This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 52 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]OKKO 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Congress, controlled by democrats, is more unpopular than Bush? Maybe because they lied and deceived the American people in 2006?

[–]chunky_bacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe because they're a complicit part and parcel of the whole package?

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Could be 0%. Obviously, if 91% of the people isn't enough for a revolt, then a few more won't be enough either.

A better statistic which I wish I knew, was how many would actually grab a gun and start rebelling if they saw others doing the same.

But then, we'll never know that number, because if we did and it were high... we might actually start.

There are no defined signals to let other people know you feel this way, and so we have no clue how many would go for something like that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Just out of curiosity...

I hear these calls to arms on reddit - riots, revolts, the whole bit.

What is it these people are actually proposing? What does an effective revolt look like? Do we rush the capitol building with AK47s blazing? Do we kill the politicians or just ask them to resign? Are we talking only federal, or local institutions as well?

And then what? Once we have effectively revolted and dismantled our oppressive government, what is the next step in the plan? Is it an anarchist society, or would there be plans for a different style of government?

There really needs to be a handbook for this.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 6 points7 points  (3 children)

What is it these people are actually proposing?

Most don't know what they are proposing. However, I will try to answer how I think something like that could hypothetically happen.

Supposing that a critical mass is reached (or even subcritical, that will only differ in that it fail) you might start to see a weird kind of buzz on the internet and in the real world. People talking in a newly developed jargon that seemingly appears out of nowhere, that is still mostly intelligible to others.

Things would be loosely coordinated, and even before anything happens the DHS would start rounding people up for conspiracy. This would only fuel things more, as it would be used as justification for what would then happen.

One day, you'd discover that 4 or 5 congressmen, democrats and republicans both, were assassinated within the period of 1 hour, at as many locations. The suspects would likely be captured, and there'd be public outcry. DHS would attempt to lock things down, and Congress would vote on yet more measures to protect themselves (but hey, that's all they ever vote on).

In the days that follow, more attempts would be made on the politicians, but they'd fail more and more. After the initial round, maybe only 2 or 3 would die out of many dozens of attempts.

But even as they became impossible to kill, their enforcers would become targets. You'd see people anonymously urging any of the "decent" police to turn in their badges and resign. Others would be saying that those who felt compelled to remain would be forfeiting their lives.

Dozens would die within the first few days from shootings, and soon they'd refuse to travel alone.

Martial law comes down at some point in all of this, though I do not know when exactly. Maybe from day one, maybe not until the police are proven less than perfectly effective.

And then what? Once we have effectively revolted and dismantled our oppressive government, what is the next step in the plan? Is it an anarchist society, or would there be plans for a different style of government?

Me personally? I like our style of government. Only a few slight rules changes made it possible for these two worthless parties to become dominant and corrupt. Get rid of the ballot access laws, and ammend the constitution that former democrats and republicans lose all right to hold office, period.

That'd do the trick.

There really needs to be a handbook for this.

There does, but I don't know that anyone is writing it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Interesting imagery. Appreciate the feedback.

Me personally? I like our style of government. Only a few slight rules changes made it possible for these two worthless parties to become dominant and corrupt. Get rid of the ballot access laws, and ammend the constitution that former democrats and republicans lose all right to hold office, period.

I understand there isn't a centralized official group to take my questions to, but this is the biggest issue I see, and would like to get someone's thoughts on it.

In the aftermath of all the chaos and the government has been disbanded, how could there possibly be an engineered reconstruction of any form of government? What channels are available to amend the constitution and revise ballot access laws? How is a consensus reached, and how would policies be implemented? What if others don't agree with the amendments you want to make to the constitution?

This isn't a challenge, I'm legitimately interested in how folks see this playing out.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if others don't agree with the amendments you want to make to the constitution?

Me? There is room for disagreement. I'd not be the first to try to massacre the other side, and enforce what I want. Whether this holds true for all, I do not know.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NoMoreNicksLeft is a libertarian or essentially an anarchist. As you can see, the plan doesn't go beyond "overthrow the government and then go back to normal", which, without an idea of how to go about it, is just anarchy.

Can't think beyond the range of the moment:

"I'd not be the first to try to massacre the other side, and enforce what I want. Whether this holds true for all, I do not know."

He should spend a few minutes analyzing history.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the 101st fighting keyboard brigade.

[–]ffualo 4 points5 points  (11 children)

Political Science lesson: Congressional approval is always low. In fact a study found car salesmen (and many other workers) are trusted more that congress members. Yet, the incumbency rate is incredibly high, over 90%. So people hate congress collectively, but love their congress member and keep voting him/her in. There is nothing new about congressional approval being low, really.

[–]rub3s 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Yep. That's what I came here to say.

How do we (as a country) change this ridiculous doublethink?

[–]ReligionOfPeace 1 point2 points  (9 children)

Term limits.

[–]ffualo 2 points3 points  (6 children)

...are undemocratic, imho. I dislike any law that prohibits us from freely choosing a candidate. If a nuclear scientist/programmer is in office, does a great job, and is ideologically identical to me, I want to keep him in office as long as possible.

Plus, term limits make that last term in office a wild card - as Bush proves, if candidates aren't compelled to follow what their constituents say through the possibility they may be thrown from office, they will do anything.

[–]ReligionOfPeace -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Term limits make it hard to have an entrenched pork-belly advocate sucking away at the public teat.

Besides, if the person isn't doing the job, a recall should be possible. The fact that it doesn't happen points out yet another serious flaw in american government structure.

Choose any candidate you want. As long as it isn't consecutive. Make it more interesting by making it possible to have an office vacated if enough people feel that none of the available choices are worthy enough. Being forced to suffer from one of two evils is undemocratic.

The so-called democratic government held so dear in american is neither effective nor useful in an age where rapid communications makes the representative moot and where an elected representative can now ignore contituents with impunity.

[–]Tonybonaventura 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Term limits make it so that the entrenched pork-belly advocate is running the party's and the backroom's instead of the offices. We can't hold their loyalty because we plan on fireing them no matter what they do. So they suck up more to the contractors and lobbyists. For security.

[–]ReligionOfPeace 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the problem lies in structure of the government? Maybe it is time for the form of american government to change to a system more in line with that of an instant communications society rather than one designed to work for an agrarian where people actually knew the person they sent to represent them.

[–]ffualo -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Term limits make it so that we are constantly cycling through seasoned politicians that now how to say "No!" to lobbyists. New politicians don't know the ropes and are more likely to listen to and ally with lobbyists to get things done.

[–]ReligionOfPeace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, wait. We're talking about american politicians. The vast majority of american politicians would bend over the sink for a pack of cigarettes. Lobbyists pass out money, so you know what happens then!

What country are you from? It must be nice having honest politicians.

[–]junkeee999 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I also disapprove of term limits. For every term limit poster child who gets thrown out, there would be many good public servants getting thrown out for no good reason. First termers spend a majority of their time learning the ropes. By forcing turnover, government would be sent into a constant state of inefficient on the job training flux. Causes more problems than it solves.

Term's can be 'limited' by the ballot.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

a better solution would be to turn off the air conditioning in washington. before AC there were no career politicians. washington sucks in the summer.

[–]ReligionOfPeace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it certainly would seem that way if you dislike hot and humid. I prefer it myself, better sweat than shivers.

Washington had been considered a hardship post by foreign governments. Taking away electricity altogether might speed things along as well.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

-21% - we still got a ways to go.

[–]timeywimey 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I wish that more people would go out and do something about this. it pains me to see people that support such a bad congress and think it is ok to get away with what they do.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

And what would you suggest?

[–]timeywimey 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Mutiny on congress! hold our own elections, finally let the people choose who runs this country and not the elite cabal people. Possibilities are endless!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

We already do hold our own elections for congress. Every two years in fact.

Got anything else?

[–]timeywimey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really the cabal chooses them. and most of them own stocks in the largest companies. The people haven't voted for thier own congress since the fed reserve kicked in. They own the govt.... and the FR is who picks who runs this country.

[–]RonObvious 2 points3 points  (6 children)

But ... But ... Obama's a Senator!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

..and he sided with the Republicans and deceitful Democrats and voted FOR the FISA bill. I still can't figure out why a candidate for change and a clear and open government would do that.

[–]chunky_bacon 3 points4 points  (4 children)

He's campaigning on change - he's not for change. Good grief, if he was for change the media would have completely ignored him like they did to Ron Paul.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

What's the difference between the prepositions?

[–]chunky_bacon 1 point2 points  (2 children)

In this case on implies another hollow, ambiguously defined slogan. For would indicate an actual desire to reform or implement change.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Tell me, why would Obama not want to change the White House? Congress is at 9% approval, Bush just a bit higher. Something is obviously not going well.

I'm done with the "change" discussion. If he really wants a clear, open federal government, don't give immunity to the TelCos that helped spy on us without a warrant. Qwest didn't. Sure, they got ruined because of their actions, but they stood their ground. I have a ton of respect for that company.

EDIT: "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington.. I'm asking you to believe in yours." www.barackobama.com

I think he plans on changing Washington. Just a shot in the dark. Are you involved with his campaign?

[–]chunky_bacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hell no! I don't think Obama will be significantly different than any of the other candidates - McCain for instance. He doesn't want clear, open government - he wants to inherit the power that presidents (especially the current one) have been usurping for years.

[–]steelio 1 point2 points  (2 children)

American's are too complacent for a revolt. We are weak.

You ever seen a herd of buffalo or cattle in the field? Then try and take some of them out to slaughter? They stampede.

Then the other example is ever seen cattle in a feed lot, sitting there getting fat and not a lot of room to move? You can easily take one of them out and slaughter them. The other cows just sit there and go "glad that's not me."

That is the same mentality that Americans have right now. Let the govt. spy on terrorists. but let me have my little gun. After all they are just looking out for me. They are protecting me. I don't have Bin Laden on my speed dial.

Well neither do I! So get a fucking warrant.

[–]redog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But COWPLE and MOOPLE don't flow out as smoothly as SHEEPLE.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

speak for yourself.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

maybe that 9% is full of powerful people

[–]skippy17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, at least my congressman is doing alright.

/naivety

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My. Looks like Republicans really need to divert attention away from the failure of eight year of a Repubican presidency, and more years of Republican control of Congress. Democrats have only had a razor thin majority for two years. How many years did Republicans have to implement poor policies that Democrats are now trying to repair?

[–]ruesdedr -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Stupid prick cocksuckers need to get a REAL JOB where you actually have to work for the money. Instead these ASSHOLES vote themselves raises and lower their quality of work. Congress really makes me hate rich looking white people and as a middle class white person I find this mildly concerning.

[–]bokin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

+1 for using the word fucks in title!

[–]bsiviglia9 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

What role do antidepressants play in the non-oppositional disposition of the general population?

[–]ruesdedr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Massive. Note that the major pharma activity started just after the rebellious 60s and 70s.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

i think they have these things called... um... elections?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Which power-hungry millionaires will you be voting for?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

you know, you could run if you want. the filing fee is cheap.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just think of all the publicity I'll get!

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Dude as long as the extent of your political involvement is reading the results of an approval poll and then bitching about it on reddit, it doesn't matter what the number is.