kcar wrote: 
That's a pretty bold statement.  

I'd like to see proof.

So far, I find nothing to back up your claim. 

Snopes 

 steeler wrote: 
Dude,the nation HAS been poisoned.It needs to be bled.

Not by Trump though.

 From within.

 steeler wrote: 

"The nation, however, is not immune to the lasting damage that is being done to it by Trump's success in normalizing post-factual politics. It is being poisoned by the injection into its bloodstream of the cynicism required of those Republicans who persist in pretending that although Trump lies constantly and knows nothing, these blemishes do not disqualify him from being president."
— George Will, noted "liberal" member of the "mainstream media," in today's Washington Post.

Hit that nail squarely on its head.

 Coaxial wrote: 

 olivertwist wrote: 
Sadly, the biggest baby of the three is in the middle.

Yup, the baby on the right sums up my feelings about this interminable campaign season.

 kcar wrote:

 
actually we're pretty sure she woke up and said "wtf happened to my uterus"

 oldviolin wrote: 
While the Democratic party has longstanding issues, due in part to its inclination towards a more active and interventionist federal government and its attempt to represent a far wider spectrum of Americans, it gets things done. Things like preventing us from falling into the Great Depression 2.0 and moving us towards universally available, more affordable healthcare with ACA. 

The reason Trump got nominated was because the GOP no longer stands for anything beyond no tax increases, no gun control and no abortions. Oh, and tax cuts skewed to the 1%. Trump's nomination is a sure sign that the peasants have stormed the castle. I am amazed that anyone supports this mentally diseased 70 year-old child. He has swindled people time and again but Jesus he got idiots to give him $82 million in July. The guy is selling nothing more than anger, bigotry, arrogance and empty promises about jobs. The more he talks about the world and government policy, the more you realize that he's unprepared and dangerously stupid. During a briefing on foreign policy, he actually asked three times why we don't use the nuclear weapons we have. He belongs in the movie "Idiocracy." 

The GOP couldn't coalesce around a remotely reasonable alternative to a demagogue who repeatedly called for its dismantling. It can't make up its mind as to whether it should denounce Trump, avoid him or support him. The GOP has been useless and injurious to most of the American public since at least Dubya's administration and is now acting like Trump's whipped dog. 

I'm pretty sure that we have only one functioning political party.

I am fed up with the tar brush applied to Hillary Clinton. Yes, the email server was seriously stupid. Yes, she likely enabled Bill's adultery. Yes, she may have benefitted from insider information on cattle futures. No, she was not to blame for Benghazi. Frankly, the only other serious candidate put forth by either party was Jeb Bush, and he was a walking Sominex. The woman has the brains, experience and steel spine to get things done. Trump quietly wishes he could be half the President Hillary's going to be. If you're looking for a President you could have a beer with, remember how that worked out with Dubya. 
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:  
I think you're suggesting that the Southern states seceded in 1861 because matters between them and Northern states were so dysfunctional. Yes, but Southern secession was not a matter of the military taking over as I think you suggested, following bokey's notion that we might need let the military take over now. The Southern states justified their intent to secede based on states rights and the right to control private property (namely, slaves) as outlined in the US Constitution. Individual states held conventions or referendums to formally vote on the act of secession and each ratified a common Ordinance of Secession. 

So basically the Southern states justified their secession based on a roughly uniform belief in a constitutionally based government run by citizens, not the military. The Confederacy established a unicameral Provisional Confederate States Congress which drafted the Confederate States Constitution and elected Jefferson Davis as the President of the Confederacy. I don't know how much the Confederate military listened to Davis, but Davis appointed commanding generals including Robert E. Lee. The Confederacy was not a military junta. 

Again, I disagree with bokey's suggestion that we need to let our military take over. I can't imagine anyone high up in our military would come within a mile of such a proposition because its training and ethos is rooted in primary loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to a civilian government. 

As a country, we are going through a hard time because history shows that economic crashes caused by the bursting of financial bubbles are slow and halting. Recovery has been uneven in terms of geographic regions, industrial sectors and demographic groups. Neither party is capable right now of addressing widespread real income stagnation and growing income inequality. 

But we are far, far ways away from the collapse or dissolution of our nation or political system.

I know I have not always been the gentlest of posters and I apologize to fellow RPers if I have upset you in this thread. At the end of the day, we are all people trying to make sense of the world and wanting the best for ourselves, our family and neighbors. Most of us are Americans, a fact which despite some great differences in political opinion invokes a spirit of solidarity in me, especially since 9/11. 

 oldviolin wrote: 
Well Veev is in the political threads making a reasoned argument, there is certainly something big going on.

 haresfur wrote: 
ayup, the bad people

Interesting concept that.Bad.Small children understand.

 haresfur wrote: 
ayup.

As I've long said; Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as the legions willing to support him.

IMO the real problem is that Trump is symptom of deeper darkness. In my world view that includes fundamentalism, racism, religious intolerance, concentration of wealth, marginalization of minorities (no matter how you slice and dice society), acceptance of violence, and libertarianism.

If I throw in overly-narrow world-view/focus then I can include my problem with the Greens, too.

Gee, is there anyone I left out? 

 VV wrote: 
Although I'm not happy to be in a situation where my choice of leadership is this steaming pile,I'm even unhappier that I find it so hopeless it's not really worth worrying about.

 bokey wrote:

 

 

Hillary... anger?... frothing hate? I guess you meant to attribute that to Trump as he seems to have cornered the market in all of that and much more. He's the antithesis of a unifying force. Just look how the support of his own party is beginning to fragment. I wish that he was only a buffoon as a buffoon would be far less dangerous.

 

At this point I'm beginning to think that Denis Rodman might actually  make a better president than Trump. At least they would be on a level playing field when discussing world affairs.

 oldviolin wrote: 
And what currency is the piper currently accepting ?  Something tells me he is no longer taking children and doesn't want bitcoin either.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Yeah, we REALLY need to get money the fuck out of politics. Make all campaigns publicly-funded.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Unfortunately money rules and common sense drools...Sounds pretty negative I know. Quite unlike me in most other areas. This area I'm pretty sick of because it thrives on negativity and that sells ad time, just not to me. I ain't buying any of it. We're at the end of a cycle. The lag time is all used up. It's time to pay the piper.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Yeah; they're both dumpster fires. This is why I'm hoping that this election cycle creates at least a couple more viable parties.

 oldviolin wrote: 
The candidates are the parties standard bearer. I give you that if you are just comparing the basic parties they are a lot closer. It will be interesting to see if the party in general tries to put some distance between itself and Trump.   I do think the Clinton is pretty much the Democratic party (for better or worse), but they are also probably a lot happier to have her than the Republicans are to have Trump.

It's going to be a long 100 days. 

Edit - neither of these will be good for old wounds. This is one of the major problems I do have with Clinton. A lot of it isn't really even her fault, it's just that she comes with 40 years of baggage and there's just no way to untangle the parts of that she should own from the parts that are partisan hackery. She certainly has the experience, but many others would do just as fine and wouldn't have the baggage.