The real problem here at home

We, Americans, must change if we want to survive

from JoeUser Forums
There are many arguments from all sides of the field over what is best for this country. And even though the disagreements can be seen even from the people with a single party as much as between the parties themselves, they all have one thing in common, they all have a “my way or the highway” attitude towards their opinions. And I’m not just referring to Bush; I mean all of them, Congress, the Senate and Bush’s administration.

The problem with America is that compromise was thrown out the window. Arguments about who thinks he/she has the better solution has created enemies within our own Gov’t. Politicians refuse to make compromises to their solutions and instead the ideas end up trashed all together. What ever happened to sitting around and finding a solution that somewhat met everyone’s needs? What ever happened to instead of A or B why not C that everyone likes? It’s because of these kinds of mentalities that the Republican Party is falling apart right in front of the American people’s eyes. The word compromise does not exist in Bush’s dictionary and some of his people find themselves having a choice of either following their leader even if they do not fully agree with him or siding with the opposing party even if they don’t fully agree with them either. And since many people seem to be losing all faith in Bush (even if they still dislike the opposing party) the politicians see this and are choosing to follow (somewhat) the will of the people and therefore a division within a single party is forming little by little. In other words it’s not betraying your party for the ideals of the opposing party but more of better to steer away a bit from you party so as to not end up being dragged down if and when the party starts going downhill as it did in the 2006 election for the Republicans.

We need to reach a point where our politicians meet as equals, where they get together to push an agenda towards the improvement of the US, where phrases like “well it’s not what I wanted but it doesn’t sound that bad” and “ OK but if we add this it will be better”. Compromise is the key to a successful day in Congress, the Senate and the White House. Giving in a little while getting at the same time sounds like a better solution than to not get any at all.

What do you JU readers think?
politics
3,256 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"What do you JU readers think?"

I think government is too big, and the country is also way too big, for us to adequately select leaders.

I think there are a lot of smart folks on this site, but I find them to be the exception. I hate to sound condescending, but what I think is what I think...and that is that the vast majority of human flesh on this planet carries with them a brain that doesn't really comprehend complex enough subject matter to enable them to make astute decisions on who should be running their government - yet...their vote counts.

The result? Votes based on marketing strategies. The result of that? Whoever has the wherewithal to forge the greatest marketing campaign becomes government leader. The result of that? Well, you stated it. We, Americans, must change if we want to survive. And what do we change? Intelligence level.

I rather like the voting system we have. What I do not like is that we do not have access to "the best person for the job" who is probably some chick from southern Illinois running a coffee shop a few blocks from the airport. Or a black guy that declared to himself that he was going to make it through to success. Or a Hispanic lady who would love to make some real changes in places things need to be changed, but runs a Flamenco dance school instead because what platform would any of these aforementioned candidates run on? My point here is that I think I can guarantee one thing. The person we elect is not the best person for the job - regardless of what office we're discussing. The person we elect, we elect because we deliberate to determine who the lesser clown is. That's no way to run an election, but it isn't going to change until people start caring more about how fast they can think than how fast they can run. Until they care more about how deeply complex they can think as opposed to how much weight they can lift. Until substance matters more than style.

Thinking leads to action. Good thinking is required for good action. Our thinkers are dieing and being replaced with not so great thinkers, and call anyone out on their lack of knowledge of something as simple as grammar, and watch the denial start. Not just the denial of the person you mention it to, but a bunch of others, as well. It's rampant across every internet forum I have seen, and these people are smart enough to use computers!

Enough rambling on my part...there are smarter people here than myself to chime in. The fact that I realize that still means something.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think that Bush has compromised - on some things.  But the democrats have not.  Perhaps just a perception as I do not like NCLB, Drugs, or the SS non-solution (and it seems to me that Bush did all the compromising).

On somethings he has not compromised.  Should he have only gone half way into Iraq?

To many here, and in the media, compromise seems to be "You come to us" for the democrats. Instead of meeting in the middle.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that Bush has compromised - on some things. But the democrats have not. Perhaps just a perception as I do not like NCLB, Drugs, or the SS non-solution (and it seems to me that Bush did all the compromising).


True, Bush has done some compromising. But I still think he could have done better and owned up to some of his mistakes instead of sticking to his "I know what's best for you" attitude that I feel from him and going around pointing the finger at others. It's like MM's posted on his article about The Death of Common Sense where it was "survived by his 3 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim."

On somethings he has not compromised. Should he have only gone half way into Iraq?


Well, if you think about it Congress approved so in reality they compromised with him because, I don't know, they were stupid or they saw a benefit in it at first. I figure compromising has to make sense, you can't just bomb half of a country just to make a compromise with those who don't want all of Iraq destroyed.

To many here, and in the media, compromise seems to be "You come to us" for the democrats. Instead of meeting in the middle.


That's why I said this is more of “my way or the highway” attitude. It's just that at the moments the Democrats stand out more even thought this is an attitude that plagues both parties. And I've been told I'm hardheaded, the Democrats out do me in that category.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead."


Nicely put.