View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 01:51 PM   #1178
Keyan Farlander
Jedi Master
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 6,873
Forum Veteran 10 year veteran! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edlib View Post
There are better and far more constructive ways of voicing dissent than talk of destroying the country. "I love the United States Of America so much I'd MUCH rather completely destroy it and everything it stands for than rationally try to fix the things I see as problems!"

Basically, that's like committing bodily dismemberment on someone you love because they have a psychological problem.

It doesn't solve any problems... and only would serve to create a whole host of new, unforeseen ones.
I wouldn't be so quick to say it wouldn't solve problems. It would certainly solve one very large problem. Would it create worse problems? Perhaps. Perhaps not. And the answer may well vary from state to state. It would certainly only be prudent as a last ditch attempt to punch out before the missile hits you - but if the hit is inevitable, you're better off going for it than doing nothing. And clearly some people think the hit is now inevitable. But in any event, it shouldn't be some kind of federal patriotism that drives the decision. In the early days of the nation, people were more loyal, and identified more with, their states than the entire country. They were Virginians (or whatever) first, and Americans second. And that is very much in harmony with the original philosophy of the country as a group of united states. For now I take it more as an expression of frustration than a real desire to secede. But in 20 years...who knows?

Quote:
The missing element is rationality. There hasn't been a rational discussion and national debate about the direction the country really should be heading in since I have conscious memory. Just a lot of shouting and slander being thrown around, with each sides most extreme elements digging in and entrenching their positions and little deeper. And refusing ANY and ALL compromise that might make each side walk away a bit humbled.
I think there's been plenty of rational discussion. Unfortunately, when the heart of the disagreement is not how to get things done, but what should be done at all because the two sides have diametrically opposed ideologies, there isn't going to be much possibility for compromise. We are extremely polarized as a nation now, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

Quote:
There are civil methods to go about solving issues with the government. It might take a lot of work, and many hours of personal involvement... more than just casting your vote every 4 years, then writing bitchy Facebook statuses and online petitions when the election doesn't go exactly your way.
Sometimes civil methods are not sufficient to solve the problems with the government. But I don't begrudge anyone a little venting. Isn't that kind of what Facebook is for?

Quote:
As I wrote to many of my more conservative FB contacts this week: "If you really don't like the results of the election and the direction that the country is going in... what exactly are YOU personally doing to change it?"
Aside from voting and trying to convince people to come around to their way of thinking, what else can they do? They could actually run for office, but that's a full career for any position that could effect national issues like this. Yeah, they could get heavily involved in some kind of grassroots thing, but it takes all the time a lot of people have just to take care of their families.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, I thought the Romney Republican party did a TERRIBLE job of convincing anyone who wasn't already a partisan to vote that way, and I wasn't at all surprised the way the country went.
Really? I'm amazed Romney had to do anything other than be not-Obama to win. This country is in demonstrably worse shape than it was four years ago, and I'm amazed that anyone's default position would be to sign up for another four years of it. Mitt Romney was a pretty uninspiring candidate, but unless you were afraid his Mormonism would have a profoundly negative effect on the country (unlikely), there really wasn't anything to vote against there. It would seem like it might be a good idea give the guy who has proved he knows how to manage money a shot when the biggest issue right now is the economy. In fact, I know several people who voted for Obama last time who voted for Romney this time for just that reason. The only thing I can think of would be concern over needlessly starting a war with Iran, which Romney seemed more likely to do than Obama, but on the other hand, Obama has needlessly interfered militarily in that part of the world too, so that's still a big question mark with him in charge.

Quote:
The President has been vilified by the right for well over 4 years now... and the same folks who in one breath expound on crazy crackpot manifestos about his origins that are obviously untrue loony conspiracy theories, then turn around and want the rest of us to believe them and take then seriously when they tell us how he is and will continue wrecking the country. It really shouldn't be that surprising to anyone that a lot of people rejected that line.
The Romney campaign didn't touch any of that, though. In fact, they decided not to raise a number of legitimate issues about Obama and his ideologies. But I think this is what actually hurt them, because the thing about the swing states is not really that there are a bunch of people who could go either way. Swing states are not won by convincing people who aren't sure to vote your way. They are won by getting the people who are already convinced one way or the other to actually get out and vote. And there were a lot conservatives out there who simply didn't vote because Romney is not particularly conservative and they didn't see any real need to go out and choose between two non-conservative candidates. If the Republican strategy had been to go on the offensive and show why it was important that Obama not be reelected, they would have had a better shot, despite Romney's weakness as a candidate. What you generally saw in this election was conservative Republicans winning their races and more liberal Republicans losing them. Romney was not going to win with conservatives, so the only hope was to make it about not electing Obama, which the Romney campaign failed to do. They might not have been able to pull it off, but I think it was their only chance.
Keyan Farlander is offline   you may: