<!--quoteo(post=1629096:date=May 24 2007, 10:35 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ May 24 2007, 10:35 PM) [snapback]1629096[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes you can. Just find some people smarter than our current crop of idiots. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree it would help, but no matter how smart our government officials became, they still can't be experts on everything. No one can. And this is bound to lead to problems when they are forced to make decisions about issues they simply cannot understand (stem cell research comes to mind). I honestly don't know whether most of our polititians are idiots or geniuses. Its probably a mixed bunch.
Anyway, there have been some really good points raised in this topic. What Puzl (I think it was) said about non-Americans having the right to criticize Americans because we stick our nose in other people's business could not be more true. Of course some people are overly harsh, but anything that is subject to criticism is going to see a few people who take things to extremes. And some of it no doubt does come from jealousy (eg Rapier's example about the French article about American unnemployment).
Bottom line for me is, our government is doing a great job, an ok job, and a terrible job, depending on what area you are talking about. International politics would probably be on the terrible side. I really do have faith we will turn things around next election, whether it be democrat, republican or (shock!) independent.
I think the answer to the thread is pretty simple. When people are kept happy and their needs are met, they don't question what's going on around them. The people who live in nice houses and make a decent living would rather think about buying a shiny new car than think about the government that may or may not be slaughtering rights that they rarely use anyway.
Puzl, I think you are confusing criticisms/defenses of our political system <i>in general</i> with criticisms/defenses of our current particular administration. You started by criticizing our overall political process as inefficient, and we defended our process with various and sundry arguments--and then you responded by attacking us for defending Bush? You lost us somewhere in there. Bush's particular policies have only a tangential impact on our political process as a whole, especially considering term limits ensure he will be nothing more than a painful memory in another 2 years. Can you try to keep the two issues separate please?
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1629241:date=May 25 2007, 06:16 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ May 25 2007, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1629241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Puzl, I think you are confusing criticisms/defenses of our political system <i>in general</i> with criticisms/defenses of our current particular administration. You started by criticizing our overall political process as inefficient, and we defended our process with various and sundry arguments--and then you responded by attacking us for defending Bush? You lost us somewhere in there. Bush's particular policies have only a tangential impact on our political process as a whole, especially considering term limits ensure he will be nothing more than a painful memory in another 2 years. Can you try to keep the two issues separate please? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are multiple threads to this discussion Cxwf. The basic question is in the topic title and the post outlines a general question framed against specific questions about the current administration. I simply replied with a general view on why the current apathy is a normal situation for a democracy and that the result of such apathy will most likely produce a resurgance in grass roots activism.
I then added a specific point about the damage the corporate lobby does to the democratic process and how the current administration supports this heavily.
Sometime later this topic got derailed when us europeans were basically told to SUYF. The fallout from this rant was the discussion that an inefficient government is a good thing. It is not the central issue of this topic, and I wish it would go away as it is also the central source of dispute right now and is detracting from the original discussion. The discussion about bush and the alleged apathetic acceptence/defence of his behaviour is actually the core point of discussion. I'm not in here as a moderator telling people what they can or cannot talk about, or what they can or cannot think. I'm simply trying to firmly defend my position and characterise the opposition. If I've offended people along the way then I apologise, as none was intended, but the nature of these discussions is for a vibrant banter and I've been taking the rather infantile insults thrown our way without responding in kind, yet I'm the one who is called to question on it.
To get back to your specific point, I do not confuse the discussion of the US political system with the discussion of the current US administration, but this discussion is about both, so the confusion will arrise where there is overlap.
<!--quoteo(post=1629257:date=May 25 2007, 01:34 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 25 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]1629257[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There are multiple threads to this discussion Cxwf.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there usually are. It just gets confusing when they start interweaving arguments with each other. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To get back to your specific point, I do not confuse the discussion of the US political system with the discussion of the current US administration, but this discussion is about both, so the confusion will arrise where there is overlap. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. [announcer voice]We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate[/announcer voice]
To add to the feeling of despair--the US Congress is considering a major piece of legislation right now, and a bunch of polls on public opinion were just released on the subject yesterday. Important points to note from the polls:
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Republican voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By a 2 to 1 margin, Democratic voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By almost a 2 to 1 margin, Independant voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By a 2 to 1 margin, Politicians are <b>in favor of</b> the bill.
<!--quoteo(post=1629291:date=May 26 2007, 12:57 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ May 26 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]1629291[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> To add to the feeling of despair--the US Congress is considering a major piece of legislation right now, and a bunch of polls on public opinion were just released on the subject yesterday. Important points to note from the polls:
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Republican voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By a 2 to 1 margin, Democratic voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By almost a 2 to 1 margin, Independant voters <b>oppose</b> the bill. --By a 2 to 1 margin, Politicians are <b>in favor of</b> the bill.
Well at least politicians are the same worldwide <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
We often encounter simliar situations. 66% of the population would vote against something. 66% of parliament vote in favour <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
at least in finland the parliament gets to vote for their own salary raises
no-one would mind really but i think its become a tradition for every newly elected parliament to raise their own salaries at least once during the 4-year term
Maybe the thinking is, if they pay themselves more they will be less tempted to take bribes from special interest groups <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1630294:date=May 31 2007, 09:00 AM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ May 31 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]1630294[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Maybe the thinking is, if they pay themselves more they will be less tempted to take bribes from special interest groups <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> no they do that regardless
and then we're rated to the top 5 in the least corrupted countries list??
They aren't taking bribes from special interest groups. They are campaign contributions.
Look, unless the politician can afford to personally bankroll his election campaign, they are always going to take donations and contributions. It's a fact of life and it isn't going away. Commercial air time doesn't just grow on trees, you know.
Since when did special interest groups get such a bad connotation? Everybody here has a special interest and nothing is stopping you from banding together to form a lobby in Washington.
The system works and is remarkably corrupt-free at the bureaucratic level compared to the levels during the 60s and 70s.
<!--quoteo(post=1630540:date=Jun 1 2007, 04:14 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jun 1 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]1630540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> They aren't taking bribes from special interest groups. They are campaign contributions.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The border between campaign contributions and bribes seems to be pretty ambiguous these days. What IS the distinction anyway? When does a campaign contribution become a bribe, and vice versa?
A bribe is illicit usually because it is done without making official notice of it and also because it is often a large sum. There is a limit to how much one private citizen or corporation and contribute to a candidate's warchest every election cycle.
But if one political or idiological group has more funds to invest than the other can that be fair? if the very well off peopel have more moenye to invest in keeping the sityuation as it is than the majority fo the peopel (the poor) have to invest to chang ethigns, can that really be democracy? democracy should be people's oppinion againstn peoples opinons not money agaisnt money.
That sounds like it makes sense, until you remember what that money is being spent on: Advertising to convince those "helpless poor" to vote one way or another. Because you see, the real power comes not from small numbers of people with money but from large numbers of people with votes. The rich simply don't have enough votes to impose their will on anyone, all they can do is try to <i>convince</i> people to agree with them voluntarily. And getting your message out to try to logically convince people to agree with you is definately what democracy is about.
Money doesn't win elections directly. You can't buy votes (unless you are talking about voter fraud), but it does take money to gain the means to speak to the people, and then EARN their votes.
Very informative reply tjosan. Let me ponder the interesting points you've raised. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1630762:date=Jun 2 2007, 10:52 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jun 2 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]1630762[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That sounds like it makes sense, until you remember what that money is being spent on: Advertising to convince those "helpless poor" to vote one way or another. Because you see, the real power comes not from small numbers of people with money but from large numbers of people with votes. The rich simply don't have enough votes to impose their will on anyone, all they can do is try to <i>convince</i> people to agree with them voluntarily. And getting your message out to try to logically convince people to agree with you is definately what democracy is about.
Money doesn't win elections directly. You can't buy votes (unless you are talking about voter fraud), but it does take money to gain the means to speak to the people, and then EARN their votes. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that our elections have been about logical debate in recent years.
Negative TV campaign ads in swing states don't come cheap.
Actually, it's true that money doesn't win elections (real elections, that is - fraud's another matter). The book "Freakonomics" has some good insights on that topic that go beyond that simply message and offers a few "buts", but I don't have it here and I can't remember exactly what. :/
Comments
Yes you can. Just find some people smarter than our current crop of idiots.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree it would help, but no matter how smart our government officials became, they still can't be experts on everything. No one can. And this is bound to lead to problems when they are forced to make decisions about issues they simply cannot understand (stem cell research comes to mind). I honestly don't know whether most of our polititians are idiots or geniuses. Its probably a mixed bunch.
Anyway, there have been some really good points raised in this topic. What Puzl (I think it was) said about non-Americans having the right to criticize Americans because we stick our nose in other people's business could not be more true. Of course some people are overly harsh, but anything that is subject to criticism is going to see a few people who take things to extremes. And some of it no doubt does come from jealousy (eg Rapier's example about the French article about American unnemployment).
Bottom line for me is, our government is doing a great job, an ok job, and a terrible job, depending on what area you are talking about. International politics would probably be on the terrible side. I really do have faith we will turn things around next election, whether it be democrat, republican or (shock!) independent.
Puzl, I think you are confusing criticisms/defenses of our political system <i>in general</i> with criticisms/defenses of our current particular administration. You started by criticizing our overall political process as inefficient, and we defended our process with various and sundry arguments--and then you responded by attacking us for defending Bush? You lost us somewhere in there. Bush's particular policies have only a tangential impact on our political process as a whole, especially considering term limits ensure he will be nothing more than a painful memory in another 2 years. Can you try to keep the two issues separate please?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are multiple threads to this discussion Cxwf. The basic question is in the topic title and the post outlines a general question framed against specific questions about the current administration. I simply replied with a general view on why the current apathy is a normal situation for a democracy and that the result of such apathy will most likely produce a resurgance in grass roots activism.
I then added a specific point about the damage the corporate lobby does to the democratic process and how the current administration supports this heavily.
Sometime later this topic got derailed when us europeans were basically told to SUYF. The fallout from this rant was the discussion that an inefficient government is a good thing. It is not the central issue of this topic, and I wish it would go away as it is also the central source of dispute right now and is detracting from the original discussion. The discussion about bush and the alleged apathetic acceptence/defence of his behaviour is actually the core point of discussion. I'm not in here as a moderator telling people what they can or cannot talk about, or what they can or cannot think. I'm simply trying to firmly defend my position and characterise the opposition. If I've offended people along the way then I apologise, as none was intended, but the nature of these discussions is for a vibrant banter and I've been taking the rather infantile insults thrown our way without responding in kind, yet I'm the one who is called to question on it.
To get back to your specific point, I do not confuse the discussion of the US political system with the discussion of the current US administration, but this discussion is about both, so the confusion will arrise where there is overlap.
There are multiple threads to this discussion Cxwf.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there usually are. It just gets confusing when they start interweaving arguments with each other. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To get back to your specific point, I do not confuse the discussion of the US political system with the discussion of the current US administration, but this discussion is about both, so the confusion will arrise where there is overlap.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
[announcer voice]We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate[/announcer voice]
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Republican voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Democratic voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By almost a 2 to 1 margin, Independant voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Politicians are <b>in favor of</b> the bill.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
To add to the feeling of despair--the US Congress is considering a major piece of legislation right now, and a bunch of polls on public opinion were just released on the subject yesterday. Important points to note from the polls:
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Republican voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Democratic voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By almost a 2 to 1 margin, Independant voters <b>oppose</b> the bill.
--By a 2 to 1 margin, Politicians are <b>in favor of</b> the bill.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well at least politicians are the same worldwide <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
We often encounter simliar situations. 66% of the population would vote against something. 66% of parliament vote in favour <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
... and since two thirds of politicians are overweight...
no-one would mind really but i think its become a tradition for every newly elected parliament to raise their own salaries at least once during the 4-year term
Maybe the thinking is, if they pay themselves more they will be less tempted to take bribes from special interest groups <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no they do that regardless
and then we're rated to the top 5 in the least corrupted countries list??
Look, unless the politician can afford to personally bankroll his election campaign, they are always going to take donations and contributions. It's a fact of life and it isn't going away. Commercial air time doesn't just grow on trees, you know.
Since when did special interest groups get such a bad connotation? Everybody here has a special interest and nothing is stopping you from banding together to form a lobby in Washington.
The system works and is remarkably corrupt-free at the bureaucratic level compared to the levels during the 60s and 70s.
They aren't taking bribes from special interest groups. They are campaign contributions.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The border between campaign contributions and bribes seems to be pretty ambiguous these days. What IS the distinction anyway? When does a campaign contribution become a bribe, and vice versa?
A bribe is illicit usually because it is done without making official notice of it and also because it is often a large sum. There is a limit to how much one private citizen or corporation and contribute to a candidate's warchest every election cycle.
Money doesn't win elections directly. You can't buy votes (unless you are talking about voter fraud), but it does take money to gain the means to speak to the people, and then EARN their votes.
That sounds like it makes sense, until you remember what that money is being spent on: Advertising to convince those "helpless poor" to vote one way or another. Because you see, the real power comes not from small numbers of people with money but from large numbers of people with votes. The rich simply don't have enough votes to impose their will on anyone, all they can do is try to <i>convince</i> people to agree with them voluntarily. And getting your message out to try to logically convince people to agree with you is definately what democracy is about.
Money doesn't win elections directly. You can't buy votes (unless you are talking about voter fraud), but it does take money to gain the means to speak to the people, and then EARN their votes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that our elections have been about logical debate in recent years.
Negative TV campaign ads in swing states don't come cheap.
By the way, are negative ad campaigns really a big problem if theyre true?