Democrats and Republicans, what's right with you?
- Thread starter Tom P
- Start date
You would get representation for reasons of belief and values and no one would become incredibly powerful in 8 years. Honesty isn't exactly a trait of those who represent us now. Power corrupts.
Be kind Jim, it's one point of view. It wasn't so long ago that we (UK, remember us?) were 'governed' by politicians that never got paid and their driving force was either an opportunity to manipulate the markets for personal gain or an altruistic sense of serving ones country (whilst manipulating the markets for personal gain). Either way, historically, we have always been better off being 'governed' by the filthy (clever) rich not those who would aspire to get filthy rich in a political career move although the two are not mutally exclusive.
Tony Blair? £50 million later - I rest my case, and now Mrs bloody Brown is publishing her memoirs!
Mandelson, Lord? Get out of here.. and now, today the ultimate expenses wangler, a labour MP who managed to rack up £200,000 worth of x's in 1 year on top of his salary. I expect this of Tories, but lawmakers who (allegedly)represent the common people? (American guys, please lets not go down the Cons/Dems route again) There is an interesting debate here as to should politicians be paid or made?
Fact is, those clever enough to have private incomes and are successful in business do on balance make for better lawmakers, whilst the Bar Steward from the Wheeltappers & Shunters Club - an academic idiot, strives to impress the nation that he knows how to better their lot whilst lining his pockets at the expense of his erstwhile supporters.
Be careful what y'all wish for....and remember, Jesus loves us.
(I'm not sure he does actually, I thought I'd throw in a spoiler)
Tony Blair? £50 million later - I rest my case, and now Mrs bloody Brown is publishing her memoirs!
Mandelson, Lord? Get out of here.. and now, today the ultimate expenses wangler, a labour MP who managed to rack up £200,000 worth of x's in 1 year on top of his salary. I expect this of Tories, but lawmakers who (allegedly)represent the common people? (American guys, please lets not go down the Cons/Dems route again) There is an interesting debate here as to should politicians be paid or made?
Fact is, those clever enough to have private incomes and are successful in business do on balance make for better lawmakers, whilst the Bar Steward from the Wheeltappers & Shunters Club - an academic idiot, strives to impress the nation that he knows how to better their lot whilst lining his pockets at the expense of his erstwhile supporters.
Be careful what y'all wish for....and remember, Jesus loves us.
(I'm not sure he does actually, I thought I'd throw in a spoiler)
I've been mulling over this topic for a while, since it originally appeared on the forum, but it seems to be almost impossible to answer....IMHO the issue is not what is right or wrong with the Democrats and Republicans, or as I prefer to call them the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.
The issue for me is that we have them at all.
We no longer need parties, IMHO. Unlike the state of affairs when the founding fathers established the electoral college, we have the technology to elect our representatives without the intrusion of partisan party politics. We could still have primary elections to keep the number of candidates from getting out of hand, we just wouldn't need to do so within the political party format. Make it all a "popularity contest", allow anyone who could meet the criterion to be a candidate to enter the primaries, then pare the slate of candidates down to a manageable number and have the election.
At that point, the winners would be responsible to the people who elected them, not to some party whip who insists that the representatives follow the party line or lose party support in the next election.
It's time we took the ability to govern BACK, folks, the political parties have subjucated the process of choosing who serves this important function.
So, I guess the answer to the original question, at least in my mind, is that there is NOTHING right with the Democrats and Republicans, that the Democrats and the Republicans are EVERYTHING that is wrong with the present sad state of affairs in the government of U.S.
Cheers from Doug!!
Well said Doug. IMHO they have all thrown away their 'right to be respected' just because they are an 'elected official' and this is true on both sides of the water.
These bastards have manipulated their roles in the media so much no-one knows anymore who to trust or which way is up or down in fact I'll go as far as to say that they WERE elected via media manipulation.
Stop the spin and engage with the People face to face, whatever the cost.
Hmm, time for a revolution methinks. It's blowing in from the South east, must be something in the air and it smells like, camel dung.
Would that I was fitter!
These bastards have manipulated their roles in the media so much no-one knows anymore who to trust or which way is up or down in fact I'll go as far as to say that they WERE elected via media manipulation.
Stop the spin and engage with the People face to face, whatever the cost.
Hmm, time for a revolution methinks. It's blowing in from the South east, must be something in the air and it smells like, camel dung.
Would that I was fitter!
Keith.... If that's a spoiler, then that must mean that you been there and done that already (the whole shuffling off the mortal coil malarkey) and then come back to let us know about it....
If that's the case, then you bear a remarkable similarity to a certain J.C. of which you speak (except of course, he's got hair
)Hang on....maybe you ARE J.C. in disguise?
:laugh:
Well, that's a thought.. Nah, nice idea could use a bit of 'wine creation' out of my tap, and walking to Yarmouth would be interesting, but apart from being 'God' a couple of times (according to a couple of girlriends and the odd wife, actually, they were all odd) I cannot claim that distinction, plus I just can't join two bits of wood together for the life of me.
But you are correct in one area - I have been in the 'White Room' and (clearly)managed to leave eventually.
OK coffee break over,:lurker: now back to Circular Political Debate
:gossip:
then....
:sleeping:
But you are correct in one area - I have been in the 'White Room' and (clearly)managed to leave eventually.
OK coffee break over,:lurker: now back to Circular Political Debate
:gossip:
then....
:sleeping:
OK Keith mate...here's my serious answer...
It is hard to Justify paying our Prime Minister around £150,000 per annum (plus benefits obviously) as being too much, when the Bankers (the chosen few) receive bonuses that would make Croesus blush...
However, many politicians go into politics with a genuine will to do good. In the case of Tories, they are (usually) relatively successful, and in the case of labourites (back in the day), they were dyed-in-the-wool social do-gooders with a big conscience.
So back in the day, paying politicians a reasonable salary wasn't an issue, as they either had their own money (Tories), or they weren't in it for the money anyway (Labourites).
The problem is that those days are now long gone. We now have the fashion of career politicians who have NEVER set foot in industry, let alone run their own businesses and yet these people are making legislation for things they know nothing about (The Millibands, Cameron, Clegg etc... Have they ever had a "normal" job?).
It's clear to me that we have to give politicians a salary, otherwise these career politicians that we are stuck with would be very hungry indeed. However if we give them too much dosh, then the law of unintended consequences dictates that we will get a bunch of untrustworthy tossers becoming politicians for the money, not as a vocation or for any altruistic reasons and that would be a BAD THING.
So in short, give 'em enough to be going on with, but not too much that they might blush on payday....That way we still have people going into politics for (roughly) the right reasons (power and corruption aside ).
Clear as mud, or am I being a tad naive?
Keith, Sense check this for me - I'd value your opinion mate.
It is hard to Justify paying our Prime Minister around £150,000 per annum (plus benefits obviously) as being too much, when the Bankers (the chosen few) receive bonuses that would make Croesus blush...
However, many politicians go into politics with a genuine will to do good. In the case of Tories, they are (usually) relatively successful, and in the case of labourites (back in the day), they were dyed-in-the-wool social do-gooders with a big conscience.
So back in the day, paying politicians a reasonable salary wasn't an issue, as they either had their own money (Tories), or they weren't in it for the money anyway (Labourites).
The problem is that those days are now long gone. We now have the fashion of career politicians who have NEVER set foot in industry, let alone run their own businesses and yet these people are making legislation for things they know nothing about (The Millibands, Cameron, Clegg etc... Have they ever had a "normal" job?).
It's clear to me that we have to give politicians a salary, otherwise these career politicians that we are stuck with would be very hungry indeed. However if we give them too much dosh, then the law of unintended consequences dictates that we will get a bunch of untrustworthy tossers becoming politicians for the money, not as a vocation or for any altruistic reasons and that would be a BAD THING.
So in short, give 'em enough to be going on with, but not too much that they might blush on payday....That way we still have people going into politics for (roughly) the right reasons (power and corruption aside
).Clear as mud, or am I being a tad naive?
Keith, Sense check this for me - I'd value your opinion mate.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Have we hijacked this thread? If so, I'll tell you what is interesting here, our politics are so much simpler in the UK because who we vote for is possibly who our parents always voted for, whether your collar was blue or white and your post code.
Attempts to move out of our 'designated political leanings' for reasons of accrued, earned, won or stolen funds, earns one the label of 'aspiring to become middle class' along with all their nonsensical and frivolous trappings and is probably the most insulting thing I can use when wanting to upset the nouveau riche.
I don't think that politicians have changed much - to generalise they have always been money grubbing power mad would be despots seeking to line their own pockets, I think the problem is that we, the electorate have and our expectations have been raised by education and an exposure to matters that were once way beyond our 'station'.
That said, there is always room for 'vocational' politicians driven by principals but they are few far between and largely ineffective.
I will provide you with an analogy which simplifies yet explains the issue. Whilst I will not condone dishonesty and underhand practises, they do have roles to play in the scheme of things.
Graham, you have to recruit a bartender for your sleazy night-club. There are many applicants; boring honest ones, and guys you suspect know a thing or two about fiddling the old Jewish Piano (Jack & Jill for our American friends). So, you take on Jack the Lad with a lot of experience, and sure enough, although you cannot prove it, you are convinced he is helping himself to some of your hard earned. Trouble is, takings are up and the customers seem to appreciate being 'looked after'. If you let this go unchecked, the tail will inevitably wag the dog and what started as an exercise in a 'bit of extra' will end up becoming wholesale thievery and a total breakdown in employee/management relationships.
Many Managers would fire Jack and they would be wrong. The smart plan is to find out exactly how Jack lines his pockets then quietly suggest that you know what he's up to, don't get greedy and we'll all do well.
Information is key and then you can control the game. If you don't know or care what's happening, you are bound to be despised and robbed blind. If you show yourself to be cleverer than Jack and flexible to boot, then you have earned his respect and undying loyalty - takings will improve and he will be your dog.
I see politicians and policemen in the same vein. 'To Set a Thief' and 'Poachers turned Gamekeepers' are good analogies.
To expect an effective politician to be squeaky clean is a bit naive - to be able to easily discover their little games means that they are taking the piss out of you and should be fired.
What I want is effective Management, Politicians and Policemen and as long as they serve US FIRST and are successful ON OUR BEHALF, I am, to a degree, prepared to apply the Nelson Touch.
Attempts to move out of our 'designated political leanings' for reasons of accrued, earned, won or stolen funds, earns one the label of 'aspiring to become middle class' along with all their nonsensical and frivolous trappings and is probably the most insulting thing I can use when wanting to upset the nouveau riche.
I don't think that politicians have changed much - to generalise they have always been money grubbing power mad would be despots seeking to line their own pockets, I think the problem is that we, the electorate have and our expectations have been raised by education and an exposure to matters that were once way beyond our 'station'.
That said, there is always room for 'vocational' politicians driven by principals but they are few far between and largely ineffective.
I will provide you with an analogy which simplifies yet explains the issue. Whilst I will not condone dishonesty and underhand practises, they do have roles to play in the scheme of things.
Graham, you have to recruit a bartender for your sleazy night-club. There are many applicants; boring honest ones, and guys you suspect know a thing or two about fiddling the old Jewish Piano (Jack & Jill for our American friends). So, you take on Jack the Lad with a lot of experience, and sure enough, although you cannot prove it, you are convinced he is helping himself to some of your hard earned. Trouble is, takings are up and the customers seem to appreciate being 'looked after'. If you let this go unchecked, the tail will inevitably wag the dog and what started as an exercise in a 'bit of extra' will end up becoming wholesale thievery and a total breakdown in employee/management relationships.
Many Managers would fire Jack and they would be wrong. The smart plan is to find out exactly how Jack lines his pockets then quietly suggest that you know what he's up to, don't get greedy and we'll all do well.
Information is key and then you can control the game. If you don't know or care what's happening, you are bound to be despised and robbed blind. If you show yourself to be cleverer than Jack and flexible to boot, then you have earned his respect and undying loyalty - takings will improve and he will be your dog.
I see politicians and policemen in the same vein. 'To Set a Thief' and 'Poachers turned Gamekeepers' are good analogies.
To expect an effective politician to be squeaky clean is a bit naive - to be able to easily discover their little games means that they are taking the piss out of you and should be fired.
What I want is effective Management, Politicians and Policemen and as long as they serve US FIRST and are successful ON OUR BEHALF, I am, to a degree, prepared to apply the Nelson Touch.
Similar threads
