Whining about U.S. Politics

[tyrannosaurus vex]

it's nothing you people don't already know, but i feel like bitching out loud anyway.

Recently, there has been another Big Media Stink about the funding for the Iraq war.  Allegedly, congressional Democrats wanted to stick in some bullshit about the funding being contingent mandatory troop withdrawal in the next few months to a year from now.  It was a big show about how the Democrats were "Really Trying" to give the people what they want.  Of course, Bush said flat-out from the beginning he would veto the bill if it passed Congressional approval, which he did, and then they went back and forth about it like they always do about everything.  No surprises there.

But what does get to me is that our two-faced single-party system is beginning to show signs of completely giving up any illusion of internal debate.  This ploy by the Democrats was flagrantly fake: the Democrats knew their insistence upon troop withdrawal would never make it past Bush's desk, and they knew they didn't have the numbers in Congress to override his veto.  But what's more is that anybody following the story would have known that as well.  How can it be that the Democrats expect to be taken seriously?

It's obvious they have no intention of actually ending the war.  They just want to put "We Tried" on their resume.  For once I agree with the President -- it's cheap political theater.  But it's of such low quality that it's almost scary.  Now the Democrats aren't even trying to be the opposition party.  Instead of making progress where it might be possible -- education, health care, poverty, crime -- they're making big statements and showing off how ridiculous our system is, that it can make this kind of mockery of the will of the general population.  We always knew that the system is a joke, but now the Democrats are laughing out loud, in the faces of the people getting screwed.  They're not trying to hide the monolithic structure of the US Government.

This is just an empty rant. </end>

[AFK]

as far as I'm concerned.

spot on.  The Democrats are just as hopeless as the Republicans.  Politics has become so blatantly transparent now.  It's like you said, they just want to put this on their Political Resume which they will cut and paste into their political ads.  And, from a strategic standpoint, they're pretty much strong-arming the Republicans.  They have little choice, they either have to side with a vastly unpopular President and a vastly unpopular war, or support the Democrats.  There is no win for them.  That's what makes it all so pathetic.  And it's only going to serve, in my mind, to further decrease the voting pool as voters tune out.  At least, those who are able to see what really is going on.

but yeah, spot on!!!!

[Cramulus]

word, dude.

repost, but appropriate:

[The Good Reverend Roger]

it's nothing you people don't already know, but i feel like bitching out loud anyway.

Recently, there has been another Big Media Stink about the funding for the Iraq war.  Allegedly, congressional Democrats wanted to stick in some bullshit about the funding being contingent mandatory troop withdrawal in the next few months to a year from now.  It was a big show about how the Democrats were "Really Trying" to give the people what they want.  Of course, Bush said flat-out from the beginning he would veto the bill if it passed Congressional approval, which he did, and then they went back and forth about it like they always do about everything.  No surprises there.

But what does get to me is that our two-faced single-party system is beginning to show signs of completely giving up any illusion of internal debate.  This ploy by the Democrats was flagrantly fake: the Democrats knew their insistence upon troop withdrawal would never make it past Bush's desk, and they knew they didn't have the numbers in Congress to override his veto.  But what's more is that anybody following the story would have known that as well.  How can it be that the Democrats expect to be taken seriously?

It's obvious they have no intention of actually ending the war.  They just want to put "We Tried" on their resume.  For once I agree with the President -- it's cheap political theater.  But it's of such low quality that it's almost scary.  Now the Democrats aren't even trying to be the opposition party.  Instead of making progress where it might be possible -- education, health care, poverty, crime -- they're making big statements and showing off how ridiculous our system is, that it can make this kind of mockery of the will of the general population.  We always knew that the system is a joke, but now the Democrats are laughing out loud, in the faces of the people getting screwed.  They're not trying to hide the monolithic structure of the US Government.

This is just an empty rant. </end>

They could have dug in their heels and shut the government down.

But they pussed out.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

They could have dug in their heels and shut the government down.

But they pussed out.

yeah, but then who would give them $17 billion dollars to fund whatever it is Democrats pay for these days?

[Cain]

You know the origin of the left/right political spectrum, don't you (putting aside for the moment that the Dems are not really a left wing party).

Back in the bad old days of the French monarchy, there were two factions of courtiers and advisors, who would try and influence the King to implement their policies.  They would set on the left or the right of the King while he was in session, depending on their inclinations and allies at the court.  Both were, regardless of policy and infighting, still responsible to the King.

Nearly 300 years later, people still blather about the right and left.  But what they fail to realize is it makes no difference, because both serve the same master.  Of course, the United States does not have a King.  Apparently, the people are sovereign.  That is, the people who are being robbed blind by the courtiers of the real American monarchy, bullied and coerced into thinking that the system is not only the best in the world, but has always been this way.

Of course, once you have a monarchy, keeping up the pretence of debate is sooo time consuming.  And people might think they actually have a right to have their opinions taken into account, or something.  So you need one party with absolutely insane opinions and a belief in their absolute rightness (religion is always good for this) and opposing them, a party which will weakly echo the former one, with some watered down policy.  All the more radical reformists will be weighed down by the sheer force of party conformity and piddling issues like debate and democracy will fade slowly into the background.

[Random Probability]

Add to that, the current scheme appeals to the Short Attention Span Theater of the masses.  Four year cycles between changes in the puppet head doesn't allow for long term goals.  Instead they demand "quick fixes", and all you need to do that is scribble a note, shift some money around, and stop reporting bad news about whatever it was that "needed fixing".

[AFK]

I think it's always been that way, or at least, as long as Politics has been part of the whole thing.  It is extremely difficult for Congress to pass any meaningful legislations when half of the building is running a campaign every other year.  Of course you've also got a third of the other house running for re-election at any given time.  does anybody remember the last piece of meaningful legislation that was enacted by the Congress, outside of authorizing war?  I mean, something that made life better for the citizenry of the United States?

[LMNO]

The repeal of prohibition?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it's always been that way, or at least, as long as Politics has been part of the whole thing.  It is extremely difficult for Congress to pass any meaningful legislations when half of the building is running a campaign every other year.  Of course you've also got a third of the other house running for re-election at any given time.  does anybody remember the last piece of meaningful legislation that was enacted by the Congress, outside of authorizing war?  I mean, something that made life better for the citizenry of the United States?

I think you meant: " I mean, something that made life better for the corporations of the United States?"

[LMNO]

Actually, I think my response works that way, too.

The repeal of prohibition?

[AFK]

yeah, like taxing our e-mails.  

Hey, anyone catch the testimony of that Goodlings' chick the other day?  

It was pretty much the following:

Senator:  Miss Goodling do you know who authorised the firings of the 8 U.S. Attorneys?
Goodling: I dunno, I'm just a dumb blonde, look at my hair, ain't I pretty and cute, sir?

next verse same as the first

[tyrannosaurus vex]

yes, it's all bullshit. but this shit has teeth.

wait until all these dumbfuck politicians realize that RIGHT NOW they could get away with dropping the charade completely and just switch over to Totalitarian Mode, and probably less than 5% of the US population would so much as roll their eyes at it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You know the origin of the left/right political spectrum, don't you (putting aside for the moment that the Dems are not really a left wing party).

Back in the bad old days of the French monarchy, there were two factions of courtiers and advisors, who would try and influence the King to implement their policies.  They would set on the left or the right of the King while he was in session, depending on their inclinations and allies at the court.  Both were, regardless of policy and infighting, still responsible to the King.

Nearly 300 years later, people still blather about the right and left.  But what they fail to realize is it makes no difference, because both serve the same master.  Of course, the United States does not have a King.  Apparently, the people are sovereign.  That is, the people who are being robbed blind by the courtiers of the real American monarchy, bullied and coerced into thinking that the system is not only the best in the world, but has always been this way.

Of course, once you have a monarchy, keeping up the pretence of debate is sooo time consuming.  And people might think they actually have a right to have their opinions taken into account, or something.  So you need one party with absolutely insane opinions and a belief in their absolute rightness (religion is always good for this) and opposing them, a party which will weakly echo the former one, with some watered down policy.  All the more radical reformists will be weighed down by the sheer force of party conformity and piddling issues like debate and democracy will fade slowly into the background.

Thank you Cain. You're intellectual criticism of the system makes me feel vindicated where my own, less eloquent, take is usually dismissed as cynicism

[Jenne]

I'm just reallly wondering at what folks were saying, in conversations like this thread, during the Vietnam War era.

All along the way, I have felt that with this administration, this is just second verse, same as the first.  And I wish I could say that a Democratic presitator will change all this in 2 years...but I fear s/he won't.  They'll just suck up the shit from the last 2 terms and belch out more of their own.