(Please forgive me if I start rambling on a tangent, again.)
And I don't believe either party means particularly well, and both are horribly corrupt in practice.
Either they:
1. both believe that their position is the only right one, and to compromise on any of their principals would be an abomination (which I mostly agree with. Your principals, your moral code of conduct, should not be tossed aside so readily). This leads to an impasse, where both parties, rather than nothing getting done, will at the very least fight to get their people/constituents the stuff they want, because that's the best anyone can hope for.
2. Are both in on the scheme together, and most of the bickering between parties is just a front for backroom deals. It's basically #1, but more sinister.
Most voters, I believe, are trying to do the "right" thing, at least in their limited perspective. The problem is, very few are willing to expand their perspective. Peer pressure doesn't help with that (You don't immediately condemn X? You must be one of them!). And even if they did try to understand, really understand and empathize with an opposing point of view, that doesn't mean they have to like it, accept it, or think it will work.
Like it or not, very little of the rhetoric on either side has been properly tested, because such social experiments would be so heavily frowned upon. Then there's how history is completely different depending on who is asked about it. And we all know that the majority isn't always "right" on an issue, either factually or opinionally (global warming, gun rights, etc.; pick your poison). Leaders are no different in that respect. And people always think their own opinions/facts are right, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. So much of political rhetoric is based on heresay and unknowable factors.
People in power, any sort of power, from policy making, to enforcement, interpretation, and information gathering, all have the ability to use their powers for the exact opposite goal as they were intended to be used. Gun control to keep people from killing each other? Gun control to keep people from rising up against oppressive government. Government banning bad foods? Government pre-packaged, mandatory rations. Government controlled healthcare paying for your hospital bills? Government healthcare selectively paying for certain hospital bills of their choosing. Protect the rights and liberties of everyone? Limits on personal freedom
So it comes down to one thing. Who do you trust? I, for one, see little reason to trust the politicians we have with much of their current power, let alone so much more. And while privately owned entities can also be corrupt, the power isn't automatically consolidated in one place, and it's theoretically easier for a greater number number of smaller entities to keep each other in check.
So what does all of it matter if you have to choose anyways? Well, it can mean fewer shouting matches that do nothing but waste time and resources, and make people angry.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 821947 times)