Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I don't consider myself very political, and I tend to avoid "political" interactions whenever I can. I've found that people who are too eager to start a political conversation are basically wanting to stand on a soapbox. There is very little concern with trying to accurately define the problem a proposed action is trying to solve. Even less effort goes into realistic projections of how effective the measure will be. Balanced assessment of the costs and side effects are actively suppressed as people compare the negatives of their enemy's approach to the positives of their own, filtering out everything which does not help them sell their cause. The conversation quickly becomes emotional, because there is very little reason or substance involved.

      I have observed that partisan politics is not a Washington, DC problem. Everyone does it, and to get to Washington, DC, representatives have to win the votes of people who themselves are extremely partisan. In a country where "We the People" give consent to be governed, the buck stops with us. If it is ever to change, we need to lead by changing ourselves and setting different expectations of our representatives.

      We currently opt for an extremely divisive and inefficient method of governance. At the individual level and in DC, each person or party seeks to dominate and impose their beliefs on the entire nation. Those who do not believe likewise are beneath contempt, evil, or idiots. Not a single thought is given to persuasion, education or working out something we can all get behind. Hence as the composition of congress ebbs and flows we scramble to undo other people's unenlightened errors just as fervently as we scramble to make new unenlightened errors for a future session to undo. It's job security for politicians, but not a good way to live together with those who do not believe as we do. With every single election, half of America is guaranteed to lose, vow revenge, and redouble their efforts to take back "their" country by making it inhospitable to their oppressors. It's just a feud--and like that Star Trek episode where war was made palatable and clean, there's little incentive to bring it to an end.

      If we're going to get nowhere, we don't have to work as hard at it. Deciding to only do the things we can all get behind should promote a transition from imposing dominion to persuasion. Say we seek a President who would veto everything except those bills which passed by the margin required to overturn the veto. Or we raised the bar for passing a bill in Congress. When we don't have the option of demonizing the opposition because we need their support, conversations may start to have more substance.

      What's it going to take to up our game?

    • Mathew Tyler

      @buzzkill Pertaining to your question of "What's it going to take to up our game?," quite simply to up the U.S.A.'s game representatives have to genuinely be: of, by, and for the people/U.S.A. or even simpler, me; my name is Mathew Tyler, I was a 2016 and am currently a 2020 independent POTUS candidate.

      In addition to personally doing the diligence and due-diligence in order to accurately and correctly identify problems and realistic possible solutions; i.e., www.tylerpresident.com/policy ; whilst I personally feel that ignorance is thē biggest problem plaguing both the U.S.A. and the planet, I also feel that accurate and correct education is likely our (humanity's) best bet at rectifying the problems of/in the U.S.A. and the World ideally before it's too late.

      Regardless of anything and with no constraints, I also welcome suggestions for consideration on changes for the U.S.A. and/or the World from anyone.

      ​-Mathew L. Tyler, future President of the USA
      M.L.T.

      #FutureForAll

    • Hi Matthew,

      To review:

      ...to get to Washington, DC, representatives have to win the votes of people who themselves are extremely partisan.

      My hypothesis was that regular people/voters are going to need to change their attitudes before we see any change in elected officials at the national level. How are you going to get to DC as an independent if people stay entrenched in the Republican/Democrat "my way or the highway" feud? How are the things you put in place going to survive the following administration if ~50% of the populace wants a wall and no gun control while the other half wants no wall and lots of gun control? What's your plan for working out solutions that everyone can live with? How will you deal with a divided congress fighting themselves tooth and nail to pass laws which clearly do not represent a long term solution which everyone agrees with?

      You do raise the point, somewhat obliquely, that the candidates are not so appealing of late. During the 2016 campaigning season, I remember someone telling me that they had to get home to discover what new embarrassment our candidates brought to America's doorstep. One woman couldn't bring herself to vote for any of the presidential candidates, so she just left that part blank. I viewed most of the campaign promises as threats and chose to keep the most personal threat out of office (voting against, instead of for, a candidate). There was no winning the last election, just losing in different ways.

      My state's Libertarian candidate for Senate is described by his own party as "neither a Trump acolyte like his Republican opponent, nor a promoter of fear and divisiveness to manipulate voters like his Democrat opponent." While I don't know the truth of that statement, that does seem to sum up the current mainstream options nicely.

    • @buzzkill

      Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you and actually look forward to responding to your reply, currently just going through [more] challenges in "My Life;" i.e., "Camp Fire" in California burned all structures on my property and presumably their contents to the ground; additional info is public on my various other social networking sites..

    You've been invited!