A real problem with the United States of America

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

If you have to keep telling yourself "both sides are just as bad" to retain your individuality, that's fine. But it is simply untrue.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Voting will be on decentralized block chains in the not so distant future.

They are meaningless to you... that's fine if you feel that way... it doesn't upset me. Voting is a duty in my mind. What my individual self thinks or wants for the country is meaningless in comparison to what the country TOGETHER wants.

See, there's an odd reality to the law of averages. That game, where people have to guess the quantity of say candy in a giant jar. To guess accurately is nearly impossible. But by an almost magical presence of the law of averages, the most accurate guess to the quantity within the jar will be the average of all the votes TOGETHER.

So, you're right... the individual votes don't matter. What may matter the most is realizing just how a healthy voting structure for the masses as a whole will remedy the identity politics crisis we live in now. Yeah, we might have to back down off our firm and one-sided opinions in order to even start to think about healing measures.

When your talk moves to what the masses may want instead, we can open a middle ground debate if you'd like?

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

If you have to keep telling yourself "both sides are just as bad" to retain your individuality, that's fine. But it is simply untrue.

Both parties are bad, either will cut off the nose to spite the face. You're welcome to the idea that one side is worse, and in today's climate I'd agree.

I don't see either making concerted efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones though. I don't see either trying to address problems that too many Americans are going through.

All I see is lip service and political volleys.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

If you have to keep telling yourself "both sides are just as bad" to retain your individuality, that's fine. But it is simply untrue.

Both parties are bad, either will cut off the nose to spite the face. You're welcome to the idea that one side is worse, and in today's climate I'd agree.

I don't see either making concerted efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones though. I don't see either trying to address problems that too many Americans are going through.

All I see is lip service and political volleys.

If one party is worse, do you side with the worse party, the better party, or dismiss them both equally?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Great Post!

Only hinges can become unhinged. Stand your ground as you do... your points make a ton of sense!

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

If you have to keep telling yourself "both sides are just as bad" to retain your individuality, that's fine. But it is simply untrue.

Both parties are bad, either will cut off the nose to spite the face. You're welcome to the idea that one side is worse, and in today's climate I'd agree.

I don't see either making concerted efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones though. I don't see either trying to address problems that too many Americans are going through.

All I see is lip service and political volleys.

If one party is worse, do you side with the worse party, the better party, or dismiss them both equally?

If you live in a small town and have only two restaurants, but you dislike them both... Eat at home.

Both of the parties' campaigns are funded by the same people.... Those are investments, not donations. They're the same party.

The similarities far outnumber the differences.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

Yes the "both sides are bad" argument is getting tiring, especially in light of recent events.

Yea, individuality is sooo 1700's.

If you want to be cool, there is two clubs, gotta pick one.

If you have to keep telling yourself "both sides are just as bad" to retain your individuality, that's fine. But it is simply untrue.

Both parties are bad, either will cut off the nose to spite the face. You're welcome to the idea that one side is worse, and in today's climate I'd agree.

I don't see either making concerted efforts to end the wars and prevent new ones though. I don't see either trying to address problems that too many Americans are going through.

All I see is lip service and political volleys.

If one party is worse, do you side with the worse party, the better party, or dismiss them both equally?

If you live in a small town and have only two restaurants, but you dislike them both... Eat at home.

Both of the parties' campaigns are funded by the same people.... Those are investments, not donations. They're the same party.

The similarities far outnumber the differences.

But if both restaurants are tasked with running the government of the small town, surely a choice would have to be made. It seems siding with the better one would be more reasonable than dismissing them both.

It doesn't matter who donates or invests in a campaign. What matters is what they do with the money.

a reply to: Tartuffe

I get your argument and I've heard it before.

I just hate it, and I'll never conform to it. I won't sacrifice what I believe "for the lesser of two evils".

One may be lesser, but they're both evil. Both sides have had a good one stand out here and there throughout history, but that's rare.

Maybe Trump will be a good one, we'll see, it's only been two years. But I'm going to be critical of him. I'll say what I like and don't like. I just don't understand how some can give blind loyalty and swap positions just as fast as their politicians.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

I get your argument and I've heard it before.

I just hate it, and I'll never conform to it. I won't sacrifice what I believe "for the lesser of two evils".

One may be lesser, but they're both evil. Both sides have had a good one stand out here and there throughout history, but that's rare.

Maybe Trump will be a good one, we'll see, it's only been two years. But I'm going to be critical of him. I'll say what I like and don't like. I just don't understand how some can give blind loyalty and swap positions just as fast as their politicians.

I can appreciate that. But in my opinion wedding oneself to no party is just as stupid as wedding oneself to a single party. In a two-party system, taking a side might be required in order to maintain any semblance of balance in politics.

a reply to: Tartuffe

The reason that no-party conformists have it extra difficult is primarily due to the inability to filter out the aspects of campaigns and voting that already exist in reality. Seriously... when someone is looking for a date, their able to filter out so many variables to get down to a candidate of higher probability of success. As long as the Red/Blue are a factor, it's inevitable that nearly all voters are being withheld from voting as their true self would otherwise.

Anything to distinguish the details of their campaigns and funding sources better would be at least a start. How about if politicians had to wear their sponsors patch on their suits to indicate who funds their campaigns primarily? So many facets of voting are shoved into the Red/Blue jack-in-the-box prior to choosing, we'll take anything at this point that will tamper down the identity politics.

No matter what the Red/Blue say... trust that they are not NEEDED to provide healing towards a twisted voting structure. The only time the two sides ever agree is when a 3rd party gets the national attention two sides swallows up wholly. That alone loses my vote... we need more choices.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'll tell ya, it's freeing not having allegiance to one side or the other. Call all the snakes what they are- snakes, liberating.

is that what you call it?
phony comparisons to make both look the same only make you look phony.


All of our officials need to be held accountable.
Funny some only want to start today.

I've always said Hillary should be held accountable for her crimes, Trump however won and said he wasn't going after her.

That said, he's running the government now, not her....

So maybe you find it odd that I focus on those running the show, but that just seems natural to me.

I hope trump has nothing to do with going after hillary.
The proper leo channels should be the ones doing any investigation and only in the proper manor.
We have had enough politics mixed with our law enforcement.
The inspector general should be the start imo.
If that office refers charges then they should be followed up on by the proper authorities.
If that office does not refer charges than so be it.

The Russian collusion narrative is the same bag of hot garbage as the birther movement was. It is a couple of craptastic, already dead or quickly dying political parties clinging desperately to control by sowing dissent and manipulating the weak and feeble minded.

Our politics needs a reboot from the center. The biggest lie running right now is that we need some radical figure from the margins to shock the system back to life like TRUMP! or BERNIE!. We've already seen how that gets us nowhere but even more backwards and bitter.

Guess what... You CAN be a moderate and still hold a passionate view on something like environmentalism for example. Except when we cogently discuss any various passions in a civil manner from the middle where both sides can be reached with reason and an empathy for opposing viewpoints then you can actually make lasting, measured progress in addressing those issues.

It would also mean that these issues would become more about our ideas forging our identity instead of our identities shaping our ideas or perceptions. When our ideas forge our identity, the political parties are forced to to work for us to help mold those ideas into a cohesive reality instead of the parties being able to manipulate us through propaganda into working for them through identity politics and tribal warfare.

a reply to: sooth

I don't consider Trump to be from the "margin" of his party, but i realize that is not your point.

What you suggest depends upon the individual voter changing their mindset.

I'm not sure how realistic that is. Many voters are what I consider "single issue" voters. On an issue like abortion, for example, there is no room for compromise, whatsoever, so whatever stance a moderate takes, they will probably have to write off 30% of voters right off the bat.

Now if a moderate does that on four, or five "hot button" issues, it would be impossible to retain a base.

That is exactly why most candidates bow to the "party platform" in presidential elections.

Trump was an oddity in this respect, as he chose the "platform", and forced the party elites to adapt, rather than the other way around. To illustrate this point, in the beginning, there were a substantial number of "never Trumpers" in the Republican party. There aren't many of them left now, partly because of what he has been able to accomplish, but mostly because it was either get on board, or be left behind.

I'm not pushing Trump here (although I am a supporter), I'm just giving an example of how rare it is that the tail is able to wag the dog, so to speak.

Most presidential candidates can't afford to run an effective campaign without financial support from the major parties, so they are forced to toe the party line for the most part.

Consequently, anyone who tries to "buck the system" has a very long, very hard uphill battle.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
1. Congressional term limits. No more than 8 years.

I would be more aggressive than that (if I thought it would do any good, which it wouldn't). No more than 4 years for anyone who rides a government chair.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: shooterbrody

I didn't say they passed classified information.

Merely I pointed out their efforts to circumvent FOIA by not having communications on government channels.

What wrong with asking for transparency from all the players and not exempting the ones you decide?

Because the whole thing has been made up by democrats/the left meanwhile left-wingers like yourself ignore who truly colluded with a "foreign agent" known as Steele, who used false information that his Russian contacts gave him. This information was paid off by the political opposition which kept using LIES to try to influence the U.S. elections...

We even have Steele admit he wanted to stop Trump from becoming/being POTUS...
Not to mention the fact that the Clinton FOundation received millions from the Russians, and from a Kernlim linked bank, meanwhile Hillary and Obama worked on setting deals that to this day benefit Russia and have been detrimental to the U.S. But you, and the rest of the left, ignored the FACTS and instead you demanded for an investigation into Trump because you simply didn't want him as POTUS, and you all were more than willing to use LIES to try to depose a dully elected POTUS.

Even after it was learned that Comey did not verify the claims in the FISA warrant, and even after the weasel Comey admitted the information couldn't be verified, you all in the left continued to demand for more investigations...

The only reason you all kept demanding for "an investigation into Trump/Russia collusion was because "Trump was your political opposition and nothing more..."

To this day the left, including the mainstream media, and the owners of social media keep trying to "criminalize political differences."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What are you going on about the left?

11 months ago I made a thread
Using Glenn Greenwalds teardown of how there was no collusion.

You'd waste a lot of time trying to prove I've ever believed in Russian collusion. You'd end fruitless.

I voted for Trump.

My guess is since ATS doesnt really have liberals anymore you're experiencing pent up tension from getting your fix by tit for tatting with a liberal.

Sorry I can't help man.

Good luck in getting your fix.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

ATS doesn’t have liberals? Did they all quit today?

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: CriticalStinker

ATS doesn’t have liberals? Did they all quit today?

Nope.

They just don't frequent like they used to.

Maybe a few are here. But being to the left of right wing doesn't count as being part of the left.