you don't know me at all. i'm an inexplicable weirdo who breaks into people's houses and does their dishes. but you're good with me being in your house downstairs while you sleep, and me doing that. doesn't bother you at all. right?
you're commenting under a story in which the EPA is underfunded and as a result is unable to do it's job, and so a corporation got away with polluting on a massive scale
and your response is: disband them, and only *clean up* messes, instead of *prevent* them
seriously? you're not trolling or making a sarcastic joke?
profoundly, amazingly stupid
i always wondered at the source of this form of idiocy: "government isn't doing it's job, so destroy it" rather than gee, i dunno, fix the fucking problem preventing them from doing their fucking job?
because if no one does the job government is supposed to do, the world will be better? how does that work? no need to regulate markets. no need to prevent pollution, no need to police the food or drug supply? because as history clearly shows, nevermind current fucking events like bp oil spill, this volkswagen story, the peanut salmonella case x1,000,000 other examples: when corporations can get away with crime, *they do*
why are there so many morons like you in this world who see government as the problem, and not the corporations doing all the actual, criminal wrong?
look at the comments under this story
1. industry cheated na dpolluted 2. government is underfunded so it fucked up
and what do we have... criticisms of govt, no criticisms of industry, and calls to disband the very agency tasked with policing the scumbags in industry fucking up
how... the... fuck
"corporation {xyz} did horrible thing dumping pollution... but that's not the problem, the epa screwed up the clean up, that's the real problem!"
really?
seriously, how can people be so fucking stupid on this point?
how can this incredible blindness about the repeated malfeasance and ineptitude in business escape your attention or derision, but only government, which you fucking need to prevent and control and punish these corporate assholes, is always the culprit?
he exists. he'll poison your children, he'll kill you, he'll render vast areas uninhabitable. all to make $10 more
time and time and time again throughout history, there's millions of examples of this
but no, he's not the problem: government screwed up the investigation, the cleanup, the prevention. therefore, let's focus all our rage there and ignore the criminals out there screwing up your lives and your communities
WTF?
why are you morons and assholes so blind to this?
you rage at government and give industry a pass: why???
furthermore, in israel and switzerland, where gun ownership is common, the rules surrounding that ownership: storage, testing, training, etc., is extremely strict. aka, well-trained. aka, "well-regulated."
not like the usa, where any asshole can grab any gun he wants, no problem. this is not the intent of the founding fathers. the legal status quo in the usa is judicial activism from a dirty harry psychology from the latter half of the last century: urban crime, handguns, individual action. which has absolutely nothing to do with with muskets, the frontier, community action, the actual intent of the founding fathers
the usa should be like israel, switzerland, if it actually wants to consider itself compliant with the founding father's specific words in the second amendment
we do not have compliance with the second amendment in the usa. we need training and certification before you get a gun. prove you are a responsible citizen and consider a gun a serious responsibility. not just hand out handguns to any hot head, maniac, or gangbanger like candy
the usa is insanely off the rails, and is not compliant with the second amendment
the problem is not that mandatory training in guns is "gun control," the problem is that the current status quo in the usa is contrary to the actual wording of the second amendment: well-trained (well-regulated)
we have to uphold the second amendment. which means mandatory certification before you get a gun
but you don't even get one in the first place unless you are able to be a "well-regulated" member of a militia. meaning well-trained. you have to prove you know what to do with a gun, how to handle it, be safe with it. if you don't, take a class, *then* you get one. but you don't get a gun unless you are *what the founding fathers intended*: well-trained. their words. the actual second amendment text
not the bullshit 20th century dirty harry urban crime focus handgun clueless hothead individual action reinterpretation against the will of the founding fathers
in the spirit of what the founding fathers intended: someone who grew up with guns as an essential part of their need to get food in rural locations, and protect *the community*. that is the second amendment. that is what we must follow and enforce. not the broken ineffectual judicial activism of the last century
which is what the guy who just killed 10 people in oregon thought
congratulations, you're not part of the problem, you are the problem
the second amendment references a *well-regulated* militia. in today's language, that means well trained
*according to the will of the founding fathers* therefore, we must institution a policy of knowing how to use a gun, of being regularly tested, and trained BEFORE you get one. like a car
"but it's a constitutional right, not like a car..."
the fucking second amendment says WELL-REGULATED. well trained: our forefathers had a musket since childhood. they used it to catch game to eat, to protect form hostile forces on the frontier, to answer the call of community action in groups. they knew how to use a gun. the forefathers would not support any retard getting a gun just easy like that. they fucking said so: WELL-REGULATED, well trained
in the last century it's become about handguns, individual action, urban environments, and the focus on crime. so now it's about any asshole getting any gun he wants without the slightest fucking clue about how to use one? and we've completely forgotten the WELL-REGULATED (well-trained) part of what the founding fathers knew about guns. it is judicial activism from the last century and we need to get back to our constitutional roots. dirty harry is not the basis of the second amendment. the minuteman is. and he knew how to use his fucking gun!
"but criminals..."
hot heads seek the path of least resistance. if a gun is hard to get, they don't get one. as proven on all of our social and economic peers in the world. they grab a knife. which is far less lethal. they don't build bombs, because that's not a casual effort, that's a far more rare insane maniac. we're not preventing all massacers, we're only preventing 90% of them because guns are so easy to get. and easy to use and kill easily. that's the actual problem
and insane people can't buy guns on the black market: they're insane. they lack the organization or social acumen to make that contact and trust with the black market dealer
finally, there are criminal masterminds who will always get guns on the black market. *and use them wisely* which doesn't mean shooting up a disco, a mall, or a school because some chick looked at them the wrong way!
that's the fucking point. not to stop all massacres. not to stop all illegal guns. to keep them away from those hands which only get them when they are easy to get
we need to get back to the wording the actual second amendment, and reverse this disgusting reinterpretation from the last century that actually has nothing to do with the true intent of the founding fathers. i love the constitution. i love the second amendment. because it does not support the status quo in this country of easy guns for any hothead or maniac to get one
and this will change. in another few months, there will be another massacre. a few months after that, yet another. you can't depend upon stupidity forever. people are getting angrier and waking up. this doesn't happen in australia. doesn't happen in japan. doesn't happen in the uk. doesn't happen in germany
only the usa has this insane gun carnage
"it's a different culture..."
it's a different fucking legal status quo you fucking morons. that's the problem: easy guns. that's the actual fucking problem. and that will change. because our legal status quo isn't even a valid interpretation of the actual wording of the second amendment
"you can pry my gun from my cold dead..."
KEEP YOUR GUN ASSHOLE! I'M NOT GRABBING YOUR GUN! if you are well-trained and responsible you have no problem keeping and handling guns responsibly. you are not the fucking problem. in fact, you probably agree with me! guns you will still get, serious laws only make it harder for hot heads and insane people
his bank has already sent him a new card with a chip in july, august, or september
if he didn't activate the new card, some time in october he'll go to lowe's, try to use his old card, and his transaction will be declined
he'll call the bank and raise hell and they'll say "sir, we sent you a new card and you did not activate it"
he won't be able to use magstripe-only for very long because all major banks have replaced them or are replacing them
he may have a card with some oddball institution that continues with magstripe only. that institution will be pressured by continuing changes in technology and standards, or they will raise their eyebrows at the fraud they have to cover, then they will go to chips too
and this is all a good thing, increased security
is there some valid reason why top comment doesn't want the chip?
or is it "receiving the mark of the beast" level low intelligence paranoid mental vomit?
it's 2015, the soviet union is long dead, and the slightest hint of the word "socialism" (in reality, a system used by the richest and happiest countries in the world: canada, nordic countries) provokes complete morons to act like it's mccarthy's 1950s america
I was born in CT and my family has roots in New England dating back to participants in King Philip's War. I have shameful Tory branches (British ass kissers) in my family who fled to that Northern area of unincorporated USA territory that goes by the name Canada. Quebec independence is rightfully deserved from the Red Coat douchebags and I hope it is tried again. I hope you're not an anglophone Canadian. In which case, fuck you, sycophant to some bejeweled bitch from another continent... even though that means we might be related.
But it should be something that makes absolutely anyone instantly comfortable with you and makes you immediately noticeable and identifiable. People will tune you out immediately if you just project earnestness and seriousness. Zzz.
You may be angry that it sounds like I'm encouraging you to become an entertainer. Well, welcome to politics!
they're not center right. they are slightly left, and the republicans are slightly right
to say the democrats are right-leaning is to apply your own ideological judgment that does not have more authority than the people of the country en masse
in fact if the usa drifted extremely rightward, or if it drifted extremely leftward, the democrats are still slightly left, and the republicans are still slightly right. ideology is not fixed to a particular time. center of mass is constantly on the move, and right and left are merely relative to that center, at any given time
you also can't compare the usa to other countries or regions. those are other countries or regions. they are external. they don't count when making an internal, domestic judgment. the gravitational ideological balance of a country is it's own thing, and is the only subjective measure of left and right in a given country
and truthfully, the usa is a moderate country: left of the muslim world, right of europe, etc
i used to have a problem with people like you (after 2000 and gore losing states by tiny amounts, possibly made up for by nader voters)
and it is absolutely true that tactical voting is far more effective and decisive than idealistic voting
however, you vote. therefore, as a measure of what you really owe your society, you're doing what you have to do. so i thank you. because you're right. you do count and the number crunchers do notice these spikes for 3rd party candidates and act accordingly
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
the biggest obstacle to a sanders presidency is not tea party morons. they vote. that's what you're suppose to fucking do
the biggest obstacle is liberals who don't fucking vote
tea party morons are vile, but they're morons: you can almost forgive them, because they're stupid people. there is no excuse nor understanding nor forgiveness for someone who doesn't vote. that tea party morons vote, in fact, makes them infinitely wiser and better than liberals who do not: the recognition that you count in a democracy means something. everything
"my district/ state is always republican/ democrat, it won't matter..."
hey, douchebag: political strategists look at voting turn out and decide funding, strategy, message, etc. based on turn out. so it absolutely essentially fucking matters if democrats win or republicans win by 1%, 10%, 20%, or 40%. and who makes that matter? YOU MOTHERFUCKER (not you, JustAnotherOldGuy, but anyone reading). VOTE ALREADY YOU DUMB ASSHOLES
it's not about me, it's about the subject matter. you may make it about me, but this is merely a symptom of your social ineptitude, that you need to make things personal that aren't
i'd work on making friends in real life, having an actual social life where you have an identity which is appreciated. then you won't have this need to hide on social forums and pick interpersonal fights with people you don't know and don't care about you
the democrats suck like the republicans. they simply suck slightly less
that's why i vote for them. not because i love them, but because i'm not an airhead idealist who holds his vote hostage, until somehow the entire country miraculously matches them ideologically perfectly, with a pathetic temper tantrum (the right has the same temper tantrums but, wisely, they vote).. all you get to do in politics is compromise, that's all politics is. and turn the country in the correct direction, slightly. that's the best you can ever, ever do
you never get to cross your arms and insist the country be by your side in philosophy right now, or you're not voting. fucking moronic. this is why republicans win elections, too many airhead lefties think this way. by not voting all they do is ensure the person further from them ideologically wins. and all because the left leaning choice doesn't match them perfectly. it's socially retarded, immature, and ignorant. politics is *compromise*. that's all it ever is and ever will be. if you have a temper tantrum and withhold your vote because the world isn't exactly like you want it, you will never, ever see the world become even slightly like you want it. the only way is to contribute: vote. an inability to compromise is immaturity and social stupidity
sorry for the rant. i can make peace with the existence of tea party morons: they're morons, they can't help themselves. what i can't understand and makes me eternally angry is liberals who don't fucking vote. it is, in many ways, far far worse for the country than tea party morons, and is certainly why so many tea party morons win
however, one problem with your analysis, there will be no shift:
with enough anger, a third party may indeed appear. then it either gets cannibalized by the existing party closest to it ideologically in a few year, or it cannibalizes that party
but, simply because of mathematics, no plots in smoky rooms, we will always only have two major political parties in the usa. unless or until we fundamentally change our election system, which i do not see happening in a long time
again: people need to understand reality and make peace with it, then work within those confines. or get angry at reality, throw a temper tantrum, and be completely ineffectual to what you care about. ridiculous
that's communism. that's not what sanders stands for.
here is actually a range of economic systems in the world, thousands of them, of varying complexity. it's not just social darwinistic capitalism versus gulag and toilet paper lines communism. the problem is you're uneducated and you can only think in these ignorant simpleton cartoons. try looking at how the government of denmark, sweden, or norway works. or just canada. that's modern socialism. and they are richer, healthier, safer, freer, better educated, and happier than americans
american exceptionalism seems to be about thinking how you're better when everyone pities you. we do many things wrong, like our pathetic education funding and healthcare debacles, and we need to look to other countries who clearly do it better than us. but no: "america #1! drool, snort". american delusional derangement
Slashdot Mirror
i'm going to break into your house
but it's ok, i just want to wash your dishes
you don't know me at all. i'm an inexplicable weirdo who breaks into people's houses and does their dishes. but you're good with me being in your house downstairs while you sleep, and me doing that. doesn't bother you at all. right?
you're commenting under a story in which the EPA is underfunded and as a result is unable to do it's job, and so a corporation got away with polluting on a massive scale
and your response is: disband them, and only *clean up* messes, instead of *prevent* them
seriously? you're not trolling or making a sarcastic joke?
profoundly, amazingly stupid
i always wondered at the source of this form of idiocy: "government isn't doing it's job, so destroy it" rather than gee, i dunno, fix the fucking problem preventing them from doing their fucking job?
because if no one does the job government is supposed to do, the world will be better? how does that work? no need to regulate markets. no need to prevent pollution, no need to police the food or drug supply? because as history clearly shows, nevermind current fucking events like bp oil spill, this volkswagen story, the peanut salmonella case x1,000,000 other examples: when corporations can get away with crime, *they do*
why are there so many morons like you in this world who see government as the problem, and not the corporations doing all the actual, criminal wrong?
look at the comments under this story
1. industry cheated na dpolluted
2. government is underfunded so it fucked up
and what do we have... criticisms of govt, no criticisms of industry, and calls to disband the very agency tasked with policing the scumbags in industry fucking up
how... the... fuck
"corporation {xyz} did horrible thing dumping pollution... but that's not the problem, the epa screwed up the clean up, that's the real problem!"
really?
seriously, how can people be so fucking stupid on this point?
how can this incredible blindness about the repeated malfeasance and ineptitude in business escape your attention or derision, but only government, which you fucking need to prevent and control and punish these corporate assholes, is always the culprit?
this guy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
he's real
he exists. he'll poison your children, he'll kill you, he'll render vast areas uninhabitable. all to make $10 more
time and time and time again throughout history, there's millions of examples of this
but no, he's not the problem: government screwed up the investigation, the cleanup, the prevention. therefore, let's focus all our rage there and ignore the criminals out there screwing up your lives and your communities
WTF?
why are you morons and assholes so blind to this?
you rage at government and give industry a pass: why???
exactly, it's absurd
furthermore, in israel and switzerland, where gun ownership is common, the rules surrounding that ownership: storage, testing, training, etc., is extremely strict. aka, well-trained. aka, "well-regulated."
not like the usa, where any asshole can grab any gun he wants, no problem. this is not the intent of the founding fathers. the legal status quo in the usa is judicial activism from a dirty harry psychology from the latter half of the last century: urban crime, handguns, individual action. which has absolutely nothing to do with with muskets, the frontier, community action, the actual intent of the founding fathers
the usa should be like israel, switzerland, if it actually wants to consider itself compliant with the founding father's specific words in the second amendment
we do not have compliance with the second amendment in the usa. we need training and certification before you get a gun. prove you are a responsible citizen and consider a gun a serious responsibility. not just hand out handguns to any hot head, maniac, or gangbanger like candy
the usa is insanely off the rails, and is not compliant with the second amendment
yup, and thank you
the problem is not that mandatory training in guns is "gun control," the problem is that the current status quo in the usa is contrary to the actual wording of the second amendment: well-trained (well-regulated)
we have to uphold the second amendment. which means mandatory certification before you get a gun
thank you
but you don't even get one in the first place unless you are able to be a "well-regulated" member of a militia. meaning well-trained. you have to prove you know what to do with a gun, how to handle it, be safe with it. if you don't, take a class, *then* you get one. but you don't get a gun unless you are *what the founding fathers intended*: well-trained. their words. the actual second amendment text
not the bullshit 20th century dirty harry urban crime focus handgun clueless hothead individual action reinterpretation against the will of the founding fathers
in the spirit of what the founding fathers intended: someone who grew up with guns as an essential part of their need to get food in rural locations, and protect *the community*. that is the second amendment. that is what we must follow and enforce. not the broken ineffectual judicial activism of the last century
which is what the guy who just killed 10 people in oregon thought
congratulations, you're not part of the problem, you are the problem
the second amendment references a *well-regulated* militia. in today's language, that means well trained
*according to the will of the founding fathers* therefore, we must institution a policy of knowing how to use a gun, of being regularly tested, and trained BEFORE you get one. like a car
"but it's a constitutional right, not like a car..."
the fucking second amendment says WELL-REGULATED. well trained: our forefathers had a musket since childhood. they used it to catch game to eat, to protect form hostile forces on the frontier, to answer the call of community action in groups. they knew how to use a gun. the forefathers would not support any retard getting a gun just easy like that. they fucking said so: WELL-REGULATED, well trained
in the last century it's become about handguns, individual action, urban environments, and the focus on crime. so now it's about any asshole getting any gun he wants without the slightest fucking clue about how to use one? and we've completely forgotten the WELL-REGULATED (well-trained) part of what the founding fathers knew about guns. it is judicial activism from the last century and we need to get back to our constitutional roots. dirty harry is not the basis of the second amendment. the minuteman is. and he knew how to use his fucking gun!
"but criminals..."
hot heads seek the path of least resistance. if a gun is hard to get, they don't get one. as proven on all of our social and economic peers in the world. they grab a knife. which is far less lethal. they don't build bombs, because that's not a casual effort, that's a far more rare insane maniac. we're not preventing all massacers, we're only preventing 90% of them because guns are so easy to get. and easy to use and kill easily. that's the actual problem
and insane people can't buy guns on the black market: they're insane. they lack the organization or social acumen to make that contact and trust with the black market dealer
finally, there are criminal masterminds who will always get guns on the black market. *and use them wisely* which doesn't mean shooting up a disco, a mall, or a school because some chick looked at them the wrong way!
that's the fucking point. not to stop all massacres. not to stop all illegal guns. to keep them away from those hands which only get them when they are easy to get
we need to get back to the wording the actual second amendment, and reverse this disgusting reinterpretation from the last century that actually has nothing to do with the true intent of the founding fathers. i love the constitution. i love the second amendment. because it does not support the status quo in this country of easy guns for any hothead or maniac to get one
and this will change. in another few months, there will be another massacre. a few months after that, yet another. you can't depend upon stupidity forever. people are getting angrier and waking up. this doesn't happen in australia. doesn't happen in japan. doesn't happen in the uk. doesn't happen in germany
only the usa has this insane gun carnage
"it's a different culture..."
it's a different fucking legal status quo you fucking morons. that's the problem: easy guns. that's the actual fucking problem. and that will change. because our legal status quo isn't even a valid interpretation of the actual wording of the second amendment
"you can pry my gun from my cold dead..."
KEEP YOUR GUN ASSHOLE! I'M NOT GRABBING YOUR GUN! if you are well-trained and responsible you have no problem keeping and handling guns responsibly. you are not the fucking problem. in fact, you probably agree with me! guns you will still get, serious laws only make it harder for hot heads and insane people
where does the deranged anger come from? what you wrote does not contradict what i said
the guy who doesn't want to run is generally the best guy for the job
ah a credit union. yeah, they may be more relaxed about the transition. it's expensive
the rest will probably be coming soon
the changeover is industry wide
they will give you a new card soon or you missed it in the mail (which should concern you). check with your bank
that the right thing is hard to do is no argument against doing the right thing
that it takes a long time to drain the swamp is no argument against doing the right thing and draining the fucking swamp
(metaphorically speaking of course, actual wetlands are vital aspects of the ecosystem)
his bank has already sent him a new card with a chip in july, august, or september
if he didn't activate the new card, some time in october he'll go to lowe's, try to use his old card, and his transaction will be declined
he'll call the bank and raise hell and they'll say "sir, we sent you a new card and you did not activate it"
he won't be able to use magstripe-only for very long because all major banks have replaced them or are replacing them
he may have a card with some oddball institution that continues with magstripe only. that institution will be pressured by continuing changes in technology and standards, or they will raise their eyebrows at the fraud they have to cover, then they will go to chips too
and this is all a good thing, increased security
is there some valid reason why top comment doesn't want the chip?
or is it "receiving the mark of the beast" level low intelligence paranoid mental vomit?
exactly
it's 2015, the soviet union is long dead, and the slightest hint of the word "socialism" (in reality, a system used by the richest and happiest countries in the world: canada, nordic countries) provokes complete morons to act like it's mccarthy's 1950s america
you have ethics?
man, politics is not the place for you! ;-)
you don't have to say everything in a slogan, just something that hooks people. that makes them come to hear the rest of what you have to say
Good luck from New York!
I was born in CT and my family has roots in New England dating back to participants in King Philip's War. I have shameful Tory branches (British ass kissers) in my family who fled to that Northern area of unincorporated USA territory that goes by the name Canada. Quebec independence is rightfully deserved from the Red Coat douchebags and I hope it is tried again. I hope you're not an anglophone Canadian. In which case, fuck you, sycophant to some bejeweled bitch from another continent... even though that means we might be related.
What you want is exposure. Get a gimmick.
Doesn't have to be like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But it should be something that makes absolutely anyone instantly comfortable with you and makes you immediately noticeable and identifiable. People will tune you out immediately if you just project earnestness and seriousness. Zzz.
You may be angry that it sounds like I'm encouraging you to become an entertainer. Well, welcome to politics!
You have this swamp yankee's endorsement.
they're not center right. they are slightly left, and the republicans are slightly right
to say the democrats are right-leaning is to apply your own ideological judgment that does not have more authority than the people of the country en masse
in fact if the usa drifted extremely rightward, or if it drifted extremely leftward, the democrats are still slightly left, and the republicans are still slightly right. ideology is not fixed to a particular time. center of mass is constantly on the move, and right and left are merely relative to that center, at any given time
you also can't compare the usa to other countries or regions. those are other countries or regions. they are external. they don't count when making an internal, domestic judgment. the gravitational ideological balance of a country is it's own thing, and is the only subjective measure of left and right in a given country
and truthfully, the usa is a moderate country: left of the muslim world, right of europe, etc
i used to have a problem with people like you (after 2000 and gore losing states by tiny amounts, possibly made up for by nader voters)
and it is absolutely true that tactical voting is far more effective and decisive than idealistic voting
however, you vote. therefore, as a measure of what you really owe your society, you're doing what you have to do. so i thank you. because you're right. you do count and the number crunchers do notice these spikes for 3rd party candidates and act accordingly
as long as you vote you have my respect
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
thank you
the biggest obstacle to a sanders presidency is not tea party morons. they vote. that's what you're suppose to fucking do
the biggest obstacle is liberals who don't fucking vote
tea party morons are vile, but they're morons: you can almost forgive them, because they're stupid people. there is no excuse nor understanding nor forgiveness for someone who doesn't vote. that tea party morons vote, in fact, makes them infinitely wiser and better than liberals who do not: the recognition that you count in a democracy means something. everything
"my district/ state is always republican/ democrat, it won't matter..."
hey, douchebag: political strategists look at voting turn out and decide funding, strategy, message, etc. based on turn out. so it absolutely essentially fucking matters if democrats win or republicans win by 1%, 10%, 20%, or 40%. and who makes that matter? YOU MOTHERFUCKER (not you, JustAnotherOldGuy, but anyone reading). VOTE ALREADY YOU DUMB ASSHOLES
it's not about me, it's about the subject matter. you may make it about me, but this is merely a symptom of your social ineptitude, that you need to make things personal that aren't
i'd work on making friends in real life, having an actual social life where you have an identity which is appreciated. then you won't have this need to hide on social forums and pick interpersonal fights with people you don't know and don't care about you
your analysis is correct
the democrats suck like the republicans. they simply suck slightly less
that's why i vote for them. not because i love them, but because i'm not an airhead idealist who holds his vote hostage, until somehow the entire country miraculously matches them ideologically perfectly, with a pathetic temper tantrum (the right has the same temper tantrums but, wisely, they vote).. all you get to do in politics is compromise, that's all politics is. and turn the country in the correct direction, slightly. that's the best you can ever, ever do
you never get to cross your arms and insist the country be by your side in philosophy right now, or you're not voting. fucking moronic. this is why republicans win elections, too many airhead lefties think this way. by not voting all they do is ensure the person further from them ideologically wins. and all because the left leaning choice doesn't match them perfectly. it's socially retarded, immature, and ignorant. politics is *compromise*. that's all it ever is and ever will be. if you have a temper tantrum and withhold your vote because the world isn't exactly like you want it, you will never, ever see the world become even slightly like you want it. the only way is to contribute: vote. an inability to compromise is immaturity and social stupidity
sorry for the rant. i can make peace with the existence of tea party morons: they're morons, they can't help themselves. what i can't understand and makes me eternally angry is liberals who don't fucking vote. it is, in many ways, far far worse for the country than tea party morons, and is certainly why so many tea party morons win
however, one problem with your analysis, there will be no shift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
with enough anger, a third party may indeed appear. then it either gets cannibalized by the existing party closest to it ideologically in a few year, or it cannibalizes that party
it happened before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
it could happen again
but, simply because of mathematics, no plots in smoky rooms, we will always only have two major political parties in the usa. unless or until we fundamentally change our election system, which i do not see happening in a long time
again: people need to understand reality and make peace with it, then work within those confines. or get angry at reality, throw a temper tantrum, and be completely ineffectual to what you care about. ridiculous
that's communism. that's not what sanders stands for.
here is actually a range of economic systems in the world, thousands of them, of varying complexity. it's not just social darwinistic capitalism versus gulag and toilet paper lines communism. the problem is you're uneducated and you can only think in these ignorant simpleton cartoons. try looking at how the government of denmark, sweden, or norway works. or just canada. that's modern socialism. and they are richer, healthier, safer, freer, better educated, and happier than americans
american exceptionalism seems to be about thinking how you're better when everyone pities you. we do many things wrong, like our pathetic education funding and healthcare debacles, and we need to look to other countries who clearly do it better than us. but no: "america #1! drool, snort". american delusional derangement