Political Unrest

[Mags]

After talking with some of my friends, both liberal and conservative, about the tone in politics today - and asking them specifically when was the last time we had such divisiveness in our country, I was told the following:

The last time they (3 diff older folks) could remember such upheaval in our country was back in the late 60's and very early 70's. Many of you remember this period, that being the Vietnam war, with Richard Nixon as president.

The theme there was that so many in our country (the majority) was against both the war and the way our government was leading the people. The Republican agenda at the time was too right wing - and when you try to force a country to a far side of the political spectrum, it naturally leads to a lot of rhetoric and debate - not all of it healthy. I was told that bombings (there was a big on at UW-Madison for example), etc was commonplace in that time period - as people revolted against the war and Republican leadership. Why? Because the majority of the country did not agree with the path that our government was taking us.

Contrast that to today - where our country, emotionally, is in a very similiar place. We have our most devisive political climate since the late 60's (IMHO).

We have the same situation as then - a government that has been trying hard to force the country to the far left - even though the country overall is center or center-right. The situation, of course, is exacerbated now by the ability for folks to get information (both true and untrue) at lightning speed due to the internet and cable TV.

Surely the issues that many in the country have today with our leadership aren't nearly as significant as the Vietnam war - but the social media has made them as significant or more.

A lot of parallels here: but the learning stays the same - whether we have Rep or Dem leadership, it is in the best interests of the country to govern from the center. And if the administration at the time doesn't, it leads to a lot of civil unrest - and sometimes tragic consequences (note: I am NOT saying the government was the reason for the shooting in AZ - even if he said the government was the reason - there is no explaining why mentally ill people do what they do).

I think our government leaders bear a strong responsibility in ensuring a heathly climate in America - one that the Republicans failed at in the late 60's and our current administration is failing at today. Government agenda's should never be far left or far right - at most they should tilt slightly to one side or the other, but mainly remain in the center.

Thoughts (intelligent discourse only - please no vulgarity or personal attacks - thank you). :0corn

 

[Duff Miver]

I'll bet I've talked to many more right-wingers than you, and in every case the liberal agenda is only an excuse. What they cannot stand, although they never admit it, is the fact that a black man is President.

Obama is nowhere as liberal as FDR or LBJ, but when did you hear the same crap about them? Who ever questioned their citizenship or religious beliefs? Who ever painted them as Hitler? Who carried weapons to a political rally or talked about watering the tree of liberty with blood?

No one did.

 

[Mags]

I'll bet I've talked to many more right-wingers than you, and in every case the liberal agenda is only an excuse. What they cannot stand, although they never admit it, is the fact that a black man is President.

Obama is nowhere as liberal as FDR or LBJ, but when did you hear the same crap about them? Who ever questioned their citizenship or religious beliefs? Who ever painted them as Hitler? Who carried weapons to a political rally or talked about watering the tree of liberty with blood?

No one did.

I respect what you are saying, and it may be true with your friends or acquaintances. I can tell you that is not my experience. When people talk about Obama, it is about policies/direction - I can honestly say his race never comes up.

That may not be true for a lot of Americans, but it certainly is true for many of them. I'm sure there are exceptions.

 

[Chadman]

Nice post, Mags. I agree, to effectively represent our entire country, our legislature needs to be mostly centrist, I think. When things go too far, either way, it doesn't work well. Then when it swings back, things are attempted to be reversed, and it's just a cyclical thing. Those with the power, use it, and try to change things to their beliefs Nothing really wrong with that but it doesn't represent half the people, in many respects.

The biggest problem to me - moving forward - is the money factor in how our country is and will be governed in the future. I think we must take steps to limit the power of money in our legislative and judicial processes. At least TRY to do that.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I'll bet I've talked to many more right-wingers than you, and in every case the liberal agenda is only an excuse. What they cannot stand, although they never admit it, is the fact that a black man is President.

 

[Duff Miver]

Nice post, Mags. I agree, to effectively represent our entire country, our legislature needs to be mostly centrist, I think. When things go too far, either way, it doesn't work well. Then when it swings back, things are attempted to be reversed, and it's just a cyclical thing. Those with the power, use it, and try to change things to their beliefs Nothing really wrong with that but it doesn't represent half the people, in many respects.

The biggest problem to me - moving forward - is the money factor in how our country is and will be governed in the future. I think we must take steps to limit the power of money in our legislative and judicial processes. At least TRY to do that.

The lack of centrist governing is just another casualty of the virulent rhetoric. There have always been hard-lefties and hard-righties, but in the past they found room for compromise.

One need look no further than the ultra-conservative Orin Hatch and ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy who many times worked together for the good of the country. A little further back we had Warren Rudman and Sam Nunn who crossed the aisle so often that most folks don't remember which party they belonged to. John McCain was once a man who could see reason whatever the source was, but he now has been pushed to the limits of right-wingism.

Big money? Sure it's a real problem, but no worse than ever, and not as bad as in the late nineteenth century when the likes of Jay Gould were able to buy virtually anyone.

So where have common courtesy, common sense and cooperation gone?

Flushed down the toilet of ignorance and bigotry by the unelected hate-mongers of talk radio, 24-hour news, and jingoistic public figures: bomb throwers who sit on the sidelines and profit.

If I had my way, hate-mongering would be a capital crime.

 

[Mags]

Nice post, Mags. I agree, to effectively represent our entire country, our legislature needs to be mostly centrist, I think. When things go too far, either way, it doesn't work well. Then when it swings back, things are attempted to be reversed, and it's just a cyclical thing. Those with the power, use it, and try to change things to their beliefs Nothing really wrong with that but it doesn't represent half the people, in many respects.

The biggest problem to me - moving forward - is the money factor in how our country is and will be governed in the future. I think we must take steps to limit the power of money in our legislative and judicial processes. At least TRY to do that.

Here's an idea: any big bill to be discussed - put it out for popular vote, instead of having the politicians decide.

Let the people decide - they nobody has a b**tch and can't accuse of politicians getting bribed to pass their own agenda.....

With the internet today, it seems like this would be a workable alternative....

 

[Mags]

Nice post, Mags. I agree, to effectively represent our entire country, our legislature needs to be mostly centrist, I think. When things go too far, either way, it doesn't work well. Then when it swings back, things are attempted to be reversed, and it's just a cyclical thing. Those with the power, use it, and try to change things to their beliefs Nothing really wrong with that but it doesn't represent half the people, in many respects.

The biggest problem to me - moving forward - is the money factor in how our country is and will be governed in the future. I think we must take steps to limit the power of money in our legislative and judicial processes. At least TRY to do that.

Limiting money will be a good idea - but how do you shut down the unions, so they don't play a signficant role?

Problem is, each party plays to its voting base - trying to make their base better off - it is a never ending cycle. It's always class warfare at its finest - and I do see how to stop that process.

 

[Duff Miver]

Here's an idea: any big bill to be discussed - put it out for popular vote, instead of having the politicians decide.

Let the people decide - they nobody has a b**tch and can't accuse of politicians getting bribed to pass their own agenda.....

With the internet today, it seems like this would be a workable alternative....

Sorry, Mag, but I don't want this citizen deciding anything -

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qQdhMSEqhfg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qQdhMSEqhfg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[bleedingpurple]

Here's an idea: any big bill to be discussed - put it out for popular vote, instead of having the politicians decide.

..

The idea sounds good but there are just too many stupid people.. Me being included.

People will vote for what benefits themselves instead of the country.. JMO.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I respect what you are saying, and it may be true with your friends or acquaintances. I can tell you that is not my experience. When people talk about Obama, it is about policies/direction - I can honestly say his race never comes up.

That may not be true for a lot of Americans, but it certainly is true for many of them. I'm sure there are exceptions.

Fact #1
I just posted the #'s a week ago about 2008 having highest % of white people voting for O than any Dem since 1974.


Fact #2 We just had reversal of white vote in 2010 midterms--

These facts would dictate to a sane person--it was politics and not color of the great uniter being the culprit.

--or you can look at it from muffins view and figure it took everyone 2 years to find out he was black.

opcorn2

 

[Mags]

Fact #1
I just posted the #'s a week ago about 2008 having highest % of white people voting for O than any Dem since 1974.


Fact #2 We just had reversal of white vote in 2010 midterms--

These facts would dictate to a sane person--it was politics and not color of the great uniter being the culprit.

--or you can look at it from muffins view and figure it took everyone 2 years to find out he was black.

opcorn2

DTB: while I appreciate your input, I'd like to stay away from any race issues here and talk about the main point - which is maintaining a central course for the country.

Too many of these discussions turn ugly and non sensical once "race statistics" are put out there.

Hope you understand....

 

[The Sponge]

DTB: while I appreciate your input, I'd like to stay away from any race issues here and talk about the main point - which is maintaining a central course for the country.

Too many of these discussions turn ugly and non sensical once "race statistics" are put out there.

Hope you understand....

i thought ur main point was to trash unions for the 5000 time :shrug:

 

[The Sponge]

Limiting money will be a good idea - but how do you shut down the unions, so they don't play a signficant role?

.

I find this hilarious. Why do u just pick on unions? U try to make a bi partisan post and right away u are attacking unions. How does anyone take you seriously. :142smilie My signature say's it all about a maggot like u.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

You were to weak to rebut Tramp and muffins on their racial overtones--thought someone should--thank you:0008

The facts alleviate the race baiting--and put the culprit where it belongs--they tried to move a right center country to the left--case closed

% of white vote
Carter 1980 36%
Mondale 84 35%
Dukakus 88 40%
Clinton 92 39%
Clinton 96 43%
Gore 00 42%
Kerry 04 41%
Obama 08 43%

You asked a question--your answer is obvious.

 

[Chadman]

Here's an idea: any big bill to be discussed - put it out for popular vote, instead of having the politicians decide.

Let the people decide - they nobody has a b**tch and can't accuse of politicians getting bribed to pass their own agenda.....

With the internet today, it seems like this would be a workable alternative....

I appreciate the thought, but I guess I'm not sure I think that the low interest and voter turnout that we have in this country would do service to some of the incredibly important issues that are brought up in bills. That's essentially why we elect representation, because they are charged with the responsibility of representing us and being there to vote and study the bills. They're paid to do it, actually. While I know that's not really the case, I guess I think it's a better solution than letting people show up to vote when it strikes their fancy, only on things that yes, benefit them. And my fear of more money controlling the system - which we CERTAINLY have now after the Supreme Court ruling, would not be well served by having each big vote being funded by corporate and wealthy private groups jading the public on the issues to their own benefit.

I agree, actually, on the Unions thing, and think that's worth looking at. Not sure they should be able to fund candidates and elections, but certainly Pacs and Now Super Pacs can, so not sure what the difference is. I personally think Unions are more representative of their members best interest than Corporations are - who are MAINLY concerned with what the management and board of directors are for, and what will benefit them personally, then the company bottom line, and THEN the individuals working for the company. I do think there is a clear difference, but understand your point, as unions are different, and are out mainly - sometimes only - for helping their members, sometimes to the detriment of companies, individuals, the country, etc.

 

[Mags]

I find this hilarious. Why do u just pick on unions? U try to make a bi partisan post and right away u are attacking unions. How does anyone take you seriously. :142smilie My signature say's it all about a maggot like u.

No, I was rebutting Chad's comment - as he has been harping on the Supreme Court decision for a while now - I'm just saying, it's has to go both ways - no money from either side.

Also, it is nice to see that you can't refrain from the personal attacks. Nice.

 

[Chadman]

And I don't think we should generalize about all politicians, personally. I know a few locals and a few state representatives that are very principled, intelligent, fair and consider issues - and actually seek out opinions of others. I think that lessens, the higher you go up in office, though. It has to, or you never make it higher.

 

[Duff Miver]

Fact #1
I just posted the #'s a week ago about 2008 having highest % of white people voting for O than any Dem since 1974.


Fact #2 We just had reversal of white vote in 2010 midterms--

These facts would dictate to a sane person--it was politics and not color of the great uniter being the culprit.

--or you can look at it from muffins view and figure it took everyone 2 years to find out he was black.

opcorn2

They say figures don't lie, but liars will figure - and that's YOUR problem, doggie.

It isn't a question as to how many whites or blacks voted for/against Obama.

It isn't about decent people at all.

It's about the minority of right-wing assholes who can't stand having a black president.

The loud, hateful, bigoted, ignorant, violence-spewing minority, the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity loving minority. The 1/100 who listen to Beck and Hannity, the 1/50 who listen to Limbaugh.

People like you, doggie.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

You were to weak to rebut Tramp and muffins on their racial overtones--thought someone should--thank you:0008

Speaking of a weak mind.