Libyan War

[DeTomaso]

No war is good, but the actual question should be: "How correct/righteous are men?"

 

Righteousness presupposes knowledge of both sides of the story. And because we're focused on just one preferred side demonizing the other as is usual we are perfectly unjust. And even more worse, we feel comfortable with it. We don't need to think about it anymore until we have to pay the bill.

Edited June 4, 2011 by DeTomaso

[nosisab]

No war is good, but the actual question should be: "How correct/righteous are men?"

 

Righteousness presupposes knowledge of both sides of the story. And because we're focused on just one preferred side demonizing the other as is usual we are perfectly unjust. And even more worse, we feel comfortable with it. We don't need to think about it anymore until we have to pay the bill.

That's the point, we should never forget/disregard who/what is really manipulating behind the scene for such situation instead diluting the responsibility on broader things.

 

Until mankind grows enough (if ever) to charge the "governing men" masked behind the "governs", I see no hope. Being from a country where corruption became the rule instead exception and impunity is absolute, I feel it in the flesh.

[HeyYou]

No war is good, but the actual question should be: "How correct/righteous are men?"

 

Righteousness presupposes knowledge of both sides of the story. And because we're focused on just one preferred side demonizing the other as is usual we are perfectly unjust. And even more worse, we feel comfortable with it. We don't need to think about it anymore until we have to pay the bill.

That's the point, we should never forget/disregard who/what is really manipulating behind the scene for such situation instead diluting the responsibility on broader things.

 

Until mankind grows enough (if ever) to charge the "governing men" masked behind the "governs", I see no hope. Being from a country where corruption became the rule instead exception and impunity is absolute, I feel it in the flesh.

 

Same thing is happening here. If you aren't corrupt when you go to washington, you will be after being there for a little while. Our government needs a major overhaul.

[DeTomaso]

To reach a major overhaul you have to change your electoral behavior first. Swing voting with temporary emphasis on minor parties is the key to make the big ones get going ... into the desired direction.

[Aurielius]

To reach a major overhaul you have to change your electoral behavior first. Swing voting with temporary emphasis on minor parties is the key to make the big ones get going ... into the desired direction.

Given the history of third parties in the US, it is just registering a protest vote not changing the outcome of the election, it might make you feel good but that is about all. The exception might be in local politics at the county or state level but with rare exception such as Vermont there really are no viable federal alternatives outside of the classic two. Better to attempt change within the mainstream than cry in the wilderness.

[HeyYou]

To reach a major overhaul you have to change your electoral behavior first. Swing voting with temporary emphasis on minor parties is the key to make the big ones get going ... into the desired direction.

Given the history of third parties in the US, it is just registering a protest vote not changing the outcome of the election, it might make you feel good but that is about all. The exception might be in local politics at the county or state level but with rare exception such as Vermont there really are no viable federal alternatives outside of the classic two. Better to attempt change within the mainstream than cry in the wilderness.

 

Trouble is, the two main parties are well aware of the fact that third parties have no real chance of winning, and at best, take votes away from the person you would REALLY like to win...... Most times, the choices just suck, and you end up picking the lesser of two evils, or, voting for the guy that is least painful to you. Of late, there is so little difference on major issues between the two parties, that you might just as well flip a quarter for who gets your vote. Either way, your are not likely to enjoy the outcome.

[marharth]

To reach a major overhaul you have to change your electoral behavior first. Swing voting with temporary emphasis on minor parties is the key to make the big ones get going ... into the desired direction.

Given the history of third parties in the US, it is just registering a protest vote not changing the outcome of the election, it might make you feel good but that is about all. The exception might be in local politics at the county or state level but with rare exception such as Vermont there really are no viable federal alternatives outside of the classic two. Better to attempt change within the mainstream than cry in the wilderness.

 

Trouble is, the two main parties are well aware of the fact that third parties have no real chance of winning, and at best, take votes away from the person you would REALLY like to win...... Most times, the choices just suck, and you end up picking the lesser of two evils, or, voting for the guy that is least painful to you. Of late, there is so little difference on major issues between the two parties, that you might just as well flip a quarter for who gets your vote. Either way, your are not likely to enjoy the outcome.

If you are a US voter, you are always voting for the lesser of the two evils.

 

Honestly voting is just trying to delay the country being destroyed, if it keeps going like this it won't get fixed from electing new people.

[DeTomaso]

To reach a major overhaul you have to change your electoral behavior first. Swing voting with temporary emphasis on minor parties is the key to make the big ones get going ... into the desired direction.

Given the history of third parties in the US, it is just registering a protest vote not changing the outcome of the election, it might make you feel good but that is about all. The exception might be in local politics at the county or state level but with rare exception such as Vermont there really are no viable federal alternatives outside of the classic two. Better to attempt change within the mainstream than cry in the wilderness.

Don't be naive. It's almost impossible to initiate a visible change of a set major party from within.

To understand the mechanisms of change from outside you've to investigate European politics for example.

A political change is usually founded in protest against the establishment first, protest for a change for the better that involves everybody and not just a few.

Once the protest is established politically, the shift of the other parties towards the protest themes forcibly begins. Competition is good for business.If it goes both ways, well, then you've probably seen the birth of a new major party.

But above all, the voters have to learn to vote for a party program instead of a party face. The face is interchangeable at will and ad hoc, the program is not. That's why many of you are often disappointed by colorful faces that cannot come up to expectations, finally ending colorless. Yes you can! Unfortunately, they cannot, simply by means of set party compulsion. The decisive questions are: What do the people actually want and what are they willing to change to reach the goal? The hair will turn grey and the change has not yet come if one just sits and waits for state gifts and internal hindsights in mischief such as corruption, to mention but one of many.

Edited June 5, 2011 by DeTomaso

[Aurielius]

@ Detomaso

The current third parties with registrations exceeding 100k are the Constitution Party , Green Party, Libertarian Party and of course the Tea Party. To my mind the only two that ever have elected more than single representatives are the Libertarians and the the Tea Party. Both the Libertarian and the Tea party are attempting to redirect the course of their mainstream counterpart the Republican Party, one from within the other from without, to my mind these are the only that stand a snowball's chance in hell of achieving their objective. I have been called many things but naive has never been one of them, I prefer the concept of pragmatism over illusory idealism. Even if one carefully ascertained the individual platforms for every legislator that would run in your area there is the small matter of the the party whips on both sides, even excluding that issue there is the necessity of compromise or flat out deal making to pass any initiative so I don't think that I am the one being naive here.

 

" If you are not an idealist by the time you are twenty you have no heart, but if you are still an idealist by the time you are thirty, you don't have a head"

- Randolph Bourne

Edited June 5, 2011 by Aurielius

[DeTomaso]

Don't ever look backwards to make dark prognoses for the future. Move! The past offers no solution.

If one doesn't want to move one shouldn't grumble about today mischiefs that are rooted in the past.

These mischiefs predominantly exist because of the lack of flexibility among the voters. Keep that in mind.