"There are people in this world that want to do us or harm."

This is true and, in many cases, they have very good reason for wanting to do us harm. Al Qaeda is one very good example, but there are also many others in that part of the world. We have a long history of meddling in the Middle East and have caused a lot of suffering in the process. It was just a matter of time until a bin Laden came along and delivered a retaliatory blow, even with the knowledge that it would result in a devastating response. Until we change our policies, we will be faced with an endless war against enemies who are resilient, patient, and resourceful. Iraq and Afghanistan are just the beginning. We cannot continue down this path and remain an economically strong, free country. Carpet bombing is not the answer, nor any other military solution, as the last 10 years have demonstrated. Changing our policies will produce much better results. For everyone.


"I'm guessing you'd be in favor of going back to a Carter military or less."

I'm not much into labels, but I will tell you that I am in favor of a military designed to defend our country, not a military designed to impose our will on the world. The latter is unsustainably expensive and ultimately doomed to fail. I am betting we could have a military that would make it insanity for any nation on earth to even think of attacking us for, say, $100 billion, max. Anything beyond that is an imperialistic military, and I will not support it. History is littered with the bones of empires, and it would be a tragedy to add ours to the pile. If that is a Carter military, than I am in support of a Carter military.

I've always made an effort to stay informed.

Coincidentally, I've never voted for a candidate that's actually gone on to win anything. Maybe this is a function of how "informed" I am.

I find myself listening to re-cap coverage of the RNC in the morning, wheels hissing over dark concrete on the westbound I-10.

The smartest political decision I've made in some time was to shut the radio off, slide The Evens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDM3MZXn4qA) into the CD deck, look at the clock, and decide there would be just enough time to surf for 30 minutes before work. I'll be 20 minutes late to the welcome back continental breakfast, but I think they'll live without me.

Surf was poor, yet as far as this morning was concerned, infinitely more pertinent than a Paul Ryan speech.

I don't know about the United States of America, but I'm leaning toward adopting a far more isolationist foreign policy.

"I don't know about the United States of America, but I'm leaning toward adopting a far more isolationist foreign policy."
+1

Change begins at home.

"I am betting we could have a military that would make it insanity for any nation on earth to even think of attacking us for, say, $100 billion, max. Anything beyond that is an imperialistic military, and I will not support it."

On this we'll just have to agree to disagree. "More isolationist" I'm for.

$100 billion is the equivilant of issuing everyone in the US a Glock 9. I'm not so comfortable with that as a spending limit.

Thanks for the link to The Evens. Nice stuff.

"but I'm leaning toward adopting a far more isolationist foreign policy."

I hope that doesn't mean you lean toward adopting isolationism overall. Most Americans, IMO, are already too ignorant of what's going on in the world, and are much to America-centric in their knowledge and thinking. We need to engage the world more, not less. We just need to change the way in which we engage.

Edited by idester on 08/30/2012 14:58:41 MDT.

"Do any of you REALLY think that one party will perform better than the other, with the American and world economies in a desperate state, and the huge deficits already in place? Or is the American political system so broken already that nothing, short of another revolution of some kind, can fix it?"

No to the first part. Yes to the second. I think that the biggest problem is that far too many people think they MUST stay within the (facade of a) two-party system. Really, we have a one-party system, but people just don't want to believe that. So they continue to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' thinking that's their only real choice. In doing so, of course, they're taking a very short-term view. But so it goes.

Edited by idester on 08/30/2012 14:59:21 MDT.

"I think that the biggest problem is that far too many people think they MUST stay within the (facade of a) two-party system"

Agreed. To me, this strongly argues that the system itself needs to be changed. As long as people feel they are 'throwing away their vote' by voting for a minor party, it will carry on this way. I imagine this is why some countries have ditched the 'first-past-the-post' system for elections in favour of a more representative government, where minor parties also have a say in how things are decided, and major parties have to form coalitions with the minor parties if they want to stay in power. Not saying one system is better than others, as they all have their down sides. Just that there might be a lot better systems than the one the US currently has.

I also agree that the US effectively has a one-party system at the moment. Both the Dems and the Reps seem to be pretty right of centre, so a vote for either of them is likely to get you more of the same no matter what the outcome of the election. But education/intelligent voting has not been (in recent times) a prerequisite for voting rights, so I don't know how you can change this...especially since the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping the voters ignorant.

Isolationism is NOT the right approach IMHO. But neither is interfering in the politics of other countries. Again, education about how the world works as a whole seems preferable to a brute force approach, which is morally wrong to me, and unbelievably costly to the US at present. America is hardly the paradigm of an ideal democracy to be forcing it's political agendas on others.

I'm talking isolationism of a personal variety.
As in: shut off the radio and go surfing.

Seemed to work pretty well again this morning :)

"$100 billion is the equivilant of issuing everyone in the US a Glock 9. I'm not so comfortable with that as a spending limit."

???

You're right, we'd better just agree to disagree.

"IMO, are already too ignorant of what's going on in the world, and are much to America-centric in their knowledge and thinking. We need to engage the world more, not less. We just need to change the way in which we engage."

+1 We can't afford not to. Literally.

Tom unfortunately, most of our country would not agree......sigh....

"IMO, are already too ignorant of what's going on in the world, and are much to America-centric in their knowledge and thinking. We need to engage the world more, not less. We just need to change the way in which we engage."

This is the change at home of which I speak.

No broadcast TV in this house and living behind the Redwood Curtain is isolation enough. Thank You!

"Tom unfortunately, most of our country would not agree......sigh...."

The only way people anywhere seem to learn is by what I call "hard lessons". We've had a couple, but I suspect it'll take a few more. In the long term I think a majority will finally agree, but it ain't gonna be pretty in the meantime. Look at how long it took Europeans to become Old Europe, and what they had to go thru to get there. SIGH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg

@ Douglas

"No to the first part. Yes to the second. I think that the biggest problem is that far too many people think they MUST stay within the (facade of a) two-party system."

I agree with this... but... look at the bashing the Tea Party has taken. Yes, even from people in this thread. The media calling them tea baggers, right wing radicals, blah blah blah. I'm not a member but have been to a couple of functions. Three things I got out of it. Fiscal responsibility, less gov't (Fed), States Rights. Funny how I didn't hear about homosexuals, abortion, or religion and that's good with me because it's not on my agenda either. I don't guess I know what a right wing radical is but balancing our books doesn't seem like a radical idea, nor does letting the states work out more of their own problems like the founders envisioned. We continue to move more toward a Socialist structure in this country and I find it amazing that so many here think it's Okie-Dokie and anyone opposed is off their rocker. Nuts

Fred, maybe you should read my rant once again on page 9. I want nothing to do with your vision of this country. I say that respectively BTW as we all have opinions. Have you read what Tom K. wrote? We have shoved our ideals on other cultures/countries for years. There is a lot of built up tension and/or hostility towards our government NOT our people. By continue what you feel is the optimal solution sets our country back even further. I want no part of that. Don't get me wrong, I know we have to defend ourselves. But would you call invading Iraq and Afghanistan just? Curious. So I would possibly assume that your idea of military action should have been blowing up those two countries to ? By the way Fred, you cannot deny that some of the rhetoric coming from The Tea Party is quite silly no?

I guess you'll have to point out the rhetoric. I'm just a flyover state dipstick.

"I want nothing to do with your vision of this country."
If you are wanting socialism, you should be happy. If you think the constituion is anitiquated and needs to be trashed, I don't get it. If you think that people aren't going to hate us, no matter how nice we are, I think your dreaming.

I agree with your opinion of the Iraq war, but hey, we're part of the UN right? Uhm, how many resolutions do we pass before we say we aren't kidding anymore. Why does the UN ask a country for proof of destructed WMDs if they aren't going to back it up? I'm in favor of the UN being somewhere else and us not be a part of it. But the UN does good stuff right?

What's wrong with Socialism?

"What's wrong with Socialism?"

It's the same reason we weren't all given the same grades in school. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

As an outsider looking in, do most Americans actually believe they live in a democracy?