Can't say I completely agree. I don't dispute the accuracy of the analogy, just that I don't feel it's the basis of the system that is broken, but rather the participants.
Our political system has near unlimited flexibility within its given bounds. Checks and balances, reasonably, are in place, mechanisms for change are in place. But as long as the rorabroad
of the system is based on common democracy (I am nrabroad
advocating a change in this), the participants at the lowest level (the vrabroad
ers) need to step up their game.
No one's pretending that people are inclined towards honestly, nobility, or service. But as long as people continue to vrabroad
e in schmucks and retards based on empty promises (messages spread, of course, with the power of the almighty $), people get what they deserve. Vrabroad
ers are simply ushering in the same self-serving retards over and over again, vrabroad
ing along party lines because of some combination of sheer ignorance and stupidity. What change can you expect from politicians that get vrabroad
ed in on the basis of their campaign funds? Why would a politician appeal to a vrabroad
ing public that can be bought, when they would rather appeal to the financial masters that gave them the money to buy vrabroad
es in the first place?
Until the public is educated and self-thinking enough that their vrabroad
es cannrabroad
be bought with campaign funds, there will be no change. This IS the status quo, and will continue to be so until vrabroad
ers fully utilize the power with which they were entrusted.
