It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political apathy? No, just tired of the rigged game.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
From an early age, Americans are taught that we own our nation, that we control our government. We are told by the bureaucrats babysitters our nanny-state calls teachers that if we don’t like the way something is done, all we have to do is find a political party (or form one) that thinks the same as we do and vote politicians into office who will support our agenda. Can anyone out there state that this has been their experience? How many of you have been satisfied with the guy you backed?

What we learn in our adult life, after going through many stages, is that nothing we do will change things. We can vote in every election, send letters, picket in the pouring rain and whine till our voices go out, but at the end of the day, we all must realize that nobody heard, and/or nobody cared.

Why do we as nation stay away from the polls? Is it truly apathy as many contend? I think not. Americans are tired of playing a rigged game.

Just look at the choices we get. Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B. We all know the true difference between our last presidential candidates was cosmetic only. Why then do we fret so about which republicrat gets into the White House? Is it because some poor misguided souls out there actually believe that their guy will make a difference? I don’t think it is. No one really fights for the candidate, it’s about the idea. Your stupid idea is better than their stupid idea, and this is an opportunity to go to war over it, to get your hate out, to let the other side know how you feel, how many of you there are. Of course, if your guy wins nothing will change; life will go on the same regardless.

Now, how is this assured? Well, you keep the “crazies” out. Libertarians, or any other party with a real message are shut out of the debates and are lucky to get a passing mention of their platform as “right-wing extremists ideologies.” They make mention of the wacko running for office, you make your scheduled laugh, and the party is dismissed. Why? Well, it is easier to give the public what they have been ingesting all along than to do the work of actually going out there and researching an article about the platform of these third parties.

America, you want to really make a difference with your letters? Stop letting your congressman know how you feel and start demanding equal party coverage from your local paper. Let them know that you want them to work for your patronage.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The problem stems much further then equal party coverage. Its the growing rift between ideology from generation to generation. Can most people remember what principles and values they held onto at the age of 21? When we leaf through the manifestos knowing our ballot won't matter, we can't blame the media for unjustly portraying our political party. We need to reach out at a grassroot level and actively recruit party members at schools or unions. The problem with Libertarians or any other third party is that the membership numbers at the time of its conception explode and grow exponentialy but after time they die down. They don't actively seek out new members or constantly try to spread their ethics. We forget that Republicans and Democrats have 100+ years politcal influence. And without actively pursuing fledlings to increase our numbers how can we invoke change?

oh yeah what came first the chicken or the egg???



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Socialist Party?

Why spread such lies, when you are speaking out against the "rigged game"? Neither of the main candidates were a socialist party in fact, they are far from it. Instead of helping you shout out aboust "Socialist" this and that and cause more harm than good.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Socialist Party?

Why spread such lies, when you are speaking out against the "rigged game"? Neither of the main candidates were a socialist party in fact, they are far from it. Instead of helping you shout out aboust "Socialist" this and that and cause more harm than good.


Go look up socialism and tell me you don’t see it in the big two. While your at it, go find the platform of the socialist party from the 30s and compare it the big two today, you wont see too many differences.

A heap of trash by any other name smells just as bad.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
If you have been cheated with a rigged deck of cards, the best thing is to get a new unopened deck. In the spirit of this, I encourage those to join my "Vote you out" campaign. It's very simple.

Any incumbent politician, already being part of the system is going to be more corrupt that someone who isn't, although it has to be admitted that to even get on the ballet, you already have to have sold yourself to someone with money.

Considering that and the fact that the longer you are in politics, the more corrupt you become, the best thing is to vote out every incumbent. Get rid of the career politician and those who are the most corrupt (i.e.: been there longer) first. If we did this over the next several elections, we could assure that no one was in office that had been there longer than 10 years. If there are no "Old Boys" it's less likely that there will be an "Old Boy's Club".

Vote for whichever candidate isn't currently in office. If there is more than one who isn't then by all means vote the issues, but make sure to vote the current people, no matter which party runs them, out.

[edited for spelling]


[edit on 21-12-2005 by Ambient Sound]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Ambient Sound makes an excellent point about incumbents. And so does cavscout about the hidden socialist tendencies of the "parties" - which isn't so hidden if you look at some "free" trade agreements.

What I'll add to what Ambient said though is the place to unrig a deck of cards is PRIMARIES.

It's not enough to vote for the challenger. Make sure you vote for the challenger the PARTY doesn't want (in most cases).

These are typically real people their own party fears. They aren't part of the game.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
What I'll add to what Ambient said though is the place to unrig a deck of cards is PRIMARIES.

It's not enough to vote for the challenger. Make sure you vote for the challenger the PARTY doesn't want (in most cases).

These are typically real people their own party fears. They aren't part of the game.


Good point and I'll incorporate it into my voting policy.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Originally posted by RANT
What I'll add to what Ambient said though is the place to unrig a deck of cards is PRIMARIES.

It's not enough to vote for the challenger. Make sure you vote for the challenger the PARTY doesn't want (in most cases).

These are typically real people their own party fears. They aren't part of the game.


Good point and I'll incorporate it into my voting policy.



I agree, RANT, something to think about there.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I think we have something here. It's the "Mavericks" that can unify across party lines, even from within the superficial affiliation of a party. If people can just look past the party and get over their own preconceptions, we could really change things.

I'm seeing it more and more every day. If the media ever tries to paint a candidate as 'crazy' or outside the mainstream, take a closer look. There may be something there. If nothing else, it takes a big chunk out of the group-think we keep seeing from both ends of the spectrum.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I think we have something here. It's the "Mavericks" that can unify across party lines, even from within the superficial affiliation of a party. If people can just look past the party and get over their own preconceptions, we could really change things.


You really think it likely that people are willing to drop the party affiliations? Parties are to the middle class (the class that does the voting) as gangs are to (some) inner city youth; it just doesn’t feel safe without one.


If the media ever tries to paint a candidate as 'crazy' or outside the mainstream, take a closer look. There may be something there.


100% wisdom there RANT. I think that if you look at most of the "freaks" media loves to ignore or snipe the only differences you will see are less money, third party and a unique and sensible plan for reform (as opposed to the same old crap on a different face.


But of course we still have the same problem, which is mass populace acceptance as opposed to "apathy."



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Go look up socialism and tell me you don’t see it in the big two. While your at it, go find the platform of the socialist party from the 30s and compare it the big two today, you wont see too many differences.


It happens to be my main area of focus in my degree. Which aspect would you desire me to look up and by which writer? Classic or Neo-Socialism? Marixsm, with the works of Engals or Communism? Stalinism or Leninism? The fact there are at least 20 different socialist theories I can think of, it would be much wiser for you to do a little bit of research and use the real name because I can tell you now it isn't anything like the writings or Robert Owen or Saint-Simon.


Originally posted by cavscout
A heap of trash by any other name smells just as bad.


Actually it smells like whatever it is called. :-)

Problem is, neither party is a socialist party by the classical definition nor by the newer definition. So which sub-theory are we talking about?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
It happens to be my main area of focus in my degree. Which aspect would you desire me to look up and by which writer? Classic or Neo-Socialism? Marixsm, with the works of Engals or Communism? Stalinism or Leninism? The fact there are at least 20 different socialist theories I can think of, it would be much wiser for you to do a little bit of research and use the real name because I can tell you now it isn't anything like the writings or Robert Owen or Saint-Simon.


Originally posted by cavscout
A heap of trash by any other name smells just as bad.


Actually it smells like whatever it is called. :-)

Problem is, neither party is a socialist party by the classical definition nor by the newer definition. So which sub-theory are we talking about?



Yes, yes...you’re very smart.

I think you know exactly what I was getting at. Obviously I was not saying that either of the big 2 are actually socialist parties. Not that you didn’t know that. You are taking away from the quality of the discussion. You want me to admit that neither of them are actually a/the socialist party? Done, admitted, you win; wasn’t that hard, seeing as I was not actually claiming they were true socialist parties the point in the first place.

Why do you insist on arguing about this? Does it offend you or hurt your feelings for some reason to hear that many aspects of modern "non-socialist" political parties closely resemble the socialist movement and its doctrine?

For the record, everyone, I do not think that the Republican or Democratic Parties are actually represent the true socialist movement in this nation.

There, feel better? Can we continue on with what we were discussing now, or do I need to further clarify something that shouldn’t have needed clarification in the first place?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Hmmmm. Is there such a thing as totalitarian psudo-socialism with some fascist tendancies thrown in?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I find myself clinging to my party a lot because of my views. Now, I don't mean to start a ruckus up in here, but isn't it quiet possible that people vote for a candidate or a party because they actually agree with that candidate or the party platform?

Sometimes it's hard to admit when your views aren't in the mainstream. I once had a libertarian candidate come to my house, and he was running for State Legislator. We got into a nice little brew-haha over public education and property taxes which led to taxes in general which he believed shouldn't even exist. I believe in taxes and if you are going to collect them my friend, let's spend them on the some social stuff. Better schools and roads and uplifting poor/elderly people. He totally put me off of Libertarians. No social consciousness whatsoever, well in government at least, I can't say what he does in his private life. Anyways, if I ever have the displeasure of another Libertarian knocking on my door I'ma have to treat em like a Jehovah's Witness. I just don't agree with free market politics.

All I'm saying is sometimes its easier to blame the system because its not working for you...but it works for some of us because we agree with the republicrats. That's not to say they aren't owned, but anything is better than the chaos I heard spewed from that guys mouth…in my humble opinion.

Now, if we had a party of moderates where a voter could say okay, he doesn't support social sercurity in its current form but he has a very viable alternative and he's prochoice--then hey--I'd give him a look, but that just doesn't exist in our system. Its very frown worthy.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
Sometimes it's hard to admit when your views aren't in the mainstream.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, to protect us from the mianstream.



All I'm saying is sometimes its easier to blame the system because its not working for you...but it works for some of us because we agree with the republicrats.
Who is "us"? Do you mean the "us" that sends people with guns to steal on their behalf (see:taxes)? Well, of course it works for you; you get something for nothing.



Now, if we had a party of moderates where a voter could say okay, he doesn't support social sercurity in its current form but he has a very viable alternative and he's prochoice--then hey--I'd give him a look, but that just doesn't exist in our system. Its very frown worthy.


Oh, OK, well go start the party of moderates. Make the change you want. What? You cant? It doesnt work that way? Oh, well now you see the exact point I was making in the first place, the point you were trying to argue against. Thank you for wasting 5 minutes of my life I can never get back and have a n ice day.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
If you felt like it was a waste of time then why did you reply? Tis pointless to even take the time to create a thread if as soon as someone disagrees with you it all of sudden becomes a waste of time, don't you think?

You put your opinion up and I read it and commented. Fact is I like the party I vote for...if I didn't I wouldn't vote. You seem to think everyone is displeased because you are...that's not the case for me. If it is a waste of time to view another take on your opinions then maybe a discussion board isn't for you.


Well, of course it works for you; you get something for nothing.


I don't understand this comment because I don't where you got that I want something for nothing, but I won't ask you to waste your time explaining it.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Saphronia, it's fine to group with people who have the same opinions and goals that you do. It's human nature. That is what I thought I was doing when I voted for the Republicans in the last election.

I voted for social security reform, sane foreign policy, less government, and the respect for individualism and self-reliance that made this country great in the first place. That is what they said they stood for.

What we got instead was a useless war, loss of essential freedoms, orwellian mind control tactics, the biggest increase in goverment spending and corruption in history, and the imposition of religious dogma into the lives of individual citizens. I assure you, I wasn't intending to vote for any of that, but unknown to me, I apparently did. I won't be making that mistake again.

The things they said they would do and the values they claimed to have wern't reflected in what they did after we put them in power. I can only conclude that they willfully deceived us for their own ends, that they never believed in the things they stated that they stood for, and never intended to make the changes that they promised. They said what it took to get elected, without ever intending to follow through on any of it.

It's fine to agree with and support a party platform, but what if they aren't honest about what the party platform actually is?

Frankly, these days, I am far more afraid of what my own govenment might do than I am afraid of any Islamic terrorist action. I think that is pretty sad and to be honest, I was warned by some of the very people on this forum. At that time I didn't believe them and am paying the price now. We all are.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
What we got instead was a useless war, loss of essential freedoms, orwellian mind control tactics, the biggest increase in goverment spending and corruption in history, and the imposition of religious dogma into the lives of individual citizens. I assure you, I wasn't intending to vote for any of that, but unknown to me, I apparently did. I won't be making that mistake again.


You make one large mistake though.

You think all of those things and it is clear a large sum of the poplation [50million] were fine with the War, Government spending, Patriot Act and so on and so fourth.

Just because you disagree with what that party has done, is because you assumed the route they would take when you voted for them and hoped they would fulfill what you desired.

This is the problem with "Party Politics" people assume what will be done on their behalf, rather than push to have more involvement in the process.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Yes, yes...you’re very smart.


I do try.


Originally posted by cavscout
Obviously I was not saying that either of the big 2 are actually socialist parties.



Originally posted by cavscout
Just look at the choices we get. Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B.



Originally posted by cavscout
There, feel better? Can we continue on with what we were discussing now, or do I need to further clarify something that shouldn’t have needed clarification in the first place?


Actually, you should have never used the term if you did not intend to call them a Socialist Party. You are trying to make them something they are not and to stir emotion to your "cause" and to fit your "agenda" whatever that might be.


Originally posted by cavscout
Does it offend you or hurt your feelings for some reason to hear that many aspects of modern "non-socialist" political parties closely resemble the socialist movement and its doctrine?


Yes, when they do not. You can take aspects of many other political parties, to form your own however it doesn't make you that party and they do not reprosent what Robert Owen or Saint-Simon said. This is the problem, there was no need to say "Socialist" party at all. You used the term to fit an alterior motive of yours which these forums have yet to see.

You are still here to "Deny Ignorance" even if you are on PTS so do it. Do not call something, something that it is not.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
Tis pointless to even take the time to create a thread if as soon as someone disagrees with you it all of sudden becomes a waste of time, don't you think?


No no no. You disagreed with me, and then concluded by agreeing with me. Remember saying this: "Now, if we had a party of moderates where a voter could say okay, he doesn't support social sercurity in its current form but he has a very viable alternative and he's prochoice--then hey--I'd give him a look, but that just doesn't exist in our system. Its very frown worthy."






You put your opinion up and I read it and commented. Fact is I like the party I vote for...if I didn't I wouldn't vote. [/quote
But, I thought you wanted a party of moderates that doesn’t exist. Very frown worthy, remember?



I don't understand this comment because I don't where you got that I want something for nothing, but I won't ask you to waste your time explaining it.


Oh, well I will waste my time without you asking me to, then. When you support taxation, you want to get (or want someone else to get) something for nothing. I work very hard for money and I want to keep it. There are other, better ways for citizens to get what they need, rather than someone (the IRS) to commit armed robbery on their behalf.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join