The Democratic Party is Being Overly Vitriolic: Agree, or Disagree?

[Defeatist Elitist]

I am aware that the two major parties in the US are both conservative.That said, there's no question that MSNBC/CNN (really it doesn't matter which) are the "other side" to FOX culturally speaking (at least in my experience).

I don't really care who's worse, the problem simply is that both parties resort to what I deem to be poor political tactics.

There's two big issues here. One is that that's politics. I would say love it or hate it, but its really beyond that. Politics in a democratic nation (and to a certain extent in a non democratic nation) are about trying to appeal to the populace, and often being completely rational will not accomplish it. I really dislike the way politics often work, I think we should try to change them, but that is what you have to work with.

The second issue is that, as I said before, they are not the same. You slammed the Democrats for appealing to emotions, which they sort of do, but that's not the whole story. Leftist strategies would help most of the people of the United States. There is significant support for this idea. However, leftist ideology is largely born out of a certain ultimately subjective moral or emotional state. In order to support leftist ideology, you kind of have to buy into that. We should all be dealing with the same facts (which incidentally is another problem in the USA), so the argument really should be the moral one. It absolutely is between whether or not we think poor people deserve to be poor, and about whether the state should provide for those in need. That is the argument that has to be had, and it has to be about whether it is right or wrong, because we already know that a certain level of government support will absolutely reduce poverty and increase quality of life.

^^ Reggie, I actually included a ton of examples of Republicans doing far worse things in my post but hey. I do think shilling for donations like that is awful, and I am opposed to that general political climate. I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not nearly as bad as constant lying and racebaiting.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[Constable Reggie]

I'm hard-pressed to considering more examples of Repub vitriol against Dems (a political norm since the founding of the country, and not nearly as ridiculous as it has been in past examples) to be worse than demeaning your own voter group for not living up to the party's expectations of support.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm hard-pressed to considering more examples of Repub vitriol against Dems (a political norm since the founding of the country, and not nearly as ridiculous as it has been in past examples) to be worse than demeaning your own voter group for not living up to the party's expectations of support.

I'm not on any Republican or Democratic mailing lists, so I don't know how common it is, but if you think sending slightly condescending emails begging for donations is worse than dog whistle racism and fear mongering than you and I have a fundamental disagreement in our moral codes that I suspect is pretty much impossible to resolve.

[Constable Reggie]

One makes you look like an idiot, and the other makes you look like an idiot who doesn't even trust or appreciate its own group. The level of contempt of the typical political rhetoric and smearing being thrown around does not exponentiate the supposed severity of the issue for me. Both sides look bad/ridiculous for those actions to the others group, but only one of them is also showing disdain for their own supporters.

[Loki Laufeyson]

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/09/us/political-memo-for-gop-arsenal-133-words-to-fire.html

... ... ... ....

So...how about those Libertarians? They seem fairly cool, at least, from what I gathered from talking to the executives of one of their groups on the phone. It seems to be a little disorganized as a group (when I asked them their plan, unless I was mistaken or not listening enough, it seemed to me like it amounted to 'we've got a ton of different groups in different states...but those groups don't actually communicate with each other at all, so we're all just off doing our own thing'), but cool.

Really research Libertarianism before jumping on that wagon. Trust me. Libertarianism is often the favored party of the casual centrist who doesnt want to register Independent. The thing is that Libertarianism can be summed up in a nutshell: "Here, we'll keep the government running to make some laws and junk, but in terms of quality of life, you are on your own. Have fun!"

and..

About the libertarians... I don't really like them. They come too close to anarchcapitalism, believing that order will come from chaos and that money-driven societies work better than having a government.

This.

Thats why i didnt join the Libertarian Party. Because i like structure and order and feel that if a balance can be maintained between Republican views and Democratic views, shit's golden. But sadly, that isnt reality. But im not gonna stop hoping for it to become one. Some people might sneer at this post and call me a filthy fence sitter. So be it. Leaning too far in any direction is just not a good idea for me.

As for the topic at hand, ive seen nasty shit from both parties. Smearing ad campaigns, pamphlets, mudslinging in debates, biased news reporting, guilt tactics, etc. Democrats love the guilt tactic. Oh they love it. Republicans love to try their hand at it too but usually comes off as sounding like money grubbers. (not Super Effective) The GOP has gotten..weird to the point where many find the Democratic party much saner. But is it really? I do agree with what was said upthread about how the Democratic party goes about it in a different way, but the truth is, both sides have crippling issues.

[Zkirsche]

@Reggie:I wouldn't call that e-mail as democrats showing disdain for their own supporters, I think it's much more like harmless advertising done with a little bit of guilt tripping. "It looks like SOMEONE hasn't donated to us" *wink wink nudge nudge*

[FionordeQuester]

Really research Libertarianism before jumping on that wagon. Trust me. Libertarianism is often the favored party of the casual centrist who doesnt want to register Independent. The thing is that Libertarianism can be summed up in a nutshell: "Here, we'll keep the government running to make some laws and junk, but in terms of quality of life, you are on your own. Have fun!"

Yeah, I guess that was a little impulsive. One thing I didn't mention though was that, one representative I called, when asked about their political platforms, gave me the usual campaign message. But, somehow he surmised that I didn't have a ton of political knowledge (which...really I don't, outside of that massive amount of research I did when seeing whether or not Mitt Romney was as bad as people said, so that's fair), so, rather than trying to win me over, he actually said something along the lines of...

"Well, you can find out what we have to say here. What I recommend you do however is really research our ideas before jumping onto our bandwagon, just to see whether or not you actually agree with our policies or not"

I dunno about you, but that's one thing I found deeply impressive, in that he wasn't willing to take advantage of what was obvious naivety on the part of the person who called him. I think my initial leaning towards joining that party was on account of that one guy being really cool, though, thinking back on it, that was kind of an impulsive decision (especially since just one guy isn't representative of a whole party, especially one that's as unstructured as the Libertarian Party seems to be)...still though, it's definitely something to keep in the back of your head, in case the parties somehow make themselves seem even WORSE than they already do, right?

Edited December 30, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[Constable Reggie]

@Reggie:I wouldn't call that e-mail as democrats showing disdain for their own supporters, I think it's much more like harmless advertising done with a little bit of guilt tripping. "It looks like SOMEONE hasn't donated to us" *wink wink nudge nudge*

I've seen several better ways that a "please donate" message has been, and could have been written/stated in cases like this. This is really the only one that comes off as downright cynical and scornful towards the recipient. It's the only one that marginalizes the supporter in favor of propping the organization. Not even the SPCA belittles you when you stop donating.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

There's two big issues here. One is that that's politics. I would say love it or hate it, but its really beyond that. Politics in a democratic nation (and to a certain extent in a non democratic nation) are about trying to appeal to the populace, and often being completely rational will not accomplish it. I really dislike the way politics often work, I think we should try to change them, but that is what you have to work with.

The second issue is that, as I said before, they are not the same. You slammed the Democrats for appealing to emotions, which they sort of do, but that's not the whole story. Leftist strategies would help most of the people of the United States. There is significant support for this idea. However, leftist ideology is largely born out of a certain ultimately subjective moral or emotional state. In order to support leftist ideology, you kind of have to buy into that. We should all be dealing with the same facts (which incidentally is another problem in the USA), so the argument really should be the moral one. It absolutely is between whether or not we think poor people deserve to be poor, and about whether the state should provide for those in need. That is the argument that has to be had, and it has to be about whether it is right or wrong, because we already know that a certain level of government support will absolutely reduce poverty and increase quality of life.

^^ Reggie, I actually included a ton of examples of Republicans doing far worse things in my post but hey. I do think shilling for donations like that is awful, and I am opposed to that general political climate. I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not nearly as bad as constant lying and racebaiting.

"That's politics!" is not an excuse. It will never be an excuse. Things need to change, plain and simple. It hurts both the population and the political parties themselves to behave this way. The blame lies on everyone, I think.

I'm not only slamming the Democrats. I'm slamming the political climate of the United States. To clarify, I don't have issues with arguments from emotion, I have an issue with that being the principle strategy when forming one's arguments. Emotional arguments used as much as they are here do not invite discussion, only division.

I think step one to making progress is improving education.

[FionordeQuester]

Jeez, I've been practically carpet bombed by emails today o.0!! Some of these are actually kind of touching if you believe them (which I don't know whether to or not. As I said, one bad representative shouldn't define a whole group)...but of course, the last one is full of vitriol again, so, make of it what you will. One thing I decided to include this time was all the mentions of how I would "win a free trip to D.C. and get this or that" if I donated, since, I wondered if that would influence anyone's view of the party. So, here they are, all in one day...

Title Message: FREE: Trip to DC next month (By Abby Witt, Today at 12:08 A.M.)

Friend --

This movement is driven by the energy, time, and donations of supporters like you. It's the people who believe that our work isn't even close to finished.

Next month, OFA is having a birthday party in our nation's capital -- and we want people like you there to help celebrate.

We're flying two supporters, and their guests, to Washington, D.C. -- it's easy to enter.

Make a donation before Tuesday night's critical fundraising deadline, and you'll be automatically entered to win.

This is our way of saying thanks to our founding members. This work isn't easy, but you've remained dedicated.

2013 has been a year of challenges -- for starters, we've dealt with what might be the least productive Congress in history -- or at least, our lifetime.

But OFA supporters like you didn't back down -- you made your voices heard, on the phones, on Twitter, and took action to keep fighting for change.

Without any doubt, that work is paying off.

And it's worth celebrating. You should be there.

Donate $5 or whatever you can before our crucial December 31st deadline, and you'll be automatically entered for a free trip to D.C.:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Join-OFA-in-DC

Thanks,

Abby

Abby Witt
National Deputy Director of Issue Campaigns
Organizing for Action

P.S. -- As an extra added thank you, if you donate before midnight on December 31st, you'll get to see your name on the OFA Donor Wall. It's pretty amazing -- donate $5 or more right now.

Title Message: Barack Obama (Today at 8:54 A.M.)

Friend --

On January 1st, our nation turns a corner on health care -- and we're never going back.

From here on, no American should have to go broke just because they get sick. You can't be dropped from your plan when you need it most. Pre-existing conditions will never prevent someone from getting coverage, and women can't be charged more than men for their plans.

And for millions of Americans, affordable, quality coverage is finally within reach.

I am so proud of that. And I have people like you to thank, truly.

Fundamental change like this doesn't happen just because people believe it's the right thing to do. It happens because people like you, and organizations like OFA, fight for it -- no matter how hard it gets.

That's why we don't just fight the good fight -- we stay at it until we win.

Today, I'm asking you to make a commitment -- 2014 should be a year of action. Pledge to keep fighting for change with OFA:

http://my.barackobama.com/2014

Thank you so much -- and happy new year.

Barack

Title Message: We need to hit 30,000 before tomorrow's deadline (By Grant Campell, Today at 1:54 P.M.) Friend --

Do you hear that?

That's the sound of the clock ticking on the fundraising deadline -- and my foot nervously tapping as I monitor the progress we're making toward our grassroots goal.

We've crunched the numbers, and here's how it's looking right now. We need about 30,000 donations before midnight to get to where we need to be.

That's nuts, you might say. It is (in a good way), but just think of it this way: It breaks down to just a few supporters in your neighborhood.

I believe you can help with that right now: Donate $5 or more before our deadline tomorrow night.

It's no exaggeration to say that we wouldn't exist without your continued support.

You've been there from the very start -- step-by-step -- fighting for what you believe in. That dedication doesn't just make our grassroots organizing possible -- it makes it effective.

So thanks for being part of this in 2013.

Now, I hope you'll finish it by blowing through our ambitious fundraising goal.

Chip in $5 or more before our critical fundraising deadline tomorrow at midnight:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-December-31st

Thanks,

Grant

Grant Campbell
Chief of Staff
Organizing for Action

P.S. -- Two more great reasons to chip in right now: You'll be automatically entered for a free trip to D.C. for you and a guest to come celebrate OFA's birthday next month.

AND... you'll be honored on OFA's donor wall, where we're proudly displaying the grassroots support we're getting before our fundraising deadline. Don't wait -- donate today.

Title Message: This Matters, I Promise (By Amanda Howe, Today at 3:59 P.M.)


If you've given to the DNC in the past few days, by mail, or from a different email address than the one above, then I apologize if my information isn't up-to-date -- and thank you for your support.

But if you haven't, you can still get your support on the record in 2013 by donating $3 right now.

Three bucks may not seem like much, but I can tell you that those contributions add up -- and they make a much bigger difference at the start of the year than they do in October.

So don't miss your chance to support Democrats for the start of 2014. Donate $3 (or more, if you can) before tomorrow's deadline:

https://my.democrats.org/Deadline-2013

Thanks,

Amanda

Amanda Howe
Chief Operating Officer
Democratic National CommitteeYOUR 2013 ONLINE SUPPORTER RECORD (click here to update)

NAME: You

EMAIL: (not telling)

2013 DONATIONS: $0

Tomorrow is the last day of 2013, and it looks like you haven't donated to Democrats yet this year:

Title Message: Is this right? - your record of support (Today at 4:45 P.M.)

Friend --

This can't be right.

We're just going through our records and -- even though you're one of our best supporters (really? I am? I find that hard to imagine) -- it looks like you're not a 2013 founding member.

Nothing's changed: It still takes each of us chipping in what we can, when we can, to build the kind of grassroots movement that can win the big fights.

Please take a moment to review the supporter record associated with this exact email address:

-- OFA 2013 founding member: Pending
-- Suggested donation: $5

And make sure you become an OFA founding member by chipping in $5 or more today.

With all of us working together, we can accomplish a lot in the new year, but this is always going to be a team effort.

We need help from people like you.

Chip in $5 or more today and take your OFA status to the next level:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-December-31st

Thanks,

Organizing for Action

P.S. -- Wait, there's more! Your donation today automatically enters you for a free trip to D.C. for you and a guest to come help OFA celebrate its birthday next month.

----------------
If you've made a donation in the last 24 hours that isn't reflected above, don't worry -- it may still be processing. Thanks for your support.

Edited December 31, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[Roy: Marquess of Pherae]

I grew up in a family of all Republicans, but I don't see an advantage to either side.

Republicans mainly view the poor as lazy.

Democrats see the poor as people in need.

We have both in the United States, so I don't believe either side is right.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Yeah, I guess that was a little impulsive. One thing I didn't mention though was that, one representative I called, when asked about their political platforms, gave me the usual campaign message. But, somehow he surmised that I didn't have a ton of political knowledge (which...really I don't, outside of that massive amount of research I did when seeing whether or not Mitt Romney was as bad as people said, so that's fair), so, rather than trying to win me over, he actually said something along the lines of...

"Well, you can find out what we have to say here. What I recommend you do however is really research our ideas before jumping onto our bandwagon, just to see whether or not you actually agree with our policies or not"

I dunno about you, but that's one thing I found deeply impressive, in that he wasn't willing to take advantage of what was obvious naivety on the part of the person who called him. I think my initial leaning towards joining that party was on account of that one guy being really cool, though, thinking back on it, that was kind of an impulsive decision (especially since just one guy isn't representative of a whole party, especially one that's as unstructured as the Libertarian Party seems to be)...still though, it's definitely something to keep in the back of your head, in case the parties somehow make themselves seem even WORSE than they already do, right?

But thats actually the political attitude of the Libertarian. They do actually encourage people to look up stuff about it, probably because people would join and then later drop after finding out that the party's policies didnt gibe well with them.

[BK-201]

I grew up in a family of all Republicans, but I don't see an advantage to either side.

Republicans mainly view the poor as lazy.

Democrats see the poor as people in need.

We have both in the United States, so I don't believe either side is right.

First off, from reddit: "This is bullshit. You're oversimplifying a complex solution to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion".

I don't even follow politics as closely as many and I think you're way oversimplifying view points especially when these are only viewpoints on a certain issue. The parties themselves don't align themselves around a belief about poor people but on multiple political issues and more importantly, what the appropriate response to issues should be.

Just because you have people on both sides does not make both sides incorrect in terms of how to handle such issues and I don't believe either side takes an explicit position on homogenizing the entire population in poverty. It's more how you handle the population of the poor, whether to provide welfare, etc.

Edited December 31, 2013 by BK-201

[dondon151]

i don't like to generalize about the republican party, but it is a bastion of stupidity and i can't in good conscience fathom supporting that. if they purged some of their more right-wing nutjobs, i could take them seriously.

[Roy: Marquess of Pherae]

First off, from reddit: "This is bullshit. You're oversimplifying a complex solution to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion".

I don't even follow politics as closely as many and I think you're way oversimplifying view points especially when these are only viewpoints on a certain issue. The parties themselves don't align themselves around a belief about poor people but on multiple political issues and more importantly, what the appropriate response to issues should be.

Just because you have people on both sides does not make both sides incorrect in terms of how to handle such issues and I don't believe either side takes an explicit position on homogenizing the entire population in poverty. It's more how you handle the population of the poor, whether to provide welfare, etc.

I personally don't see the difference. Analyzing every detail would only prove my point further. Each side DOES have very different ways of handling all situations. Looking for one side to handle one issue and having a different view leaning towards the other side for a different issue is something politicians would never do.

[Phoenix Wright]

Jeez, I've been practically carpet bombed by emails today o.0!! Some of these are actually kind of touching if you believe them (which I don't know whether to or not. As I said, one bad representative shouldn't define a whole group)...but of course, the last one is full of vitriol again, so, make of it what you will. One thing I decided to include this time was all the mentions of how I would "win a free trip to D.C. and get this or that" if I donated, since, I wondered if that would influence anyone's view of the party. So, here they are, all in one day...

Wow, you're signed up for a lot of political BS.

First off, from reddit: "This is bullshit. You're oversimplifying a complex solution to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion".

I don't even follow politics as closely as many and I think you're way oversimplifying view points especially when these are only viewpoints on a certain issue. The parties themselves don't align themselves around a belief about poor people but on multiple political issues and more importantly, what the appropriate response to issues should be.

Just because you have people on both sides does not make both sides incorrect in terms of how to handle such issues and I don't believe either side takes an explicit position on homogenizing the entire population in poverty. It's more how you handle the population of the poor, whether to provide welfare, etc.

Reddit isn't the best place to get information/make opinions/what have you.

While I'd agree that he was oversimplifying, it was not that far off in how accurate it is in reality. The Dems. pride themselves on providing for the poor [because they're in need], whilst the Repubs. pride themselves on making everyone work extra hard to attain the American Dream. Not all of them think this way, but a goodly enough on both ends make the sweeping statement somewhat true.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[BK-201]

Reddit isn't the best place to get information/make opinions/what have you.

While I'd agree that he was oversimplifying, it was not that far off in how accurate it is in reality. The Dems. pride themselves on providing for the poor [because they're in need], whilst the Repubs. pride themselves on making everyone work extra hard to attain the American Dream. Not all of them think this way, but a goodly enough on both ends make the sweeping statement somewhat true.

Only the quote is from reddit. I don't think either party would define themselves solely in relation to the poor, they certainly have viewpoints on other subjects that stand opposed to each other. Also how evaluating how they approach the problem and preferring one side on their method is more meaningful than how they conceptualize the problem (problem of need versus lazy).

I personally don't see the difference. Analyzing every detail would only prove my point further. Each side DOES have very different ways of handling all situations. Looking for one side to handle one issue and having a different view leaning towards the other side for a different issue is something politicians would never do.

Analyzing every detail wouldn't prove your point especially when politics aren't even as black and white as you're making it out to be. Sure there are lots of disputes that get highlighted but it's not like there is nothing bipartisan or that there are no shades of grey in politics. They make decisions as a group but you can certainly have some degree of diversity even within a party.

[Snowy_One]

My thoughts on the issue. Take them for what you will.

Yes, the Democrats are more Vitriolic, but the problem is not with that, but rather the amount of attention they get.

Here's the thing. Love them or hate them, 90% of the parties are made up of normal, every-day, people. People who, while they may disagree politically on things like gay rights, will both log onto Halo and launch insults calling each other 'faggots' and 'niggers' over lucky headshots in an instant. People who wake up the following morning and have to go out to work down at the office to file reports regardless of their thoughts on embryonic stem-cell research. Who complain about gas prices regardless of their opinion on the wars in the mid-east.

But then you hit the 10% who are really out there. This is the GLAAD people (or whatever that acronym is) and the Westbourgh Baptists. The people who insist on equal rights when voting for Obama then screamed that Sarah Palin would be a horrible president because she's a woman. The people who use the Bible to justify racism. The abnormals. And they have the microphone to both the media and the net.

We can debate which is worse, MSNBC or Fox, but here's the thing. Which of these news stories sounds more engaging? 'Hardheaded monsters stand in the way of a new bill that might harm their income' or 'Group of people staunchly defend bill despite overwhelming support'? The democratic party has a tendency to be the party of minorities and underdogs. America and Americans happen to LIKE that sort of thing, at least now, so any story regarding Republican vs. Democrat is going to boil down to 'Small group of underdogs battle against majority for equality/the future'. These are the big news sellers. Did Iraq get better or worse after America left? The media doesn't care beyond, maybe, a token story. What generates the views is the potential major changes in drug laws and the people standing both for and against it, and making it a 'nice good people vs. total monsters' happens to be the most interesting.

As for individual examples... Remember that there are, doing a few quick notepad calculations and wikipedia numbers, about 91 million Republicans alone, never mind the democrats. So unless you're getting 910,000 venomous letters, you aren't even representing close to 1% of the party, never mind the democratic one (IIRC 31 vs 29% ATM).

[Phoenix Wright]

Only the quote is from reddit. I don't think either party would define themselves solely in relation to the poor, they certainly have viewpoints on other subjects that stand opposed to each other. Also how evaluating how they approach the problem and preferring one side on their method is more meaningful than how they conceptualize the problem (problem of need versus lazy).

Analyzing every detail wouldn't prove your point especially when politics aren't even as black and white as you're making it out to be. Sure there are lots of disputes that get highlighted but it's not like there is nothing bipartisan or that there are no shades of grey in politics. They make decisions as a group but you can certainly have some degree of diversity even within a party.

Well of course not. That would be silly. It was neither my nor Roy's intent to state otherwise. To put it more clearly, our (my) point is that the GoP generally sees poor folks as lazy, whilst the Dems. generally see them as people in need. This really doesn't even have to be explicitly stated by either party, it can instead be inferred based upon other political philosophies and literal actions taken by either party in office (eg, such as literally cutting funding to social safety nets, or creating new welfare programs). Roy's view is that there are poor people in need and poor people that are simply lazy, not much else to it, and that therefore doesn't take either side. I think that's a fair opinion.

[BK-201]

Well of course not. That would be silly. It was neither my nor Roy's intent to state otherwise. To put it more clearly, our (my) point is that the GoP generally sees poor folks as lazy, whilst the Dems. generally see them as people in need. This really doesn't even have to be explicitly stated by either party, it can instead be inferred based upon other political philosophies and literal actions taken by either party in office (eg, such as literally cutting funding to social safety nets, or creating new welfare programs). Roy's view is that there are poor people in need and poor people that are simply lazy, not much else to it, and that therefore doesn't take either side. I think that's a fair opinion.

I think neutrality is a fine position except I don't think it's justified in this case. The discussion centers around the political parties as a whole rather than their approach to certain issues which was my only complaint with the post since it was basically oversimplifying the entirety of both political parties. Also I still hold my original point that it offered nothing to the dialogue outlined in the OP still hence the quotation I used.

[jiodi]

Our problem is still seeing things as belonging to particular sides.

The Democrats are over-infatuated with legislating everything away while the Republicans are over-infatuated with fear-mongering and selling schlock to the lowest common denominator. Libertarians have become a point of contention for me because I used to call myself one, but they still grasp onto ideology without being willing to execute what's necessary to make it a viable system.

What we need to do is figure out what issues we give a crap about and put our thoughts out there. And be informed. We have to cast off political labels and focus on what actually works.

The facts are:

- We have the least effective Congress in the history of our country.

- We have nothing but solutions for symptoms that simply veer the public's attention from true issues (I like to call em "wool issues" ehehe).

- We have become a blame-driven society who takes comfort in having another side to shit on as opposed to figuring out what works the best for our nation as a whole.

- Our "news" is a for-profit industry. So instead of reporting and true analysis we have different entities telling us what we already believe to be true, stopping our ability to reconcile and compromise.

- Thanks to the internet, we can further expand this schism because Google will take you to whatever you want to hear.

The problem with having freedoms is we are also accountable and responsible to society as a whole. Everybody wants the freedoms but would rather not deal with the consequences of them. If we just make stupid laws for it there will always be ways to circumvent them (big money has a hold of all politics in our country) and if we keep arguing over shit like gun rights and border control and fucking unemployment benefits we don't notice that politicians are doing less and less to figure things out.

So, yes, the Dems are overly vitriolic. The GOP is overly vitriolic. Politics in general is overly vitriolic and petty and completely over-engineered for failure.

Noticing this is the first step. The next step is to not feed into either side and create your own conclusions, and allow yourself the capability to be wrong. Someone will probably have a better idea than you and that's totally okay. Don't buy into the system, do your best to understand it so you can join the group of us who would see it rebuilt from the ground up :D

[Czar_Yoshi]

Thats why i didnt join the Libertarian Party. Because i like structure and order and feel that if a balance can be maintained between Republican views and Democratic views, shit's golden. But sadly, that isnt reality. But im not gonna stop hoping for it to become one. Some people might sneer at this post and call me a filthy fence sitter. So be it. Leaning too far in any direction is just not a good idea for me.

I feel exactly the same way. I have more conservative values on social issues and liberal values on fiscal ones, but in an all-or-nothing climate like this one, I have to take one side or simply do nothing. Of those, I prefer liberal because I don't need the government to tell me what I already know, but do need them to do things like fund schools.

On the other hand, thanks to a politician in my state who thinks he's Leidrick, I'm not so keen on backing up either side anymore. So I think I'll take my chances on the fence for now.

Rather off-topic, but wow, those cashgrubbing emails look very similar to all the stuff I've been getting from colleges who are hungry for applications after seeing my SAT. You should seriously consider unsubscribing.

Noticing this is the first step. The next step is to not feed into either side and create your own conclusions, and allow yourself the capability to be wrong. Someone will probably have a better idea than you and that's totally okay. Don't buy into the system, do your best to understand it so you can join the group of us who would see it rebuilt from the ground up :D

I completely agree. Thinking for yourself, even if you're not always right, is extremely important. There's a quote along those lines from FDR that I like:

"What this nation needs is bold, persistent experimentation. If something fails, admit it promptly and try something else. But above all, try something."

Edited February 3, 2014 by Czar_Yoshi