Americans are stoopid

[randomrogue]

I just had to say that we're all a bunch of morons for repeatedly voting these terrible politicians into office. How much money has been destroyed during the last 20 years? The American dream is for all intensive purposes dead.

The worst part is people like you. People that post in these forums throwing mud at each other. You know who you are. You blame one party. The other person blames the other party. You never wake up and smell the roses realizing you're an idiot. Both parties are terrible, doing nothing for you, and simply destroying our future. Stop blaming one party over the next. They're both absolutely terrible.

How many of you actually think abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, and green house gasses are some of the most important issues today? Is this what you base your vote primarily upon? Laughable. How about using your brain and voting on actual issues that make sense such as education and health care? Our standard of living is much lower than other nations and dropping because people don't vote on things that actually matter.

We have had some of the dumbest candidates running for office as of late. Bush, Gore and Kerry? All idiots. Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin? Is this really the best we got? It's terrible!! It's a giant joke. We could probably randomly pull people from these forums who could do as good a job or better in the highest offices in the land. That's not the solution though. We need REAL leaders. We need to stop having elections where we're picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I have actually never voted in a presidential election where I felt that one candidate was good enough to be president. Some of you might be older and had that privilege. Local elections are a joke since everyone seems to simply vote for the incumbent. Get rid of these guys please! South Carolina I'm looking at you as a prime example of what not to do! 48 years for Strom Thurmond!? He was a Dixiecrat! I think he still holds the record for the longest filibuster. It was against Civil rights legislation!

Then again, most of you probably don't vote. Yeah, we don't have compulsory voting so that's a factor but we still rank 39th for voter turnout out of 39 countries listed on wikipedia. 48% of you vote. It's depressing. Foreigners don't get it. I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with us?!

 

[OCGuy]

The American dream is for all intensive purposes dead.

Apparently the schooling isn't that great, that is for sure.


Does this thread in any way add to this forum?

 

[JS80]

Apparently the schooling isn't that great, that is for sure.


Does this thread in any way add to this forum?

He should move to France and get French benefits.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Then again, most of you probably don't vote. Yeah, we don't have compulsory voting so that's a factor but we still rank 39th for voter turnout out of 39 countries listed on wikipedia. 48% of you vote. It's depressing. Foreigners don't get it. I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with us?!

What's the point when you know one of two turds (a Democrat turd or a Republican turd) will win?

 

[PottedMeat]

He should move to France and get French benefits.

it's the same doggy dog world out there too

 

[Jaskalas]

Then again, most of you probably don't vote. Yeah, we don't have compulsory voting so that's a factor but we still rank 39th for voter turnout out of 39 countries listed on wikipedia. 48% of you vote. It's depressing. Foreigners don't get it. I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with us?!

Regardless of how poor we think we are, this is the wealthiest nation on the planet. This wealth has made us fat and lazy. Our ruling elite are geniuses at keeping power, dividing us into two parties which simply meander back and forth entitled to endless incumbency no matter how badly they screw us.

That's the thing, no matter what happens we're going to vote Republican or Democrat. The exact two groups who got us into this mess in the first place. They win by having us blame the other side, by giving us this false choice and illusion that voting FOR them changes anything. Obama rode this wave, but instead of something new the people elected another Democrat. New face, same old party.

It can't just be one man either. A President alone changes nothing. It has to be EVERYONE in Congress, in the administration. In the courts. Clean them all out.

Until we're so injured as to be willing to eat our own, this trap won't be broken. I for one am tired of Republicans who only claim to support my values while selling them out every chance they get. I'm more than willing to vote third party and split the vote to purposefully destroy the GOP. I don't care if Obama is President for life if that's what it takes to clean my house.

We need a good portion of the nation who feels the same way about their party, and votes to ensure their voice is heard.

 

[Infohawk]

Foreigners don't get it.

Foreigners are just as dumb as Americans. It's laughable to see Europeans or Canadians take potshots at the current US predicament. The US and all Western countries including Japan area in the same position. Racing third world countries to the bottom means that they can no longer sustain their first world lifestyles. Some countries might have a little less income inequality or more social welfare than others but it's the same dynamics.

 

[IGBT]

they elected a street agitator for president. And they still think it was the right move.

 

[MovingTarget]

Yes. Very yes. At least thats what my reply was before I read the OP. It hasn't changed.

Also, fuck single-issue voters. The powers that be love these wedge issues, and we're complete suckers for them.

 

[Doppel]

I just had to say that we're all a bunch of morons for repeatedly voting these terrible politicians into office. How much money has been destroyed during the last 20 years? The American dream is for all intensive purposes dead.

The worst part is people like you. People that post in these forums throwing mud at each other. You know who you are. You blame one party. The other person blames the other party. You never wake up and smell the roses realizing you're an idiot. Both parties are terrible, doing nothing for you, and simply destroying our future. Stop blaming one party over the next. They're both absolutely terrible.

How many of you actually think abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, and green house gasses are some of the most important issues today? Is this what you base your vote primarily upon? Laughable. How about using your brain and voting on actual issues that make sense such as education and health care? Our standard of living is much lower than other nations and dropping because people don't vote on things that actually matter.

We have had some of the dumbest candidates running for office as of late. Bush, Gore and Kerry? All idiots. Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin? Is this really the best we got? It's terrible!! It's a giant joke. We could probably randomly pull people from these forums who could do as good a job or better in the highest offices in the land. That's not the solution though. We need REAL leaders. We need to stop having elections where we're picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I have actually never voted in a presidential election where I felt that one candidate was good enough to be president. Some of you might be older and had that privilege. Local elections are a joke since everyone seems to simply vote for the incumbent. Get rid of these guys please! South Carolina I'm looking at you as a prime example of what not to do! 48 years for Strom Thurmond!? He was a Dixiecrat! I think he still holds the record for the longest filibuster. It was against Civil rights legislation!

Then again, most of you probably don't vote. Yeah, we don't have compulsory voting so that's a factor but we still rank 39th for voter turnout out of 39 countries listed on wikipedia. 48% of you vote. It's depressing. Foreigners don't get it. I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with us?!

Won't say I agree with all but more or less you're correct.

 

[Red Dawn]

they elected a street agitator for president. And they still think it was the right move.

You think electing a sell out and a dumb bitch from Alaska would have been better?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You think electing a sell out and a dumb bitch from Alaska would have been better?

The question is why are we offered poor choices to begin with? The answer is that people will vote for them to keep the other party from winning.

It's a perfect setup. We eat bullshit so we don't have to eat horseshit and vice versa. The thought of not eating crap at all has become either foreign to us or we say how wonderful steaming shit is, as long as it's from the favored anus.

The reason we have such a low voting population is that a Hobson's choice is hardly worth getting excited about.

 

[Craig234]

The question is why are we offered poor choices to begin with? The answer is that people will vote for them to keep the other party from winning.

It's a perfect setup. We eat bullshit so we don't have to eat horseshit and vice versa. The thought of not eating crap at all has become either foreign to us or we say how wonderful steaming shit is, as long as it's from the favored anus.

The reason we have such a low voting population is that a Hobson's choice is hardly worth getting excited about.

Wrong. There's nothing in that scenario from a nice steak candidate coming along and beating both. IF Democracy were working.

The problem with limited choice, is that we have let they wealthy, who have interested against the public, dominate the system by making their money essential.

So the steak candidate can't win. What if Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders are great candidates? They can't win without the big bucks.

It says something that the supposed 'Democrat', 'liberal', candidate, Obama, was raising more from Wall Street than any other Democrats - or even the Republicans.

 

[Zebo]

What's sad to me is humans need negative reinforcement (PAIN) to relearn/learn lessons of the past not that they are stoopid. It's like an alcoholic who won't stop drinking until they hit rock bottom/liver failure or something then they get serious. I have great hope for future after a period of pain which will force people to look back at what worked, what doesn't, again.

 

[ProfJohn]

All of Europe is on the verge of a meltdown and you think we have problem??

We are still very lucky at this point. When people start burning cities then we can start to worry.

 

[OutHouse]

All of Europe is on the verge of a meltdown and you think we have problem??

We are still very lucky at this point. When people start burning cities then we can start to worry.

humm,,,, what economy's crashed before americas that caused the great depression?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wrong. There's nothing in that scenario from a nice steak candidate coming along and beating both. IF Democracy were working.

The problem with limited choice, is that we have let they wealthy, who have interested against the public, dominate the system by making their money essential.

So the steak candidate can't win. What if Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders are great candidates? They can't win without the big bucks.

It says something that the supposed 'Democrat', 'liberal', candidate, Obama, was raising more from Wall Street than any other Democrats - or even the Republicans.

You say I'm wrong and then proceed to make my point for me. I never said that there weren't other people outside the mainstream. What I have said is that they don't have a chance under the current system. I've often said that I wanted the Progressives and others to have a shot at getting their message out and putting forward a candidate on a more even footing than they have now because they haven't a chance in the real world. If I'm wrong tell me who was the last Progressive who ran as the Democratic candidate for President? It certainly wasn't Kerry or Gore. It wasn't Clinton. Who was it then? Did your party say "No, we won't give in. This is the person who we will put forward because they are the right person and for no other reason"?

Obama made many promises to end things like wiretaps without warrants. Has he done that? No, he's pushed for more than his predecessor did. He protects those who aided him in this such as ATT. On one hand he takes from Gitmo, but adds to places like Afghanistan completely out of our courts reach. Where is even a call for investigating what happened in Iraq? They fought for Obamacare and never was there a more ugly fight than that, but he's afraid Republicans will call him bad names if he follows through on Iraq?

The fact is that Obama is too much like Bush in ways that I think are important, yet you will vote for him if you vote at all. Why? Because none of the people you admire have a snowballs chance in hell of making it to run against the Republicans. Consequently I'll wager that when the time comes you'll be all over the Republican candidate and all for the Democratic option (Obama by default) while Obama continues the policies of his predecessor. It will be a case of practical politics with you choosing the lesser of two evils as you see them (I'm assuming you don't hold with Bush philosophy over extraordinary rendition or wiretaps).

You'll pick one flavor over the other because you haven't a choice on election day. We and I me you and I and countless others will not have a viable alternative, and blame the corporations all you want, the Dems will take the easy money just as fast as the Reps. It's long been worked out.

 

[ProfJohn]

humm,,,, what economy's crashed before americas that caused the great depression?

Great!! We're doomed!!!

Stock up on canned goods now. And guns too...

 

[Icepick]

I just had to say that we're all a bunch of morons for repeatedly voting these terrible politicians into office.

<edited for brevity>
We have had some of the dumbest candidates running for office as of late. Bush, Gore and Kerry? All idiots. Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Palin? Is this really the best we got? It's terrible!! It's a giant joke. We could probably randomly pull people from these forums who could do as good a job or better in the highest offices in the land. That's not the solution though. We need REAL leaders.

<edited again>

I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with us?!

The crux of the problem here is that just about anyone who is in office either Democrat or Republican will have the same set of constraints on them. While at a detailed level, there might be differences in their actions, I believe that the net results they achieve will be similar. Look at Obama and the Republican party. From his actions we're not seeing that much difference. It's all rhetoric.

You mentioned, "abortion, gun rights, gay marriage". I believe that these issues are thrown out there to mobilize the mentally lazy and uneducated because it's easier than trying to convince an ignorant population of the benefits of one economic plan over the other, for example.

 

[trenchfoot]

Wrong. There's nothing in that scenario from a nice steak candidate coming along and beating both. IF Democracy were working.

The problem with limited choice, is that we have let they wealthy, who have interested against the public, dominate the system by making their money essential.

So the steak candidate can't win. What if Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders are great candidates? They can't win without the big bucks.

It says something that the supposed 'Democrat', 'liberal', candidate, Obama, was raising more from Wall Street than any other Democrats - or even the Republicans.

It sure says a lot when even if we have a spread of candidates to choose from, invariably, they all serve the same masters, and their master is never the constituents that put them in office.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Snip

As usual, HR hits the nail firmly on the head. My friends said I was a jerk when I laughed at them for buying that whole 'hope & change' bullshit. Because you know when a candidate's biggest campaign donor is Goldman Sachs, he's a real progressive! I'm still laughing, and fortunately a few of them are now, too. I hear Obama's warchest for 2012 is expected to top $1,000,000,000. If that's not trying to buy an election, I don't know what is.

Then again maybe funneling a couple hundred more billion dollars into MNCs so they can continue to invest in emerging markets via QE3 will work for the average American!

 

[Craig234]

It sure says a lot when even if we have a spread of candidates to choose from, invariably, they all serve the same masters, and their master is never the constituents that put them in office.

It's a little like a soda machine with any flavor you like - cola, root beer, lime, orange - but whatever soda you choose sends the same money to the same corporation.

Whatever the public 'mood' of who they WANT to elect, there will be a candidate with that flavor for them to 'choose' - you want a black liberal, here's Obama! You in rage, here's a ticket to a Koch-funded bus to a tea party rally! You want a a smooth wealthy candidate? Here's Mitt Romney!

There are plenty of other candidates who are more authentic 'public servants', who just happen not to have much of a chance in our money-driven system, by design.

Say the public is ready for an anti-Bush - 'we want a people's candidate, who will reverse Bush policies for the rich, not choose war so easily, protect civil rights and so on'.

There's no shortage of such candidates - there could be a hundreds or more. So which ones manage to 'stand out' as the one who actually can win a primary against 100 others? The one with the backing.

It's a two-part filter. The public gets to pick from the short list - they can have the hippy community organizer or the cowboy or the astronaut - but the monied interests influence who is on the list.

It doesn't work 100&#37;, there are accidents who get in power - Carter, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt - but is it a coincidence a 'bubba' goes from poverty to President like Clinton? He showed he was a 'flavor' people liked, winning governor as a 13 year old (I exaggerate for effect, but the young AL governor ever) - and then, surprise surprise, he found the backing needed for the presidency but just so happened to preside over dismantling FDR regulations like Wall Street wanted.

It doesn't exactly make him a 'bad person' or 'total sellout', but there were arguments for those things - 'they're obsolete, and the US market needs to compete in the global economy, not to have handcuffs from the government' - that he would support, and that's what mattered, and let him be 'acceptable' to the interests.

You don't much see candidates win who violate either of those rules - total sellouts who the people don't want, or people the public loves who don't get the funding and backing.

Someone had a thread, how do we elect idiots like Rick Perry - this is how, the sellout to get the backing, and the 'charisma' to attract voters give us a horrible politician over better, less funded candidates.

 

[Fritzo]

I'm too stoopid to read all of that.

Although, I do agree that "The American dream is for all intensive purposes dead."

I'm also too stoopid to know that's supposed to be "for all intents and purposes".

GOD! WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVES ME BRAINZ?????!!!!!

 

[xj0hnx]

It's a little like a soda machine with any flavor you like - cola, root beer, lime, orange - but whatever soda you choose sends the same money to the same corporation.

~snipped~

And yet you still type out your multi-paragraph diatribes blaming Coke over Pepsi as if you are any different.

 

[Jaskalas]

Whatever the public 'mood' of who they WANT to elect, there will be a candidate with that flavor for them to 'choose' - you want a black liberal, here's Obama! You in rage, here's a ticket to a Koch-funded bus to a tea party rally! You want a a smooth wealthy candidate? Here's Mitt Romney!

If the tea party does anything to see Romney elected, then I'll have nothing further to do with that hallow name.