View Full Version : Went To Caucus; We Are Messed Up As A Country
Okay, so I went to the Republican Caucus, which are open. I am an independent although I have mostly voted Democratic.
The democratic caucus I went to last year was a simple fill out this paper and vote.
This was much different.
We were in small groups based on our prescints, etc. and we had to, as a small group, elect a leader and other roles. We voted for our person and then we had to choose delegates from our group to go up the ladder.
Most of the people there were supporting Ron Paul, and I have to admit, I could vote for him (if he was on there).
I voted for Romney because I think I could stomach him as a president although I'll probably end up voting for Obama.
Anyways....
They talked about democrats as if they were evil. And then they said that they care about the poor, they really do (and tired of being a so called for the "rich" only party). Someone mentioned "right to work" as a good thing and someone else jumped up and said that it would lead to $5/hour jobs.
Someone else said that the number 1 goal is to repeal Obama Care and then number 2 goal is to decrease the debt.
I really wanted to ask where the "economy" fit in on the list as I think it should be NUMBER 1, HELLO???
Anyways, I should have spoke up more but I was kind of scared as being "outed" or something as a mostly voting democrat. Someone else had admitted to voting for Obama last year but they encouraged them to be there so that they get more involvement. I am really shy in these kind of groups.
They said that the Democrats are a well oiled machine and that the republican party is dying. (funny, I've heard the same thing said about Republicans vice versa).
Anyways, I just feel really sad that they talk about democrats as if they are evil and democrats can see them as evil and I just think it is just all wrong. They even talked about how you have to be super rich to win an election. And really, we were all just a bunch of poor kids sitting around. Most there were young.
It is dirty and ugly and complex and it just leaves me really, well, with a negative outlook on our future.
People from both parties, we are just all in a really bad place and fighting against one another and someone up in the power way up is just having a good laugh at us.
oh dude, I am sad that you, an Obama voter, infiltrated my group and spied on my peeps.
:laff:
kidding.
I, too, am saddened by the schisms in this country. I'm the daughter of a R father & D mother... I grew up with political debates at the dinner table, and a respect for both sides.
That seems gone to me. The hateful speech that I hear put forth by some very big media outlets is shameful. How can such hatemongers sleep at night? Those voices dominate, and frame the context of national discussion to our detriment.
More importantly, how can we connect to listen to each other?
That's one reason why I like this board
I learn a lot about different approaches and at least try to understand where people are coming from
I may not agree, but I do appreciate a place for us to put down our wide variety of opinions without getting too blazing nasty
Good on you HeyDude for going and being a part of the process!
I firmly believe that there are forces in this country that NEED us to be polarized and at each others throats.
And a lot of people are making a ton of money off of the polarization - media outlets of all stripes, the 'political personalities', etc.
I firmly believe that there are forces in this country that NEED us to be polarized and at each others throats.
I have to admit having the same thoughts. It seems there must be some group out there driving a "divide and conquer" scheme. I can not immediately identify any group beyond terrorists and nut jobs that would not realize greater benefit from a cohesive, progressive society and I don't think those groups have anywhere near the influence needed to divide us. A few individual influence peddlers at the top of either political party certainly stand to benefit to a huge degree. Do those few people have what it takes to keep our entire country divided? I keep wondering who I'm missing, who is it that keeps that salt flowing into the wound?
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-12, 11:19am
Country too hopelessly divided on some issues to ever have them resolved. Too many people in the country who believe downright silly things (I don't easily label things as downright silly, disagreements on capital gains taxes or some such issue I can easily tolerate, I just can't even grok those who don't even care about the environment etc. :(, not that anything there is easy).
Meanwhile while people are at each others throats they get away with murder. They get away I think with the real policies. Support for the wars for instance often falls quite low - but the wars continue. They pretty much do whatever they want, don't they? I mean one can talk about the perils of democracy all they want, but are these wars driven from the bottom up? From a great clammoring of the people? No way (though people can be propagandized). From the bottom up you might have people angry at the health care system, or peeved at unemployment or something, or even annoyed at the tax bill come April (and even then so many divisions ...). But these are things people know in their lives. But massses of people spontaneously clamorring for war with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran? No way.
Maybe the issues where left and right could potentially unite against (although even then at this point ...) are the real agenda.
that is at least why i like ron paul, cause he does bring dems and repubs together, which is kind of why i went.
there were other people that voted for Obama there too.
I have to admit having the same thoughts. It seems there must be some group out there driving a "divide and conquer" scheme. I can not immediately identify any group beyond terrorists and nut jobs that would not realize greater benefit from a cohesive, progressive society and I don't think those groups have anywhere near the influence needed to divide us. A few individual influence peddlers at the top of either political party certainly stand to benefit to a huge degree. Do those few people have what it takes to keep our entire country divided? I keep wondering who I'm missing, who is it that keeps that salt flowing into the wound?
Really Gregg? You can't imagine who? Well, lets see. There is Rush Limbaugh for starters. Have you ever actually listened to the guy? Millions do, apparently, for , what, 3 or 4 hours a day. His whole show, the entire thing, is nothing but 'dems are bad, evil, Obama wants to ruin the country, loves terrorist, hates America...and on and on.' The whole show, I am not exaggerating. Listen to him sometime. And if that's not enough, there is Fox News, a 24/7 democratic/liberal hate fest. You know, after a while, people believe this crap when they hear it over and over. The republican politicians don't help either with their pandering to Fox and Rush and using this whipped up frenzied audience to their advantage. What do you think happened with the entrenched Republicans in congress being turned out by tea party types? They courted the hysteria and then got burned.
Now, I know you don't believe me, but I'm not your Internet monkey. The links, and videos, and speeches are out there if you want. I can find you some, you know I can. And if you ask me to find some examples, I'll ask you to find examples of democrat/liberal leaders behaving as badly. I can find 20 to your one, I guarantee you.
This is an old discussion, I know. But this divisive nastiness started with Newt, and it's been promoted by and large by republicans/conservatives and has gotten to the point where I'm not sure we can ever go back. How do we fix it when a party decides it's OK to shout "you lie" to a President at the state of the union, question his birth (and I'm talking the so called leaders of the party) and openly flaunt the fact that they don't care about the country and it's people, they just want back in power (job 1)
I know you are attempting to bring us together with the 'we are all to blame' idea, but the fact is, we aren't all to blame. Some very specific people with very specific agendas are to blame. We just allowed it to happen.
I may not always agree with you Gregg, but I like you and your ideas. Your a smart man who seems careful and thoughtful in your ideas. But we won't solve anything pretending we don't know what or how this happened. We know how it happened. We absolutely know how it happened. The real question is, how do we reverse it?
During the 2008 election season I sat in on a Tea Party meeting. Some of it was hopelessly shrill and hateful, but for the most part, if you really listened and watched, there was a profound feeling in the room that they were all doing what THEY thought would make the best possible America for everyone.
I may not always agree on the "how" of things, and I hate when entire groups are painted with a broad brush (i.e. universal healthcare is always evil, "poor" people are always just lazy and need to get jolted out of that, "rich" people are always self-centered control freaks, etc) but it's hard to argue with the people who have quiet, intelligent, well-thought-out reasons why they think X or Y or Z is the best way for America to be.
Then and lately, as I (mostly) lurk here, I keep thinking of this old bit from my long-ago creativity coach: (fictional, naturally, and paraphrased)
There once was a town that had a problem. It seemed that people were accidentally being buried alive. They seemed dead when they were put into their casket, but mistakes were being made. The town council asked for ideas on how to prevent this tragedy.
One citizen proposed that the "dead" be observed for several days and put through rigorous tests to be sure.
Another proposed that caskets have wooden stakes installed on the lid, with the sharp end pointing in.
One's not right and the other wrong. The issue is that they were answering different questions. The first was answering the question, "How can we make sure that no one who's alive is buried?"
The second was answering the question, "How can we make sure that everyone we bury is dead?"
I feel as though, if we were to ask the right question(s), lots of us would be surprised at the solutions we could come up with.
For example, like this one: "How can social services be structured such that people in need who have worked hard, lived an honest life, played by the rules, and legitimately need help can get it?"
vs.
"How can I make sure none of my hard-earned tax dollars go to "entitlement" programs and the freeloaders who use them?"
Totally different question, totally different answers, and one's unifying while the other's divisive (unless the speaker is without compassion, and there are plenty of those of course)
Anyway, that was my Tea Party experience. I may do it again this year.
Peggy, don't forget Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Michael Moore. They are just as derisive of "the other side" and just as vocal. We all think we are justified in the viewpoints we take and the way we express them. After all, they (insert whoever you hate here) are ruining America. I took Gregg's comment to mean that ...well... we all have a role in this.
Lacking Peggy's certitude, I won't try to identify the specific serpents in the garden. I'm not even sure we're in an abnormally divided period. When I was a little kid in the sixties, there seemed to be riots everywhere. We've had bloody strikes, de facto pogroms, a civil war, lynchings and general political nastiness all through our history. The editorials and pamphlets published in the early years of the Republic would make Limbaugh blush.
I think there may be an element of recency bias in the perception that we have somehow fallen from grace.
But we won't solve anything pretending we don't know what or how this happened. We know how it happened. We absolutely know how it happened.
That's not quite what I meant peggy. We can all identify the talking heads on both sides and I think we can probably all agree that the polarization is furthered by their actions. At least I agree with that conclusion. What I'm really wondering about is who is behind THEM? Mtnlaurel was talking about "forces in this country that NEED us to be polarized...". I was simply trying to take a step back to see if there was a bigger picture. It may very well be as simple as the media being the end of the road. Rush Limbaugh (to cite your example) is, by almost any measure, extremely successful and thanks to the size of his audience he is very influential. Maybe his organization and the similar versions on the left really are big enough to drive the machine on their own. Its obvious how that level profits from the conflict they stir up. What I'm wondering is if there is any more to it than that? There are certainly industries and corporations and other interests that benefit when one party or the other is in office, but aside from the media who benefits when we are divided? Is there a puppeteer?
I wish I had more thoughts or even better proof or snazzy links on the subject of the puppeteers, it's just a hunch or maybe just straight up paranoia.
I do feel the the extremely wealthy in our country are powerful enough to squash things that aren't beneficial to them - so if the constant static wasn't benefiting them in some way it wouldn't exist.
Hey, pug, I love the story. What an excellent example, too, using social services. I want to borrow both of them.
It happens so often that we cannot find common ground because we are not asking the same questions. I often think this with the so-called abortion debate. The polarized sides are not really on opposites sides of a single question. The questions on each side are different so of course the solutions or answers are different.
However, it takes a view from orbit to get that level of perspective. How do we get there from where we are?
i don't think that jon stewart and rush limbaugh are similar/comparable.
but yes, it does come from both sides.
I don't think there are any puppeteers. Why would there need to be? Media conglomerates (the 5 to 7 companies that own most media we consume) are making 100% of their profits from feeding the public what the public "wants".....trends often set by the media themselves. No need for the Trilateral Commission here. It's all about profit. Period.
It makes me think of the Simpson's episode where they ask the wealthy Arnold Schwarzenegger type accusingly, "How do you sleep at night?" And he answers "On top of a big pile of money, with many beautiful ladies." The media need no puppeteers. Those megacorporations sleep (figuratively) on piles of money earned by the careful orchestration of conflict, desire, jealousy, resentment, fear through images. They are driven by profit, and the stimulus-addicted public consumes their poison, watches their ads, buys their products, listen to their prophets and accepts their opinions as our own, and votes in politicians who are friendly to their cause, rather than to the cause of what's best for humankind. It's a vicious cycle.
Not all of us do this. But billions do. I see no way out, really. We are our own sort of addict, and our pusher gets more manipulative every day. {shrug}
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-12, 8:00pm
are making 100% of their profits from feeding the public what the public "wants".....trends often set by the media themselves
Not really, isn't NBC owned by GE, and thus part of a larger corporation? Thus the real agenda, might not just be the agenda of the piece, if profit maximization of the whole corporation is the concern ....
Peggy, don't forget Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Michael Moore. They are just as derisive of "the other side" and just as vocal. We all think we are justified in the viewpoints we take and the way we express them. After all, they (insert whoever you hate here) are ruining America. I took Gregg's comment to mean that ...well... we all have a role in this.
This is true, although I wouldn't put Jon Stewart in with the rest. He is a comedian and just highlights the absurd for profit. But his is absurd, wrapped in truth. But Michael Moore is the occasional nutter/hater while Rush is on like 3 or 4 hours a day! And nothing comes even close to Fox News on 24/7. Nothing. But yes, there are nasty voices on the left, but never in the numbers as in the right. I'm not saying it's completely, 100% coming from the right, but the majority is coming from the right and i think we all know that.
I'm not sure there are puppet masters, although many extremely wealthy on the right have taken advantage of the climate to their own means. I think it was a snowball type effect in that Newt started it in the 90's, simply because it's his nature really, he's a nasty person plain and simple, and some saw the success of it and went with it. Rush tapped into that fear (of government, immigrants, anything new or progressive, etc..) and found an audience receptive enough to hang on every word of 'your life sucks and here is who to blame'. From there, certain politicians, and party members who really didn't have anything else to offer, latched onto this easy ride into the physic of people who were wary of change, of their neighbors, of anything new or different of any kind. this is Rush's audience and Fox's audience. And they have them every day, all day.
So really I think it's slimy politicians taking advantage of easy game. You saw it in the Bill Clinton thing and the Terri Schivo thing. You also saw it in the tea party routs this past election, but in that case many of the republican politicians who thought they would ride the tea party to victory were themselves turned against and out. It was such a phony emotion for them they didn't realize these people, whose angst they were trying to use, were really spun up, and not buying it. Ironically I think that was the best part of the tea party, although I think for the most part they put people in place who weren't ready for prime time.
That's not quite what I meant peggy. We can all identify the talking heads on both sides and I think we can probably all agree that the polarization is furthered by their actions. At least I agree with that conclusion. What I'm really wondering about is who is behind THEM? Mtnlaurel was talking about "forces in this country that NEED us to be polarized...". I was simply trying to take a step back to see if there was a bigger picture. It may very well be as simple as the media being the end of the road. Rush Limbaugh (to cite your example) is, by almost any measure, extremely successful and thanks to the size of his audience he is very influential. Maybe his organization and the similar versions on the left really are big enough to drive the machine on their own. Its obvious how that level profits from the conflict they stir up. What I'm wondering is if there is any more to it than that? There are certainly industries and corporations and other interests that benefit when one party or the other is in office, but aside from the media who benefits when we are divided? Is there a puppeteer?
Yes yes yes. I was actually going to post something along these lines but you beat me to it. I think the suggestion, I believe from the movie, "All the Presidents men" to follow the money. In most cases that would lead us to 'Big' as kib called it. Big banks and wall st, big agriculture, big pharma, big oil, etc. All the Bigs. Both parties are supporters of big, in terms of the legislation and regulations, etc, that they support and enact. Sure, the Bigs talk a good game about reduced regulation and all that, but do they really want a real change like that? If one looks at their actions one would have to say that they don't.
For instance look at the ultimate Big money, Wall St. They supposedly want less and less and less regulation and government interference. Yet it was gov't and central bank interference that saved them all from demise back in 2008. If they really wanted capitalist freedom they'd all be supporting Ron Paul, the only candidate that actually proposes real ideas of less gov't intervention. Instead Big Wall St gives money to both parties freely, focusing it on whichever candidate they think will actually win.
Or read Joel Salatin's, (the owner of Polyface Farm, an organic meat farm in Virginia who Michael Pollan profiled) latest book. He spends a lot of ink discussing the ways that FDA regulations don't make our food safer, but instead just make it more difficult for the little farmers like him to compete against big agriculture. He traces it all back to the Chicago meat packing industry that nearly got destroyed by Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". The FDA got created back then not because the public demanded it, (they'd already switched in droves back to local butchers they could trust) but because the Big meat packers needed a government imprimature of healthfulness of their product to convince people to start patronizing them again.
The Bigs have figured out that on social issues like gay marriage and abortion and such that the country is roughly equally divided, and the two parties have opposing views. By supporting both parties the Bigs guarantee that the general population of voters will remain divided and focused on these issues and the Bigs can continue to get laws and regulations that help Bigs. If the population at large were able to come together they could easily shift things against the Big's interests, which would of course be devastating to them. The talking heads, all employed by yet another big, Big media, are just part of the process of keeping everyone divided in two.
The only time that it seems like there's a real chance to stop a Big is one two Bigs oppose each other, such as the recent showdown between Big Hollywood and Big Internet over SOPA/PIPA. Without Big internet leading the charge, SOPA/PIPA would've sailed through to become legilation.
... But Michael Moore is the occasional nutter/hater while Rush is on like 3 or 4 hours a day! ...
I'm sure MOore is sorry that he can't get that gig.
And nothing comes even close to Fox News on 24/7. ..
It's not for lack of trying on the part of the left. Air America, you know.
And peggy, your characterization of Rush's audience as people who's lives suck is off base by a long shot.
I find it difficult to listen to my father, who pretty much listens to Rush, etc all day long (when not working). It's heart breaking. It's like he doesn't have a logical bone in his body. ANd he's a smart man.
No, he doesn't have a testosterone issue.
But yes, he acts like a paranoid delusional about "the liberals" (me? his grandmother? his brother?) and "the gays" (his sister? his golf friend? his golf friend's gay partner?) and "the whoevers" that these talking heads are talking about. He rants, and raves, and behaves like a conspiracy theorist.
Is my dad's life "bad?" -- no, his quality of life overall is good. Except that which appears to be messing with his brain.
And it's frustrating, because you can't have a conversation with him about issues.
I'm sure MOore is sorry that he can't get that gig.
It's not for lack of trying on the part of the left. Air America, you know.
And peggy, your characterization of Rush's audience as people who's lives suck is off base by a long shot.
Oh I'm sure you're right! Moore would like to have that gig, but thank goodness he doesn't. One hate filled voice spewing nastiness for hours a day is enough. To tell you the truth, I've yet to actually watch a Michael Moore movie, which is probably true for most liberals, despite what some may think. Just listening to him in interviews and such is such a turn off, I can't stomach the guy. And the sad thing is, he might very well be highlighting important issues, but his delivery, that in-your-face type of journalism, is just too much. Maybe we liberals are too squeamish for the shouting/hating/nasty that these guys spout.:(
And Air America. Well, we liberals are just not good at that sort of thing. We aren't good at deep and dirty nasty. I don't listen to, oh whats his name, not Olbermann but that other guy, the Rush wanna be from the left, who is on every day, although not for hours at a time. Sometimes I will check in and really, the longer he rants, the phonier it sounds. It just doesn't sound genuine. And then he'll toss in something about some conservative doing something he liked and I'm thinking, naw, you're no Rush! :~)
Rush's audience lives don't suck, but he tells them it sucks, or will suck if liberals have their way. That's what I meant. He rants and raves about phony fears and damages for hours, literally hours in hate filled stream of consciousness. I'm surprised his audience doesn't nip off and shoot themselves to avoid the liberal Apocalypse!:0!
*I just love these little icons! Mrs. M's are the best!
Rush tapped into that fear (of government, immigrants, anything new or progressive, etc..) and found an audience receptive enough to hang on every word of 'your life sucks and here is who to blame'. From there, certain politicians, and party members who really didn't have anything else to offer, latched onto this easy ride into the physic of people who were wary of change, of their neighbors, of anything new or different of any kind. this is Rush's audience and Fox's audience. And they have them every day, all day.
As LDAHL said above that behavior isn't anything new. Think about it, if everything were perfect, no strife, no wars, a healthy economy, housing prices up, unemployment down, what do you think the opposition to the sitting party would do at election time? We're all relieved to hear a candidate spout the positive goals from their own agenda, but at some point all of them pretty much have to tear into the other guy. Obviously things aren't perfect now so the job might be easier this election cycle, but the same theory applies in each and every election. The left can sit back for now because the candidates on the right have to hack at each other until there is only one left standing. You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict that once the choice is made the negative campaigning from the left will crank up and the right will just finally be able to concentrate their efforts on the opposing candidates rather than on each other.
And Air America. Well, we liberals are just not good at that sort of thing. We aren't good at deep and dirty nasty.
Rush, et.al, didn't make some kind of break through or tap into a market that didn't previously exist. There really are people in this country who are hurting and wondering who's to blame. I agree that market is being exploited and the conservative voices are doing a much better job of exploiting it, but that doesn't mean the more liberal voices aren't trying. Probably food for a different thread, but I think the main problem the liberal media has is that the voter base has too many causes so it lacks focus. The right managed to boil down their platform to only a few not-so-controversial causes that effect almost everyone for the national stage and let the rest trickle down to more of a local focus. I'm not a regular listener, but I think Rush talks daily about the economy, but rarely if ever about abortion. You get the idea.
Yes yes yes. I was actually going to post something along these lines but you beat me to it. I think the suggestion, I believe from the movie, "All the Presidents men" to follow the money. In most cases that would lead us to 'Big' as kib called it. Big banks and wall st, big agriculture, big pharma, big oil, etc. All the Bigs. Both parties are supporters of big, in terms of the legislation and regulations, etc, that they support and enact. Sure, the Bigs talk a good game about reduced regulation and all that, but do they really want a real change like that? If one looks at their actions one would have to say that they don't.
I am totally thinking along the same lines jp1. Most of us will never have that view from space so we need to try to piece together lots and lots of smaller views to try to see the big picture. Because of the various interconnections of media ownership it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the media exists just for its own sake. It makes more sense if you think of it as a tool used by larger concerns to advance an agenda. Problem is, it so quickly starts to sound like a conspiracy theory. Maybe we should turn Michael Moore loose on this one. :devil:
I agree with Gregg that political times in the past have been pretty nasty. One of the big lessons I took away form our visit to Springfield, IL the Land of Lincoln was that MR. Lincoln had a lot of vitriol spewed at him (and perhaps he did the same?). Not all Victorians were proper gentlemen in the political arena. The nastiness of some of the writing about Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial was a surprise to me.
When national politicians return to fighting duels or bludgeoning each other senseless, I'll start to worry. I'm not especially worried about guttersnipe free speech of any stripe.
I agree with Gregg that political times in the past have been pretty nasty. One of the big lessons I took away form our visit to Springfield, IL the Land of Lincoln was that MR. Lincoln had a lot of vitriol spewed at him (and perhaps he did the same?). Not all Victorians were proper gentlemen in the political arena. The nastiness of some of the writing about Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial was a surprise to me.
I agree with this too. I think that the pervasive nature of modern media has just given it a loud bully pulpit. Who was it that said that people who flock to such pundits (on all issues) are seeking confirmation, not information? They're seeking their own tribe, and television/radio/internet makes it increasingly easy to both find it and publicize its merits. The media distorts and enlarges everything, like a house of mirrors.
mtnlaurel
2-10-12, 12:30am
Saw this tonight and thought it might fit here...
http://www.blork.org/blog/imyjiz2/informed-sanity.gif
I will try to type while still chuckling over Mntlaurel humor. I imagine politics has been pretty nasty at time though history, but modern campaigns make full use of statisticians, demographers and psychologists to try to manipulate people's opinion's of the opposition. I think there is a conscious and scientific effort to demonize opposition through the use of certain phrases that trigger a gut level reaction beyond issues and logic. I think Obama has been a special victim of demonization, but as the Republican primaries has gone it is there, too.
It is a mystery to me why Ron Paul, in spite of his odd ball stance, has not gotten better media coverage. As politics go,he seems to be running a fairly clean campaign and is getting favorable comments from my social groups.
Rogar, did you notice much in the way of negative media messages here in Colorado? I didn't really, but I don't watch mainstream TV as much as "normal" people do. After the sh**storms of 2008 and 2010, I was a little relieved.
Puglogic, No, I really haven't noticed much negative campaigning here...yet. Most of what i have gathered comes from brief evening news coverage. Though I don't see a lot of mainstream news either. I have a friend who was in Iowa during their caucus and he went on about how purely negative and ugly things were there, so I guess we've been lucky. I'm sure we'll get our share when we get closer to the national elections.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.