I would like to think that it's not the case. But the last few elections and their results seem to be showing that your government is moving further and further away from a plebiscite as an effective way to solve the problem. I just hope for the best, in that respect.
Regardless, there needs to be action from the people. Neither form of change will occur without that.
I have to apologise. You make a perfectly appropriate point and I shouldn't have been a dick as it debases my argument.
In my (incomplete) defence, I genuinely thought you meant that there were only 2 candidates. There *are* people who are largely ignorant of the other candidates and they are a VERY large part of the problem, because they don't care enough about their own country to find out.
That isn't a good enough defence, though. I simply shouldn't have been a dick. Instead I should have worded my objections to that concept much better.
Change is not effected in one fell swoop. People can start small, at the local level and work up.
I've no doubt the odds are stacked against. The old guard *always* has the advantage over those who wants things to get better. But if nobody is prepared to challenge things, then things will always stay the same - simple as that.
But the pen did not win their independence. It helped motivate people, yes. Like this article should. Any of you reading this going to change your actions based on it?
I'd be (pleasantly) surprised,
Absolutely agreed. And that's certainly enough to get the average person to despair.
But despairing won't change anything. The only way to change things is to do something. If you start voting with where your heart lies (and base that on readily available information of how the candidates have acted in the past, not what the god-awful media tells you), convince non-voters (and voters) to do the same, even consider running for local office with a view to bigger things, or anything that takes a little bit of the control away from the status quo, then you're on the right track.
Change is not affected by people posting mildly comments on the internet. It's done bit by bit. And it's done by people who actually try. Do you think your country won its independence from the British by mailing each other letters saying "The British are mean and I don't like them"? No, they stood up and represented themselves. Some otherwise perfectly ordinary people rose above and performed world-shaking acts, with the support of the populace.
Seriously, Americans, it's time to shit or get off the can. Start challenging the system - You may not, personally, make a difference. But even Einstein based his work on what had come before him.
Furthermore, there were 13 candidates for president at the last election. If you didn't even know that, then you probably shouldn't be voting anyway - no great loss, I guess.
"The whole system needs to be revamped to allow actual intelligent, considerate, educated, open-minded, non-narcissistic, candidates a chance at succeeding"
I couldn't agree more!
But it seems that the populace there would rather keep watching their TV and buying their burgers. I mean, it's not like there's actually anything to stop an independent from running, and with the internet, it's no longer anywhere near as expensive to get the word out.
That doesn't necessarily make it cheap to do so, nor does it mean that those with vast quantities of cash don't have a big head start. But your nation has been built on the hard work of people who didn't shy away from that sort of challenge, why would you not want to continue in a similar vein?
You are aware that independents *do* actually run, aren't you?
And even if they didn't, there's nothing stopping one from doing so. But, no, you just watch the ads and vote based on that instead of actually thinking a bit.
Sorry. I shouldn't be so vehemently anti-US. That's not my intent. My intent is to point out that perhaps your people should have showed their displeasure before it reached this point.
I'm not suggesting revolution. But for every one of you who doesn't believe your vote counts (and from what little I know of your horrendously broken system, those people are actually pretty close to right), there's someone who votes for a member of the establishment. If you managed to convince the remaining ~60% of your nation to vote, you'd be a step closer to having representatives you actually represent you. Your people would feel more invested in the political process, and that level of participation (300 something million people?) can NOT be ignored.
Instead the country is happy to be lazy and just accept what is thrust upon them.
So much for the land of the free and home of the brave.
What, you don't think that maybe if you motivated more than HALF YOUR COUNTRY you mightn't find sufficient people who have some sense?
I'm fully prepared to believe that perhaps the US is populated, in the majority, by sycophantic consumerist idiots. But were I pressed on the matter, I'd have to say that I don't think it's likely.
Ultimately you have a choice. Stand up for what is right with your vote, or stand up for what is right with your person. Significantly less than half of you do either, so it's difficult to not view you with scorn.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
People in a Democracy get the government they deserve. When you have a voter turnout of less than 50% and it's RECORD-BREAKING, then I think you have an indication of how much of a shit US citizens give.
Don't forget that NDAA business. That bill was considerably more onerous than SOPA, and you sat there and took it. This bill will pass with flying colours, and you good little consumers will eat that shit up while *MAYBE* 40% of you vote at the next election, and not a single one of you changes your vote to align with a candidate who doesn't threaten everything that your forefathers lived and died for.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ghede.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thankyou.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't say that I disagree with your point here.
I would like to think that it's not the case. But the last few elections and their results seem to be showing that your government is moving further and further away from a plebiscite as an effective way to solve the problem. I just hope for the best, in that respect.
Regardless, there needs to be action from the people. Neither form of change will occur without that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That last "you" was plural.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to apologise. You make a perfectly appropriate point and I shouldn't have been a dick as it debases my argument.
In my (incomplete) defence, I genuinely thought you meant that there were only 2 candidates. There *are* people who are largely ignorant of the other candidates and they are a VERY large part of the problem, because they don't care enough about their own country to find out.
That isn't a good enough defence, though. I simply shouldn't have been a dick. Instead I should have worded my objections to that concept much better.
Again, you have my apologies.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Change is not effected in one fell swoop. People can start small, at the local level and work up.
I've no doubt the odds are stacked against. The old guard *always* has the advantage over those who wants things to get better. But if nobody is prepared to challenge things, then things will always stay the same - simple as that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the pen did not win their independence. It helped motivate people, yes. Like this article should. Any of you reading this going to change your actions based on it?
I'd be (pleasantly) surprised,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely agreed. And that's certainly enough to get the average person to despair.
But despairing won't change anything. The only way to change things is to do something. If you start voting with where your heart lies (and base that on readily available information of how the candidates have acted in the past, not what the god-awful media tells you), convince non-voters (and voters) to do the same, even consider running for local office with a view to bigger things, or anything that takes a little bit of the control away from the status quo, then you're on the right track.
Change is not affected by people posting mildly comments on the internet. It's done bit by bit. And it's done by people who actually try. Do you think your country won its independence from the British by mailing each other letters saying "The British are mean and I don't like them"? No, they stood up and represented themselves. Some otherwise perfectly ordinary people rose above and performed world-shaking acts, with the support of the populace.
Seriously, Americans, it's time to shit or get off the can. Start challenging the system - You may not, personally, make a difference. But even Einstein based his work on what had come before him.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, there were 13 candidates for president at the last election. If you didn't even know that, then you probably shouldn't be voting anyway - no great loss, I guess.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The whole system needs to be revamped to allow actual intelligent, considerate, educated, open-minded, non-narcissistic, candidates a chance at succeeding"
I couldn't agree more!
But it seems that the populace there would rather keep watching their TV and buying their burgers. I mean, it's not like there's actually anything to stop an independent from running, and with the internet, it's no longer anywhere near as expensive to get the word out.
That doesn't necessarily make it cheap to do so, nor does it mean that those with vast quantities of cash don't have a big head start. But your nation has been built on the hard work of people who didn't shy away from that sort of challenge, why would you not want to continue in a similar vein?
Re: Re:
You are aware that independents *do* actually run, aren't you?
And even if they didn't, there's nothing stopping one from doing so. But, no, you just watch the ads and vote based on that instead of actually thinking a bit.
Re: Re:
Sorry. I shouldn't be so vehemently anti-US. That's not my intent. My intent is to point out that perhaps your people should have showed their displeasure before it reached this point.
I'm not suggesting revolution. But for every one of you who doesn't believe your vote counts (and from what little I know of your horrendously broken system, those people are actually pretty close to right), there's someone who votes for a member of the establishment. If you managed to convince the remaining ~60% of your nation to vote, you'd be a step closer to having representatives you actually represent you. Your people would feel more invested in the political process, and that level of participation (300 something million people?) can NOT be ignored.
Instead the country is happy to be lazy and just accept what is thrust upon them.
So much for the land of the free and home of the brave.
Re: Re:
What, you don't think that maybe if you motivated more than HALF YOUR COUNTRY you mightn't find sufficient people who have some sense?
I'm fully prepared to believe that perhaps the US is populated, in the majority, by sycophantic consumerist idiots. But were I pressed on the matter, I'd have to say that I don't think it's likely.
Ultimately you have a choice. Stand up for what is right with your vote, or stand up for what is right with your person. Significantly less than half of you do either, so it's difficult to not view you with scorn.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
People in a Democracy get the government they deserve. When you have a voter turnout of less than 50% and it's RECORD-BREAKING, then I think you have an indication of how much of a shit US citizens give.
Don't forget that NDAA business. That bill was considerably more onerous than SOPA, and you sat there and took it. This bill will pass with flying colours, and you good little consumers will eat that shit up while *MAYBE* 40% of you vote at the next election, and not a single one of you changes your vote to align with a candidate who doesn't threaten everything that your forefathers lived and died for.