|
| Thread: the Vote- I has it |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
posted June 07, 2009 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand the educatd slow-breeders aren't voting either - they are too busy complaining about the fact that they are not informed, that they cannot vote what they would like to, that their vote is not the decisive one, and that politics are corrupt anyway.
I don't know which point is the dumbest here. You are not properly informed? What do you expect? TV documentation directed by Spielberg? If interested you are supposed to inform yourself as with all things - if you want to build an opinion on anything you cannot wait until someone presents it to you - you should go and try and get the informations you want.
The problem isn't the lack of media coverage, it's the lack of information to begin with. Politicians have opinions on real issues, but they don't say them anymore. Instead they make beautiful generalizations. "I stand for family!" "Hope and change!" "Experienced leadership!". So what? What do you actually stand for? When we try to pin them down on a topic and force them to make a promise, they evade and distract and counterattack. Educated slow-breeders see through this thin veil of propaganda and realize that we actually know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what the candidates stand for.
This is not the fault of the media, the media is dedicated to bringing us every scrap of information that might sell them another commercial. This isn't even the fault of the politicians. Every time a politician takes a stance and makes a promise, he loses votes. They're just doing what gets them elected, you'd do the same if you were them. This is the fault of the uneducated masses who vote. They can't tell the difference between a glittering generality and a hard fact. So they don't vote based on facts. They vote based on feelings. Feelings shouldn't matter. If the candidate is a antipathic jerk, but he knows how to solve our problems, then he should win the race.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2009 08:32 PM |
|
|
Well, you're certainly an optimistic one, aren't you? 
Of course, the individual's vote doesn't matter. But that's still far from the system not being a democracy of some sort - after all, the candidate who gets the most votes ends up winning. (Except in the case of the US 2000 election, of course.) And, to some extent, it's natural that power should fall to someone in the upper class. Can you imagine your average janitor or fast food worker doing all the things necessary to run a campaign - making speeches, debating, even becoming informed enough... Then, can you imagine that janitor or fast food worker actually running something important?
Quote:
If the candidate is a antipathic jerk, but he knows how to solve our problems, then he should win the race.
Agreed, to a certain extent. If this gets out of control, then it could hamper the candidate's negotiation skills.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2009 09:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the candidate is a antipathic jerk, but he knows how to solve our problems, then he should win the race.
Agreed, to a certain extent. If this gets out of control, then it could hamper the candidate's negotiation skills.
Not agreed. Because there is no single person who knows how to solve our problems.
In fact most people suffer under a misconception about what government is all about. We don't live in a plebiscitarian dictatorship. Presidents, Secretaries, Senators and Congressmen are only the people you SEE (and vote for, at least in part).
It's the people you do NOT see, that count, the advisors. The referents and so on. The people that the elected choose to take adivice from (for whatever reason).
Take for example Condoleeza Rice. Rice was Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Before joining the Bush administration, she was a professor of political science at Stanford University. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, Rice served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification.
So Rice has been influential for a long time in politics, before becoming Secretary of State.
So you have to check the people the figureheads rely on to see what course the boat will steer.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2009 09:42 PM |
|
|
Generally (and in an ideal situation), the candidate runs on certain policies, and then appoints people to help him/her fulfil them - not the other way around.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Not possible. Do you realy think one person can have "policies" for every problem there is?
Usually an election is dominated by a couple of crucial issues. The media try to polarize the candidates by summarizing stances in complex issues. Candidates have to LOOK informed then, but these debates are staged only so that th candidate may look as good as possible.
A candidate works on a platform that will bring him or her the support of necessary key elements of the party, the industry and people who are publicly known. It's about alliances and deals to get you something like a nomination.
Which means that a lot of the jobs are already cared for when the election comes. For the rest, I don't think that the elected will look for their advisors personally. Remember, in the areas they don't have that much of a clue they don't know the experts either, so at least the possible candiates for the jobs will be found by others (and the elected only making the final choices).
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 06:36 AM |
|
|
One of our better presidents was Dwight D Eisenhower. He did absolutely nothing. He got elected, and appointed a HUGE cabinet of full of competent people, then just sat back and relaxed while his people ran his country for him. And it worked! People loved his administration and he was re-elected by a landslide. The lesson to learn here is that delegation is an extremely important part of leadership. Knowing what to do is good, but know who to get to do it is better.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 10:20 AM |
|
|
That's not the lesson to learn, that's only the basics. Of course government is about delegation.
But government is mostly a question of working yourself through the ranks of your party into the nomination place. And positions within a a party are varied and many which means - since the nominated must get the support of enough important party members -, that the person nominated for highest office will have an agenda based on what deals were made: you support me, I'll be a bit more firm or liberal with issues x and y.
Obviously, very obviously, a person to be nominated needs a couple of talents: 1) The person must look good when seen through a camera lens;
2) The person must be able to speak well and fluently; 3) The person must be able to work out majority compromises (that's compromises the majority of party delegates and officials as well as industrial and financial supporters can live with.
That means, under halfway normal conditions you will never ever see a head of state who will have a radical stance in more than one or two issues. The easiest way to get you a nomination, is obviously being a completet and total opportunist without an own agenda and a media darling with camera presence.
However, a candidate may have a fundamental interest to make things better for everyone or most of the people and have two fundamental key issues that are his or her main interest AND minority positions within his or her party, for an example's sake, let's say peace in the Near East (with a firmer stance against Israel) for external policies and a general public health care for internal policies.
Finding a platform that will involve the support of a majority of the party plus financial backup will need two things: 1) The candiate must be extra charismatic and/or have a special going for him or her that is good for additional support with the public; this is necessary for party and party backers to see a realistic chance of winning with the candidate even though some issues of his or her personal agenda may be a bit touchy. 2) A hell of a lot of concessions to those who support him or her in spite of his or her minority positions.
As a result of that, the more progressive or radical a Western style democratic government will be in one, two or even three key issues, the more (party) conservative it will be with the rest of them.
And here is the gap between public expectations and reality: if you have a situation like 2008/09 in the States when it LOOKS like a radical change may come and may even be advisable, IF indeed the change becomes fact, most people expect immediate, dramatic and radical action EVERYWHERE.
Which cannot happen, obviously, as explained: The new "radical" government may look more conservative than the one before in some or even many areas - which is the price that is payed for the chance to try something radical in a few areas.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 10:49 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:54, 08 Jun 2009.
|
Simply stated you can not trust any promises made on the campain trail. Even the president has limited authority unless Martial Law is declaired. While they can promise you the moon, the reality is they have to get others to back their ideas. That normally requires compromise. Factor in that newer people in 'the game' have less leverage, that means they are sacrificing more then they are getting.
Factor in that government has become bloated and slow with red tape, the lure of special interest money, and reports of corruption it is a suprise anything actually gets done. Even if it gets done at a glacial pace.
Now the face of politics has a slim window open for radical change. It is called the Internet. A canidate could possibly rally enough votes using just online advertisement to successfully run for office without spending millions of dollars. They would have to be very charismatic and savy, but it could be done.
They would have to start campaining now for office, and campain hard, however.
Edit : I wonder how many people realise that there is another option besides "None of the Above" and the listed canidates? You CAN write in somebody. If ENOUGH people did so, they would win. Of course getting enough people to do a write in for a single person would be a heck of a feat to accomplish.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 11:19 AM |
|
|
That would accomplish nothing - one person doesn't change much, which is as it should be or at least is the intention of Western style democratic government.
Politics is about having one or more delegates or spokespersons who will take care for the interests of those they speak for. Even on the lowest level this is something of a compromise position. A delegate for a part of a town will have to speak for the businessmen in that part of town as well as for the families - a compromise will have to be found between business-friendly infrastructure (more and bigger roads) and the interests of the families to have safe playing zones, less noise, less pollution and so on, just as a simple example.
In most cases things aren't clear-cut, even though they may look rather simple from a certain perspective.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 04:29 PM |
|
|
To return to the subject of the European election, it seems that the far right has done well - the BNP won some seats, so did some Hungarian far-right party... 
And the UKIP made gains.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 06:35 PM |
|
|
many people a voted for extremes, in britain, people have voted for the BNP (who thank god didn't win). huge gains were made by the french communist party and the german far left party (well, we all know what happened when they last voted far right)
in this time of crisis, people are pushed to the extremes, they don't want the centre ground or moderate any long.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 07:07 PM |
|
|
So how long do you think Gordon Brown is going to last?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 07:15 PM |
|
|
|
About ten minutes at this rate. Just like in Ireland, the leading party has suffered a popularity dive-bomb.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
|
And Brown hasn't been the most popular bloke to start with.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 09, 2009 07:31 AM |
|
|
It is true that the president has very little executive power. He can approve laws, but they have to get through congress first, so he won't be passing anything radical. He can declare war, but congress will simply declare peace in response unless he convinces them otherwise. &c.
While the individual president has very little executive power, he has an extraordinary amount of symbolic power. When Roosevelt gave his "fireside talks", legally he did absolutely nothing that required presidential authority. However, it is still cited as one of the most important contributions of his first term.
Another example. Now that Barack Obama has been elected, all elections from now on will go differently, all bills will be considered by different committees. This is not due to anything he has done, but to the fact that he is who he is. His election is a symbol of a new era and Americans everywhere now have different beliefs and different behaviors.
The president has power because we think he does. When he says something, it has an effect beyond whatever his actual legal powers might be.
Of course, this works both ways. Clinton was actually an above-average head of state, but all anyone ever remembers is him trying to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 09, 2009 10:21 AM |
|
|
brown looks like he's weathered the storm, now. there was enormous support for a leadership challenge yesterday, but some of the old labour guard reminded labour backbenchers what happened in the mid 80's (complete leadership meltdown). now it looks like things are getting better for the dour scotsman.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2009 04:48 PM |
|
|
Rarensu:
In theory, you are correct. In practice, if Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, Congress just lies down and does whatever the President wants.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 11:37, 17 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Democracy has a new definition. The most ignorant lowlife scum who breed the fastest take over the country. American Blacks and Mexicans are taking over the US, Muslims are taking over Europe and Asia.
It was pointed out by several people that this statement appears to be extremely racist. It really hurt me when I realized that they were right. I spent the rest of the week worrying that I was becoming a horrifying example of evil. What was I thinking that could justify such a statement? (actually my memory is notoriously bad; I don't trust what I remember thinking: hence all the worrying about it)
About ten minutes ago I finally figured it out.
The first statement, "Democracy has a new definition. The most ignorant lowlife scum who breed the fastest take over the country," is almost what I meant it to be. The words "lowlife scum" are meant to emphasize how much I hate the word democracy. If you follow me around, you will occasionally hear me mutter things such as "stupid f***ing democracy". I really hate it, and to convey this feeling of anger, the words lowlife and scum randomly inserted themselves into the sentence the same way that the f-bomb and gay often insert themselves into other people's speech when they're angry.
The second statement, "American Blacks and Mexicans are taking over the US, Muslims are taking over Europe and Asia," is what I meant it to be. There's really nothing here, when read all by itself. They have more kids and have the same voting rights, so its inevitable they will control the government. There's nothing racist about that.
However, when you put the two statements SIDE BY SIDE, they take on a whole new 3rd meaning that I never intended. It looks like the words "lowlife scum" are meant to describe African Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims. That's not what I meant for it to do! A total accident that I unfortunately overlooked when I wrote the post. Lowlife Scum was only meant to emphasize my hatred of democracy.
I don't hate people, that's a waste of energy. People don't change just because you want them to. I hate ideas, especially stupid ones like democracy. Also, I'm not a white supremacist. Just because we're good at hoarding money doesn't mean we're better people. We're just as eternally damned as everyone else.
My amended statement is now:
Democracy  has a new definition. The people who breed the fastest (and tend to be the most ignorant) take over the country. American Blacks and Mexicans are taking over the US, Muslims are taking over Europe and Asia.
Sorry for the rant that doesn't add to the conversation. I wouldn't have done this, but it's 2AM and I can't sleep because it's bothering me so much.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My amended statement is now:
Democracy has a new definition. The people who breed the fastest (and tend to be the most ignorant) take over the country. American Blacks and Mexicans are taking over the US, Muslims are taking over Europe and Asia.
Sorry for the rant that doesn't add to the conversation. I wouldn't have done this, but it's 2AM and I can't sleep because it's bothering me so much.
While your analysis of wour previous post seems to be spot-on, what is now your new statement is rather misleading, superficial and eventually quite wrong. The reason for this is that the people who breed the fastest (and tend to be the most ignorant), are not free of ifluences who will determine their eventual vote on one hand and are not living in a fairy-tale world where wishes come true.
At best they can decide between the options laid before them, but since they have no ability whatsoever to pick what IS laid before them and what is behind that, the only thing they take over are the urns on election day.
It's a bit like living in the Bronx and having to decide where to move, but when it's your turn to give your input you suddenly realize that you can pick only between Brooklyn and Sing Sing CF.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The words "lowlife scum" are meant to emphasize how much I hate the word democracy. If you follow me around, you will occasionally hear me mutter things such as "stupid f***ing democracy". I really hate it, and to convey this feeling of anger, the words lowlife and scum randomly inserted themselves into the sentence the same way that the f-bomb and gay often insert themselves into other people's speech when they're angry.
and ave to you to, mister Rarensu
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
