So say we all.
A majority might agree we need a third party, but that majority is divided into several minorities WRT what kind.
Well, a party without all the corruption and pandering so common to the other two. One with no political power, whatsoever.
Maybe we can require an injection of Sodium Pentothal before the next debate. Might make things more interesting.
LSD/Esctasy trolling-ball be better. And the moderators and audience do not get to abstain.
I have always concluded the audiences at Republican debates were already under the influence.
Write this down: never, ever give LSD to the stupid.
I sometimes think Ecstasy should be force-fed to all world leaders and diplomats. No more wars! All quarrels compromised! 
So what’s a few pinholes in the brain . . .
No, they look like pinheads because of what they say and do.
We already got half a dozen of those at least.
They do a pretty good job of looking that way on their own, though. Unless your contention is that the Liberal Media brainwashes Republican candidates into saying the most outrageously, offensively stupid shit. That would be downright dastardly of them.
More seriously, the League of Women Voters should get back into the game. Set the ground rules. Candidates can show up or refuse - their choice. Arrange to show it on CSPAN - networks can show up or refuse - their choice. Part of the problem with these debates has been idiotic questioning. That can be remedied.
If the major candidates boycott the proceedings, it would at least provide a platform for the minor ones. Set the rules so that the minors are allowed if less than 2 majors show up.
Have you gone barking mad? Ridding the debates of idiotic questioning would ruin the whole she-bang! These guys are Founding Father glorifiers, which makes them practically cut from the same cloth. Especially when it comes to the line, “We take these truths to be self-evident…” Ok, now posit ‘Government is too big’, ‘Environmental regulations are always unnecessary’, ‘Gays are evil’, ‘Roe v. Wade must be overturned’, ‘Alternative energy is a socialist plot’, and ‘The people who outsourced your job need a tax break you lazy bum.’
See? With the august language of the founding fathers used as a prefix, these propositions take on the gravity of the Word of God. A serious discussion of them in the mass media would certainly screw that all up and destroy the carefully cultivated impression that these guys hold positions that benefit the general public.
Some people just don’t get it :rolleyes:
What makes you think that would change anything? When was the last time a politician actually answered a question that was put to them?
I think it’s a mistake to categorize them as crazy
Some of them are psychopaths and the rest are pretending to be psychopaths to avoid being dismissed as RINOs.
Psychopaths are not crazy. They just lack a conscience and the ability to empathise with others.
And the ones pretending to be psychopaths are what, if not crazy?
I mean, they are pretending to be psychopaths!
:smack:
Yes, but they are doing it for a rational reason. To win their party’s nomination they have to convince a body of rather extremist voters that they are more right wing than any of the other candidates.
To be that far over to the right of the political spectrum would mean that you show no empathy with the common man. You’re all about the supremacy of the market, invading weaker countries, shrinking the government by stripping support for the poor while providing tax cuts for the wealthy, over funding the military, demonising homosexuals and completely deregulating business. And of course trying to move the US toward theocracy by eroding the distinction between the state and a very warped, corrupt interpretation of Christianity.
To seriously hold an ideology like this would mean that you would not be bothered with any sort of conscience - in other words you would have to be a psychopath.
The problem for moderate Republicans is that they will have no chance of winning their party’s nomination unless they pretend to hold these values. This is because the Republican party has been hijacked by political and religious extremist over the last couple of decades. Extremists are more often than not psychopaths.
For example, Mitt Romney is not a political extremist, but he has to pretend to be one if he wants to win. If he does win he has another problem - how to convince the larger electorate that he was only pretending to be a psychopath. That won’t be easy.
I think it is this huge mismatch between actual and pretended agenda that makes GOP positions so confusing and nonsensical.
An example would be payroll taxes: the GOP “opposes taxes” yet actually opposes specifically taxes on corporations and the rich and recently tried to increase taxes on working Americans. I wish the media did have a liberal bias: it might then have raised awareness of that hypocrisy.
I wonder if either countries end up with such clownish candidates. The only other country I’m familiar with is Thailand, where many politicians are corrupt but voters seem less gullible than Americans as shown in interviews:
Me: “You realize your candidate is a criminal thug?”
Thai interviewee: “Oh, yes. But he’s our thug.”
Me: “You must not have read that your candidate swindled a huge sum from the Thai Treasury in 1997.”
Another Thai interviewee: “I’m quite aware of it. Wouldn’t any smart guy have taken the same opportunity?”
How can any reasonable person explain this to himself/herself and still think that US is a great country with a functioning democracy? That’s insanity yet, somehow, there is a halo of electability and rationality about this guy that, personally, drives me crazy (like, how can people look at this guy and think positive).
I mean, if this is true summary of what’s going on at the moment (and I believe it is), how brainwashed one has to be to think that a person of such “qualities” (or, any other who was in the similar situation; e.g. Obama who was one guy in Dem primaries and somewhat different guy once facing McCain when he had to move closer to centre) is the ideal guy to win Presidential elections?
What I’m curious about is the thought process of a voter (or, perhaps, voter group; i.e. evangelist, small “c” conservative …) that ignores blatant mimicry of the political process and falls for this kind of circus in what’s probably the most important aspect of a citizen participation in community/country affairs? Is that a “new principle” that took off in the political and social discourse conditioned by media and Government and myself is kind of left out in the dust of societal progress holding onto the idea of political process completely ignoring reality of politics?
As the Perfect Master said, little stuff causes little problems, big stuff causes big problems. There are degrees. Just because someone has to pretend to be somewhat different in order to get nominated doesn’t mean you have to pretend to be a psycho.