Personally, I'm very afraid for the future of this country. By the way the media circus is going, choices are going to come down to Hillary or Trump...and at that point we, the people are just choosing in which way we want to get screwed. Why must every decent candidate get black balled and slandered by the main stream media while the liars, snakes, and traitors to the constitution are paraded around like saviors of the people?
Because decent people aren't willing to sell their souls to the political machine. Because decent people don't want to get involved in politics because of a strange focus on personal rather than civic ethics. And above all? Because decent people want to do decent things
for the people of this country.
It's no real secret that the media, corporations, and various other special interest groups are enjoying a heyday right now when it comes to access of the power of government. And as you state below, most people aren't stupid - they know
the ultimate problem is too much influence on politics and governance by these groups - and their solution is to simply do away with the policies that allow these groups this influence.
Not surprisingly, those would-be affected don't want the gravy train to end. They want to keep making five billion dollars in the US annually and then get another three back on tax refunds from Uncle Sam. So they use their influence, their wealth, to stop anyone who might put the kibosh on that. It's been said here, and I think it's worth repeating - if corporations are people, then they are a psychopath.
This is hardly the first time something like this has happened. The British East India Company also benefited from being able to dictate and create policy for its own benefit to the British government. It took a massive uprising in India in 1857 for the Crown to finally upend the Company and nationalize it, but there had long been concerns for the self-centered and corrupt behavior of the Company's officers and various other management types leading up to that incident.
Why ignore such behavior for so long? Because the Company was making Britain rich
, and it was bringing goods at such low prices that even the common man could afford them. The British government's tax on tea imported from China and India - which was only
through the EIC, who enjoyed a Parliament-enforced monopoly - accounted for ten percent
of all British revenue. Imagine if 10% of all our taxes today came from something like bottled water or Coca-Cola.
In short, I really think it's going to take a massive event, similar to what happened in India, before we really start to fix the problems we have today.
I find it hard to believe that the general populace is really so stupid as to believe that either Hillary or Trump has our best interest at heart. We all know Hillary is a crooked politician with little regard for american lives, and Trump is a crooked business man who would sell us all to china to make a quick buck....so why are they the front runners?
Trump is the Republican frontrunner because those on the voting right these days are tired of being lied to by politicians who'll say any thing they damn well please to get into office, and then upend all their promises so they can get the backing of their party. They look at Trump and see someone who'll talk at them straight. Trump is also the culmination of the Republican focus on trying to put businessmen in office rather than statesmen. Trump also enjoys broad cultural recognition, thanks to his show and various antics he's done over the years, as opposed to guys like Marco Rubio (who you never heard of 5 years ago).
Hillary is the Democratic frontrunner for two reasons. One, the last decent President we did
have in office was Mr. Clinton, and they want to capitalize on that. Two, the media wanted Hillary to win back in 2008, and then it was 'stolen' out from under her by Obama. So now they're going for round 2, and the media is really pushing her as the only
legitimate candidate. The fact that she's a woman on top of that is just civil rights icing on the cake - they'd back Hillary even if she was a man. Never mind that people haven't had much issue with lambasting people on the right, like Perry, Santorum, or Huckabee, who ran in previous elections and failed to garner the nomination. Why should Hillary be any different? Because the media wants her
to win, so they blind themselves to their own hypocrisy.
Again, this isn't the first time this has happened. When the 1860 election came around, there were four men - Seward, Chase, Bates, and Lincoln - running for the Republican nomination. When Lincoln won, he recognized that the crisis they were facing - the South had declared it would secede if Lincoln won, despite his promise not to interfere with slavery where it already existed - would require extraordinary men. And Lincoln concluded that they were
the best, and he "had no right to deprive the country of their services." So he made Seward Secretary of State, put Chase in charge of the Treasury, and Bates became Attorney General.
You'll note, however, that we never had a President Seward - indeed, other than being Lincoln's State cabinet member, the thing he became known for was "Seward's Folly," the purchase of Alaska from Russia. (Chase was a bit different because he was made Chief Justice of SCOTUS, and Bates died five years after the Civil War ended.) Because they recognized they had their shot at glory and it had passed them by for a man who, in their final judgments, was really better than them.
There's none of that today.
If the race came down to Sanders vs Paul, we might stand a chance. Both of them seem like they actually care about the constitution and want to help deal with the REAL problems in this country (Though Ron is the Paul we really need, his son is just the next best thing)....meanwhile Hillary is gearing up to be the next Obama and continue trampling the constitution, and Trump is ready to try his hand at being Hitler. You can't cure corruption by constantly choosing corrupt officials.
But that's all the choice the system in place is ever going to give us.
Because, and I hate to say this, but we have encouraged this corruption. Elections these days are essentially gigantic popularity contests, and whoever can make the biggest promises that meet the expectations of the voters will enjoy success.
Example: we don't want the government to raise our taxes, because TAXES BAD. Never mind that taxes are how we pay to have an army, to upkeep infrastructure, to pay for government services. Anyone who has advocated the raising of taxes in recent political memory has been lambasted by the people because "the gummint wants more of my money to waste on $20,000 toilet seats!" We aren't going to get out of our current economic woes through cutting spending alone. We have to pay our way - we were foolish and now we, quite literally, have to pay the price of that. But people refuse to elect anyone who tells them that simple truth. As a result, you get in people who are willing to lie
to the American people.
I'm personally reminded of this:
Let me warn you, and let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion that says: "Of course we believe these things. We believe in social security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die! We believe in all these things. But we do not like the way that the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything!
That, of course, was followed by laughter at the place Roosevelt was giving the speech, because people then recognized how absurd that was. We don't have that today. We are willing to believe anyone
who tells us what we want to hear, not what is grounded in reality.
To use a more close-to-home example, imagine being back at school and voting for student council president. Who were the guys that got the really big followings? The guys that made promises like "Pizza day every day!" or "Coke in the water fountains!" or "Extra time for recess!" Now, a student council does not have
that kind of power, but in our youth and stupidity, we were willing to believe that they actually did. It wasn't until we got older, went to high school, that we started to dismiss that kind of promise, because we understood that a student council could not do that
So, quite simply, we are still youthful and stupid politically, willing to believe crazy and unreasonable things because we want to
. Because the alternative, the reality, is so unpalatable to us that we'd rather die in a fantasy than live in reality.
And the worst part is, if EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN voted for someone else, one of those two would still wind up in office due to the electoral college. The average citizen's vote doesn't actually matter at all. They are basically nothing more than suggestions for the electoral college to choose to follow or not. There's no real obligation for them to vote how their state actually did.
Which is actually one of the major things people who propose abolition of the electoral college give as their reasoning - though I will point out something interesting. The system originally
didn't work the way it does today. It actually used to be that within a state, the popular vote was totaled up for each side, and then that side was assigned a number of electors based on those numbers. The idea of a whole state's electoral votes going to whoever wins the popular vote in that state wasn't always - while it might seem like a long time ago, the winner take all method only really started in the mid-1800s. So the college itself isn't broken, but it could use some repairing.
That said...I've noticed a pattern in election results during my life time. the incumbent always wins, and if it's his second term, the other party wins. I mean...think about it. Clinton, democrat, 2 terms. W. Bush, republican, 2 terms. Obama, democrat, 2 terms.....so, next comes two terms of Trump, then whatever snake the democrats dig up after he's done...assuming we're still even bothering to pretend to have elections then.
That's not actually all that surprising, if you think about it. America has a lot of problems facing it today - foreign affairs issues, the economy, the ever increasing encroachment of the values of one group of people into the lives of others...a lot
of problems. Americans want these problems fixed. The problem, though, is that the attitude and attention span of your average American today is far
from what it used to be.
To give you an idea - William Wilberforce was one of the men principally recognized for the abolition of slavery in England. A single, monumental issue - that took Wilberforce and his compatriots 20 years
before Parliament finally passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. 20 years
, to accomplish one of the most fundamental tasks in the civil rights history of man. And keep in mind that one of Wilberforce's friends was William Pitt, who was Prime Minister (the youngest EVER) during nearly all of this time. All that time, though? Wilberforce and his allies were mercilessly mocked and lampooned.
With today's political climate? You could not get that done
. We insist our problems be fixed within one or two Presidential election cycles - 8 years. And politically speaking, that's not a lot of time. We simply don't have the political will to let problems have long solutions. In short:
We have problem A. We put the Democrats in the White House, expecting them to fix A within their 8 years. When A isn't fixed, we go and say "they can't fix the problem, maybe the other guys will do better," and so we put the Republicans up, hoping they'll fix the problem.
But neither side can by themselves. Because government of our style requires cooperation across the lines, and compromise and bipartisanship seem to be dirty words in Congress today. So we're inevitably left to ping-pong back between the parties, hoping one of them can magically fix our problems in an unreasonable timeframe. We need to have patience
, Rome wasn't built in a day.