Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington

[sirs]

It is kind of entertaining to see Tee try to claim this polling of 4/5 Americans distrusting Government is largely the Tea Party-like folk, when they make up a mere 20% of the population.  What the poll demonstrates is that largely 80% of the population has some serious questions/concerns regarding the trustworthiness of DC.  That's FAR more than just tea party folk

And who can blame them, given their track record.

[Plane]

Yes, I beleive that this poll could have been taken almost anytime and have gotten this result.

[Michael Tee]

<<The article is right , being suspicious of the government is always an American trait.>>

I think that is the underlying theme of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?   

<<When you like the President , you still don't need to put unlimited faith in the government.>>

I think this is going beyond "absolute faith" - - nobody has ever asked for absolute faith.   

<<After all in this country the other side is going to have a turn at bat after a while , do you want to empower the government highly just before the oppositions inning?>

How would a belief in the goodness of Obama's intentions "empower" his successors?

<<The "era of good feelings" was a period of decades after the Whig party gave up and fell apart and the US was a single party state for a while , this ended at about the time that the Civil War became inevitable.

<<Could it be that haveing alternateing partys in power is a good idea? Could it be that trusting one party with the reigns of power too long is a bad idea?

<<Could it be that peopple who trust their party and trust their government when their party has it are bound to be taken for granted by the party and ignored by the government?>>

Nope.  The people trusted Fidel and Fidel delivered for the people.  Wiped out illiteracy.  Created free medical care.  Provided free education.  Provided housing and sanitation.  It all depends on the government, and on the wisdom or foolishness of the people who trust in it. 

You remind me of the guy who's had his heart broken once swearing never to love again.

[Plane]

<<The article is right , being suspicious of the government is always an American trait.>>

I think that is the underlying theme of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?   

yep ,

<<When you like the President , you still don't need to put unlimited faith in the government.>>

I think this is going beyond "absolute faith" - - nobody has ever asked for absolute faith.   

They do seem to say "trust me too often , did you notice Nancy Pelosi closeing the doors on health care negotiations? Even asking that it be voted on blindly because it could be understood and improved later.

<<After all in this country the other side is going to have a turn at bat after a while , do you want to empower the government highly just before the oppositions inning?>

How would a belief in the goodness of Obama's intentions "empower" his successors?

Trust is the first step to being ripped off in a confidence game.

<<The "era of good feelings" was a period of decades after the Whig party gave up and fell apart and the US was a single party state for a while , this ended at about the time that the Civil War became inevitable.

<<Could it be that haveing alternateing partys in power is a good idea? Could it be that trusting one party with the reigns of power too long is a bad idea?

<<Could it be that peopple who trust their party and trust their government when their party has it are bound to be taken for granted by the party and ignored by the government?>>

Nope.  The people trusted Fidel and Fidel delivered for the people.  Wiped out illiteracy.  Created free medical care.  Provided free education.  Provided housing and sanitation.  It all depends on the government, and on the wisdom or foolishness of the people who trust in it. 

Fidel is an excelent example of how bad it can be , no matter how well you think he has improved the health care and nutrition , standard of liveing or what not  , consider everythting together and one thing really stands out , Cuba cannot produce any leadership .

You remind me of the guy who's had his heart broken once swearing never to love again.

  Yes I cried for Nixon , I was twelve , loving the government is immature , trusting the government is unwise , keeping a close watch on the beast and never letting it out of its leash is the American way.

Democrats are happy for the limits when Republicans have the reigns and Republicans are happy for the hobbles when Democrats want to gallop.

If one side were to shoot all of the other this would certainly end the class struggle and the winning side could operate freely in a single minded persuit of goals .

    Shooting the whole other side is not necessacery if one actually notices that the class struggle is not serious , and both sides can take an inning and have their time at bat.

If Nixon was still President right now , that would be the Cuban way, but even I would not like it.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . loving the government is immature , trusting the government is unwise , keeping a close watch on the beast and never letting it out of its leash is the American way.>>

I can go along with that.

<<Democrats are happy for the limits when Republicans have the reigns and Republicans are happy for the hobbles when Democrats want to gallop.>>

In a certain superficial way.  Where it counts, they're both on the same side - - e.g., the President's usurpation from Congress of the war-making power seems to meet with no resistance at all from the Democratic side of the aisle.

<<If one side were to shoot all of the other this would certainly end the class struggle and the winning side could operate freely in a single minded persuit of goals .>>

If one side were to shoot all of the other, it would not make one God-damn bit of difference, because they are both for the ruling class and both against the working class.

<<If Nixon was still President right now , that would be the Cuban way, but even I would not like it.>>

It would be the Cuban way?  Fidel was an excellent leader and the people wanted him to lead.  That is not typical of communist regimes, China has had many leaders, as have Communist Hungary, East Germany, etc.  People would be totally sick of Nixon by now.  He was a very irritating kind of person, even on his best days, even to his political supporters, and I'm sure that by now everyone would have had a bellyfull.

[Plane]

<<If Nixon was still President right now , that would be the Cuban way, but even I would not like it.>>

It would be the Cuban way?  Fidel was an excellent leader and the people wanted him to lead.  That is not typical of communist regimes, China has had many leaders, as have Communist Hungary, East Germany, etc.  People would be totally sick of Nixon by now.  He was a very irritating kind of person, even on his best days, even to his political supporters, and I'm sure that by now everyone would have had a bellyfull.

Nixon was one of the most competant leaders we ever had if he had shot everyone who was seriously a threat to his power he wouold seem even more competant , and who would there be to complain?

Still, if you were right ,what would discontented Americans do? Swim to some better country?

[Michael Tee]

<<Nixon was one of the most competant leaders we ever had . . . >>

He was a crook and a liar who undertook a program of systematic violation of the civil rights of his critics.  If he'd succeeded, he would have trashed the Constitution.  He entered his first term promising peace with honour and achieved neither.  He ended the war on the same terms as had been offered to him by the other side four years earlier, unnecessarily throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives.

<<if he had shot everyone who was seriously a threat to his power he wouold seem even more competant , and who would there be to complain?>>

What is the point of such ludicrous speculation?

<<Still, if you were right ,what would discontented Americans do? Swim to some better country?>>

Working for the "election" of better leaders seems more practical and more enjoyable, no?  (Sorry that I have to keep bringing you back to the Real World like that.)

[Plane]

<<if he had shot everyone who was seriously a threat to his power he wouold seem even more competant , and who would there be to complain?>>

What is the point of such ludicrous speculation?

The secret of Fidel Castros popularity! If you shoot enough critics pretty soon everyone loves you .

<<Still, if you were right ,what would discontented Americans do? Swim to some better country?>>

Working for the "election" of better leaders seems more practical and more enjoyable, no?  (Sorry that I have to keep bringing you back to the Real World like that.)

That is the American way , and a good way to get shot in any communist country.

[Michael Tee]

<<The secret of Fidel Castros popularity! If you shoot enough critics pretty soon everyone loves you .>>

Yeah that must be it.  No way would they love him just because he abolished illiteracy, brought them all free medical care and free education and decent housing for every Cuban.  Fuck dat!  They love him because otherwise he'd shoot them. 


<<That [working for the "election" of better leaders] is the American way . . . >>

Right.  So you just answered your own question then [what would discontented Americans do? Swim to some better country?] didn't you?

[BT]

No way would they love him just because he abolished illiteracy, brought them all free medical care and free education and decent housing for every Cuban.

Nothing is free.

[Michael Tee]

<<Nothing is free.>>

You're absolutely right.  Let's just say that he brought it all within their reach, which no previous Cuban government had ever come close to doing.

[Plane]

<<That [working for the "election" of better leaders] is the American way . . . >>

Right.  So you just answered your own question then [what would discontented Americans do? Swim to some better country?] didn't you?

You were not going to.

Nixon did things the american way and never tried to make himself President for life , even Nixon would have thought that to be too dirty a trick.
How you forgive Fidel for this is a mystery to me.

[Michael Tee]

<<Nixon did things the american way and never tried to make himself President for life , even Nixon would have thought that to be too dirty a trick.>>

Why is being a President for life the one unforgiveable sin?  So what if Nixon never tried?  He knew it could never happen, so why should he try?  He did many other bad things, each of which you studiously ignore, in favour of the one bad thing that he DIDN'T do.  How does that make him great?  He pulls off one crime after another, but it's all OK since he never tried to become President for life?  Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?  You might as well say that he never raped his mother.  How does a guy become great by the crimes that he didn't commit?

<<How you forgive Fidel for this is a mystery to me.>>

Better catch up with the times.  Fidel gave up the leadership to his brother.  I was concerned that Fidel did not allow a better plan for the succession, it's undoubtedly a failure, but the issue was a very tough and thorny one.  The Bolsheviks who made the original Revolution were gradually replaced by opportunistic schmucks, which ultimately led to the downfall of the entire system.  There is no easy solution.  Reproaching Fidel for failing to devise a succession scheme which would preserve the Revolution is like reproaching him for not being able to square the circle or solve famous mathematical riddles.  In the end, he's only human. 

[Plane]

He did many other bad things, each of which you studiously ignore, in favour of the one bad thing that he DIDN'T do.

He committed not a singel crime that Mao can't also claim Fidel can probly claim 90%.

This is beside the point.


  The question of succession is solved by the advanced nations who use democratic means , even Britian before the American Revolution had a powerfull Parlement worked out which could bear much of the power between King and King.
 
  This is the point.
 
   Having no succession plan , espedcially not one that allows the people to have any influence or power is no small fault, it is as major as any other flaw could be. 

    There is no excuse for new governments to ignore an advancement proven by two hundred years or more of use. Fidel stuck to the primitive because he is vain , Mao even moreso.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fidel is certainly more competent than Mao. He has had some dumb ideas, like the famous F-1 hybrid Brahma/Jersey cow, which was supposed to give twice the milk of a Brahma and have tender meat, but actually gave less milk and was tough and stringy and even more susceptible to tropical diseases than either parent. But nothing as monumentally stupid as the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution.


Medical care is better, but the country cannot feed itself. Cuba is not self-sufficient in things like toilet paper and plastics like toothbrushes, which Guatemala exports many of. And housing is in poor repair in the cities and rather squalid in the countryside and in smaller towns. Cuba is more prosperous than Honduras and Nicaragua, but hardly up to Argentine or Uruguayan standards. 

The Party is supposed to take care of the succession problem. I am guessing that when Fidel and Raul are both gone, Cuba will become a lot less Communist.