Support NeoGAF

[Who]

There are a number of things thats aggravate me about the modern-day, mainstream liberal (forsaking honest discourse for political correctness is a big one) but what I wish to focus the attention of this post to what I believe is the most destructive part about their beliefs and efforts.

The world around us...is well...its fucked: We have a completely backwards and unsustainable economy dependant on finite resources; we are governed under an oligarchical power structure that is not at all representative of the wills of the people; we are seeing a startling rise in the militarization of police and police brutality; we see the rich and the powerful get more rich and powerful; we have a government that frivolously borrows, spends, and wastes billions of dollars while many of its citizens suffer through expensive healthcare costs, a failing educational system, and poverty; We have a government who has granted themselves the right to invade our individual right to privacy; A government with the ability to wiretap any citizen at any time, at any part of the country; A government with the capacity to store said information in a data center capable of storing approx 12 entire internets; We see corruption, dishonesty and greed being rewarded. Everything is just … fucked.

Now many of you may be scratching your heads now as you may, on-paper, wholeheartedly agree that these are issues that need addressing. What is the problem then? The problem, from my view, is that the modern-day, mainstream liberal is doing absolutely nothing to help solve these injustices. If anything they are only contributing to the mess.

Historically in the story of human progress, being a liberal isn’t an easy thing to do. It requires addressing difficult questions and stating unpopular opinions under the risk of being scrutinized by peers or un-fairly labeled by the masses. It requires one to always be willing to fight the un-popular fight and to stand for un-popular causes. It requires constantly challenging the public's lackadaisical and apathetic attitudes that allow these gross injustices to prosper. Liberalism, in it’s purest form, demands of an individual the utmost courage, humility, and perseverance that a human is capable of.

Sadly, these are not attributes I can ascribe to the modern-day, mainstream liberal. The extent of which I see any semblance of liberals challenging the destructive behaviors and ideals that plague our world being practiced is limited only to battling the core beliefs of those on the extreme-right. Ideological battles over issues such as global-warming, gay rights, universal health-care are very important to have, don't get me wrong, but they are often missing the point of problems that plague our society. In the grand scheme of things, these are rather easy battles to win and one doesn't risk much by siding left on these issues.

So what battles do I expect liberals to fight? Well, to be frank, what I see is a system in place that all but supports the growth of these problems and radically impedes the prospect of real progress in our society. That's right, the system, that's the battle we need to fight.

Cue the eye rolls.

I probably won't be telling you anything that you didn't already know by saying this, but it remains true: The influence that corporations and banks have over our leaders and policy decisions is the primary cause of many of the serious issues we face today. It is the cancerous growth in our world that promotes short-term, profit-based thinking over logical solutions and sustainable growth. It has created a power structure in which the wills of the masses are ignored in favor of further filling the pockets of the rich and the powerful. It is a cancer in our society that is rapidly depleting the world of its resources and furthering the divide of the rich and the poor.

It's the entire system that's the problem. No it's not just the Republicans, and no it's not just corporations. It's the system.

A system that I sadly find so many liberals happily supporting. If you are somehow deluded into simply believing that Democrats are the good guys and the answer is simply to elect more people with a (D) next to their name, I challenge you to take a step back and find a more rational, unbiased view of the way things work. Your favorite politician may very well say the things you'd like them to say (Hilary Clinton promised to topple the 1% yay!) and they may be seemingly fighting the battles you want them to fight, but they are all still being funded by the same groups and corporations that are the undeniable root to many of the problems we face.

You may see democrat-led legislation, such the Affordable Care Act, as an unprecedented achievement in the progress of our country. After all, more Americans are covered with health insurance now so how can that possibly be a bad thing? But anyone who does any real research on the ACA can also see how much of a giant love letter it is to the pharmaceutical companies that lobbied for it. It may appear to you as a noble step-forward, but on the flip side it also did nothing but contribute to the growth of influence that these corporations have on our world.

It frustrates me to see so many smart, intelligent people still playing along with a system that is so obviously stacked against them. We all see the same things. We all saw a Democrat-controlled Supreme Court rule that Corporations have the same rights as people. We see the same political players caught in lies and scandals, time and time again, and see the same supporters willing and able to shrug it off and to say "Ah well that's to be expected! I hope that doesn't come back to bite them in the ass!". We see billions of dollars used in campaigns every year and know very well where that money came from and know very well the terms that came with it. We see the system as a whole and we realize how corrupt, inefficient, and cruel it really is. We see it, but we do nothing but pick a side and hope for the best.

"So what the hell do you expect me to do?", you might be thinking, "Become a third party supporter? Become an Anarchist?"

Well that's where true liberalism must come into play. It's an extremely easy feat to focus on one aspect of the system and lay that to blame for causing all the world's troubles. All you have to do is a pick a side and all the reasoning and logic has already been worked out for you: readily available, laid out nice and neat. You can take comfort in knowing what the right side of the argument is, who the enemy is, and what needs to be done (elect more X party! Less Y party!) You can turn on your TV anytime of the day and see attractive, successful, well-spoken people from your side agreeing with everything you have agreed to believe. You can google evidence for global warming and gain a sense of intellectual superiority after discovering you're on the side that is smarter than Sarah Palin. You can remain safe and cozily as a member of a club shared by millions of other bright and intelligent people. You can do this and you can do this quite easily. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing anything of great value or impact. From my view, simply supporting the latest candidate put forth by the establishment (*cough* Hilary Clinton *cough*) really only is allowing all of your outrage, all of your hopes for a better world etc., to be siphoned into a nicely organized social mechanism where your voice and genuine concerns are coddled by empty campaign promises spout forth by dishonest politicians.

Attacking the system as a whole is a much more complicated and difficult feat. It's loaded with much more difficult questions and would force us to come face to face with the more grim realities of our world. It comes with the fear of being associated with the loons of the world (conspiracy theorists, the Alex Jones listeners, the Ron Paul supporters etc.). It's an undeniably difficult battle but it's the battle we should be having.

I'm not suggesting a revolution. We still have the sacred power to vote. But the truth is, if a candidate ever arises that would truly challenge the system and the status quo of our fucked up world, he or she would not be granted the same establishment support and positioning enjoyed by the Mitt Romneys and Hilary Clintons of the world. Such a candidate would, for hopefully obvious reasons, have an extremely hard time creating traction and raising the money needed to successfully campaign against more established candidates. It's up to us to change that and with the rise of freely available information and social networking, the time to do so has never been more opportune.

I don't claim to know what the exact answer is and who the right men and women are.. but my hope is that if we can all at least admit that the candidates chosen for us by the establishment, and supported by the mainstream media, will do nothing to help fix these problems, then perhaps the public mindset will shift and make way for candidates willing and capable of effecting real change to succeed.

If you can agree that corporate influences are cancerous to humanity's progress, then you should view any candidate that accepts these funds as unreliable vehicles to effect the change you want to see.

If things are going to change, it will take work on our part. It will take courage, persistence, and real effort. It will require us to spark uncomfortable conversations at the dinner table and the office break room. It will require in us humility to not just side with one-of-the-two sides in political discussions, but to take the stance against the system as a whole, all the while bearing the raised eyebrows and dismissive scoffs that will inevitably arise from our peers and colleagues. Doing so may at first seem like a helpless venture, but if we are going to change public perception on how the system actually functions, i see it starting
with these conversations.

The mainstream approach to tackling these serious issues is increasingly put forth in a plainly black and white manner. We need to accept that solutions to these issues will not be found in black or white, clean-cut answers, but rather in the scarily murky gray where concrete facts are few and intellectual and moral dilemmas loom unsolved. We need to sympathize with those on the opposing intellectual spectrum and not just reduce their reasonings to being ignorant and idiotic, but perhaps start by understanding their core beliefs and why some may not fully trust the government with the powers many wish to grant them.

Yes Republicans and extreme conservatives have their own delusions and misinformed opinions that need addressing but this thread is targeted to those on the left. Winning important intellectual battles will not be done by lowering ourselves to the lowest common denominator of the opposing side. It won’t be accomplished by allowing ourselves to be dragged down into the pointless mud-slinging that currently defines the landscape in which political discourse is had. It won’t be solved with ineffective debates which boil down to incessantly attacking a piece shit while valiantly defending a shit that appears slightly shinier.

As liberals, as people who want injustices to be solved and progress to occur, let's take it upon ourselves to be the bigger man.

This is my view and I fully expect dismissive responses and nasty vitriol to be abundant in this thread, but to those willing to debate me in a collegiate manner, I hope we can have some good conversations.

I know i’m not the best writer in the world and can admit I have a difficult time organizing my thoughts in a cohesive manner. But hopefully I was able to get my point across, and hopefully, if you find my views misguided, you can find in my writings the reasonings and lines of thinking that led me to adopt these views, and thus be able to challenge them specifically. I like to consider myself humble enough to admit I know very little about the world, but based off what I gathered so far in my young life, these are the views I have.

TLDR: Regardless of what your views are of the world, we have no help of seeing any real progress as long as our politicians are bought out by corporate influences. Let’s focus on fixing the corrupt environment in which policies are formed and public opinions are molded first, so that we can then move on to effectively solving the vast abundance of issues that impede our society.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Reasonable enough, you're saying hold your side up to the same standards you use to criticize the political opposition. I'd like to hope that everyone feels that way, unless they are paid to be spin doctors.

Edit: Also, your point would be better and easier to understand if you gave some specific examples. It sounds like a very general rant with nothing to actually discuss.

 

[Azih]

You do realize that was exactly what Occupy Wall Street was doing?

 

[Oersted]

Are you adressing to american or liberals worldwide? If it is the former, there is a point to be made, that the left which challenged the system, has been pretty much killed off. Trough denouncation up to literally getting killed.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

I recommend taking corporate money out of politics and raising the standards of education to be on par with the #1 in the world.

Our society should heal after that.

 

[Blargonaut]

Who, Who?

Who could be the ideal modern liberal representative?

I mean not you, Who. I mean who?

 

[Who]

Reasonable enough, you're saying hold your side up to the same standards you use to criticize the political opposition. I'd like to hope that everyone feels that way, unless they are paid to be spin doctors.

Edit: Also, your point would be better and easier to understand if you gave some specific examples. It sounds like a very general rant with nothing to actually discuss.

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

You have honorable intentions but in the real world its not practical. Especially against the modern day Republican party.

 

[xxracerxx]

Why limit this very broad discussion to only the left and not just the government in general? Seems very short sided.

 

[cloudstrife]

So the OP wants us to support Bernie Sanders?

I am cool with that.

 

[JJDinomite]

Who, Who?

Who could be the ideal modern liberal representative?

I mean not you, Who. I mean who?

I'm ready for Hillary.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

Corporate influence is never going away. If anything, it's only going to get worse.

I base my vote on:

Tier 1
-Would this person's political positions affect a wide group of people?
-Would it be negative or positive?

Tier 2
-Does it affect me?
-Would it be negative or positive?
-If I personally don't like it, but it will help a lot of people, can I deal with it?

And I can sleep well at night with that decision. Liberals have problems, but at least they don't care who's buying what cakes.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Why limit this very broad discussion to only the left and not just the government in general? Seems very short sided.

He's disappointed with the modern liberal but agrees with liberalism. He doesn't want to bother with conservatives, in the sense that there's no hope there.

 

[Trojita]

You are equating trying to make things better in a system that is fucked up to being complacent with it. We vote for the democrats propped up to represent us because history has shown they enact and enforce law at a degree that benefits the greater America than the other party.

Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent a change in the system. You make this point:

I'm not suggesting a revolution. We still have the sacred power to vote. But the truth is, if a candidate ever arises that would truly challenge the system and the status quo of our fucked up world, he or she would not be granted the same establishment support and positioning enjoyed by the Mitt Romneys and Hilary Clintons of the world. Such a candidate would, for hopefully obvious reasons, have an extremely hard time creating traction and raising the money needed to successfully campaign against more established candidates. It's up to us to change that and with the rise of freely available information and social networking, the time to do so has never been more opportune.

The Republicans and Neoconservatives have made SUPER PACs a legal thing. There's a no brainer reason why we vote for the only party that can appose them.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't know were you are getting that liberals are happily going with the status quo. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I know for a fact that a lot those claims you are making are not even close to being true on the subject that liberals are just happily going with everything.

Those things that mentioned like NSA, police militarization and brutality, corporate power, money in politics, etc have all been heavily criticized by liberals or people that lean left, and most only by them. Even quite a few democrats don't like some of that stuff either.

Now there's is a point that liberals should do more instead of bitching on the internet and not voting, which something many of them do. But it is unfair to say that liberals are okay with it.

The real problem is that many of them just complain and don't do anything about it, besides betting on a Jesus to solve all the problems for them. Also many liberals support Elizabeth and Sanders, both whom don't support none of those things that are considered a problem like money in politics, corps, etc

 

[maquiladora]

I'm not sure there's any hope for changing this type of system OP. It's one of those things that should happen, but it just seems very unlikely.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You can't fix human nature, OP, and so long as humans continue they will find ways to eventually exploit whatever system is put in place. You can take corporation's influence out of politics and you'll still be left with things like religion or other sources of power. Best you can do is vote for who you think will do the best job now. There will never be such a thing as corruption free politics.

 

[Who]

He's disappointed with the modern liberal but agrees with liberalism. He doesn't want to bother with conservatives, in the sense that there's no hope there.

Kind of. I sympathize with conservatism in that feel problems are better off solved when the responsibility lays solely with the individual and the community rather than expecting our corrupt government to magically solve these issues.

Yes welfare is a good idea but we wouldn't need it if we would all have the compassion to take care of our own. Medicine has improved greatly but at the same time, there was a time when hospitals would treat anyone in their community regardless of whether or not they had enough money, insurance etc.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

Alright, that's better, something more specific to discuss. I'll say that even though you addressed this to your fellow Liberals and I am not a Liberal, I'd agree with you on this general point. There's no reason besides habit that we still only have two viable candidates in the information age. I get why we had that setup before the Internet, back when information was more centralized.

Today, like-minded "niche" voters can easily network online and coordinate their votes to an extent that they are not statistically insignificant in polls. The 1992 election with Bush/Clinton/Perot was the only time it's happened in my lifetime, and I honestly wonder why. Why not have viable mainstream conservative, mainstream liberal, progressive, hard right conservative, libertarian, and socialist candidates in the general election race? Choice is supposed to be good, right?

 

[BamfMeat]

"So what the hell do you expect me to do?", you might be thinking, "Become a third party supporter? Become an Anarchist?"

This is the exact question. Yes, I want to fight the system as much as anyone who hates it, but I'm pretty fucking powerless compared to these huge-ass corporations that are not only filled with more like-minded people, but also have almost-unlimited funds to make sure that my voice is completely drown out. And let us not forget that they're now too big to fail and that same government will bail them out if needed.

I live and work and reside in the system because it's the only system there. Change will come, but I don't believe it'll ever be in my lifetime.

The 1992 election with Bush/Clinton/Perot was the only time it's happened in my lifetime, and I honestly wonder why. Why not have viable mainstream conservative, mainstream liberal, progressive, hard right conservative, libertarian, and socialist candidates in the general election race? Choice is supposed to be good, right?

$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

People aren't supporting Hillary necessarily because they think she will be a catalyst for massive change (newsflash, that isn't happening with a Rep controlled Congress) they are supporting her because it is the best chance of stopping Republicans from taking the White House. You think Warren would beat Jeb Bush, honestly?

I know you want to shift, but it isn't going to happen, it cannot happen.

 

[Abinash117]

People aren't supporting Hillary necessarily because they think she will be a catalyst for massive change (newsflash, that isn't happening with a Rep controlled Congress) they are supporting her because it is the best chance of stopping Republicans from taking the White House. You think Warren would beat Jeb Bush, honestly?

I know you want to shift, but it isn't going to happen, it cannot happen.

This exactly.

This is the reason that some liberals support Hillary.

You can't expect change when part of state, local , and congressmen with conservative judges all of who been voted into power by normal people, don't want know of those to change . That's one of the reasons why liberal blame Republicans.

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

That could happen if a large group of liberals make another political party, but the easier solution is change the Democratic party by electing liberals which is happening. The two-party system is really ingrained in the political system of the USA so you will have to elect one of the two lesser evils no matter what. Like I said the best solution is electing liberals that caucus with democrats, are democrats, or at least agree with the policies in state, local, and federal elections. But liberals are kinda lazy.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Today, like-minded "niche" voters can easily network online and coordinate their votes to an extent that they are not statistically insignificant in polls. The 1992 election with Bush/Clinton/Perot was the only time it's happened in my lifetime, and I honestly wonder why. Why not have viable mainstream conservative, mainstream liberal, progressive, hard right conservative, libertarian, and socialist candidates in the general election race? Choice is supposed to be good, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Watch this to understand why the US (and other places) are stuck in a two-party system.

 

[Anjelus_]

OP, how old are you?

 

[djplaeskool]

$$$$$$$$$$$

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBwAxmrE194

 

[JinjoUnchained]

$$$$$$$$$$$

Well, yeah, that's why the Democratic Party and GOP try to keep it a two party system. They want all voters who are at least on their end of the political spectrum to "fall in line" so they can retain power and deliver for their constituents.

But why do voters settle for two party system? The voters don't actually see any of the "$$$$$$$$$$$" that you're referring to.

 

[Angry Grimace]

This exactly.

This is the reason that some liberals support Hillary.

It is simply a rational choice to put your money on the probable winner. Part of this is because there is rarely a meaningful distinction between different individuals of the same party beyond their rhetoric.

 

[highoffcoffee496]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It is just exceedingly naive, people are shouting Warren!

You think Warren would be the Warren she is now in the White House, you think she would get anything more done than Hillary Clinton?

 

[Who]

I know you want to shift, but it isn't going to happen, it cannot happen.

This is the ideology im trying to challenge. It can happen but it would be extremely difficult and would require us to leave our comfort zones and have more difficult conversations without falling back on the old rationale of: "b-b-but republicans!"

 

[Bodacious]

You do realize that was exactly what Occupy Wall Street was doing?

Well, that and a good bit of shitting in public.


The only input most of us get is to vote, and people feel their vote is wasted if they don't vote for the lesser of two evils, OP. Even to the point of ignoring that both choices are evil.

 

[AntoneM]

I would argue that getting more Democrats into government is exactly what liberals need to do. It makes it easier to then push them toward more liberal ideas, like publicly financed campaigns. It's much harder to push a Republican toward liberal ideas than it is to push a Democrat. The more Democrats in government means that government will lean more liberal.

Without revolution, this is the best foreseeable way enact liberal legislation.

 

[Chezzymann]

I agree. I've always found it strange how fixing the system isn't the utmost priority above all else. (besides climate change, but I guess you need to fix the system first before that) There are definitely other extremely important things like gay rights and police brutality but to me the overall focus is in the wrong place.

Occupy Wall Street was a step in the right direction but it was fizzled out quickly. I wonder why.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

This is the ideology im trying to challenge. It can happen but it would be extremely difficult and would require us to leave our comfort zones and have more difficult conversations without falling back on the old rationale of: "b-b-but republicans!"

It is something you are trying to challenge without any reflection on what you are asking.

You want Warren I take it? You honestly think Warren would be the person she is today IF (which has zero chance of happening) she made it to the White House. You think she would be able to get a modicum of reform through that Hillary wouldn't be able to get through?

You need to change Congress and I have some bad news for you. That isn't changing till the voting public changes. So long as congressional elections keep getting grandma and grandpa out to vote and 'kids' stay home you will keep getting the same politicians in office.

 

[FriedConsole]

Also, your point would be better and easier to understand if you gave some specific examples. It sounds like a very general rant with nothing to actually discuss.

Yeah nobody wants to talk about details because that divides people. The rant sounds as vague as Occupy Wall Street. You think you got a better system than controlled capitalism lets hear some details than "we need corporations to stop being greedy".

I like my Apple products made by one of the greediest and the most profitable company on Earth that uses borderline slave labor to make their products. What should we impose on them to stop this? Anybody?

I am doing my part by Tweeting and Facebooking the latest hot button issue. It makes me feel like I am part of something despite actually doing nothing.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I grew tired of the default association with the Democratic party as the mainstream 'left' position a few elections ago. Feels like there are zero serious candidates interested in actually moving that party in a progressive direction, and are simply content to act like a dull counterweight to extremist right positions because it is very effective at bolstering support.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

The problem is that we've gravitated to Big-tent political parties in the US. These political parties are really umbrella organizations for a spectrum of voters. So, unfortunately, the politicians with the lowest common denominator ideologies (i.e., least offensive, most safe political sentiments) usually wins out for both parties. This leads to reinforcement of the status quo rather than upending it.

 

[xxracerxx]

Kind of. I sympathize with conservatism in that feel problems are better off solved when the responsibility lays solely with the individual and the community rather than expecting our corrupt government to magically solve these issues.

Yes welfare is a good idea but we wouldn't need it if we would all have the compassion to take care of our own. Medicine has improved greatly but at the same time, there was a time when hospitals would treat anyone in their community regardless of whether or not they had enough money, insurance etc.

Welfare, food stamps, etc is taking care of our own. Not too mention hospitals are required by law to treat anyone in an emergency. They cannot turn you away. Some places even do charity care and won't charge you out the wazoo.

What time period/place are you trying to get back to with these ideals?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

I would argue that getting more Democrats into government is exactly what liberals need to do. It makes it easier to then push them to more liberal ideas, like publicly financed campaigns. The Democrats in government means that government will lean more liberal.

Without revolution, this is the best foreseeable way enact liberal legislation.

You also have to get young liberals to vote in non presidential elections for that to happen.

Look at how many democrats lost to republicans during midterm elections. There aren't many good democratic candidates because there isnt any time for them to flourish and grow or there aren't any running in the first place because they never get off the ground locally.

 

[Who]

Well, that and a good bit of shitting in public.


The only input most of us get is to vote, and people feel their vote is wasted if they don't vote for the lesser of two evils, OP. Even to the point of ignoring that both choices are evil.

Our power extends much further than just a vote. It lies in the personal and political conversations we have everyday. Conversations in which we should actively be educating others on how corrupt and unrepresentative our government is. There should be more outrage placed in the actual functions of the system rather than just one specific party or candidate. If more people are educated, more people can focus their outrage towards the actual problem, less people will willingly support established candidstes, and hopefully the climate will shift so more noble, honorable candidates will have opportunity to effect change. Candidates that would of before have been ignored simply because lol no money.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Global warming is like, the most important problem of our generation. If anything, we don't pay it nearly enough attention relative to its eventual impact on our quality of life.

 

[Chezzymann]

Global warming is like, the most important problem of our generation. If anything, we don't pay it nearly enough attention relative to its eventual impact on our quality of life.

Yeah, that's the one part I disagree with the OP. Global warming is the most important problem out of any problem ever in the history of humanity. Full stop.

 

[acheron_xl]

Our power extends much further than just a vote. It lies in the personal and political conversations we have everyday. Conversations in which we should actively be educating others on how corrupt and unrepresentative our government is.

You can't talk facts into people. In fact, you inure people to facts by merely speaking.

 

[Brian Griffin]

People aren't supporting Hillary necessarily because they think she will be a catalyst for massive change (newsflash, that isn't happening with a Rep controlled Congress) they are supporting her because it is the best chance of stopping Republicans from taking the White House. You think Warren would beat Jeb Bush, honestly?

I know you want to shift, but it isn't going to happen, it cannot happen.

Yep. The system is totally fucked, no argument there, but the GOP are a bigger problem right now and they need to be stopped.

If you live in a house that is really in need of repair and you come home one day to find that a rabid bear has broken down your door, you don't decide that it's finally time to do something about your fucked up house, you deal with the fucking bear. The GOP are that bear. If they control the whole government the fucked system will just get worse.

You have people in the GOP who believe climate change isn't real, sex-ed is terrible, the earth is 6000 years old, poor people should pay more taxes while the rich pay less, fracking is awesome and should be everywhere, gay and trans people should be killed, and that rape isn't always bad because babies. Fuck those guys.

I'll gladly support a candidate who is far from perfect over one that is fucking insane.

 

[Byakuya769]

OP lost me at "Democrat controlled Supreme Court ruled.."

Does the rant get any more factual after that?

 

[TSM]

The joys of a two party system where you often are locked into voting the way you do because the alternative is repugnant.

 

[NobleXenon]

I used to care about injustices, but the public at large keeps rejecting safety nets, progressive taxes, and rational resource-based conservation & utilization. Hell, people debate about the authenticity of scientific facts, not how to apply them in society for the best of everyone.

Now I am actively contributing to not only technological unemployment (it seriously can't come soon enough) but the singularity in of itself. Until 99% of the population starts have forethought and intelligence, I'm anti-human and pro-AI.

Fuck people.

 

[pigeon]

The world around us...is well...its fucked: We have a completely backwards and unsustainable economy dependant on finite resources;

Capitalism is a failed system. There's not much to do about it except wait for technological advancement to eliminate our dependency on finite resources and make socialism inevitable with a crisis of affluence.

we are governed under an oligarchical power structure that is not at all representative of the wills of the people;

I don't really think this is true, except to the degree that people are disenfranchised by our bad election policies. America's a divided country. If you're on one side of the divide, it might look like the government's not representative, but that's because the people on the other side are electing people to represent them, not you. What we get is compromise.

we are seeing a startling rise in the militarization of police and police brutality;

No we aren't. It would be more accurate to say that we (by which I mean white people) are finally starting to notice the militarization of police and police brutality that's been going on for maybe a hundred years directed at the poor and people of color.

we see the rich and the powerful get more rich and powerful;

Sure. Capitalism again.

we have a government that frivolously borrows, spends, and wastes billions of dollars while many of its citizens suffer through expensive healthcare costs, a failing educational system, and poverty;

This is kind of a weird contradiction. I agree that the government should fix those problems. It would need to borrow and spend many more billions of dollars to do so! And if a program created to do these things didn't benefit you, you'd probably view it as a waste, just as people view the programs set up to help address those problems now as wastes.

We have a government who has granted themselves the right to invade our individual right to privacy; A government with the ability to wiretap any citizen at any time, at any part of the country; A government with the capacity to store said information in a data center capable of storing approx 12 entire internets;

Sure. Civil liberties are a valid concern (although I personally put them lower on the list than eliminating poverty). I'm not sure the, like, hard drive space that the federal government is capable of buying is really worthy of my interest though.

Ideological battles over issues such as global-warming, gay rights, universal health-care are very important to have, don't get me wrong, but they are often missing the point of problems that plague our society. In the grand scheme of things, these are rather easy battles to win and one doesn't risk much by siding left on these issues.

Well, yeah. You don't risk much by siding with the left on these issues today, because we won them. (Except for global warming, where the jury's still out.) That's because we spent a lot of effort on them because they were critical problems with society -- the very problems you mention above! Gay rights is an issue where people were getting lynched. Health care is an issue where people are dying or being impoverished unnecessarily. Global warming is an issue where the world is ending! And as little as ten years ago, these were issues on which the current mainstream liberal (center-left) position was lunatic fringe.

Your position is totally incoherent here -- not to say ignorant. These were major, important social issues, and liberalism pushed them to the forefront, at great effort and cost, and actually won meaningful social progress. Now you dismiss people for spending effort on them because they're "easy battles to win." These were not easy battles when we were actually fighting them. Everything looks easy when you show up after the work is done.

You may see democrat-led legislation, such the Affordable Care Act, as an unprecedented achievement in the progress of our country. After all, more Americans are covered with health insurance now so how can that possibly be a bad thing? But anyone who does any real research on the ACA can also see how much of a giant love letter it is to the pharmaceutical companies that lobbied for it. It may appear to you as a noble step-forward, but on the flip side it also did nothing but contribute to the growth of influence that these corporations have on our world.

Another fundamentally, and frustratingly, ignorant comment. I urge you to do the "real research" you mention here.

For example: if Obamacare were a love letter to big pharma and hospitals, you'd expect people to be paying them more money -- which means people would be paying more for health care.

Oops! The rate of growth in health care spending has halved since the PPACA. It's almost as if creating exchanges and plan standards has begun commoditizing health care and lowering costs for consumers!

I don't claim to know what the exact answer is and who the right men and women are.. but my hope is that if we can all at least admit that the candidates chosen for us by the establishment, and supported by the mainstream media, will do nothing to help fix these problems, then perhaps the public mindset will shift and make way for candidates willing and capable of effecting real change to succeed.

In other words, the solution is "listen to you." You don't actually have an argument for why we should listen to you -- because, presumably, it's "obvious that both parties are the same" -- but you know that, if we all just listened to you, everything would be all right.

If you can agree that corporate influences are cancerous to humanity's progress, then you should view any candidate that accepts these funds as unreliable vehicles to effect the change you want to see.

Why?

I think money is bad for humanity. Should I ignore any candidate that accepts or uses money? Should I hate myself for accepting and using money?

I know i’m not the best writer in the world and can admit I have a difficult time organizing my thoughts in a cohesive manner. But hopefully I was able to get my point across, and hopefully, if you find my views misguided, you can find in my writings the reasonings and lines of thinking that led me to adopt these views, and thus be able to challenge them specifically. I like to consider myself humble enough to admit I know very little about the world, but based off what I gathered so far in my young life, these are the views I have.

It is clear that you are politically enthusiastic, which is good. It's also clear that you are politically ill-informed. I urge you to consider a model of the world in which you are not significantly smarter than everybody older than you, and use that model to understand why people make the decisions they do and why society is the way it is.

 

[gutter_trash]

The joys of a two party system where you often are locked into voting the way you do because the alternative is repugnant.

don't forget about campaigns being funded via Super PAC where a billionaire casino boss in Vegas can bankroll candidates of his choosing

$$$$ dictates democracy in the US, if you don't have $ then you don't matter

 

[collige]

People aren't supporting Hillary necessarily because they think she will be a catalyst for massive change (newsflash, that isn't happening with a Rep controlled Congress) they are supporting her because it is the best chance of stopping Republicans from taking the White House. You think Warren would beat Jeb Bush, honestly?

I know you want to shift, but it isn't going to happen, it cannot happen.

I think virtually any competent Democrat could beat Jeb because as it's been pointed on many times, the electoral college is stacked against the GOP in a major way. It would take a minor miracle for any Rep to win.