You missed the point of the thread. People demand being lied to. If you come forward with integrity you lose.
I read the topic title and spent the next 10 minutes laughing.
You're right, people want to hear good news, its why they're sheep and why Hitlers get in.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You missed the point of the thread. People demand being lied to. If you come forward with integrity you lose.
Fuck Israel
I don't think that's the case, it's not the people... it's the people with all the money and power/influence. You come forward with integrity, the media and the corporations who lose all control over someone like that don't stand a chance, and they will do all they can to correct that.
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
What I'm saying is that the people would crave for a proper honest and clean politician, but they would be easily shot down by:
- Other politicians who are mostly a well oiled part of the system
- Media
- Corporations
It's why I voted Lib Dems, they're the one's that are the least controlled by Corporations/Unions/Media/Rich Individuals and such. Not saying they don't have that shit, but it's much less
But that's also why they're the third party with a fraction of seats
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
What I'm saying is that the people would crave for a proper honest and clean politician, but they would be easily shot down by:
- Other politicians who are mostly a well oiled part of the system
- Media
- Corporations
It's why I voted Lib Dems, they're the one's that are the least controlled by Corporations/Unions/Media/Rich Individuals and such. Not saying they don't have that shit, but it's much less
But that's also why they're the third party with a fraction of seats
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-05-07 08:00:16)
It sure is easy to say that without a social requirement to back up the "rich people would eat a baby for $20" sentiment while simultaneously exempting yourself from any commonality or general responsibility.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't think that's the case, it's not the people... it's the people with all the money and power/influence. You come forward with integrity, the media and the corporations who lose all control over someone like that don't stand a chance, and they will do all they can to correct that.
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
rah rah evil media and faceless corporations working against us rah rah
The problem is, people want quick fixes. There are no quick fixes. And the governments forced to make the hard decisions that help the country in the long run are hated because of short-term problems.
In China you can eat a human fetus tbh. It's rich in proteins and minerals or some shitFlaming_Maniac wrote:
It sure is easy to say that without a social requirement to back up the "rich people would eat a baby for $20" sentiment while simultaneously exempting yourself from any commonality or general responsibility.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't think that's the case, it's not the people... it's the people with all the money and power/influence. You come forward with integrity, the media and the corporations who lose all control over someone like that don't stand a chance, and they will do all they can to correct that.
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
rah rah evil media and faceless corporations working against us rah rah
I've heard that from a few people who've spent a bit of time in China.Cybargs wrote:
In China you can eat a human fetus tbh. It's rich in proteins and minerals or some shit
Fuck Israel
WARNING: IMAGE IS VERY GRAPHICAL SO I PUT IN SPOILER TAGSDilbert_X wrote:
I've heard that from a few people who've spent a bit of time in China.Cybargs wrote:
In China you can eat a human fetus tbh. It's rich in proteins and minerals or some shit
Spoiler (highlight to read):
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/8206/Fetus_soup_2.jpg
On an irrelevant note, I'd like to point out that if it was anyone other than a white guy in that pic, it'd be sexist and/or racist.Cybargs wrote:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_u … 0_1050.jpgBLdw wrote:
Is every man a liar?FEOS wrote:
The the only option is liars, what else can they elect?
From the land of kitten stompers. Unsurprising.Cybargs wrote:
WARNING: IMAGE IS VERY GRAPHICAL SO I PUT IN SPOILER TAGSDilbert_X wrote:
I've heard that from a few people who've spent a bit of time in China.Cybargs wrote:
In China you can eat a human fetus tbh. It's rich in proteins and minerals or some shit
Spoiler (highlight to read):
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/8206/Fetus_soup_2.jpg
pace51 wrote:
I read the topic title and spent the next 10 minutes laughing.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The point is you only elect people that are willing to lie. That is indicative of a lack of integrity.FEOS wrote:
See my response to Turq, above.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why are liars the only option?
It's less liars and more just people with no integrity. The lying just comes with it.
Dilbert_X wrote:
But the only ones who put themselves forward for election are those without integrity
Someone else said something quite similar earlier.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't think that's the case, it's not the people... it's the people with all the money and power/influence. You come forward with integrity, the media and the corporations who lose all control over someone like that don't stand a chance, and they will do all they can to correct that.
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
What I'm saying is that the people would crave for a proper honest and clean politician, but they would be easily shot down by:
- Other politicians who are mostly a well oiled part of the system
- Media
- Corporations
The people crave integrity in their leaders, but they won't get it for the reasons above...which are basically the reasons I stated earlier. Politicians with integrity are harder to control, therefore they are destroyed before they can attain useful levels of power.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This shouldn't be a problem because we, people, elect them and "hand" them power. Unless you mean, we just don't elect people with integrity. If that's so then, don't we just fall in what Flaming_Maniac wrote in his OP?FEOS wrote:
Politicians with integrity are harder to control, therefore they are destroyed before they can attain useful levels of power.
Well, maybe the best explanation is a little of both. On the one hand, lobbyists do essentially determine who can run for office, because of how expensive it is to run in the first place. It's extremely difficult to win a race as someone who primarily gets funding from individual donors rather than from special interest groups that bundle.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It sure is easy to say that without a social requirement to back up the "rich people would eat a baby for $20" sentiment while simultaneously exempting yourself from any commonality or general responsibility.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't think that's the case, it's not the people... it's the people with all the money and power/influence. You come forward with integrity, the media and the corporations who lose all control over someone like that don't stand a chance, and they will do all they can to correct that.
It's not the politicians or the people, it's mainly the media and powerful corporations and the allure of wealth which is the problem.
rah rah evil media and faceless corporations working against us rah rah
On the other hand, voters themselves are to blame when they make unrealistic demands on candidates and reward them for rhetoric rather than "straight talk."
How exactly would they be "destroyed"? Is the "man" going to assassinate them because they know too much and can't be "controlled"?FEOS wrote:
Someone else said something quite similar earlier.
The people crave integrity in their leaders, but they won't get it for the reasons above...which are basically the reasons I stated earlier. Politicians with integrity are harder to control, therefore they are destroyed before they can attain useful levels of power.
You watch too much Hollywood. Popular support is power. Particularly with advances like the internet, freedom of speech makes what you are saying pretty ridiculous. Unless you are saying that freedom of speech has been undermined without our knowledge, and there is a secret government gestapo suppressing dissenters...
Why is it expensive to run in the first place? That is the status quo, and it is the truth only so far as you are unwilling to deviate from the status quo. If the people truly "crave" honest politicians so much they would jump all over a bandwagon of cheap campaigning. Words are free and word of mouth is free. I don't know why anything else is a requirement.Turquoise wrote:
Well, maybe the best explanation is a little of both. On the one hand, lobbyists do essentially determine who can run for office, because of how expensive it is to run in the first place. It's extremely difficult to win a race as someone who primarily gets funding from individual donors rather than from special interest groups that bundle.
That would be feasible if politics were the sole focus of everyone's life. Obviously, reality is different.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why is it expensive to run in the first place? That is the status quo, and it is the truth only so far as you are unwilling to deviate from the status quo. If the people truly "crave" honest politicians so much they would jump all over a bandwagon of cheap campaigning. Words are free and word of mouth is free. I don't know why anything else is a requirement.
If electing an honest politician isn't enough incentive for people to put some small effort into politics then it just reinforces the idea outlined in the OP.Turquoise wrote:
That would be feasible if politics were the sole focus of everyone's life. Obviously, reality is different.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why is it expensive to run in the first place? That is the status quo, and it is the truth only so far as you are unwilling to deviate from the status quo. If the people truly "crave" honest politicians so much they would jump all over a bandwagon of cheap campaigning. Words are free and word of mouth is free. I don't know why anything else is a requirement.
It has nothing to do with Hollywood. More to do with reality. Nothing to do with assassination, other than character assassination. Nothing to do with "knowing too much".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How exactly would they be "destroyed"? Is the "man" going to assassinate them because they know too much and can't be "controlled"?FEOS wrote:
Someone else said something quite similar earlier.
The people crave integrity in their leaders, but they won't get it for the reasons above...which are basically the reasons I stated earlier. Politicians with integrity are harder to control, therefore they are destroyed before they can attain useful levels of power.
You watch too much Hollywood. Popular support is power. Particularly with advances like the internet, freedom of speech makes what you are saying pretty ridiculous. Unless you are saying that freedom of speech has been undermined without our knowledge, and there is a secret government gestapo suppressing dissenters...
It's more about special interests having control over politicians, on both sides of the aisle. If they have control over you, you have no integrity. Every politician is bought and sold long before they reach Washington...otherwise, they never reach Washington.
Nobody said anything about a requirement. Turq is talking about reality. If we lived in fantasyland where we didn't have to worry about things that weren't ideal, what you are saying would be great. But we don't. In the real world, it takes money to make it into public office. That money is used to get your message out to the public, to convince them to vote for you. If your opponent gets more money than you do, they overwhelm your message. They get proxy outlets to tear you down with falsehoods so that you're spending time defending yourself against things that are untrue and have no bearing on your ability to serve rather than reinforcing your platform (see American politics from the 90s to today). And unfortunately, the adage of a lie told often enough becoming truth works in politics as well. People start to believe it and votes are lost, even if it's disproven repeatedly.FM wrote:
Why is it expensive to run in the first place? That is the status quo, and it is the truth only so far as you are unwilling to deviate from the status quo. If the people truly "crave" honest politicians so much they would jump all over a bandwagon of cheap campaigning. Words are free and word of mouth is free. I don't know why anything else is a requirement.Turquoise wrote:
Well, maybe the best explanation is a little of both. On the one hand, lobbyists do essentially determine who can run for office, because of how expensive it is to run in the first place. It's extremely difficult to win a race as someone who primarily gets funding from individual donors rather than from special interest groups that bundle.
That is how someone with integrity doesn't get elected.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Money is not in any way shape or form the end goal. Holding money in your hand gets you nothing. It has nothing to do with the difference between the ideal and the real world, money is only the goal when you fix your thinking to the methods of the past decades and avoid any deviation, then you know that x inputs always lead to y outputs. That does not mean z does not also lead to y inputs, and the whole thing is silly if you consider other functions altogether.
The flawed assumption that holds the status quo together is that money buys opinions outright. That all you need to do to get the majority vote is expose your name and views more than the other guy. This is true only to the extent that the apathetic vote anyways - the limited number of people that go out of their way to vote despite the fact that when they actually get to the checking of boxes the only reason they have for picking one over the other is that is the name that sticks in their mind more. Realistically most people voting are voting for the candidate they believe aligns with their value system the most, and the number of ads for the other candidates isn't going to change that.
To remove the responsibility from the voter to pick the best, not the richest, candidate is to take away their civic right and duty. That line of thinking is what pushes us back towards the status quo away from any deviations, because it marginalizes any other methods or types of campaigns. It's a vicious cycle of grass-roots campaigns failing because they are not taken seriously and people not taking grass-roots campaigns seriously because they fail. A metaphor of a drug addict is very apt.
The whole of America is not made up of mental prostitutes. They act like it because that is what they are treated like. We are utterly at fault for not electing honest politicians, but at the same time most people won't act any better than they are expected to. We should expect more of ourselves.
The flawed assumption that holds the status quo together is that money buys opinions outright. That all you need to do to get the majority vote is expose your name and views more than the other guy. This is true only to the extent that the apathetic vote anyways - the limited number of people that go out of their way to vote despite the fact that when they actually get to the checking of boxes the only reason they have for picking one over the other is that is the name that sticks in their mind more. Realistically most people voting are voting for the candidate they believe aligns with their value system the most, and the number of ads for the other candidates isn't going to change that.
To remove the responsibility from the voter to pick the best, not the richest, candidate is to take away their civic right and duty. That line of thinking is what pushes us back towards the status quo away from any deviations, because it marginalizes any other methods or types of campaigns. It's a vicious cycle of grass-roots campaigns failing because they are not taken seriously and people not taking grass-roots campaigns seriously because they fail. A metaphor of a drug addict is very apt.
The whole of America is not made up of mental prostitutes. They act like it because that is what they are treated like. We are utterly at fault for not electing honest politicians, but at the same time most people won't act any better than they are expected to. We should expect more of ourselves.
Don't you have finals?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Money is not in any way shape or form the end goal. Holding money in your hand gets you nothing. It has nothing to do with the difference between the ideal and the real world, money is only the goal when you fix your thinking to the methods of the past decades and avoid any deviation, then you know that x inputs always lead to y outputs. That does not mean z does not also lead to y inputs, and the whole thing is silly if you consider other functions altogether.
The flawed assumption that holds the status quo together is that money buys opinions outright. That all you need to do to get the majority vote is expose your name and views more than the other guy. This is true only to the extent that the apathetic vote anyways - the limited number of people that go out of their way to vote despite the fact that when they actually get to the checking of boxes the only reason they have for picking one over the other is that is the name that sticks in their mind more. Realistically most people voting are voting for the candidate they believe aligns with their value system the most, and the number of ads for the other candidates isn't going to change that.
To remove the responsibility from the voter to pick the best, not the richest, candidate is to take away their civic right and duty. That line of thinking is what pushes us back towards the status quo away from any deviations, because it marginalizes any other methods or types of campaigns. It's a vicious cycle of grass-roots campaigns failing because they are not taken seriously and people not taking grass-roots campaigns seriously because they fail. A metaphor of a drug addict is very apt.
The whole of America is not made up of mental prostitutes. They act like it because that is what they are treated like. We are utterly at fault for not electing honest politicians, but at the same time most people won't act any better than they are expected to. We should expect more of ourselves.
nuk you're so cute when you're being the 'cool' undergrad
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
And your post (as well as mine) boils down to the war of ideas between/amongst candidates.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Money is not in any way shape or form the end goal. Holding money in your hand gets you nothing. It has nothing to do with the difference between the ideal and the real world, money is only the goal when you fix your thinking to the methods of the past decades and avoid any deviation, then you know that x inputs always lead to y outputs. That does not mean z does not also lead to y inputs, and the whole thing is silly if you consider other functions altogether.
The flawed assumption that holds the status quo together is that money buys opinions outright. That all you need to do to get the majority vote is expose your name and views more than the other guy. This is true only to the extent that the apathetic vote anyways - the limited number of people that go out of their way to vote despite the fact that when they actually get to the checking of boxes the only reason they have for picking one over the other is that is the name that sticks in their mind more. Realistically most people voting are voting for the candidate they believe aligns with their value system the most, and the number of ads for the other candidates isn't going to change that.
To remove the responsibility from the voter to pick the best, not the richest, candidate is to take away their civic right and duty. That line of thinking is what pushes us back towards the status quo away from any deviations, because it marginalizes any other methods or types of campaigns. It's a vicious cycle of grass-roots campaigns failing because they are not taken seriously and people not taking grass-roots campaigns seriously because they fail. A metaphor of a drug addict is very apt.
The whole of America is not made up of mental prostitutes. They act like it because that is what they are treated like. We are utterly at fault for not electing honest politicians, but at the same time most people won't act any better than they are expected to. We should expect more of ourselves.
How do you think those ideas get to the minds of the voters so said voters know which candidate's ideas align best with their own?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
People lie, people say what they think people want to hear, people hear what they want to hear.
Is it more complex than that?
Is it more complex than that?
Fuck Israel
Except that currently the only debate is between two people.FEOS wrote:
And your post (as well as mine) boils down to the war of ideas between/amongst candidates.
How do you think those ideas get to the minds of the voters so said voters know which candidate's ideas align best with their own?
People obviously do not care enough about an honest politician when there isn't even a viable third candidate. The partisan methods in place for decades now that demand an offering of money to run will never produce a different kind of politician. By definition. Change has to start outside the two parties.