GOP vs. Dems: it's a red herring (it's really about corruption)

[icehorse]

My sense is that traditional GOP and Dem philosophical stances both have merit, and both have strengths and weaknesses.

But these days corruption has become so endemic that any energy spent by Dems and GOPers in arguing with each other is music to the corruptors' ears. In this hyper-corrupt world, I feel the Dem stance holds up slightly better, but only slightly. Both stances are overrun with corruption.

So, how to shift the discussion?

 

[Revoltingest]

If corruption were the biggest issue, then Hillary is far & away the worst.
But that was of secondary weight in my choice to vote against her.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My sense is that traditional GOP and Dem philosophical stances both have merit, and both have strengths and weaknesses.

But these days corruption has become so endemic that any energy spent by Dems and GOPers in arguing with each other is music to the corruptors' ears. In this hyper-corrupt world, I feel the Dem stance holds up slightly better, but only slightly. Both stances are overrun with corruption.

So, how to shift the discussion?

Review American history and note the rise and fall of various political parties and go from there.

 

[Augustus]

But these days corruption has become so endemic that any energy spent by Dems and GOPers in arguing with each other is music to the corruptors' ears. In this hyper-corrupt world, I feel the Dem stance holds up slightly better, but only slightly. Both stances are overrun with corruption.

So, how to shift the discussion?

The problem is that it is not corruption, but accepted political practice to have most politicians in hock to moneyed interests.

The system is corrupt, but not through individual corruption. Corruption is illegal after all.

 

[icehorse]

If corruption were the biggest issue, then Hillary is far & away the worst.
But that was of secondary weight in my choice to vote against her.

First off, congrats(?) on the 90k !?

The system is corrupt, but not through individual corruption.

And these responses are what I'm talking about. We've been taught to focus on individuals. Sure candidates make a bit of difference. But largely they provide a distraction, and every bit of "news" and every argument about "Hillary vs. Trump" is a "which color lipstick should we put on the pig this time" discussion.

Even Warren and Sanders - who I like - are only partially addressing the issue of systemic corruption.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Taking big money out of campaigning it is a good start for disrupting the status quo.
Then we need to focus on removing undemocratic institutions from the United States.

I think lobbying and corporate personhood rung the death knell in this respect. I've always felt if the war chest was standerdised, it seems candidates would spend and strategize more effectively.

 

[bobhikes]

My sense is that traditional GOP and Dem philosophical stances both have merit, and both have strengths and weaknesses.

But these days corruption has become so endemic that any energy spent by Dems and GOPers in arguing with each other is music to the corruptors' ears. In this hyper-corrupt world, I feel the Dem stance holds up slightly better, but only slightly. Both stances are overrun with corruption.

So, how to shift the discussion?

Vote in a third party, it will upset both standing parties and take time for the corruptor's to switch allegiance. So for a period of time you will interrupt the endemic corruption and hopefully be able to put in some safe guards for the future.

 

[Revoltingest]

First off, congrats(?) on the 90k !?

Thanx!
For me, most elections are about the party, Libertarians always matching my wants better than the others.
But sometimes it becomes about the individuals, as this one has.

 

[DeepShadow]

I hear you; having to choose between GOP/Dem is like someone asking me if I want my open-heart surgery done with a nail file or a spork. But this problem is created and maintained, in part, by FPTP voting. That's what creates and ensures a two-party system, and prevents strong third parties because of the spoiler effect.

 

[David1967]

First off, congrats(?) on the 90k !?



And these responses are what I'm talking about. We've been taught to focus on individuals. Sure candidates make a bit of difference. But largely they provide a distraction, and every bit of "news" and every argument about "Hillary vs. Trump" is a "which color lipstick should we put on the pig this time" discussion.

Even Warren and Sanders - who I like - are only partially addressing the issue of systemic corruption.

I think that the sparring we see between candidates has more in common with professional wrestling than reality.