Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

This isn't a debate, it's just each side spouting their campaign talking points.

Its always been that way.

[RedKing]

I assumed he was inured to it after several months of working with Steve Bannon, who is actually 30,000 flies, cockroaches and centipedes in a trenchcoat.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Rant(semicoherent): Frankly, I couldn't even watch tonight's debate, it was just too frustrating to see the ole Republican [insert glaring lie here] and Democrat [shake head knowingly and vaguely condemn] shtick crop up immediately. I have never understood why others placed any importance on a debate where responses were limited, however loosely by largely toothless moderators, to two minutes. Fundamentally, nothing about America at a national level can be decided, let alone explained to an average person in that time. It calls into question the ability of a singular person to represent, however vaguely and handwavingly, the interests of roughly 330 million people populating a modern-day empire spanning the width of a continent.

The spectacle of the event alone casts much more important matters into irrelevance for the dithering or otherwise uneducated/brainwashed American public. I could probably hit the damn text limit expressing the extent of my frustrations, but will instead reiterate my desire to longer exist within the social, economic, governmental, and political apparatus' that are America.

[wierd]

^

That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.

My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be.  The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.

[delphonso]

^

That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.

My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be.  The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.

Has been my goal for a decade now - just gotta convince my city-slicker wife to join me in the forest.

What's with everyone's eyes leaking fluids? Is this going to happen to me when I get old? Or is this some sort of upper-echelon drug we don't know about?

[Dostoevsky]

I realize this isn't a satisfactory answer, but one can take some slight solace in the fact that there isn't a singular person representing the interests of hundreds of millions of Americans. It's far, far, from perfect, but we do have multiple layers of representation, debate, and professional staff involved in all these decisions. E.g. the president may be the head of the executive branch, but there's still the House, Senate, judiciary, civil service agency staff, state governments, local governments, etc. etc.

Compared to other nations out there these days it could be a lot worse, could also be a lot better, but it's the creaky ship we find ourselves in. One that happens to contain over a hundred million people that politically are in a very different place than most of the folks in this thread.

That said, if you're talking about the debate itself, then yeah. I stopped watching them a few elections ago, they're not terribly relevant anymore. For all the media focuses on them, only a fraction of Americans watch them (which may be for the best) and they don't move the needle much. And, as you say, they're fairly farcical in concept.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd say a lot of the government doesn't represent people anymore.  They represent corporations.

[misko27]

^

That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.

My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be.  The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.

Has been my goal for a decade now - just gotta convince my city-slicker wife to join me in the forest.

What's with everyone's eyes leaking fluids? Is this going to happen to me when I get old? Or is this some sort of upper-echelon drug we don't know about?

Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.

Oh I'm sorry it's always time.

[delphonso]

You're right - wierd, I'm moving in with you. I'm bringing my whole family.

[The_Explorer]

^

That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.

My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be.  The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.

Has been my goal for a decade now - just gotta convince my city-slicker wife to join me in the forest.

What's with everyone's eyes leaking fluids? Is this going to happen to me when I get old? Or is this some sort of upper-echelon drug we don't know about?

Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.

Oh I'm sorry it's always time.

Most people move out of the city (or at least a good portion) because its cheaper. My family is moving out of the city and california, to a rural state and somewhere outside an urban area (but staying close enough to stores and good internet), because we can't afford to live in a city. California is worse (though not the worst state) when it comes to the price of living, than most states in the US. And don't even look at San Francisco, the rent there is insane. It costs more to live in a one tiny little room shack than it does a house in the southern part of California lol. And people can have two programming jobs in SF, and still be forced to live in their car. Its no wonder people move out of cities to cheaper parts of the state or cheaper states in general,  when that happens. But, all of California is pretty expensive, we looked out in the boondocks and it still is a lot because then the price to travel to work goes up a ton with gas prices and travel time, and then our vehicle requires more maintenance for the multiple long trips.

[wierd]

Unlike most that want to do this, I don't want to take the kitchen sink with me, nor to destroy/upset local habitat to plant a garden.  True, my very presence would upset local wildlife (but so does a bear's presence).  I just dont intend to go around buggering them. 

Also, the location is not terribly important other than it has to have some simple requirements for human livability, such as access to water.  Just as happy with traditional forest setting as with rocky craggy mountain, or with isolated fjord, or similar remote "people dont want to live there" environs.

Hell, you could put me on a fjord that lacks plantlife.  I would make it livable.

[Maximum Spin]

Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.

Oh I'm sorry it's always time.

This is pretty much completely untrue in the context in which it's being deployed. You're confusing the growth of suburbs, a real problem caused by overpopulation, with the tiny percentage of people who want to fuck off and live in the woods, who cause next to no environmental problems because they have a pretty small footprint to begin with and then there are hardly any of them.

Furthermore, individual people's lives are an infinitesimal part of the human environmental footprint by any metric, even those suburbanites who water their carefully manicured lawns. You know why Wyoming and Alaska have such high CO₂ emissions per capita? Because they're major fossil fuel producers. The problem is industry - which means the problem is, in fact, all those New Yorkers (by the way, I notice you assume New York is just the city, but there's a whole extra fifty-four thousand square miles which are much closer to Wyoming on average) who are using energy extracted from Wyoming and Alaska without having to account for the environmental damage on their own personal books.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I realize this isn't a satisfactory answer, but one can take some slight solace in the fact that there isn't a singular person representing the interests of hundreds of millions of Americans. It's far, far, from perfect, but we do have multiple layers of representation, debate, and professional staff involved in all these decisions. E.g. the president may be the head of the executive branch, but there's still the House, Senate, judiciary, civil service agency staff, state governments, local governments, etc. etc.

Compared to other nations out there these days it could be a lot worse, could also be a lot better, but it's the creaky ship we find ourselves in. One that happens to contain over a hundred million people that politically are in a very different place than most of the folks in this thread.

That said, if you're talking about the debate itself, then yeah. I stopped watching them a few elections ago, they're not terribly relevant anymore. For all the media focuses on them, only a fraction of Americans watch them (which may be for the best) and they don't move the needle much. And, as you say, they're fairly farcical in concept.

For the record, these are the matters to which I refer to being cast into irrelevance. The presidency means, or should mean, next to nothing, frankly they should be nothing more than a glorified diplomat with no incentive, or better yet legal ability to speak directly to the American people. The deadlock of our national bicameral congress, the horrifying racism, backsliding, and increasingly totalitarianist judiciary system at EVERY level, and frankly the simple fallibility of government agencies are way more important issues that just don't get tackled because they are insulated in some fashion from the public consciousness at large.

Also, don't you DARE give me that "it could be worse" bs, it could ALWAYS be worse. But it could, and it SHOULD be a lot better. What makes it particularly galling now is the ease and quality of things that could be better for so many Americans at the cost to so few that is only made impossible by the greed and baselessness of a such a tiny minority.

^

That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.

My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be.  The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.

Has been my goal for a decade now - just gotta convince my city-slicker wife to join me in the forest.

What's with everyone's eyes leaking fluids? Is this going to happen to me when I get old? Or is this some sort of upper-echelon drug we don't know about?

Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.

Oh I'm sorry it's always time.

I'm pretty split on the ole agrarian republic. On one hand, the population growth of the past... well, all of human history I guess has been decidedly irresponsible, ill-advised, and motivated by nefarious intent or ignorance--what I mean is, it would be impossible to give everyone their own land and expect a sustainable culture. That said, within the realm of individual ability, it is unfortunately entirely REASONABLE for someone to say, "Hey, I don't want to be part of your massive effed up thing over here, and live in a small, sustainable way on my own or in a small community". That is no longer possible in a national or global context, it simply can't be done.

On the other hand, I imagine we would all have a lot LESS of that impulse if there were extreme measures (I'm done being moderate about things, most problems that face the US require drastic action--which they won't get, and it's a literal crime for which people should legitimately be punished for in the harshest terms possible) to address climate change, consumerism, "economies" based on unsustainable market growth, corporatization, and the hoarding of wealth. For me, it's about having space that I have control over, which everyone wants, and again is pretty fair to expect if you subscribe to the idea of pretty much any societal philosophy. It's about having privacy. It's about having TIME, your time, to spend as you please. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier, in that the entire US system is designed, maybe not by intention, to function in a way that nevertheless keeps people "contributing to society" in a way that really only benefits a select few people at threat of the loss of everyone else's basic human rights and needs.

I don't support an escapist utopia, but I do support a massive curbing of our consumption habits and return to a relatively simpler material world (not return to monkey, it would not be wise to disabuse ourselves of electricity or the internet or devices that keep us connected in what has become probably free-est form of common communication).

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.

Oh I'm sorry it's always time.

This is pretty much completely untrue in the context in which it's being deployed. You're confusing the growth of suburbs, a real problem caused by overpopulation, with the tiny percentage of people who want to fuck off and live in the woods, who cause next to no environmental problems because they have a pretty small footprint to begin with and then there are hardly any of them.

Furthermore, individual people's lives are an infinitesimal part of the human environmental footprint by any metric, even those suburbanites who water their carefully manicured lawns. You know why Wyoming and Alaska have such high CO₂ emissions per capita? Because they're major fossil fuel producers. The problem is industry - which means the problem is, in fact, all those New Yorkers (by the way, I notice you assume New York is just the city, but there's a whole extra fifty-four thousand square miles which are much closer to Wyoming on average) who are using energy extracted from Wyoming and Alaska without having to account for the environmental damage on their own personal books.

Also this.

ALSO, there is nothing saying that sustainable forestry and energy management cannot occur on a local or individual level (as it did for thousands of years).

[sluissa]

Do you really want a bunch of extra irritable people who don't want to be in a city, stuck in your city with you? It's necessary to have that sort of safety valve for society if you're not planning on resorting to extreme measures like permanently disposing of people who can't adapt socially to city life.