disgruntled with politics

[AlphaTemplar]

Am I the only one here dissillusioned by American politics? There's an incredible amount of posturing, vague rhetoric, "campaign issues", and straight - out bullshit on both the left and the right. The media is consistently more interested in personality and sensationalism then real issues, on which neither candidate has a strong position. And the amazing thing is, people buy it en masse. Can't people take a little bit of time to read the news and form opinions? If Lincoln ran for president today, somehow I doubt he would win (and not because he's dead)

 

[smylex2]

The current statistics show that only 10% of Americans read a newspaper and that most Americans get their news from television network news services (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.). Television news services stopped reporting real news and issues because it was cheaper to just appeal to the lowest common denominator. Reporting, fact checking, etc. cost money...more money than would be profitable. If the news divisions aren't keeping things in the black, then the networks will not allow it.

 

[Cythraul]

Avoid politics at all costs!!!!

"Political and economic affairs are not worthy of being the enforced concern of society's most gifted spirits: such a wasteful use of the spirit is at bottom worse than having none at all. They are and remain domains for lesser heads, and others than lesser heads ought not to be in the service of these workshops: better for the machinery to fall to pieces again!"- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Voice of God]

Nietzsche has a good idea there, but it isn't too practical. It only works if everyone starts avoiding politics. Even if majority start avoiding politics in a democratic society, it will lead to a situation where minority makes all the decisions.

 

[smylex2]

Even if majority start avoiding politics in a democratic society, it will lead to a situation where minority makes all the decisions.

If I remember correctly, only about 55% of those Americans that were eligible were registered and voted in the 2000 election.

Many people now are so disgusted with the current presidential race and the "Dirty Tricks Campaign 2" that they don't even want to vote.

 

[Voice of God]

If I remember correctly, only about 55% of those Americans that were eligible were registered and voted in the 2000 election.

Well, it's small, but still majority. Following Nietzsche's advice, it would drop even lower. People should understand that while not voting represents an (weak) opinion, it doesn't help change things and that voting isn't about being on the winning side. There's other candidates in US than those two lousy ones, isn't there?

 

[chris-o-fer]

Well, it's small, but still majority. Following Nietzsche's advice, it would drop even lower. People should understand that while not voting represents an (weak) opinion, it doesn't help change things and that voting isn't about being on the winning side. There's other candidates in US than those two lousy ones, isn't there?

Yeah, Ralph Nader just got his 500 ballots readmitted, so now he will be a choice as well. He's with the "Green Party", which basically is Pro-Weed, Pro-small buisness, and Pro-anything else hippy like. There's usually always an independent party on the ballot (i.e. Nader) but in the end they only account for about 1% of votes, if that.

 

[smylex2]

Well, it's small, but still majority. Following Nietzsche's advice, it would drop even lower. People should understand that while not voting represents an (weak) opinion, it doesn't help change things and that voting isn't about being on the winning side. There's other candidates in US than those two lousy ones, isn't there?

Actually, not really. If you think about it, that means that only about 30% of the people in the country are responsible for who's in office. (Figuring that only 55% of those eligible citizens are voting in America and the winner needs the majority of those votes to win, then subtract the amount of votes that are usually cast for independent candidates and it usually ends up being only about 30%.)

Also, this does not take into account that the electorates (SIC?) will actually cast their vote for those that the people want. Case in point: in the 1992 presidential election, their were 3 main candidates: George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton Jr. and Ross Perot. By the end of that night in November 1992, Ross Perot had received 15% of the popular vote...and not a single electoral vote. All the votes went either to Clinton or Bush.

It doesn't matter if Nader is on the ballot or not. If people want to vote for Nader and his name is not on the ballot, they can simply just write his name on the ballot in the bottom empty space on the ballot. Also, take this into account: in several states (notably, key voter battleground/swing states, i.e. Michigan), Nader's name is only on the ballot because he's received funding that enabled him to do so from the Republican party.

 

[metu]

Less than 1/4 of the country elected Bush. You're using fuzzy math Smylex. :]

It's a case in point VOG, and a great point it is. :]

I get so frustrated with the political nightmare going on right now. I was yelling at the screen in the first debate like I was watching the Lions shit the bed in a playoff game. The realization that the television news networks are going to decide the winner in this makes me want to break down and cry. Television is now officially the worst thing to ever happen to this country. The potential for election fraud doesn't make me feel much better. Neither does Bush's use of churches in his campaign. Political forums are now rendered useless because they're so overrun by fanatics that any rational argument gets drowned out. Our democracy has degenerated into a giant pile of flaming horseshit with meaningless sound-bytes posing as kernals of truth.

Yes, I'm disgruntled to put it lightly.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Well over here accross the pond in Europe we are as pissed off as you are! It just amazes me the your media and also the campaigners seem more concerned with making "the other guy look bad" than actualy saying what they would do on important issues. I wouldn't vote for either Bush or Kerry, they are both as bad as each other as far as i can see. But getting an un-biased version of the storry is imposssible. You're totaly correct in being disgruntled about the state of things, here in the UK we would never stand for this joke!

 

[speed]

Welkin, have you ever read any of the lasting documents of Epicurus? He advocated that his followers should never enter public life for similar reasons as Nietszche. And apparently his followers didnt.

 

[metu]

Did anyone happen to see Jon Stewart on Crossfire?

Personally, I think that it was among the greatest moments in television history. He was all broken down and actually pleaded with them to stop what they were doing. He accused them of being bad for our democracy asserting that all they do is support the political machine which uses them like tools. He tried to explain to them that people all across the country are looking to them for information, but are being fed nothing more than a continuation of the twisted political spin. He challenged them to consider their role as journalists in our political system and insisted that they are failing miserably.

If anyone was crazy enough to give me fifteen minutes to talk on a show like that, I like to think that I would have had the courage to make a similar stand. I wish that he had made his point more articulately, but I will be forever thankful to Jon for having the courage to make that stand on our behalf.

 

[metu]

Television's domination over our society has evolved to a truly frightening state. I was watching Crossfire (a show which is designed to fool us into believing that a reasonable political debate is taking place on the issues) the other day and it was sponsored by the new "clean burning" coal.

The overwhelming influence of big business has been a problem in our government from the beginning. It's special interest groups with political leverage to wield. It's using capital as a universal tool to influence the political process. It's legislation written on behalf of the financially powerful. It's a problem of which many of us have lost sight through our fear and rage. It's a problem which we can no longer afford to ignore. It's a problem which festers within the very core of our democracy.

Politicians get votes by telling people what they want to hear. That's not the problem. The problem is that the bulk of the media, especially the television networks, has the same goal. They don't want us to be well informed. All they want to do is keep tuned in through the commercial breaks. These networks don't give a damn about us or our place in the world. All they care about is the money they can get by holding our attention.

Did you just feed your family poisoned chicken? That story and more after this brief announcement.

Why does Nader not have a chance? Why do the Libertarian or Green parties not have a chance? Why do the Socialist or Constitution parties not have a chance? Because they get no air time. Because the television networks say so.

Just step back and realize the power that these networks hold over our society. They shape our view of the World on a terrifyingly monumental scale. They sell our attention to politicians the same way they sell our attention to other advertisers. Their only goal is to stop us from changing the channel because ratings equal leverage. More leverage leads to more money.

We owe it to our military, who has fought and died for over two centuries in the protection of our Constitution and our rights as citizens to have power over our government, to extensively research the issues which concern us the most. We need to rise above the corporate dominance of our society, our media, and our government and restore the power of our government to the people.

The corporations use the television networks use the politicians use the television networks use the corporations........

We all know this to be the scenario, yet so many of us still rely on the television networks to keep us informed. The television news networks are shoveling the same line of bullshit as the politicians for a very good reason. They both feed us to the same corporations. The goals of votes and ratings are practically identicle. If we continue on this path of apathetic convenience which has gotten us where we are today, we will surely fail in this Great Experiment.

Thomas Jefferson stated, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." This is exactly what he meant.

We must be tenacious in our understanding of the issues involved. We need to research our way through the political smoke-screen which envelopes our society. We can no longer afford to take our freedom for granted. We need to break the shackles of our comfort and accept the responsibility which we have been given. The television news networks are our enemies in this pursuit. We need to rise above the bullshit peddled on behalf of the market ecomomy. We must become the most well informed citizens in the history of the World. We must be eternally vigilant or the sacrifices of those before us, and those of the present, on our behalf, will be forever disgraced.

 

[sumairetsu]

I'm sorry. I was watching Fox News Channel. What did you say?

 

[AlphaTemplar]

One of the biggest problems with the media is their portayal of everything political on a left/right scale. While there is some relevance to the scale (liberal views favor social relief for the poor, multilateralism, and government control; conservatives favor economic power, unilateralism, and little government), any stance or idea is artificially bent to be either left- or right-wing...why don't you ever hear agreement between candidates in a debate or even a simple "That's a good idea"?

In this respect, it's difficult for people to form and hold on to their own ideas. First of all, about 75% of the American voters simply "subscribe" to a party, and when Bush or Kerry says that we need to do X about Y, they automatically agree. And even for the 25% of independent - minded voters, a voter who holds a strong position against, say, the Iraq War would likely determine - perhaps subconsiously - that because they are more aligned with Kerry over Iraq, they need to be aligned with Kerry over an unrelated issue - perhaps Medicare and Social Security reform.