.

I disagree with your answer, therefore bringing up semantics won't change anything because I disagree with your interpretation of the semantics. Inaction constitutes acceptance. Grudging acceptance is still acceptance. If you don't accept whatever system you happen to be living in and your attempts to change it fail, then move.

I disagree with your interpretation. Your claims of "grudging acceptance" shows you don't really understand the position I am describing.

The rich don't have a great deal.

How do you know the common people didn't simply reach that conclusion on their own? I did. I don't watch TV advertisements, I block all online ads, I hang up the phone whenever any political douchebag gives me a call--there was no possible way for the Republicans to get at me; I made my decision that Obamacare sucks entirely on its own merits (or, rather, lack of merits).

Your claim here is unproveable and therefore worthless.

Good for you. The rest of the American public would have tons to gain from a universal healthcare system. Their quality of life would drastically increase. Yet they rose in droves against it.

If that isn't proof, I don't know what is. Recordings of corporate businessmen cackling at hoarding wealth at the expense of poor citizens in need of medical care?

 

[Defiant47]

Dude yes.

Now you just need to take that apathy and turn it into dissent.

Unfortunately I am in an excellent position to benefit from the system, akin to those I berate; thus, my motivation is lacking.

 

[Colonel]

I think a correction for this thread needs to be noted. Nothing as far as deficit has really been agreed to expect the twenty one billion for the FY12 budget. Beyond that all that has been agreed to was a plan to cut the deficit by X amount per year to reach X amount over ten years.

As for the deal itself I would liked to have seen tax increases but beyond that I believe it is necessary to address the big 3 democratic items. I'm actually glad that they are trying to address it now instead of waiting 20 years and coming up on hard deadlines to fix it like they do with the budget and debt ceiling votes every year.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hannity said that the first year, only 7 billion is cut, but when the deficit is 4 billion a day, it's not even two days.

I assume 7 billion is just the first year, with more severe cuts in later years, if this was true?

(Though I wouldn't be surprised if the politicos are full of crap and have no real intent to cut later on)

At the very least, the virtual freeze in spending is a start; it would at least cut the deficit as a percentage of GDP provided the economy keeps growing, and ultimately, that's what we need - a deficit that stays mostly in line with GDP growth.

 

[BasketCase]

The system isn't changing the way the people want it to, and the way it helps them best. And it's not their call. That's the problem.

They disagree on what would help them best. You should not have put in the part I underlined.

Good for you. The rest of the American public would have tons to gain from a universal healthcare system.

The rest of the American public disagrees with you about that. From the very day Obamacare first reared its nine gruesome heads, the American Voter said this: that some kind of health care reform was needed, but that Obamacare was the wrong kind.

If that isn't proof, I don't know what is.

It isn't proof. How do you find out what American voters are thinking?? With elections. You've lost sight of the fact that other voters aren't always going to think the same way you do. The mere fact that any given election didn't go the way you wanted it to, is not proof.

 

[Miles Teg]

Dude yes.

Now you just need to take that apathy and turn it into dissent.

Waiting for the world to conform to your ideals sounds like a good route to a brain anuerysm.

Madisonian politics are inherently messy and disappointing. Keep in mind, there are a lot of tea partiers out there who are furious that the debt ceiling was raised at all. Actually, that group is almost certainly bigger than all of the liberals who feel like they've gotten a raw deal.

Nothing Republicans have done since 2010 is likely to have major long term impact. But from 2008 to 2010, Congress had its most productive session in decades. It might have been heartbreaking to watching important reforms like cap&trade and the public option get shot down, but the 111th Congress actually lived up to the promise of the Great Society for two years.

 

[Oerdin]

The problem isn't the politicians being weaselly; it's the propaganda spread by the opposite side.

If the Democrats had greater support from the public, they wouldn't need to worry about the Republican agenda.

I don't see public support as being the issue as routinely most of the public supports something but none of the politicians will do it out of fear of upsetting their corporate over lords. Example: How polls showed 80% of the population supported having a public option in health care yet none of the politicians would support it because they'd get targeted by the insurance lobby.

 

[Colonel]

The rest of the American public disagrees with you about that. From the very day Obamacare first reared its nine gruesome heads, the American Voter said this: that some kind of health care reform was needed, but that Obamacare was the wrong kind.

This is only true if you don't look at all the statistics. When you ask people if they like Obamacare they say no, A because they don't really know what it is beyond the fear mongering that FOX has done and B because all they hear is universal health care and that it is socialism. Now when you enlighten people to what all 9 provisions of the bill are you get a majority of the populace supporting 7 of the 9 provisions. So as I said what you said isn't really true its just FOX showing the numbers how they like them.

 

[classical_hero]

That's the spirit. You improve the political system by getting out of it.

 

[choxorn]

I don't see public support as being the issue as routinely most of the public supports something but none of the politicians will do it out of fear of upsetting their corporate over lords. Example: How polls showed 80% of the population supported having a public option in health care yet none of the politicians would support it because they'd get targeted by the insurance lobby.

I think the most popular thing that no politican will ever due to the influence of large corporations is taxing large corporations higher.

 

[BasketCase]

This is only true if you don't look at all the statistics.

I did. Nationwide. The People, as a whole, disapproved of Obamacare for a wide variety of reasons--there is no one "blanket" reason to cover all those opposed.

That's the spirit. You improve the political system by getting out of it.

No. You demonstrate your lack of support for the political system by getting out of it.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Meh, personally I still do not very much see the point in getting very involved in politics. No matter who you vote for, the policies always end up the same. Deciding between Democrat and Republican, regardless of the actual candidate, is rather like choosing between McDonalds and Burger King; they may have different names on their food items, but at the end of the day, you're still getting a disgusting, excessively greasy burger.

 

[BasketCase]

Dude. I went third party long ago. Red Robin. (LIBERTARIAN HAMBURGERS!!!)