Vote to impeach Bush

[Boxlicker101]

Imagine that! Russia has a true democracy-based ballot and the US doesn't. Go figure! It seems that we're only allowed to give an honest open opinion at the ballots so long as that opinion agrees with one party or the other.

My humble opinion: They were all a bunch of felchers. They should have all been thrown back and we should have had a new batch to choose from.

You can write in a candidate. That would work better than voting for a third party candidate but it would still be seen by some as a preference for the writein rather than dislike for everybody. "None of the above" would send a loud, clear signal. If that vote was actually a substantial percentage, it would tell all politicians just how much contempt and dislike voters have for them.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

You can write in a candidate. That would work better than voting for a third party candidate but it would still be seen by some as a preference for the writein rather than dislike for everybody. "None of the above" would send a loud, clear signal. If that vote was actually a substantial percentage, it would tell all politicians just how much contempt and dislike voters have for them.

I looked for a way to write in anything at the electronic ballot stations, but it simply wasn't there. If there was a way to do it I wish someone would have made that clear before hand.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think what we're assuming of the "ethical person" is entirely accurate. We would have to establish both what we mean by "ethical" and how we go about assuming what "we as a people" want. I'm not sure we can accurately do that. Even so, shy of highly specific thought-experiments stacking the deck against the chance to begin with (which, prejudicial examples aren't really criterion), I don't see why an ethical person would have a problem getting elected.

Beyond that, is there a meaningful difference between not-voting and voting "not anyone"? I'm not sure there is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think what we're assuming of the "ethical person" is entirely accurate. We would have to establish both what we mean by "ethical" and how we go about assuming what "we as a people" want. I'm not sure we can accurately do that. Even so, shy of highly specific thought-experiments stacking the deck against the chance to begin with (which, prejudicial examples aren't really criterion), I don't see why an ethical person would have a problem getting elected.

Beyond that, is there a meaningful difference between not-voting and voting "not anyone"? I'm not sure there is.

There is a big difference. People refrain from voting for various reasons, such as oversleeping, not bothering, apathy, being suddenly called out of town, forgetting the election will be held, and any number of reasons. If you don't vote, you haven't stated an opinion.

Voting "None of the above" is stating an opinion, that nobody on the ballot is worth voting for. One such vote is probably a smartass but thousands of such votes is a grass roots movement and might make somebody pay attention.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

There is a big difference. People refrain from voting for various reasons, such as oversleeping, not bothering, apathy, being suddenly called out of town, forgetting the election will be held, and any number of reasons. If you don't vote, you haven't stated an opinion.

If you don't vote, you may be stating an opinion though. I can see how not caring is an opinion, apathy, etc. The forgetfulness, yeah, that may not be opinion... but we can't say that not voting is definitively not opinion. Surely, most of those I know that haven't voted don't vote because of an opinion... even if it's "I don't care" (the opinion of "it matters not enough to me to bother").

Voting "None of the above" is stating an opinion, that nobody on the ballot is worth voting for. One such vote is probably a smartass but thousands of such votes is a grass roots movement and might make somebody pay attention.

I think it'd have the same effect that all the polls on how many people aren't voting would... desires and drives to increase voter turn-out. I still don't think there's a necessarily strong difference (if a meaninful one at all) between not voting and voting not.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you don't vote, you may be stating an opinion though. I can see how not caring is an opinion, apathy, etc. The forgetfulness, yeah, that may not be opinion... but we can't say that not voting is definitively not opinion. Surely, most of those I know that haven't voted don't vote because of an opinion... even if it's "I don't care" (the opinion of "it matters not enough to me to bother").



I think it'd have the same effect that all the polls on how many people aren't voting would... desires and drives to increase voter turn-out. I still don't think there's a necessarily strong difference (if a meaninful one at all) between not voting and voting not.

I may be wrong but I think the main reason people don't vote is apathy, the feeling that "One vote means nothing so why bother?" or similar feelings. Such persons do have a certain point but I vote anyhow. If I hadn't voted in the last election, the results would have been exactly the same but I still consider it to be worthwhile.

There are always other elections besides presidential on the ballot and I believe that if 1,000,000 voted in a senatorial election but only 900,000 voted for president in that state, that might make the powers that be take notice but they would take much more notice if that 100,000 voters voted for "None of the above". Not voting is just not voting for anybody. Voting for "None of the above" is voting against everybody on the ballot.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I think it'd have the same effect that all the polls on how many people aren't voting would... desires and drives to increase voter turn-out. I still don't think there's a necessarily strong difference (if a meaninful one at all) between not voting and voting not.

Of course there's a difference between not voting and voting for "None of the Above."

Not voting is being lazy and careless about the future of our country.

Voting "None of the Above" is showing that not only did one pull him or her self away from the daily activities to go through this process, but also that he or she gives enough of a shit to express his or her opinion as a US citizen who cares about the future of the country.

"None of the Above" would be the most brutally honest choice on a ballot. It's not there because the politicians can't handle that kind of honesty.

 

[sun_lover_61]

The price of democracy...

All this talk of democracy, government, political truth etc is fine. But while we talk, Iraqi's die.

How many Iraqis?

Well, it is very hard to know exactly, and our friends in the media don't seem that keen on telling us. If one scrounges around for some "primary" sources a very tragic picture emerges.

During Gulf War II (before the fighting ended *lol*)...

...We were told that civilian casualties were small. In the hundreds, were the figures being touted. This compared very favourably with the "millions" murdered in Saddam's genocide.

...Iraqi military casualties were brushed aside.

...Gloating pro-war commentators celebrated the "bloodless" war that had liberated Iraq (I wish I could remember the name of the airhead neo-con who used that expression! Can find it if requested.)

As time passed though, a different picture began to emerge. Here are some quiz questions for you all.

A) How many Iraqis have died since the beginning of hostiliites? Military and civilian.

B) How many died in the previous 20 years as a result of Saddm's state brutality?

C) How many coalition deaths in the war?

D) Why this obssesion with delivering democracy to a despotic middle Eastern nation? In a sea of non-democratic states I might add.

E) How come Western interests now control Iraqi oil?

F) Is oil THAT valuable and is it REALLY running out? Whats wrong with coal, or forest wood as energy sources?

Yes, I hate Bush and Howard - for their callous indifference. Because they have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people for a commodity - and lied about the whole damn thing. I would have an ounce of respect for them if they engaged, just for one moment, with the suffering that war has inflicted.

If either of them paused for a moment and asked us all to reflect on the suffering that OUR war has caused in Iraq I would forgive them. Honest to God - thats all it would take.

But they won't - and I won't.

Jolly good chat about democracy you had.

Sun Lover 61

 

[Kassiana]

Most times a republican bashing Clinton is in response to a liberal invoking him.

--Not in my experience. In my experience, a person says, e.g., "I think the war in Iraq is wrong. A friend of mine is going over there without body armor and I want him safe," and a right-wing ignoramus* pipes up, "You liberal slime make me sick. You supported an immoral creep like Clinton when he declared war and now you don't support our President? Hypocrite." This is usually without any knowledge of the initial speaker's political views.

he wasn't god, but he is held up as an almost diety by many liberals.

--Again, nope. No liberals I've seen think of him as anything close to perfect. Have you ever read The Nation? It's very leftist and they were exceedingly disappointed with him. I think you're either confusing some less-than-enthusiastic "blowjobs don't equal massacres in other countries" statements on here with "total support for Clinton," which isn't even near the truth.

the Great Bill, had the right to perjure himself, since the question shouldn't have been asked.

--The question shouldn't have been asked, and I'd say the same if it were my least favorite letter of the alphabet (W) in the hot seat himself. We can't say something was unjust and unfair now without somehow deifying someone? I think we can, and I think your characterization is unfair and untrue.

The constant refrain of anyone who supported Bush is an inbred redneck homophobic zenophobic racist is not likely to encourage civil debates.

--Neither is the constant refrain that anyone who questions The W is the anti-Christ, should be locked in jail, and/or deported from this country. At least no one on the Left that I know of has asked that the Rightists be deported or jailed because they dare disagree with us. On the Right, it's a constant refrain. Are most people on the Right so fragile that they can't stand anyone disagreeing with them?

People who are under varbal assault are quite likely to reply defensively.

--Agreed. The rhetoric on both sides can get pretty heated, but as I said above, the Rightists are the ones asking me to be jailed and calling me a traitor because I dare to disagree with them. I'd never ask for a member of the Right to be jailed or lie and say they were traitors because they disagree with me, and no Leftist I've seen debating has done that. Maybe the Right needs to rethink its "bash Clinton and deport anyone to the left of me" strategy which is provoking much of this reaction.

Luc:

as a leftie, I've always been sickened by the deifying of Clinton. He was a moderate Republican at best with the morals of Leisure Suit Larry.

--What he said. The guy was a smarmy bastard.

*This person is an ignoramus. He speaks without knowing what he's talking about. Yes, I do know people on the Right who actually try to ascertain someone's political beliefs before speaking.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But, as a matter of fact:

In the context of the questioning, it was a perfectly valid question. Paula Jones was accusing Clinton of sexual harassment while he was governor of Arkansas. He was asked, while under oath, whether or not he had ever had sex with any government employee and he said he hadn't. That was a lie and a lie under oath is perjury, a felony. He was impeached for that but acquitted by the Senate. Personally, I don't think that specific act of perjury should be described as "High crimes and misdemeanors" but it is a criminal act.

Someone earlier described Nixon as having been impeached. He was not but he might have been if he hadn't resigned. Whether we are defending or attacking, we should have our facts straight.

Edited to add: I have often wondered why people excoriate Clinton because of extra-marital affairs while they never say anything about JFK. He probably had more such affairs in less than three years than Clinton had in eight.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

--Not in my experience. In my experience, a person says, e.g., "I think the war in Iraq is wrong. A friend of mine is going over there without body armor and I want him safe," and a right-wing ignoramus* pipes up, "You liberal slime make me sick. You supported an immoral creep like Clinton when he declared war and now you don't support our President? Hypocrite." This is usually without any knowledge of the initial speaker's political views.

If you make an anti-war statement, you will tend to get the most reactionary of people responding. When I first started posting here, I had a strong tendancy to lump all people who protested the use of military power into the same group as the nastiest of the vietnam era protestors. Not the most rational approach, but one of the beliefs that came out of being raised in a martial family, from the deep south. I have gained some perspective, through interaction with people here, but I feel pretty strongly I am not in the majority of people who start with that prejudice. I don't think most ever give up that perception. While that dosen't make it right on thier part, it does mean when you speak out against a war, you are not only crossing a divide of liberal vs. conservative, but are heading into waters littered with highly emotional ideals and the responses are very likely to be a good deal more emotive than reasoned.


[/QUOTE]--Again, nope. No liberals I've seen think of him as anything close to perfect. Have you ever read The Nation? It's very leftist and they were exceedingly disappointed with him. I think you're either confusing some less-than-enthusiastic "blowjobs don't equal massacres in other countries" statements on here with "total support for Clinton," which isn't even near the truth.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not confusing anything. You aren't arguing conservative doctine with liberals, I am. And you may believe me or no, but when you corner a liberal on some issue, when there isn't anyway out, you will in all likelihood get a Clinton platitutde. If he is the whiping boy for the right, he is no less the golden child of the left.

I don't read the Nation specifically. I try to get a balanced view, by reading articles from several sources and opinion from both sides, so it's quite possible I have read specific articles or Op/ed. I am probably one of the few people who reads Coulter, Buckly and Leo as well as Gallager, Tucker & Rall in the same sitting. Or The ap, reuters and and thepost, while reading artiles on the same topic from CSM, Usa today and the La times.

[/QUOTE]--The question shouldn't have been asked, and I'd say the same if it were my least favorite letter of the alphabet (W) in the hot seat himself. We can't say something was unjust and unfair now without somehow deifying someone? I think we can, and I think your characterization is unfair and untrue.[/QUOTE]

The question was asked. He was under oath. Rather than respond truthfully, as he shuold have while under oath or taken the fifth, which was his right, he lied. There is no defense for it. As a lawyer, he better than anyone should have known that. In the end, that argument boils down to one of two things. Either Bill Clinton has special dispensation to avoid unsavory testimony because he is Bill or the person making the defense believes everyone should be able to lie under oath if they don't like a particular question. I don't believe either of those are true. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[/QUOTE]--Neither is the constant refrain that anyone who questions The W is the anti-Christ, should be locked in jail, and/or deported from this country. At least no one on the Left that I know of has asked that the Rightists be deported or jailed because they dare disagree with us. On the Right, it's a constant refrain. Are most people on the Right so fragile that they can't stand anyone disagreeing with them?[/QUOTE]

The view that anyone who speaks out should get out is totally unjustifiable. At the same time, after four solid years of bitching and moaning, doomsday predictions, rehasing of the 2000 election, character assassination on Bush and anyone who supports him, etc. I think that response is far more often a sign of exasperation, rather than a statement of Dogma. After the last election and the avalanch of vitriol aimed not at the man, but at anyone who voted for him as well, I can also see where it becomes the stock response.

My father isn't a redneck, he is a decorated veteran, who spent his time out of the service as a college counsellor. He's president of the garden club, donates his free time to Ronald McDonald house and numerous church charities, where his skills as a carpenter are used to help people within the community. He isn't a political activist of any type. He is, a strong member of the community, with the values he developed as a child of the fifties. He is not alone, there are millions who voted for Bush that are just like him. Good folks, with small town sensibilities, who voted for the party that they saw respecting those sensibilites. Yet he, and anyone else who voted for Bush have been characterized in the most ugly of terms, by liberal pundits, liberal commentators, and just regluar liberals. I don't really see that as any less destructive of dialouge than telling you, to get out.

[/QUOTE]--Agreed. The rhetoric on both sides can get pretty heated, but as I said above, the Rightists are the ones asking me to be jailed and calling me a traitor because I dare to disagree with them. I'd never ask for a member of the Right to be jailed or lie and say they were traitors because they disagree with me, and no Leftist I've seen debating has done that. Maybe the Right needs to rethink its "bash Clinton and deport anyone to the left of me" strategy which is provoking much of this reaction.[/QUOTE]

Is it any less provocative to tell someone they are ignorant if they happened to vote for Bush? Is belittling their intellectual capacity and dismissing out of hand their opinion on a given topic the high ground? It's rather difficult for the minority party to be demanding people get out, but is it any less offensive to belittle the opposition in the same rhetorical terms, neither listening too nor adressing their points? I think not.

Incidently, accusations of traitor aren't only the province of the right. Nor are calls to jail people. There is a current thread here to impeach the President. There have been others calling various members of the right, traitors as well as scoundrels thieves and other less savory things.

 

[Kassiana]

You aren't arguing conservative doctine with liberals, I am.

--I spend a good deal of time on a conservative dominated board. I know how conservatives act. They tend to condemn anyone who disagrees with them about anything as "liberal," whether the person is or not.

If he is the whiping boy for the right, he is no less the golden child of the left.

--In my experience, this is nonsense. I have never seen Clinton brought up as a "golden child" by anyone who's truly on the left in this country. I've seen ignorant Democrats bring him up, certainly, but anyone who thinks the Democratic Party as a whole is "liberal" is wrong. Most Democrats are about as "liberal" as Clinton, and he was at best a moderate Rightist.

I think that response is far more often a sign of exasperation

--What do you have to be exasperated about? YOU WON.

Yet he, and anyone else who voted for Bush have been characterized in the most ugly of terms, by liberal pundits, liberal commentators, and just regluar liberals.

--There aren't that many "liberals" in our country, BTW, so I'd like to know who you're talking about.

Personally, I think unless you make more than $200,000 a year, if you voted for Bush you voted against your own economic interests and for a lot of destructive, wrong-headed things (like destroying gay rights in this country). I'm appalled by that. I think most reasonable people should be. I'm sad to see that so many people would rather hurt gay people than vote for the person who IMO would have done a slightly better job as President.

And I'm going to keep on saying so.

Is it any less provocative to tell someone they are ignorant if they happened to vote for Bush?

--Sure is. It isn't saying "I want you deported because you dare to disagree with me." It's saying, "If you honestly know all the facts about the bad and ignorant stuff this guy does, how could you vote for him?"

Is belittling their intellectual capacity and dismissing out of hand their opinion on a given topic the high ground?

--Never said it was right. You're dragging something in that isn't at issue here and I don't see why, unless you want to imply that I'm saying this behavior is okay. I never have, so I'd appreciate you dropping it. What I said was "at least we aren't trying to send you to Iran, as most Rightists want to do to us." BTW, do you think there would have been half the response on this thread without Dranoel's "get the hell out if you disagree with me" rant? I don't. I don't think even if I said "All people on the right are utterly wrong" anyone much would have replied.

The fact remains that this kind of attitude is mainly held by people on the political right in this country and is poisonous.

 

[cloudy]

--In my experience, this is nonsense. I have never seen Clinton brought up as a "golden child" by anyone who's truly on the left in this country. I've seen ignorant Democrats bring him up, certainly, but anyone who thinks the Democratic Party as a whole is "liberal" is wrong. Most Democrats are about as "liberal" as Clinton, and he was at best a moderate Rightist.

I've got to jump in here on this. You haven't been here as long as Colly has, or as long as I have, even, and we've both seen him touted as the golden child, by more than one person here. I'll be glad to dig up the threads if you'd like me to. You're very wrong here.

What do you have to be exasperated about? YOU WON.

In my opinion, nobody won. What makes you assume that Colly voted for Bush, or that I did, or that anybody that dares to be halfway conservative did, for that matter? Bush is an idiot, Kerry is a wienie - not much choice there.

I'm sad to see that so many people would rather hurt gay people than vote for the person who IMO would have done a slightly better job as President.

And I'm going to keep on saying so.

Say it all you want to, but it doesn't make it so. There's nothing at all to prove that Kerry would have done any better. If anything, I think his hands would have been tied with the congress and senate that we have now. It's pure speculation at this point as to what, if anything, he would have done, or been able to do.

And, just for clarification, gay marriage was not the only issue that made people vote for one or the other.

It isn't saying "I want you deported because you dare to disagree with me." It's saying, "If you honestly know all the facts about the bad and ignorant stuff this guy does, how could you vote for him?"

Just a dressed up way of saying if you voted for Bush, you must be ignorant, or stupid or both.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

--I spend a good deal of time on a conservative dominated board. I know how conservatives act. They tend to condemn anyone who disagrees with them about anything as "liberal," whether the person is or not.


--In my experience, this is nonsense. I have never seen Clinton brought up as a "golden child" by anyone who's truly on the left in this country. I've seen ignorant Democrats bring him up, certainly, but anyone who thinks the Democratic Party as a whole is "liberal" is wrong. Most Democrats are about as "liberal" as Clinton, and he was at best a moderate Rightist.


--What do you have to be exasperated about? YOU WON.


--There aren't that many "liberals" in our country, BTW, so I'd like to know who you're talking about.

Personally, I think unless you make more than $200,000 a year, if you voted for Bush you voted against your own economic interests and for a lot of destructive, wrong-headed things (like destroying gay rights in this country). I'm appalled by that. I think most reasonable people should be. I'm sad to see that so many people would rather hurt gay people than vote for the person who IMO would have done a slightly better job as President.

And I'm going to keep on saying so.


--Sure is. It isn't saying "I want you deported because you dare to disagree with me." It's saying, "If you honestly know all the facts about the bad and ignorant stuff this guy does, how could you vote for him?"


--Never said it was right. You're dragging something in that isn't at issue here and I don't see why, unless you want to imply that I'm saying this behavior is okay. I never have, so I'd appreciate you dropping it. What I said was "at least we aren't trying to send you to Iran, as most Rightists want to do to us." BTW, do you think there would have been half the response on this thread without Dranoel's "get the hell out if you disagree with me" rant? I don't. I don't think even if I said "All people on the right are utterly wrong" anyone much would have replied.

The fact remains that this kind of attitude is mainly held by people on the political right in this country and is poisonous.

A. I didn't vote for Bush. In fact I said very early in the affair I couldn't win and would support a third party candidate. I got accused of being stupid then by Kerry supporters, who demanded I accept a vote for anyone but Kerry was a vote for Bush. A position I will never accept.

B. Clinton is the golden boy of the Dmeocratic party. If you want to split hairs & claim the Dems aren't the liberal faction in this country, I can just as quickly say the GOP isn't currently the home of conservative thought , but of the Neo-cons, who aren't really conservatives but disillusioned liberals. If you wish to play a semantics game of rearangeing the identity of the parties to fit your ideas, I can do that, though I don't see much advantage to be gained by either of us in doing so.

C. I didn't win. I couldn't win. I saw no chance of victory for me in this election long before election day. Yet, I too am sick of the whining. It is tiresome, repetitive and for the most part pointless. A simple matra of I hate GW and I can't accept we lost the election, dressed up with this or that new importance. If you want to argue about specific policy or specific action, I do believe there is plenty within this administration to attack. If you want to keep running the same points into the ground, you have that right, but it loses any power it has through pointless repetition and invective.

D. Economic interests are a powerful incentive to vote. The GOP gave tax cuts, The Dems are widely held to have never met a tax hike they didn't like. They also favor policies, like socialized medicine, that would lead to massive tax hikes, in all likelyhood. So who are you, to make a decision on where the economic best interest of a voter lies?

You can't boil the election down to gay rights. Not in any realistic way. Many of my freinds back home could't give a hoot in hell about gays, it isn't on their radar. They do love hunting however, and vote for the party that isn't out to take away their constitutional right to have guns. I know a ton of people who don't care about gay rights at all, but consider abortion murder. Their vote was against evil, in their minds. I know a lot of simple, church going people, who are sick of liberals trying to remove religion from public life.

The fact is the Democrats and the liberals, if you wish to split hairs, have a program, and while it seems so wonderful to you, it's anathema to a hell of a lot of folks. So unarguably evil in their minds, that their economic interests run a pale second to the spectre of living in a country controlled by and adhereing to proponents of that program.

E. Just because YOU see specific actions as bad dosen't make them so. Ripping Bush, while offering Kerry as better is fine and dandy, until you get down to telling people why Kerry is better. He voted for the war, publicly stated he would have even if he had known there were no WMD's, has consitently voted against military spending, etc. So why was he so much better? Just because he isn't GWB dosen't cut it. No one ever put forth convincing arguments he was going to be any better than the sitting president. While to liberals, new and different = better, for conservatives, change is to be made only when it's self evident it's warranted. At no point was any argument made that I found convincing Kerry was better. In fact, the only argument I could give for voting for him (advice I did give to some people, by the way) was that all three branches of the govenemnt in the hands of one party seriously threatened the system of checks & balances.

F. I'm sure you would like me to drop it. It's kinda hard to sit on that moral high ground & pontificate while your co-religionists are off burning folks at the stake. It is however, not something I intend to drop. If you are going to scream about people telling you to take a hike, I'm going to continue to point out you are at the same time telling them they are too dumb to vote. Because in the end, they are both equally odious and inexcuseable. It's pretty hypocritical to demand rightests respect your right to protest while your group is saying they are too ignorant to be allowed to vote. They want to kick you out of the country, you want to disenfranchise them, I don't see either as falling into the zone of acceptable.

G. Posionous? Most likely. Considering the stance and words of liberals, do you have the moral strength to say so? Not hardly.

I return to my original supposition. It's a group dynamic, with each side as guilty as the other. Blaming one or the other is short sighted. If the liberals want to put an end to the partisan attacks, they need to get their own house in order and quit fostering their own campaign of vicious attacks. Until you have your own house in order, your protests are just so much more fodder for the rhetoric wars and are, likely as not, to garner simple reactions that range from indifference (here we go again) to vitriolic (if you don't like it get out).

Likely as not, even if you got your house in order, it wouldn't slow republican attacks, but it would give you at least somemoral authority to complain. Authority which the actions of other liberals currently deny you.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Of course there's a difference between not voting and voting for "None of the Above."

Not voting is being lazy and careless about the future of our country.

Voting "None of the Above" is showing that not only did one pull him or her self away from the daily activities to go through this process, but also that he or she gives enough of a shit to express his or her opinion as a US citizen who cares about the future of the country.

"None of the Above" would be the most brutally honest choice on a ballot. It's not there because the politicians can't handle that kind of honesty.

Yeah, and in countries where it interacts with the constitution, it has real results. If a majority vote none of the above in a Russian election, the system is considered broken and major reforms are demanded and both candidates are replaced for a new election.

I'm not sure a "none of the above" vote would have real results in America as a protest. That's because culturally it's assumed that if you don't vote for one of the two parties, you have thrown the vote away. How many people vote "the lesser of two evils" and say so publically? And how much have politicians changed their tone to correct it. If "none of the above" mattered institutionally however, it would be a big deal.

Personally, the best system in my mind would be a PR system, but I just can't see it being implanted into our system when we're having so much difficulty over the electoral college.

Basically anything that would allow extremists and moderates to divorce from each other and keep from the stupid political games of defending people we find counter to our interests is in my mind good.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

--What do you have to be exasperated about? YOU WON.

You're doing the lumping people into a left v. right stereotype thing that you were complaining about here, check yourself.

Yet you are right about the tone. Sure, the left is starting to actually strike back in tone now, but for the last 8+ years, the Right had been waging a war of rhetoric where having any left views meant you were a traitor, anti-American, a communist, Satanist, moralless, etc... Unfortunately, we must now reap the soil of such an activity. The left is tentatively striking back in the rhetoric. "Traitors," they say as they look into their old army uniform, "Well who gives a fuck about some rednecked bigot with a mind of a pea." And the rightie goes, "Hey how dare they fight back on such a level and attack us" and another rightie who hadn't been calling lefties traitors sees the comment and goes off on "communist college students" and the cycle repeats itself.

The war on rhetoric has been proven effective in the political field and since it has, it will become canon. So now, the rhetoric war will get uglier and uglier and will end either in mutual apology or civil war. Especially since a lot of the comments on the right, speaking from personal experience and the personal experiences of other righties, involve the threat of physical violence on lefties for being leftie. The threats for shipping off to Guantanamo or killing in a bar have been one-sided so far, but lefties are starting to strike back. I don't believe I need to paint a picture as to how that's gonna be bad. Once we're at the threats to each other's lives, reconcilation is dead and all that can exist is violence.

All of this is probably reason # 456708883797797 of why I despise modern politics.