What do you dislike about U.S politics?

[sojourner]

A while back we had two threads on “what do you most dislike about the Democrat/Republican Party, its ideology & its political agenda?”

In the spirit of “Seeking Common Ground” I would like to take a stab at this from a slightly different angle. What characteristics, policies, tactics, etc. that both major parties employ do you most dislike?

It would be nice if you could do this without invoking specific political parties or specific politicians. You can always go back and post on the earlier threads.

I will start with one of mine.

I dislike the common tactic uses by both parties of pitting groups of Americans again other groups of Americans. This could be class, race, income level, education level, religion or lack thereof, profession, etc. I dislike it for a number of reasons.

1. It is divisive and fosters much of the ill-well we see today.
2. It violates the spirit of promoting the “general welfare.”
3. If you can’t sell your idea on its merits alone, maybe it is not worth doing.
4. It assumes a zero sum game that I don’t think is appropriate
5. It violates the spirt if treating each other as individuals and substitutes treating each other as members of a group.

[Wyoming Dem]

That anyone can be President...IF... they can raise huge sums of money which then leaves them owing someone. Obama is the perfect example of the "Best Candidate Money Can Buy" and believe me when I tell you, Obama does not worry me nearly as much as those "behind the curtain." We NEVER get the best people for public office, instead, we just get the biggest
bullsh!tters who can raise millions and who have no experience and are utterly incompetent. But hey...they look good on TV and make flowery speeches and NEVER EVER have to live up to campaign promises.

[VotingHillary]

I am sick to death of no term-limits for Congress. They had no problem putting term limits on the Presidency after Roosevelt. It is time for term-limits for Congress as well. I would like to see 2 terms for the Senate and 3 terms for the House as the max.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, the average life-expectancy was far less than now. I doubt they had in mind these "career politicians" we have now when they didn't put in any limits.

[mavfin]

That anyone can be President...IF... they can raise huge sums of money which then leaves them owing someone. Obama is the perfect example of the "Best Candidate Money Can Buy" and believe me when I tell you, Obama does not worry me nearly as much as those "behind the curtain." We NEVER get the best people for public office, instead, we just get the biggest
bullsh!tters who can raise millions and who have no experience and are utterly incompetent. But hey...they look good on TV and make flowery speeches and NEVER EVER have to live up to campaign promises.

But, you know, WyDem, you can't really blame *that* on the bullshitters themselves, or their backers. You have to point the blame squarely at the voters who believe it all and are taken in by it all, and vote them in. i.e. they get exactly what they vote for, and until the general public actually makes their own decisions, this will continue.

[Spang]

The biggest problem with U.S. politics are the Obama supporters. Oh, and Obama.

[sojourner]

I am sick to death of no term-limits for Congress. They had no problem putting term limits on the Presidency after Roosevelt. It is time for term-limits for Congress as well. I would like to see 2 terms for the Senate and 3 terms for the House as the max.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, the average life-expectancy was far less than now. I doubt they had in mind these "career politicians" we have now when they didn't put in any limits.

I agree.

What the Founding Fathers had in mind was probably something closer to citizen legislators that supported themselves and also performed their legislative responsibilities as a civic duty.

The problem is all states would have to do it because of the stacked deck in favor of incumbents.

[sojourner]

The biggest problem with U.S. politics are the Obama supporters. Oh, and Obama.

I see we managed to get to post five before breaking the spirit of the thread.

[Jobu86]

I see we managed to get to post five before breaking the spirit of the thread.

Actually the first reply broke it.

As for myself, I hate how both parties rely on mudslinging by surrogates and 527s and then "condemn" them so pathetically when they go too far.

I hate how people judge others' intelligence based on what politicians they support.

And i hate how elections can always end up breaking down into the 1-2 hot button issues of the day.

[sojourner]

Actually the first reply broke it.


I disagree. Obama was used as an example but the sentiment applies universally.

[Wyoming Dem]

But, you know, WyDem, you can't really blame *that* on the bullshitters themselves, or their backers. You have to point the blame squarely at the voters who believe it all and are taken in by it all, and vote them in. i.e. they get exactly what they vote for, and until the general public actually makes their own decisions, this will continue.
And that is also all too true...Especially now, when voters are choosing their "fave Celeb" rather than a qualified President. And I will give it to Obama and his merry band of staffers...they figured out very early on how to "game" the system, how to make his face and name a household word and how to promise the poor, the young and the idealistic everything and anything, They also figured out how to raise campaign cash illegally and never have to give it back. The "money" is still, in my humble opinion, the wolf in the hen house (and we all remember Obama GIVING HIS WORD to John McCain that if he won the Democratic nomination, he would run in the General Election using the Presidential Public Financing ...that was the first big campaign promise Obama broke and it's been a slalom run of broken promises every since (How DO Obama supporters justify to themselves the trail of broken campaign promises? ...FISA...Guantanamo, Afghanistan...???) So I guess I will revise and say "Money" and stupid, gullible voters who will vote for someone with ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE cause he's fresh and phat and tells them only what they want to hear. And I am speaking in general terms and not necessarily about anyone here who is an Obama supporter. You will have to "give" me the young and the poor because they turned out for him in droves. Free Rock concerts and keggers are a sure-fire draw.

[Jobu86]

I disagree. Obama was used as an example but the sentiment applies universally.

Ok, how about now?

[sojourner]

Ok, how about now?

Now I would have to agree with you.

[Spang]

Now I would have to agree with you.

Did you really not expect this to turn into an Obama bashing thread?

[Jobu86]

Oh, I also hate how a politician changing their mind on an issue is immediately called flip-flopping or pointed at as a sign of weakness. I change my mind on things all the time for what I think are good reasons.

[Jobu86]

Did you really not expect this to turn into an Obama bashing thread?

Hey, can't blame soj. The original topic is a good question.

[Meg]

Oh, I also hate how a politician changing their mind on an issue is immediately called flip-flopping or pointed at as a sign of weakness. I change my mind on things all the time for what I think are good reasons.

Well there are some things that deserve to be called out as flip-flopping. But yeah I get what you mean.

[Jobu86]

Well there are some things that deserve to be called out as flip-flopping. But yeah I get what you mean.

Oh for sure, but in general, ANY changing of one's mind in politics is seen as a negative.

[Spang]

Hey, can't blame soj. The original topic is a good question.

I don't blame him, but considering the audience, Obama bashing is inevitable when a question like that is asked. Also, it's a good question. I'll have a serious answer tomorrow.

[Meg]

Oh for sure, but in general, ANY changing of one's mind in politics is seen as a negative.

It's so annoying when that happens though. Obviously, there are some issues that quite honestly it's a one way thing. But with more complicated issues you've got to expect a politican to adapt to the current state of the country and any new info that's presented.

[CGP]

1. The excessive influence of religion in politics and the complete lack of separation of church & state in this country. I would say that American politics is influenced by religion more than any other major Western nation at this point in time (well, it certainly seems that way to me). It's extremely frustrating. A presidential candidate has to prove they have "faith" before they will even be considered as a viable candidate. People can believe/follow whatever they like privately and individually - that's religious freedom. But why does RELIGION have to be included in secular politics? I am really sick of it. When will America, the nation, give up its dependence on religion as part of its identity?

2. The way in which "gay rights" are constructed as a left/right battle when in reality the struggle for equality for people like me is an issue of human rights, not liberal/conservative politics. The politicization of human rights issues is really offensive.

[mavfin]

I don't blame him, but considering the audience, Obama bashing is inevitable when a question like that is asked. Also, it's a good question. I'll have a serious answer tomorrow.

Why is Obama-bashing not acceptable? By the way, my comments did not name him, or completely refer to only his election, and was more a comment about the last 20 years, *including the election of W*, which I felt had a lot of similarities to Obama's campaign. Bashing of Bush is perfectly fine? I'm not a fan of W, but there are people here who will gloss over anything Obama doesn't do right, but will blame Bush for anything? What's any more right about bashing him than bashing Obama? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.

TL;DR If you look at my first reply, I didn't refer to Obama specifically, and indeed, I wasn't thinking only of him.

[VotingHillary]

I don't blame him, but considering the audience, Obama bashing is inevitable when a question like that is asked. Also, it's a good question. I'll have a serious answer tomorrow.

Not inevitable as much as a choice to ignore the original intent of the thread. Note my response didn't have a thing to do with Obama. It is a matter of respecting the originator's intent for a thread vs. "too bad, I am going to do what I want to do."

but respect is something that has been long gone...especially when it comes to the internet.

[Jobu86]

Why is Obama-bashing not acceptable? By the way, my comments did not name him, or completely refer to only his election, and was more a comment about the last 20 years, *including the election of W*, which I felt had a lot of similarities to Obama's campaign. Bashing of Bush is perfectly fine? I'm not a fan of W, but there are people here who will gloss over anything Obama doesn't do right, but will blame Bush for anything? What's any more right about bashing him than bashing Obama? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.

Because Soj (OP) asked that people avoid specific politicians if possible in this thread, that's all.

[Ikasu]

I dislike the oversimplification of complicated issues and situations. Leaders should challenge their constituents, not give a poll driven shallow answer so that it appeals to the maximum number of people. Some people say voters aren't smart enough. I say that if we raise the level of public discourse, voters can make more informed decisions in the future, more talented people will decide to run for office in such a political environment, and maybe we won't be stuck with presidents we do not deserve. Wishful thinking I know!

I also hate the straw man arguments used by both the left and right to demonize their opponents.

[mavfin]

Because Soj (OP) asked that people avoid specific politicians if possible in this thread, that's all.

Yeah, and I actually did try to on my first reply. I may have replied to a post about Obama, but I did not name him, and I was thinking of others in addition to him. I didn't bring his name into it till later, after others did.

[sojourner]

It's so annoying when that happens though. Obviously, there are some issues that quite honestly it's a one way thing. But with more complicated issues you've got to expect a politican to adapt to the current state of the country and any new info that's presented.

I think part of the objection to flip-flopping is the suspicion that the person is really switching to a long held belief and the earlier position with just a ploy to win votes.

[Jobu86]

Yeah, and I actually did try to on my first reply. I may have replied to a post about Obama, but I did not name him, and I was thinking of others in addition to him. I didn't bring his name into it till later, after others did.

Wasn't trying to blame you, just answering your question about why Obama bashing might be unacceptable in this thread.

[Wyoming Dem]

I am adding to my answer...

I still think money is the root cause of most of the crappy politicians we have but in addition to that, there is a a genuine arguement that can me made that politicians could care less about the good of the country...they want to know what their country can do for them. It's not about this country and her people anymore...it's about egos and power and who has it and how to keep it. I can't think of one politician that has genuinely "brooked public opinion and perception" to vote his or her conscience...not one. It's back-alley wheeling and dealing, pieces of the "pork" pie. Limos, private planes, "A" list cocktail parties and "junkets" that are in all reality, vacations for public servants and their families taken on the taxpayer dime. These people, from the President on down, have NO CLUE as to how the rest of us live or what we really think. Obama was living in a 4 million dollar mansion before he became President. The Kennedys live like Euro Royalty. Senators, like Pelosi, are wined and dined by Trillionaires who give them stock tips, insider information and sweetheart deals.

These people do not represent us and have not represented us for years and years. Obama is just the latest in a long line of those who want to "feel the burn" of the Presidency power trip and swill at the public trough of money, power and celebrity. So that is what burns my ass about politics...and Obama is no one special...there have been plenty before him and will be plenty after who screw us to the wall every chance they get.

[Meg]

I am adding to my answer...

I still think money is the root cause of most of the crappy politicians we have but in addition to that, there is a a genuine arguement that can me made that politicians could care less about the good of the country...they want to know what their country can do for them. It's not about this country and her people anymore...it's about egos and power and who has it and how to keep it. I can't think of one politician that has genuinely "brooked public opinion and perception" to vote his or her conscience...not one. It's back-alley wheeling and dealing, pieces of the "pork" pie. Limos, private planes, "A" list cocktail parties and "junkets" that are in all reality, vacations for public servants and their families taken on the taxpayer dime. These people, from the President on down, have NO CLUE as to how the rest of us live or what we really think. Obama was living in a 4 million dollar mansion before he became President. The Kennedys live like Euro Royalty. Senators, like Pelosi, are wined and dined by Trillionaires who give them stock tips, insider information and sweetheart deals.

These people do not represent us and have not represented us for years and years. Obama is just the latest in a long line of those who want to "feel the burn" of the Presidency power trip and swill at the public trough of money, power and celebrity. So that is what burns my ass about politics...and Obama is no one special...there have been plenty before him and will be plenty after who screw us to the wall every chance they get.

YES! =D>

I've been dying for someone else to mention that. The politicians of this country seem to have forgotten they were meant to serve and represent us, not the other way around. It's sad how far we've drifted from that concept! [-X

[VotingHillary]

YES! =D>

I've been dying for someone else to mention that. The politicians of this country seem to have forgotten they we meant to serve and represent us, not the other way around. It's sad how far we've drifted from that concept! [-X

And this is WHY we need term-limits for Congress as well as the Presidency. The longer they are in, the more they become indebted to the lobbyists/ money people than to the electorate. Not to mention, just like at our own jobs, the longer you are there, the more you operate on a "business as usual" mode, resistant to new, worthwhile ideas in order to maintain that status quo.

[CGP]

1. The excessive influence of religion in politics and the complete lack of separation of church & state in this country. I would say that American politics is influenced by religion more than any other major Western nation at this point in time (well, it certainly seems that way to me). It's extremely frustrating. A presidential candidate has to prove they have "faith" before they will even be considered as a viable candidate. People can believe/follow whatever they like privately and individually - that's religious freedom. But why does RELIGION have to be included in secular politics? I am really sick of it. When will America, the nation, give up its dependence on religion as part of its identity?

2. The way in which "gay rights" are constructed as a left/right battle when in reality the struggle for equality for people like me is an issue of human rights, not liberal/conservative politics. The politicization of human rights issues is really offensive.

3. The obscene amounts of money it requires for presidential candidates to run & operate a campaign.

[mavfin]

3. The obscene amounts of money it requires for presidential candidates to run & operate a campaign.

That amount of money can, and many times does, corrupt.

[VotingHillary]

3. The obscene amounts of money it requires for presidential candidates to run & operate a campaign.

Seriously, when you add up all the monies spent on this last campaign...and think of all the real good that money could have done from aiding the children in the Appalachian region to aiding the Native children of Pine Ridge and the Apache reservation in Arizona....it just makes me sick to my stomach.

How can we justify spending this kind of money on an election yet have to have Save the Children operate programs in THIS COUNTRY? Only one word truly describes this...OBSCENE.

[Meg]

Seriously, when you add up all the monies spent on this last campaign...and think of all the real good that money could have done from aiding the children in the Appalachian region to aiding the Native children of Pine Ridge and the Apache reservation in Arizona....it just makes me sick to my stomach.

How can we justify spending this kind of money on an election yet have to have Save the Children operate programs in THIS COUNTRY? Only one word truly describes this...OBSCENE.

Not to mention all the homeless, starving people, orphans and everything else! Politicians moan about how there just isn't enough money! Yeah sure!

[VotingHillary]

Not to mention all the homeless, starving people, orphans and everything else! Politicians moan about how there just isn't enough money! Yeah sure!

I pointed out the specific of Save the Children because my money should be going to help the children of Bangladesh (which it used to do), or Cambodia or Darfur...children of nations without the wealth of this nation. But when I saw our OWN children, in particular our Native children, were relying on monies from Save the Children....that just pissed me off to no end. :atwitsend:

[Suzan]

I think part of the objection to flip-flopping is the suspicion that the person is really switching to a long held belief and the earlier position with just a ploy to win votes.

That would be my main objection to flip-flopping--when it isn't a sincere change of mind because of new information, but a contrivance used to move the candidate to the middle, from either the left or the right.

I don't like the calculated and premeditated lying to constituents done by every politician I can think of, mostly via campaign promises and the flip-flopping mentioned above. It's insulting. How dumb do they think we are?

In the candidates defense, I really dislike the litmus tests that voters now seem to require. Our candidates can't be human any more. They have to be saints, perfect in every way--or put on a huge act to convince us that they are. People aren't perfect and when we require them to be, we get a very narrow selection to choose from. We've already narrowed it down so far that anyone who might actually be an effective politcian would never dare to run.

[VotingHillary]

In the candidates defense, I really dislike the litmus tests that voters now seem to require. Our candidates can't be human any more. They have to be saints, perfect in every way--or put on a huge act to convince us that they are. People aren't perfect and when we require them to be, we get a very narrow selection to choose from. We've already narrowed it down so far that anyone who might actually be an effective politcian would never dare to run.

We can thank the media/tabloid mentality for this. I agree that our best, our brightest won't run for office because frankly, they are just too smart to want to deal with our former 4th Estate...the now tabloid-driven media.

[mavfin]

We can thank the media/tabloid mentality for this. I agree that our best, our brightest won't run for office because frankly, they are just too smart to want to deal with our former 4th Estate...the now tabloid-driven media.

If I had to point to a time when this really started, it was probably Gary Hart.

[VotingHillary]

If I had to point to a time when this really started, it was probably Gary Hart.

no, earlier than that..began with Tom Eagleton...running mate of George McGovern...and yes, I know, I am showing my age again.

[The_Basseteer]

I am sick to death of no term-limits for Congress. They had no problem putting term limits on the Presidency after Roosevelt. It is time for term-limits for Congress as well. I would like to see 2 terms for the Senate and 3 terms for the House as the max.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, the average life-expectancy was far less than now. I doubt they had in mind these "career politicians" we have now when they didn't put in any limits.

I read an article today in our local far left wing fish wrap, The Tucson Weekly (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/). The title of this article was "You Screwed Up; How Voters Have Broken Arizona's Government" (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/you-screwed-up/Content?oid=1193362). Once section was concerning term limits:

1. You Created Term Limits

Voters typically re-elect the politicians who are in office, even though the public simultaneously expresses disgust with elected officials. Why? It probably shakes down to the simple fact that most of you don't have the time or inclination to study up on all the issues, so you go with the person whose name you recognize, provided he hasn't been caught with a proverbial dead girl or live boy in the trunk of his car.

Or, in the case of onetime Speaker of the House Jeff Groscost, provided he hasn't invented an alt-fuels program that buys an SUV for every Arizona citizen with a little cash on hand.

But you also distrust career politicians. So to protect yourself from re-electing the same people over and over again, you passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 to create a four-term limit for lawmakers and a two-term limit for statewide offices such as governor and attorney general.

Term limits have led to plenty of turnover at the Capitol, but that means you get rid of the good along with the bad. Take Republican Tim Bee, whose encyclopedic knowledge of the budget and savvy negotiating skills helped him become Senate president in 2006. Bee was termed out in 2008; he probably would have been content to remain at the top of the Senate, but term limits led him into an unsuccessful congressional run against Democrat Gabby Giffords.

You can certainly argue that Bee wouldn't have moved up the ladder as quickly if term limits hadn't forced his predecessors out of office, but that gets back to another problem with term limits: the lack of continuity and dwindling institutional memory among lawmakers.

Instead, lobbyists and staff members—who remember why decisions got made and the deals that were struck—hold increasing power while talented lawmakers are put out to pasture to make room for a new crop of amateurs who have little understanding of the system.

An interesting point, by having term limits you put more control into the hands of the lobbyists.

[Suzan]

no, earlier than that..began with Tom Eagleton...running mate of George McGovern...and yes, I know, I am showing my age again.
I remember Eagleton. He'd had shock therapy, right, for depression? I wasn't politically involved or aware at the time, but I do remember hearing that. People acted as if he was Frankenstein. Maybe that was the media's take, I don't know. At any rate, he was immediately off the ticket, and forever stigmatized, I'm sure.

[Brooke]

I don't dislike much about US politics, but a few I'll mention:

1. The partisanship. I got so sick of it earlier in this decade, I nearly gave up on it altogether. Nothing ever gets done because both sides are too busy arguing and bitching at each other. It's petty and stupid.
2. The dishonesty. There aren't enough good, honest politicians out there and that gives those of us honest people, a bad name.
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Harry Reid
5. Did I mention, Nancy Pelosi?
6. The politics of personal destruction. It didn't just end in the 90's, folks.
7. How race always plays an issue. If you don't vote for an African American for office, all of a sudden, you're a racist.
8. The media bias. They need to just report on our elections. Not find a candidate they like better and shove him or her down our throats.
9. MONEY. There's too much money influencing our elected officials.
10. Clinton haters. Sorry, couldn't not throw that in there. These people have been at it for almost 20 years and need to seriously get over it and get a life. Anybody that can spend that much time hating someone has serious issues. And THEY NEVER GO AWAY. Not to mention, thanks to the 2008 election, we now have a whole new generation of them. How lovely.

[Spang]

I don't like the 2-party system, nor do I like political parties in general. I think all they do is divide us as a country.

I'm not a big fan of the Electoral College. Depending on where you live during any given election, your vote may or may not count.

I don't like how corporations and big business influences our government.

And a whole lot more that I'll add as it comes to me.