The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: jaydub on November 02, 2007, 04:09:08 pm
-
I think the main thing wrong with politics is the sort of people who seek political power. Maybe we could have a national lottery to get a small pool of candidates, have them slug it out to prevent anyone truly apathetic from getting the nod, and then vote from there.
-
Both. I was grumbling to myself about Ron Paul's neo-nazi fans (I don't think he himself is a racist, but something about him seems to resonate with these morons (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=409220) (Link probably not something you want showing up in your browsing history at work, by the way).
-
I think it's because of his rather isolationist stance and his platform plank that you shouldn't get citizenship by simply being born in the US. I like some of what he has to say, but some of it is just a little too much for me.
-
his platform plank that you shouldn't get citizenship by simply being born in the US.
WTF?
So, what, like we ALL have to take a test?
-
Asherdan, re your sig. I don't think it's so much that these are the best Americans available. It's the Socratic paradox of government: The people who would truly be good at running the country are smart enough to want absolutely nothing to do with the gig.
-
I think that's more in regards to illegal immigration and 'anchor-babies'.
Sure, but that seems like a slippery slope. Once being born here isn't enough, who else have you set a precedent for ruling out? And how does this get to the real core of the problem?
Well, I am not going to vote for anyone with two first names anyway. A president should have a last name, darn it.
-
I guess the way I see it is, once we've said that you're not a citizen if your parents are undesirable in some way, doesn't that open it up to more and different definitions of undesirable?
But isn't this in the Constitution, anyway? We never amend the Constitution anymore, so for practical reasons it seems hardly worth debating.
-
No no no, you gotta go to the Home Depot to get the real pulse of the day-labour bloc.
You can walk outta there with a three-pack of bulbs and they'll STILL ask you if you need help.
That's hard-core, I say.
However, I think that the difficulty with the American political system is less about the smarts of the people running for office.
It's more about the ethics and the sanity.
You have to be insane, literally have something wrong with you, to desire that much power. And... to actually climb the ladder so high, to give up all the vestiges of a normal life or any kind of principles to get up to that tier before the highest heights, you pretty much have to be amoral to the precipice of sociopathy.
People who are just crazy don't have the focus run for office, they're generally just homeless or religious figures.
People who are just sociopathically amoral generally don't go through all the trouble of politics when there's so many normal people to rape, torture, kill, humiliate, manipulate, etc. You can easily just become, like, a sports coach or a cop or some far pettier form of bureaucrat than president or senator to mete out enough cruelty for a lifetime.
To really wanna lead a country AND have the focus and intellect to pull it off...
You really have to be a perfect storm of madness and ethical numbness... along with at-least above average intellect and a path of access to vast amounts of money. Without any one of those traits, you're gonna fail.
Without money, no one will be able to hear you. Without above average intellect, you'll trip over your dick way early on. Without ethical numbness, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night making the choices you have to make to get up to the big stage. Without madness, you wouldn't feel the need to go so very very far to get your fucked-up power jollies.
An IQ in at-least-the-low-hundreds is the least of those traits because enough money can paper over those kinds of mistakes, really.
-
An IQ in at-least-the-low-hundreds is the least of those traits because enough money can paper over those kinds of mistakes, really.
Or a famous Daddy.
-
It's not about me. It's about whether you trust politicians not to see it in that fuzzy way, as soon as it's in their interest in some way.
-
I can kind of dig on what I've heard about Ron Paul, I can't say that I agree with everything he says but I do appreciate how consistent he is. Stop interfering with other countries, stop a bunch of people coming in to yours, stop spending money on big stupid wars but stop spending so much on social programs too. It's almost like he's taken a single goal (Smaller, less intrusive government) and followed it to it's logical endpoint regardless of the moral fuzziness that trips most people up and I can respect that. Seems there should be a little more logical leadership instead of just always doing what feels right. Don't get me wrong I am big on the idea of helping people who are down the food chain from me but it seems like every political movement these days is governed by knee-jerk morality where the appearance of doing right is more important than doing what will work in the long term.
This is kind of odd though since I get in quite a huff when people get all anti-immigration in my own country, but again I think this is because I am bothered by their illogical (or vague hand-wavey) arguments. For instance, recently our immigration minister announced a decision to decrease the number of sudanese refugees we take in (and proportionally increase the number of refugees from other regions so it's not like he's just being completely a dick about) because they as a group don't 'integrate' well. Without even going into the sillyness of painting all people from a particular area with the same brush this seemed very dumb to me since surely the point of refugees is taking them in on the basis of their needs and the horror of where they are coming from rather than our convenience. If he had been speaking about immigrants (where I think it is more appropriate to accept people on the basis of what they can contribute to our country) rather than refugees I would have, if not agreed then seen how the argument could be made, but surely taking in refugees in an act of charity and if you're going to suddenly turn around and say 'yeah but what do I get out of it' you should probably just drop the pretence and stick to normal immigration.
Sorry that got away from me a bit there.
-
In a two-party political arena such as the one in the United States, outliers like Ron Paul provide weak political magnetism to various platform planks. The same can be said for the modern socialist parties, green party, pop-parties (Unity08), etc. Picture a two-dimensional boardwalk on the beach with two dominant ice cream stands that have chosen rational positions in the very center of the boardwalk such that all those to the left will buy from the left stand and the people to the right with the right stand. These third party players have this weak magnetic force to draw the right or left stands in other directions to appeal to other audiences. The green party will court left voters and the main left party will see this and court those drawn to that philosophy. The end result is 2 moderate parties that evolve slightly to reach into the outlier bases. For this reason I like Ron Paul because he is so out there and has so much grass roots support that (hopefully) the big guys cant ignore him totally.
I dont vote because (A) its entirely irrational and (B) I wont sacrifice my morals to vote for someone I dont really want to run the country. And in the few years that ive been eligible to vote, I havent found such a person.
-
I dont vote
I'm sorry, nothing you have to say on this topic matters.
-
Paul's being a bit blunt but he has a point. Wishing ain't going to change the way politicians work, luckily we do have a fairly convenient way for you to let them know your opinion....
-
Felt maybe I should add something more to that.
arachnocapitalist, you've shown yourself to be a young fellow who is forthright with his political views it seems a shame that you choose not to make your opinions matter. Sure politicians seem to just be in a permanent state of calling each other baby-killers and war-profiteers and that's hard to get past but really the modern politician's ideal situation is everyone giving up and only the zealots voting on bumper-sticker issues which would be great for the pols because zealots aren't particularly bright and are very easy to lie to.
As for finding an ideal candidate, I don't know about you but I don't 100% agree with any of my family, my friends or even my girlfriend on every political issue, expecting some gladhander in a suit to fulfill your every desire is a bit naive and the exact reason why normal people need to be politically active. Hell even if you don't want to be active within the current system campaign for it to be over-thrown and replaced with something that works, but a person of Opinions just bitching and not doing is a damn shame in my opinion.
-
I am basically agnostic, you know, there might be something and I hope there is but whatever it is or could be, its something far far different than our small minds could imagine... I keep my mind open, just in case.
I feel the same way about politics.
I don't know if it works most of the time but, goddamn it, I'll vote because oh man I want it to work.
It SHOULD work and I don't give a fuck about does and doesn't, can and can't. Should is the word.
I ain't backin' down from that hope, no matter how flawed things look.
I'm such as Agent Mulder, homies, I desperately want to believe.
-
...I ain't backin' down from that hope, no matter how flawed things look.
I'm such as Agent Mulder, homies, I desperately want to believe.
Amen, brother. Pass me the noseclip and give me a stiff shot of courage afterwards (or a piece of sweet-potato pie). If you don't vote, you've got no right to complain, in my book. Our style of government doesn't ask much from us - just every few months give thumbs up or down on people (and issues if you live in Cali, or other voter initiative states) and occasionally put up with jury service. I do some other stuff like bending my representative's ears when they piss me off or do something clever and I'll show up at Town Hall Meetings so it isn't just the usual axe-grinders and yes-men getting heard, but all that's purely optional. If you can't be bothered - whatever justification you cook up for yourself - you're just being lazy.
-
I have only been 18 for three national elections (including a primary) and have always voted, but I totally understand were A-CAP is coming from, especially for him you know. See, on the left, well that guy is kind of shitty on social issues, but at least we won't go to war, or that guy he is good on social issues but blah..., see, A-CAP has to elect people that act overly religious and socially backwards to get his most important issue (economy), and even then recent Republicans are worse than the Democrats. It is easy to see how he could be completely turned off by all candidates because he hates at least one thing about each.
Anyways, the reason I hit reply was because I have been thinking about it a lot, and I think I may only vote in the Primaries, unless the candidate is damn good. I can usually find a guy to support in the primaries, but after that it has been pretty slim pickings from my view. Like this time, I will probably vote for Kucinich in the primary, then only him or Obama in the main election. I mean why vote for Hillary if she has already voted for the war, not said she plans to remove the troops and pretty neutral on all of the social issues I really care about? (well, and the reason I probably will chicken out and vote for her anyways, because it is better than the alternative. But I think that is pretty shitty.)
-
But you guys don't have to vote for one of two guys right? There are other options in the presidential elections?
-
Well, like I said, I always have voted, and I really do believe in the lesser of two evils being, you know, less evil.
To answer your question, it depends on the state. In my state a conservative third party candidate can get on the ballot, but it is harder for some of the more liberal candidates. For instance, Ralph Nadar wasn't on the ballot in 2000 (I don't remember in 04) where I live, which, you know, you have probably heard of him.
-
I've missed two of the 12 elections I've been able to vote in. I felt a bit guilty each time.
Even if the options are crap, I still vote. Libertarians tend to get on "big" ballots, and I tend to vote for them because 1) they, as a party, come closest to representing my views, and 2) they make a convenient place to drop a "fuck both of you" message. In cases where there is no convenient place to register my displeasure (a city position like Soil and Water Commission with only one candidate) I usually vote for my mom. This used to really bother her because I got my sister in on the act, too, and she was worried in a couple of places where there were two open positions on a ballot but only one candidate listed. The thought was that the candidate would get one slot, then she would come in a distant second with two votes, and a lot of others tied for third with one.
This never happened, but I wish it did. Hijinx would surely ensue.
-
I am politically active in ways that are more effective than voting will ever be. The marginal political benefit of voting in a national election is an infinitesimal amount. The marginal political benefit of writing letters to editors and political offices is greater. Voting is a one digit action. I am strongly in favor of laws against murder. Voting for the anti-murder candidate is less effective than lobbying the eventual office holder for anti-murder language in legislation.
-
I usually vote for my mom.
I am coming out in favor of the Mom party, and thats the deal.
-
Voting is less effective than lobbying the eventual office holder.
Good Lord, though, I don't wanna live in that world.
That is a sad sad world where everything is rigged against everyone who wasn't born completely fuck*ng rich. That probably is the reality of this country today but... fuck, man... I ain't gonna contribute to a system that rigged and fucked and depressing. You are probably right but that makes it even worse.
Shoulds not ares. Indeed... shoulds not Ares.
Maybe this is why I'm trying so hard to be a writer, other than the fact that it's the only thing I'm even marginally good at, because stories are the only real way to change things like that. Protests will be quashed, the few good men and women in positions of power will either be corrupted or murdered, just like always.
But stories...
Stories can fly in under the goddamned radar if they also make money for some douchefuck in a suit.
Stories are the last Trojan hoss humanism has left for their shoulds. For our shoulds.
Man. Depressing.
-
I don't think he meant buy them cars, I think he meant write them letters.
But maybe, I wasn't listening.
-
I don't think he meant buy them cars, I think he meant write them letters.
But maybe, I wasn't listening.
Yea, I meant lobbying in the old fashioned sense. I didnt think anyone would take what i said to mean that Id be bribing senators.
-
Voting for the anti-murder candidate is less effective than lobbying the eventual office holder for anti-murder language in legislation.
But how is lobbying the office holder going to be effective if he knows that no matter what, you're not going to vote for him since you never vote?
-
But how is lobbying the office holder going to be effective if he knows that no matter what, you're not going to vote for him since you never vote?
In theory, politicians seek to maximize voter happiness. And thanks to the anonymous ballot, they have no idea if I vote or not.
In reality, politicians seek to maximize their own happiness so when I communicate with them i frame my arguments in terms of their own benefit, not mine.
-
My congressional rep is seated like a tick up to his shoulders, and I find many of his stances alternately ridiculous and infuriating. I have a 12 year (6-election) record of voting for "Anyone But Pete"; which position loses on average 15:85. On the other hand, he frequently replies to my letters with his justifications (of course its a staffer, but still...) and he does actually hold Town Hall Meetings where he responds to questions and so forth. I get mailings from his office and can tell you his stance on various issues.
-
In theory, politicians seek to maximize voter happiness. And thanks to the anonymous ballot, they have no idea if I vote or not.
Ooo, that is just cheating.
Lowering yourself to their level, I suppose.
-
In this state it's a matter of record whether or not you vote. They can't find out how you voted, but campaigns can most definitely get lists of who voted in which elections.
-
But how is lobbying the office holder going to be effective if he knows that no matter what, you're not going to vote for him since you never vote?
Shit, lobbying is all about the campaign contributions.