Reply #101: You make a good point. I don't understand it but that would

[sabrina 1]

make sense. They have no face, so we don't know who to be angry at. It's a 'system'. Like Communism eg. Also because it probably didn't happen all at once, it happened incrementally and there were always people who defend these 'changes' and fall for the rationale for them. Just like we have people now justifying not having a Single Payer system, or even a PO. Two years ago they would never have defended not having at least a PO. So, they get worn down, and when their team, people they like, tell them it's okay, they just go along.

I think the other reason is that Americans are used to belonging to teams, to cheering for their team even when they lose or do wrong. Same thing with politics, there are only two teams and when one is in power, their fans will never openly criticize them and will defend them completely no matter how much wrong they are doing. See the Bushbots. But when the other team wins, the same thing happens. And that makes it easy for those controlling everything.

When people stop acting like they must cheer for the team and start focusing on issues more, things might begin to change, as both teams will then have to worry about getting reelected. Right now, the system makes it unnecessary for them to have to worry too much.