Why Everything About Politics Sucks, in 1 Chart
Only 6 percent of Americans say the federal government is extremely "careful with taxpayer money," yet those same Americans consistently report that they want the government to do more.

New polling released this week by the Pew Research Center reports that large numbers of Americans both distrust their government and theoretically want to empower their government to do more, believing that the proper role of government is to protect people from themselves.
"Just 20% say they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time," reports Pew, noting that this finding has held steady over time, "chang[ing] very little since former President George W. Bush's second term in office." Only 8 percent of survey respondents describe the federal government as "responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans."
"Just 6% say the phrase 'careful with taxpayer money' describes the federal government extremely or very well; another 21% say this describes the government somewhat well," notes Pew, which conducted these polls at the end of April.
People broadly say the government responds well to natural disasters (70 percent of respondents support this statement) and keeps the country safe from terrorists (supported by 68 percent of respondents); the government gets bad marks, however, on both setting immigration policy and alleviating poverty, with three-quarters of respondents responding unfavorably to the federal government's current efforts in those categories.
You might think such fiscal profligacy and broad-based incompetence would scare people off from wanting the government to do more.
You would be mistaken: Americans' views on a variety of political issues are frequently paradoxical, which would be funny if it weren't so disturbing.
A staggering 59 percent of survey respondents from both parties say it is the government's job "to protect people from themselves," with 38 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners endorsing that belief, and 77 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners. Meanwhile, 65 percent of all respondents report that all or most people who pursue elected office at all levels "do so to serve their own personal interests."
It is these people—the self-serving ones who have historically failed to deliver results and been wasteful with taxpayer money—that the majority of Americans think will use their power to smartly protect people from themselves. What?
There are some significant differences by party worth noting. "The share of Republicans expressing trust in the federal government is currently as low as it has been at any point in the last 60 years," notes Pew, which tracks with President Joe Biden's low approval ratings (hovering around 40 percent, with only 10 percent approval among Republicans and impressively weak among black voters, who've historically had more enthusiasm for Democrats).
Democrats give the government lower marks than Republicans do in the areas of health care and environmental protection, but in most other categories profess faith. Neither Republicans nor Democrats place much faith in the government's ability to help people get out of poverty, whereas in many other key areas, Democrats are more confident than Republicans in the federal government's ability to deliver. Fifty-three percent of Democrats and people who lean Democrat report that the government "is doing a very/somewhat good job strengthening the economy," compared to a paltry 17 percent of Republicans and people who lean Republican. (This polling was conducted prior to the most recent inflation numbers release, in which it was reported that year-over-year inflation for May ticked up to 8.6 percent.)
The gap is also wide when it comes to perceptions of the federal government's competence at "effectively handling threats to public health," which 62 percent of Democrats/leaners say has been handled well. A measly 34 percent of Republicans/people who lean that way say the same.
Consistent disappointment at the federal government's performance in key areas simply doesn't dissuade people from wanting to empower it to do more. "A majority of adults (53%) say that the government should do more to solve problems," reports Pew, with "large majorities of Black (72%), Asian (68%) and Hispanic (65%) respondents say[ing] that government should do more." Of the 18-to-29-year-old contingent, 63 percent say the government ought to do more.
Hope that the federal government won't be comprised of blustering fools with bad incentives apparently springs eternal.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That graph shown above seems to say a lot about why most Democrats and some Republicans suck. But hey, if you're looking at where there might be a larger number of libertarians hiding, it's clearly more likely in one party than the other, based on that question.
It is remarkable. I mean, you have to have an amazing amount of trust to think that a group of people thousands of miles away living a completely different life know what is better for you than you, yourself.
Especially considering what kind of egotistical narcissist you have to be to get elected to a national office. Most politicians are not nice people.
The cognitive dissonance gets greater when you see how often these same people don't follow the law. Everyone speeds on the freeway here. Not just republicans, Everyone. For my whole life a huge portion of people -- especially democrats -- smoked the maijuanas even though the government says it is verboten. "it's natural, you can't stop me it grows out of the ground."
The problem is that most of these people think it's the government's job to protect other people from themselves, but obviously they're the virtuous one. They lack the imagination to realize that drug prohibition, speed traps, banned medical procedures, or anything else they say is unjust or is because "trump is a nazi" is exactly the government protecting them from themselves.
You also must have an astonishing level of arrogance to think that you might know what's better for someone else, whether they are a mile away or a thousand.
Like my progressive (NPR-listening, Rachel Maddow-watching) neighbor who keeps insisting that poor rural whites are voting against their own interests(!) when they don't vote Democrat. (Also, increasingly, hispanics and other more urban minorities.)
You are correct.
I find it easier to believe that progressives are arrogant than trusting. I had this discussion with a new friend last year. She was expecting me to judge a decision she had made and my response was that I didn't care. She did her best. "You're my age, you've raised a nice family, you have a moral core you use to make decisions, and you live a good life. Why should I second guess that?"
I might not agree with you. Or a decision you've made. But if it doesn't affect me, like I don't have to pay if you decide badly, there's no way in hell I have an intimate enough look into your life to know better. And that's one on one.
Collectivists lack imagination. They assume everyone's problems and dreams are similar to their own. And they look down on people who don't fit in. They aren't. And misfits are not demons, they're just people who have different problems to solve.
Arrogant enough to think they are *entitled* to other people's things without having to *earn* them. (i.e. Arrogant Nazi criminals)
Still the party of slavery no matter how much their selfishness likes to play ignorant justification games..
Either Gov-Guns are used to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice or they are used to Enslave Individuals and Unjustly Steal/Dictate others for someone else's greed. Or there is no government at all.
I’ve made so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. (res-48) It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do.
.
For more details visit:>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
I would say the largest number of libertarians aren't in either major party, but exist as "decline to state" or "none of the big two".
Of course, people get to define words how they want so they can prove their thesis. But libertarians are NOT for the things that hte modern Republican Party are for. They're not into endless culturewar, they're not into heightened border controls, they believe in free trade, they believe in freer markets. They do want tax cuts but they also want spending cuts.
I'm sorry, but the culture war is relevant because there's a party that is trying to assert cultural norms into politics. I don't like the culture war, but people involved in politics play that game and use it tell me what to do. Pushing back against it is also part of the culture war and I find it's an unfortunate necessity.
It's much like people lamenting that covid became so political. Sorry, but once you start getting mandates and trying to control everyone's behavior by force of law, then it's already political.
> I'm sorry, but the culture war is relevant because there's a party that is trying to assert cultural norms into politics.
Yes, they're called the Republican Party. That the Democrats engage in it does NOT mean it's okay for the Republicans to do the same.
Hahahahahaha
Stop fighting back and just let me hit you!
Do they pound their fusts demanding the gavel be thrown at non violent protestors at j6 like you've been doing?
Except that polls show a greater proportion of libertarians among Republicans than among independents + nonvoters.
Now do a poll regarding those who are economically conservative and socially liberal. Stop polling on labels and poll on what people actually think.
Why do you assume that libertarians are necessarily socially liberal?
Stop polling on labels.
Because being socially illiberal means authoritarian in most cases
I see your problem.
That doesn’t make you a libertarian.
LMFAO...... Socially liberal as being, "It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves"??? --or-- Socially Liberal as in Communism (propaganda named 'equality') which would be in direct contrast to 'economically conservative'???
Seems the only TRUE poll you're pitching is who can make pigs fly in their imagination.
That's weird, I always thought 'socially liberal' meant that a person was like, 'hey, that ain't my thing, but whatever works for you'.
I couldn't care less about your lifestyle until it affects mine. You do you. When you stop allowing me to do me, there's an imbalance.
Brandyshit is still trying to justify his raging case of TDS. Eat shit and die, asshole.
What a load of garbage. Most people want some border control not open borders. The culture wars have all been started by the Democrats, woke-ness, CRT, censorship, gun banning, LgbtQ++++++, pronouns,etc. ect. ect. The people don't want politicians being in bed with communist countries like China and corrupt politicians is hardly free trade, people want free trade to be fair trade too. People do want some critical industries protected, like medical supplies, computer chips and military equipment. Corrupt politicians accepting bribes and payoffs like the Biden's provide neither. While both parties spend way to much, the Democrats are always the highest taxers and spenders.
What people don't want? An end to the first amendment. And end to the second amendment. Corrupt elections and corrupt politicians. A one party country. A authoritarian repressive government like the woke liberals want. They do not want open borders. They don't want mandates and lock-downs. All the things the Democrats are trying to impose. People want a fair and honest press that gives you the facts, not one in one parties corner that lies about political opponents yet softballs political favorites.
Libertarians choose the Republicans because they are the lesser of the two evils. The Democrats of today are truly the greater evil.
Your spin fools no one.
Any person with a lick of intelligence does not belong to any self serving political party. that right wing party cares about you as much as the left wing party. the sooner we accept that, perhaps, PERHAPS the sooner we can move to better things.
Only the left plays faithful Gang-Color affiliation games. Most Republicans see a vast difference between Rand Paul and Susan Collins / John McCain.. Thus the whole RINO popularity.
freedomwriter
"Any person with a lick of intelligence does not belong to any self serving political party."
Correct. And anyone capable of 6-th grade reasoning should be able to make the distinction between 'belonging' to a party and voting for a person who proposes policies which those who tend to libertarianism might prefer.
Looks like you are entirely too stupid to make an adult decision regarding the issue.
Eat shit and die, asshole
name names of the 6%! los Idiotas Mas Grande
Look for the congressmen who waste the most money.
106%
The paradox is easily resolved once you realize that government has long since been meddling so much in everybody's lives that it literally is more profitable, both emotionally and financially, to push government to meddle in everyone else's life than try to improve your own personal life.
In personal lives, you have to get permits to add a deck or replace your roof. You aren't allowed to have a non-lawn front yard. You have to wear a motorcycle helmet or car seat belt. None of these affect anybody but you, yet government requires them. After a while, it grinds you down, and that's not an unfortunate side effect from the government's point of view.
In small shops, what is easier -- trying to improve your efficiency, or trying to derail a would-be competitor's business license?
In big businesses, yes, guess what, it is easier to lobby the government to tax or regulate your competition than to improve your own efficiency or come out with new products which require years of study to get government approval.
Government is the problem, period.
But I do think people pull for as much as push authoritarian government. Call it coddling, call it promoting dependency, call it social conditioning, but MANY people reject autonomy, and the required effort and acceptance of risk. In many ways, we have this collective urge to extend childhood. Asking government for more parental care is the most expedient method.
In some instances, the seat belt can kill you by preventing you from being thrown from the vehicle and being crushed by it instead.
This information was scrubbed from the internet by the way. I can no longer find it.
There's always an exception. 90% of Americans wear a seat belt, 50% of accident deaths weren't wearing one. If the Sinaloa cartel gave you a choice of 2 revolvers, one loaded with a single bullet, one loaded with 5, and you had to put one to your head and pull the trigger, which would you pick?
I've seen a ton of exceptions where I live and around here 90% of people don't wear their seat belt and 70% of them would be dead if they had worn it.... Frankly; I think the type of accident has a lot to do with it which is area specific prone (who would've thought).
Nazi's don't care about YOUR life or YOUR situation; it's all about their almighty wisdom in things they know nothing about (i.e. Power-Mad mentality).
Bullshit.
If you want to tell anecdotes instead of paying attention to the statistics, I've got a couple, from just one year while I was in the Air Force at Cannon AFB. (This was before airbags.) One was two young Airmen coming home drunk on the back road from Portales after a college ball game. I'm not sure what they ran into, but it stopped the car suddenly enough to kill. The driver wasn't thrown from the car, he was thrown into the windshield, and left it covered in brains and blood. The passenger wore his seat belt and was walking a few minutes afterwards. No seat belt=dead, seat belt=bruised (and in some trouble since both of them had borrowed or stolen ID's to buy drinks).
The other was T-boned by someone running a red light, and pushed across the road into a head-on with a truck, all three vehicles at over 40mph. Then the rear of his little car hit a series of parked cars. Everything _but_ the passenger compartment was crushed, and the police or fire department had to cut the car apart to get to him. He remembers that they seemed surprised to find him alive, but he was belted in and OK except for a strained back.
If you're thrown anywhere in a collision, it will probably be smashing around inside the passenger compartment, not thrown clear. If you do somehow get thrown out of the car, first you're going to hit something at high speed, and then quite likely your car will hit you. It's possible to be thrown from the car, go in a different direction than your car and any other vehicle, and make a soft landing, but only if you're very lucky.
The odds are much better if you're in a modern car and wearing the seat belt and shoulder harness. You're as protected as you can be; passenger compartments don't crush except under circumstances no one could survive anyway (e.g., a small car in an 80mph head-on with a semi), and in the real world it's unusual for a car to catch fire in a collision - not to mention that you're in better shape to get yourself out if you were belted-in than if you were flying around breaking bones and being knocked unconscious.
Fair enough; As stated - it probably has a lot to do with area. I live in an agricultural area (open fields) with high speed skinny back-roads and telephone poles. All the wrecks I've seen; Those that have been thrown end up okay because it's open fields; where-as 60+ mph dead-impacts where the person remains in the vehicle often has caused death due to (the cars metal crush - not found in open fields).
Statistically; I'm sure you're right - but at the same time 'statistically' there is a vast MORE drivers in urban than rural so take it for what it's worth; but you won't sell me on it's a guarantee or even a 'better' option in every specific accident/area.
"...In some instances, the seat belt can kill you by preventing you from being thrown from the vehicle and being crushed by it instead.
This information was scrubbed from the internet by the way. I can no longer find it..."
The reason you can't find it is because it's bullshit.
There is no reason belts should have been required under coercion, but it take a real idiot to claim they caused harm, idiot.
"but it take a real idiot to claim they caused harm"
Bullshit - right back at you...
Funny, what the chart show and what the article says do not match.
I particularly like the mad mix of responses by party and by all respondents.
Yes. The overlap between the two bars is greater than the edges. But it tries to paint a different picture.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It's one thing to say "hey, this party leans this way", but to divide everyone up into two artificial camps and proclaim truths about the members is stupid.
One is 60% not the government's job, one is 80% it is and youre trying to say they are the same. Lol.
I think he makes a valid point there. No, they aren't the same. But way too many in all categories think it is their job. Talking about politics as if everything is a binary choice really fails to see the real diversity of political views and does tend to promote the extremes being seen as representative of the political sides when most people are really the mush middle who don't put a lot of thought into it. We're the political weirdos, actually caring enough to think about and analyze things.
Except this is a binary choice of governments responsibility. It is not a poll of what they should do. One is saying they try to do too much or are too big. The other is saying they don't do enough. Even if side A says they should do X, they are still saying they should focus on X. And not grow. That is not true of the other side.
It is also clear from his next post that he didnt actually understand the graph.
"I think he makes a valid point there..."
No, it isn't, unless you accept sophistry as valid argument.
Brandyshit has been trying for years to:
1) Make excuses for his raging case of TDS
2) Try to hide his inability to make any sort of adult judgements
3) Hide behind the fig-leaf of his claim to 'libertatianism'
It is possible that he thinks that a 'clever' claim to an inability to recognize policies libertarians would favor in either party might gain sympathy, but more likely that he's simply too stupid to understand that actions are more important than labels.
This is not an intelligent being here.
"Yes. The overlap between the two bars is greater than the edges..."
Brandyshit tries the 'If you hold your mouth just right, then..." school of lying.
And, as Brandyshit always doe, fails.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
This article is a perfect example. It doesn't mention anything about KULTURKAMPF so it doesn't get 600 comments. No one cares about making government better. They only care about destroying the OTHER people.
I disagree. Yes, most people want government to crush the other tribe. But most people also want to government to provide, either stuff or economic protection (or both).
Politics sucks because it divides people into two and only two camps and pretends everyone in a camp is exactly alike. Just look at the chart! The fastest growing "party" is none of the above, and if htey aren't the majority already they soon will be. Decline to states, independents, and third parties are a rising force. NOT because they are moderates (though most probably are) but because they aren't basing their identity on tribal political teamsmanship.
If you look at that chart, the majority of people on both bars are at neither extreme, yet the bars emphasize the extremes. It shows that Republicans are all on the "left" side of that spectrum, yet more than half of them overlap the Democrats. Ditto for the other bar where more than half the Democrats overlap the Republicans.
The purpose of politics is to divide people into warring factions. And this chart is doing it. Don't fall into the politics trap. Ideology is good, ideas are good, we can talk about policies and governance and stuff. But politics just brushes that away and reduces discussion to petty argument and gainsaying.
There is no extreme on the chart dimbshit. It is a histogram bar chart of a binary choice.
Do you know how to read charts?
Brandyshit is still trying to justify his raging case of TDS. Eat shit and die, asshole.
Fixed
A staggering 59 percent of survey respondents from both parties say it is the government's job "to protect people from themselves,"
Just change the question to whether or not they think it's the government's job to protect you from yourself. We all know the majority of people are idiots who can't be trusted to eat unsupervised with a fork, but that's other people, not us, We're smrt.
Bingo
But we might fuck up, so we want do-overs and bailouts.
Solution: abolish voting as a right.
abolish universal suffrage as a right (to those with no skin in the game).
No representation without taxation.
Honestly; Championing 'democracy' over the Constitutional Union of Constitutional Republican States IS exactly what is wrong with this nations population.
[WE] mob Rules!/s
59 percent of both parties
Or more accurately 77 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans.
This is pretty tacky way of trying to say the parties are the same, when clearly there's a big difference
Brandy is doing a bang up job of lying about what the chart says lol.
The chart clearly shows there's more overlap than there are differences. You are clearly the target audience the graph is trying to fool.
Please learn to read charts.
He/she doesn’t want to.
Also, if the total is an average of the two parties responses, their numbers are off.
The survey had more democrats in it.
"...You are clearly the target audience the graph is trying to fool."
You are clearly among the audience who should embarrassed, but in order to do so, you'd have to admit your raging case of TDS, Brandyshit.
Fuck off and die.
The questions evidently had nothing to do with recreational drugs other than tobacco and ethanol. As I type, the screen in the corner is bleating that volatile markets are caused by everything BUT laws making production and trade a crime to please mystical zealots and rob their victims. Yet practically every major crash was causally linked to shoot-first, confiscate-later prohibition drives.
This really should have been a table rather than so much text.
"New polling released this week by the Pew Research Center reports that large numbers of Americans both distrust their government and theoretically want to empower their government to do more, believing that the proper role of government is to protect people from themselves."
Next time Pew could just ask people if they are retards.
> Next time Pew could just ask people if they are retards.
No need, we get that poll every four years on the second Tuesday of November.
You could've just answered "yes I am", brandyfuckingmoron
"No need, we get that poll every four years on the second Tuesday of November."
Pretty much every time you post here, Brandyshit. You might try growing up, but I doubt you'll ever get to middle-school reasoning abilities.
I don't find this at all surprising as most people seem to want government to do more but want less taxes. Government wasting money is built into the system and is helped along by Congresses failure to pass budgets. Budgets are often put off till the last minute and require large omnibus bills that bury money. Congress often builds in so much accountability that programs waste money on reporting regulations rather than doing what is needed.
I don't advocate for big government or small government but rather smart government. Government should be the last resort to address people problems, but when it is needed it should be able to step up and do just that.
So you support big government then. Because that's what exactly your proposals lead to.
Republicans: I can take care of myself, I just the government to get out of my and stop robbing me blind.
Democrats: I am incapable of taking care of myself and need to government to do everything for me while spending someone else’s money to do it.
I prefer group A.
And I used to hear
Republicans: Stop using dirty words and reading offensive books, and instead follow the morals of my church.
Democrats: Get off my back and let me be free.
In those days, it was a bit harder to choose. Now Democrats have coopted the old Republican social agenda, and the choice is easier.
It’s a worse agenda democrats have adopted. At least the R agenda led to lower welfare, stronger family units that cared for each other, and less need for government involvement.
The D culture agenda promotes the need for government to take care of you. Drug addiction, access to abortion, free college, welfare, homelessness, mental illness.
Group A says "go to private homes, kick in the door, shoot the dog, maybe some kids and elders and "find" some plant leaves so we can confiscate hundreds of thousands of homes and bank accounts, wreck mortgage-backed securities markets, crash the economy and blame the Federal Reserve banks. Then go threaten some doctors and pregnant women at gunpoint while we use taxpayer money to record attack ads. Group B is in the homes being raided with the help of their own looter politicians.
" the proper role of government is to protect people from themselves."
Perfectly understandable. The problem with people bent on harming themselves, is they can take down others with them. These mass shooters, for example, are, essentially, suicides who want to go down in a blaze of glory, and the innocents they take with them are little more to them than nameless video game characters.
Why Everything Sucks, in 1 Cognitive Dissonance plague....
The Cognitive Dissonance in NOT realizing what 'Government' actually *IS*... It is not comprised of almighty Gov-Gods or "leaders" (Kings and Queens). It is the legal monopoly of GUN FORCE...
The *only* thing that separates 'Government' from any organization (business/corporate/charity) is the legal use of GUNS! What those GUNS are used for is exactly what kind of nation one wants to build. The monopoly of GUN FORCE is either used to ensure everyone's Liberty and Justice or they're used for criminal intentions.
The founders of the USA understood this well after much war and bloodshed and it is EXACTLY why they created the Supreme written law OVER the monopoly of Guns which the mass majority only gives the monopoly guns authority over DEFENSE!
This isn’t a useful polling question. Ask people about specific policies and see how they answer. I would agree that the government should protect people from their desire to store ten thousand gallons of kerosene in their basements and disagree that the government has any business prohibiting who adults can have sex with. Details really matter here and this question doesn’t provide any.
What is something a person can do to harm himself that has no effect on anyone else. You have to exclude anything requiring a medical intervention, since the cost of medicine is necessarily socialized, even if we're just talking about private insurance rates. And, if you like, that encompasses having poor health habits.
If you want to get even more abstract, you choosing not to be educated affects me because you end up making poor choices in elections. You being a retard might be the biggest passive harm to me imaginable.
This article is chock full of meaningless language. It's long past time libertarians stop coasting on absolute horseshit concepts like "government do more" or "government do less." You want government to do plenty. You want it to enforce property rights until all the prisons are full if that's what it takes. You want it to seize control of finite resources and permit them to industries that underwrite your magazine. And that's not even talking about the near 100% of your followers who want the government to start inspecting children's genitals before they're sent off to be target practice.
Note to foreign readers: "necessarily socialized" means that only a fool would dream of resisting either variant of National Socialism. Many people, including Jewish intellectuals, believed this before 1939. Tony and his christiano-fascist antagonists could both profit from reading "Vices are Not Crimes" by Lysander Spooner.
Slipping quietly off of a ship, at night, into the freezing North Atlantic after having left a clear note that you have committed suicide (so that no one starts looking for a body), and after having made sure all of your bills are paid and loved ones taken care of as well as possibly can. Yeah, you might be missed, but if we're just talking about feelings, that's a fools errand.
Peeked.
Nope.
Make sure his grave is marked so everyone else can piss on it.
It’s really very simple: people who say they want “more government” are people who want more societal decisions made by systemic violence rather than individuals working it out themselves in a non-violent manner.
I’m for maximum freedom.
You dont have to get super abstract. One party is full of irresponsible children who dont want to pay any more in taxes for THEM but want the govt to provide healthcare, housing, food, and monthly income to live on. They want the govt to decide which colds are bad enough to merit a lockdown and then be able to force people to behave how the health czar says they should.
These are unserious, childish people and we should treat them as such. Their policy prescriptions come solely from a place of envy and laziness.
Good, except for the background odor. Pollsters advance on the brainwashed victims of Nixon-law-subsidized entrenched looter parties with vague and equivocal questions. Naturally the data thus cooked is disheartening... that's the whole point! Key to the con is ignoring the way small party spoiler votes have leveraged in all manner of cruel and unusual laws and even amended the Constitution to shore them up. Now that the leverage is in the opposite direction, small wonder the con game is becoming desperate.
Politicians should have to take an oath that includes the phrase from the Hypocratic Oath: "First, do no harm"..... although perhaps a clearer statement might be necessary for this less thoughtful crowd, something along the lines of "First, if you're just doing something so that people think you're doing something, don't do it!" - but that would require self-awareness.
Nevermind, maybe we can just hang all the politicians.
Let France be our example?
Hmmm . . .
I thought that in France it was the politicians that had a bunch of people hanged. Silly me.
The republicans are delusional. They do want government control to force a christofascist trumpian nightmare lol. They just don't like our current center-left government haha.
One more TDS-addled lefty shit pile accounted for.
The center left has been left far behind. And your behind is where your head is stuck if you think not.
'Why Democrats Suck, in 1 Char"
Fixed; 71%, FFS!
Politics sucks because it has become a means by which people can gain power and money through voting, without earning it. Politics sucks because it is the opposite of a meritocracy. Politics sucks because it implicitly says "either you give me what I want or there will be violence".
Except, look at these two statements. They aren't equivalent. On the negative, you have an absolutist statement that does not allow any wiggle room. However, on the positive you have a very vague statement that could mean anything from "kids shouldn't be allowed to buy crystal meth" to "staying up past 10:00 is bad for you and so should be criminalized".
Bad questions lead to bad answers
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan -
Government could do more if they weren't so obtuse and inept. What you think the government should do is different from what you believe they have the skill, ability, desire and competence to do. Current politicians are too busy with ruining their individual fiefdoms than to be concerned with actually doing their jobs according to their oath of office.
The primary problems are that be they democrats or republicans, not only are they low information voters but they are retarded.
70% of Americans think the FEDs respond to disasters? Well then they don’t live in NM where the FEDs started a controlled burn on a very windy day that has burned 500,000 acres. Brandon actually showed his face this week.which means this fire is worse that the disaster on our Mexican border. Who knows what goes on in his addled brain