Do you hate the U.S?

hate my home country? definitely...moving out fast... it's a country that the majority have special privileges (quite illogical)

hate the US? no.. it's because of their culture/ideology that we have so much "fun" debating around ... on the net at least..

what is confusing to me (i ain't American)is why (in US) is there always the fight for a right to do something e.g. have weapons, have same- sex marriage etc. as oppose to u can do anything u like as long as it doesn't threaten the public interest aka not a criminal activity?

hmmm must be the difference in the way the constitution was written.. care to explain??

With the current political system we are trying to fit everybody on one side of a coin or another. It'd be a better system overall if there were at least one to two more parties in Washington. Currently, supporters of "moderate" republicans can't tell the lack difference between them and old party Liberals. With even the Republican party split between R.I.N.O.'s, Elephants, etc,etc and the Democratic party split between union boys, environmentalists, PETA supporters, psuedo-euro socialists, etc,etc

Trying to fit everybody under two umbrellas means that more people will get wet than the ones who will stay dry.

Edit



Simply, some people think the constitution of our country is a piece of abstract art that can be "interpreted" to whoever is in power and the other half think the constitution is set in stone regardless who is in power as in "The right to free speech means the right to free speech period no exceptions". Libertarians (a large third party) can be simplified to "ye harm none, do what ye will" as in as long as you don't infringe one somebodies rights then have at it. Your choice to smoke like a chimney, to drink until you have Cirrhosis, etc,etc. As long as you don't harm somebody who isn't consenting then it's fair game.

In the end, they (politicians) can't make up their minds if it's abstract or absolute.

Voters have to decide to invest effort, learn about issues, and hold politicians accountable via their votes. There are plenty of countries that do have much larger numbers of parties, and they still have a lot of the same problems.

The current system for electing a president also isn't equipped to deal with a large number of viable parties, since a majority of electoral votes is required to win. Otherwise, we have congress electing the president. We could theoretically switch to a parliamentary system, but I wouldn't want that personally, and it would probably require calling a constitutional convention(see Article V for details on this is interested).

These problem can't be "fixed" by firing all the greedy bastard politicians, dismantling the government, or any of the other political system ideas I have heard. Each person can fix it in their own mind by being willing to tolerate politicians with nuanced views, being willing to research issues, etc. But then again, a lot of people have to spend every waking hour working, or couldn't afford much education or whatever.

Some suggest requiring knowledge or intelligence to vote, but frankly that goes against the whole point of the freedoms that the US constitution specifies, as well as one of the things I love about the US.

I hate the fact that most americans, when enraged, shout at the top of their lungs.

I have witnessed it when problems occured at an indoor waterpark resort (Six Flags The Great Escape Lodge... I think). Was sitting in the lobby, waiting for them to fix the problems on a ride, when Americans after Americans walked to talk to the manager, who was at the lobby at the moment. And when I mean talk, I meant shout, yell and any other synonym for Shout. When my Aunt came (she's also pissed off, y'know), she talked to thje manager. The manager was actually thankful, saying that she was the only person to not shout at her that day when talking to him.

He gave us an extra night that day :D

America wasn't designed to be a democracy. The founding fathers HATED the idea of democracy. To the point that calling someone a democrat was to thoroughly and harshly insult someone by suggesting they believed in mob rule. The original design was for us to elect representatives for our states then they elect the president. Its the core behind the electoral college. The people themselves don't actually elect anybody outside of senators and house members.

Though I do agree with you to an extent, Penguin, I think more parties would further fragment our already fragile system, especially with the current times. Introducing a third party that actually carries some weight (because we all know the independents don't) should be done when we aren't all freaking out about getting a job (It's fucking hard where I am, lol). On the other hand, with three or four major parties that means that less and less of the people in the country will want the next president to be President (4-way split in national votes)

I didn't mention the founding fathers and I am referring to the entire current constitution, post Bill of Rights amendments and all. The founding fathers were great thinkers, but they didn't get everything right, and the constitution has to be a living document. Trying to apply the thinking of the founding fathers to today's situations is limited in its usefulness, as some thing are very different, and it's hard to guess what they would think today. It is not something we should completely base our government off of. I don't care what the founding fathers thought of democracy, I don't believe it is right to deny someone the right to vote for being uneducated(which would eventually move into having particular views anyways). I have no problem with directly electing senators(since senators weren't directly elected until the 17th amendment in 1913, but rather were elected by state legislatures). I don't see any reasonable way to force the electoral college to return to its trustee model.

The electoral college was a failed idea, and only worked for a very short period of time. Now it is a relic that shapes campaign strategies, which may or may not have some usefulness in itself, but comes nothing close to the vision of the founding fathers. Even the "trustee" type politicians have become rarer and rarer as media and information become more rapidly accessible.

People have a right to be stupid, have idiotic ideas, and vote for whomever they want, even supporters of idiotic ideas. The Courts help limit the damage that way out there ideas can do, but there simply cannot be a required test for voting.

And only Americans shout when enraged, correct? :wink:


As much as I'd hate to agree... I have to agree...

Even if the founding fathers weren't supportive of a democracy, the fact that from the beginning there hasn't really been a test for a vote is proof that they allowed "idiots" to vote. They made it a point to make sure everyone (except women and children) had a voice after separating from England's tyranny and therefore it is our duty to safeguard that freedom.

On the note of multiple political parties:
I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to have more than two parties. I just think it's impossible, in our lifetime, to have more parties because the two party system is so deeply rooted in every American's mind that it won't die out any time soon.

Call it being elitist, but I think that we, in fact, should have a test to determine whether someone can vote, though I do think it should not be a general aptitude test. I just think that people should be able to show that they know the ideas of those that they are voting for, which is easy considering access to TV and the internet. That way people can still support anyone they want, they just need to show why. I just don't want a repeat of the 2008 election. That was a mockery of democracy.

Seriously, ask 8 of 10 people why they voted for Obama and they'll give you some BS half-baked reason. At least the people I talked to that supported McCain had information under their belt, and could actually tell you exactly why they voted for McCain. But seriously, last year's election kind of stomped on my faith in the American public.

And you claim to be unbiased in your political views Jericho? I'm sorry, but you have now stated two things bordering on ridiculous that are also the obvious statements of supporters of the right. Your overly simplistic and incomplete assertion that democrats caused the financial crisis by trying to put poor people in homes is a topic for another thread. If you want to create one and debate it, I'm up for that.

Still the other, that most of the people who voted for Obama are idiots while most of those who voted for McCain are of the more enlightened variety, is far worse. What is your sample? People you happen to know and talk to? I personally know of both intelligent and unreasonable people who voted both ways. What are these BS reasons you refer to? I think scientific polling has pretty clearly shown that people do vote on issues, but they often have what I think is limited understanding(Your statement is also undermined by the fact that Obama won among voters with college degrees, at least if education and knowledge are your criteria). And it is hard to sort through all the information: political ads, op-eds, campaign sites, canvasing, sound-byte news reporting. And there are people who vote for candidates for truly stupid reasons, like people who voted for Obama because McCain was really supposed to be a war criminal or the people who voted for McCain because Obama was really born in Kenya, forged his birth certificate, and had his grandmother killed to keep it all quiet, but these people aren't that large in number.

Still, any sort of test is a terrible idea. It goes against pretty much every historical voting tradition(except attempts to stop african-americans from voting post Civil War with bogus tests, other exclusive traditions have generally focused on money, status, or land), not to mention that introducing this test means the burden of creating a test that can be agreed upon as fair, and introduces political influence in the shaping of the test as well opportunity for corruption in the grading of the test.

Of course, the worst part is that this pretty much goes against the entire history of the US with regard to voting and most other rights: namely, they have expanded over time, and I consider this a positive thing. In fact, it is one of the things that makes me most proud of my country.

I love the US because we value freedom and individuality so highly. This means allowing people to be idiots, bigots, conspiracy theorists, and whatever else without taking away their rights. Freedom of speech and thought is the most important liberty, and punishing people for believing ridiculous or incorrect things by taking away their voting rights is an affront to this right.

We actually had a Division-wide poll while we were in 29 Palms, and my platoon Lieutenant was tasked with gathering the background behind votes for as many men as we could. The findings I posted were the ones I collected and returned to my CO. And I believe that the way I wrote not being too left or right came off as a claim of being un-biased, when I meant that I find ideas from each side to be good, although I'll admit I'm more right, so I'll clarify that now.

The kinds of reasons people gave for supporting Obama were, by the way: He's black, he's winning, he's not Bush(?), he's not McCain, I dunno, Because I believe that he can help end the war in Iraq, and because he says he has a plan for this budget crisis. (These were the most frequent statements made)

Men I interviewed for McCain gave answer more like: I think that his stance for withdrawal from Iraq is more sound than Obama's (variations of this was pretty much all I got, sad to say. We had few McCain supporters)

I know that a Division's worth of Marines isn't a good control to make such a statement, but I did anyway because they were, in fact, the only findings I had.

As for the freedom of individuality and speech being preserved, I'm fine with us allowing people of wide-ranging ideas and educated backgrounds to say what they want and do what they want (so long as it does not directly compromise national security), but I think putting a nation that has stood as a world super-power in the hands of such people is questionable. All I think the test should be is a short (5 questions, max) list of question as to why the person chose that candidate after the vote is cast. I, for one, am not entirely sure that the reason we elect a new President is because he's a black guy that isn't a Republican. I think that the inability to think things like that through and the want of people to appear progressive (which I personally think was a major reason for so many votes swinging toward Obama) is really what can put foreigners off. Then again, maybe its also the people that follow the "old ways", like myself. I guess I'd have to directly ask someone when next time my duty station is out of the country.

if "requirements" are out of the question then there needs to be a way to spread facts to the general populace so people can't fear monger to victory in elections.

Obama ran on the ticket of accountability of politicians and yet, since the first day in office he's done nothing but, saying "we inherited (X)". Since day one in his office he's done nothing but, blame bush and tell us the sky is falling.

People like Obama who only need one term in office to basically throw the proverbial wrench into the works aren't affected by the "Vote'em out of office". Especially, if they are popular which would negate any means to impeach them. Clinton lied under oath which is a cut and dry federal offense and yet, he got off free.

Somehow, someway get information out so people can vote with their brains and not their emotions which proves difficult because the masses are government educated idiots who are more occupied with voting for American idol than for the president. I have personally met people who didn't even know who the president was when Bush was in office. Ziggy told me of a couple instances at a college she attended where people thought Germany was in a depression before ww2 because they were allied with the U.S. and that only those two countries were affected by the Depression and everybody else was hunky dory. These are COLLEGE students... I think I just felt a little piece of me die in a pit of despair. Goodbye hope...I never used you.

That is a good point, a college's credibility has gone downhill in the recent years. A well-versed high school graduate can probably be more knowledgeable than the an average college grad. Its for that reason that I don't often care which candidate gets more votes from college graduates, because they aren't much better than the rest of us.

I do agree, though. FOr a test such as the one I envisioned to be effective, there would have to be and even more accessible way to learn of the candidates. Question is if people would actually care enough to learn. As you said, Penguin, more people have voted for American Idol than the presidency.

At this rate, though, I may have to make a new thread (as suggested). I feel that I, for one, indeed am drifting off topic to more of an internal affairs argument than foreign.

Sorry 'bout that, guys.

Fair enough. Then among that group your assertion may very well be true, and as long as it doesn't warrant a blanket statement, I have no problem with it.



Don't you think that sometimes there is just too much information? You have O'Reilly and Olbermann going at it on TV, people yelling on Crossfire, John Stewart trying to lay down the populist hammer, Ann Coulter being a nutcase, liberals shouting at Fox for conservative bias, conservatives shouting at the media in general for being liberally biased, 30 second political spots that present maybe 2% of the relevant information on an issue, debates where politicians get two minutes to speak about hugely complex issues. It's a complete mess out there, and plenty of people will believe most anything they hear. Even if they don't it's quite a task to figure things out.

Attack politics rule, and that makes it hard for politicians to have a nuanced view of an issue. John Kerry got destroyed on his Iraq statements(They were poorly worded and I am not trying to endorse or refute them, I just think they are a good example in this case). The US apparently barely has enough of an attention span to watch a debate in which 5 minutes are allocated to a vital issue like healthcare.

How do we solve this without taking away freedoms? Strict campaign finance laws or voting requirements do infringe on freedoms.

Personally, I think that citizens would be more willing to invest time and effort if they had more faith in the government. I know Fpod, that you will mention that the government has not displayed enough competence in recent times, and that is true to some degree, but I also think this has been affected by populist campaigns against the government. Voters are taught to hate the insiders and government, vote in new people, and then hate them and vote in different people a few years later. Nothing changes.

Government can improve life, in some things by action, in some things by inaction. Voters can hold politicians accountable by not re-electing them. It happens all the time, just often for the wrong reasons: the airwaves being flooded with negative ads. The political viability of ideas affects even the president. Newspapers and analysts talk about it all the time.

Studies have shown that Americans used to believe in the government more in the past. Years of being force-fed negativity by opportunists looking to take power have eroded that. They tell us that it's not our fault, the greedy Washington insides who understand nothing about us have ruined us all. But that's a load of crap.

Maybe you can blame politicians for doing this stuff, but it is the collective fault of the people for buying into it and allowing it to work. Our problems are our fault. We voted in the people who screwed stuff up, and in many cases, even re-elected them while they were screwing stuff up. Maybe I'm overly idealistic, but I believe that if we can convince people of this and that they do have the power to hold politicians accountable for the right reasons if they put in the effort, then people will be more willing to become informed voters.

One reason I liked Obama is because he sometimes talked about this. I wish he would be more bold about it, but change doesn't come overnight. I'm not ready to label his term a success or failure yet, and that type of analysis is for a different thread, but if he can get a significant number of people to believe in voting as a responsibility that can both create success and problems, that will be a significant achievement in my mind.

its no that college has dropped but, Government education is so pathetic that colleges are basically forced to fix the damage the "public" schools did in the first place.

Whitelion is a college student. I've only been to a college because I was visiting someone. Yet, we're both considered intelligent people. I make up for my lack of a worldly education by taking in massive amounts of information while Lion studies his classes. The whole Rock Lee thing about hard work can beat skill.

Anyways, the problem still lingers. How do you deal with an apathetic, uneducated (lacking common sense) public?

Alas, that is the greatest question. We've sunk so far into the bowels of the middle ground that some people don't even care enough to formulate a good reasoning behind doing something. Though with how lazy most people from my home town are, I'm thankful that they're doing anything at all.

I think this country needs some sort of revival to make the public invest their interest in the government. Maybe if we fixed all this BS we would be able to appear better (I meant it as in improvement, not superiority) to the rest of the world

It depends on those people’s attitude and the common knowledge they possessed (no matter how little they have).
I think most people just don’t care when things get complicated or afraid to make a decision due to lack of information or wanna be seen as neutral.

The way to rectify the former is non -other than instilling awareness in them Since young through education) and this should comes from the top ,a role model or hero, someone who those people respect (e.g “American idol” or some politician they like & would like to emulate from). From past finding, they will tend to “follow the leader” and very likely to do what the leader does.

Well, for the latter, just give them more information or just let them be & we will decide for them instead?? haha

We've exploited the absolute freedoms we've been given and now our system has collapsed to such an extent that sadly the only ways I've seen to restore it are by compromising some of those freedoms, which goes against the very core of American values.

My decision on my hate towards the U.S. is based the people and population on a situation or event. most of this people just believe anything just heard out of no where without getting any deep information until the very end. It piss off me

Lol, well there you go, the ignorance born from lazing about and taking the media as the absolute.

Thanks for the clarification