Gentlemen Politicians

[DBTrek]

More or less ludicrous than believing that professional fundraisers who have cajoled a few big spenders into bankrolling their run for office make qualified leaders?

Again, I think not all US politicians are those that will change their positions to a) get funding and b) get votes irrelevant of the issue. Some obviously have an ideology and things they vouch for. The problem is to find them. One way is to read actually what they say and look if they can on their own immediately answer any questions... before an advisor or their "team" has prepped them.

I'm
not sure
you grasp
the situation.

[SuburbanFarmer]

More or less ludicrous than believing that professional fundraisers who have cajoled a few big spenders into bankrolling their run for office make qualified leaders?

Again, I think not all US politicians are those that will change their positions to a) get funding and b) get votes irrelevant of the issue. Some obviously have an ideology and things they vouch for. The problem is to find them. One way is to read actually what they say and look if they can on their own immediately answer any questions... before an advisor or their "team" has prepped them.

In the US, ideology is used in elections and fundraising. NOT for governance.

[ssu]

Think of the outsized influence a politician has on society. The vast majority of these people have never risen to anything beyond mediocre getting-by, and will do anything to be someone. Small, Special Interest groups have recognized the weakness of representative democracy, and have successfully leveraged it by using their tiny numbers to gatekeep the candidates. It only takes a few people to block a candidate and put their own gasbag on the ticket. Voters can't tell: we read a 1-paragraph blurb in the Voter's pamphlet, if that. Most voters don't give a shit because they've never heard of anybody. A celebrity breaks through all that shit. Celebrities have Followers, and get press, good or bad. Almost any "known" candidate will beat an unknown nobody-nothing. And the celebrity owes no allegiance to the worms.

But doesn't that tell more about the people than about the politicians/people competing for political positions? It still doesn't make at all the celebrities then more qualified for the job. It sounds like the argument that billionaires are better candidates as somehow they wouldn't be grabbing that money from the lobbyists because they already have so much money.

I've allways thought if elections would be held so that if the person elected fails in his campaign promises, those who voted for the person would have to pay a heavy fine for those who didn't vote for the person, let's say one month's income. And then you would HAVE TO vote, the police would drag you to the election booth. I guess then people would put more attention at just who the vote for.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Think of the outsized influence a politician has on society. The vast majority of these people have never risen to anything beyond mediocre getting-by, and will do anything to be someone. Small, Special Interest groups have recognized the weakness of representative democracy, and have successfully leveraged it by using their tiny numbers to gatekeep the candidates. It only takes a few people to block a candidate and put their own gasbag on the ticket. Voters can't tell: we read a 1-paragraph blurb in the Voter's pamphlet, if that. Most voters don't give a shit because they've never heard of anybody. A celebrity breaks through all that shit. Celebrities have Followers, and get press, good or bad. Almost any "known" candidate will beat an unknown nobody-nothing. And the celebrity owes no allegiance to the worms.

But doesn't that tell more about the people than about the politicians/people competing for political positions? It still doesn't make at all the celebrities then more qualified for the job. It sounds like the argument that billionaires are better candidates as somehow they wouldn't be grabbing that money from the lobbyists because they already have so much money.

I've allways thought if elections would be held so that if the person elected fails in his campaign promises, those who voted for the person would have to pay a heavy fine for those who didn't vote for the person, let's say one month's income. And then you would HAVE TO vote, the police would drag you to the election booth. I guess then people would put more attention at just who the vote for.

Same argument as the rest of anarcho-capitalism. "We just need to trust the mega-corp insurance companies to settle for less". "We can trust companies to self-regulate". "We just need this one subsidy, then it'll be fine"

Greed has no limit. It is never "enough".

[ssu]

I'm
not sure
you grasp
the situation.

Lol. Cool answer, DBTrek!

Yet haven't had the time to read those all (but will do that). You think someone like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader etc. are/were in politics just for the money? I think lawyers and doctors make a reasonable income in the US.

Now naturally the Clintons are the best example of career politicians who truly have no own agenda (than personal success), but I'm still not buying that all of them are corrupt.

[ssu]

Same argument as the rest of anarcho-capitalism. "We just need to trust the mega-corp insurance companies to settle for less". "We can trust companies to self-regulate". "We just need this one subsidy, then it'll be fine"

?

Actually, true anarcho-capitalist don't think that way. They start from a totally fictional idea what they call the market and how it works... which doesn't have any link to reality. Those economic loonies will never believe just how persisten oligopolies are.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Same argument as the rest of anarcho-capitalism. "We just need to trust the mega-corp insurance companies to settle for less". "We can trust companies to self-regulate". "We just need this one subsidy, then it'll be fine"

?

Actually, true anarcho-capitalist don't think that way. They start from a totally fictional idea what they call the market and how it works... which doesn't have any link to reality. Those economic loonies will never believe just how persisten oligopolies are.

Correct.

[Ex-California]

Think of the outsized influence a politician has on society. The vast majority of these people have never risen to anything beyond mediocre getting-by, and will do anything to be someone. Small, Special Interest groups have recognized the weakness of representative democracy, and have successfully leveraged it by using their tiny numbers to gatekeep the candidates. It only takes a few people to block a candidate and put their own gasbag on the ticket. Voters can't tell: we read a 1-paragraph blurb in the Voter's pamphlet, if that. Most voters don't give a shit because they've never heard of anybody. A celebrity breaks through all that shit. Celebrities have Followers, and get press, good or bad. Almost any "known" candidate will beat an unknown nobody-nothing. And the celebrity owes no allegiance to the worms.

But doesn't that tell more about the people than about the politicians/people competing for political positions? It still doesn't make at all the celebrities then more qualified for the job. It sounds like the argument that billionaires are better candidates as somehow they wouldn't be grabbing that money from the lobbyists because they already have so much money.

I've allways thought if elections would be held so that if the person elected fails in his campaign promises, those who voted for the person would have to pay a heavy fine for those who didn't vote for the person, let's say one month's income. And then you would HAVE TO vote, the police would drag you to the election booth. I guess then people would put more attention at just who the vote for.

Anyone will do a better job than the people who currently have the jobs

Celebs are a mean to an end because they have name recognition.

Governance is not hard. We people on the MHF would do vastly better than anyone we''ve had in the last 50 years

[clubgop]

Think of the outsized influence a politician has on society. The vast majority of these people have never risen to anything beyond mediocre getting-by, and will do anything to be someone. Small, Special Interest groups have recognized the weakness of representative democracy, and have successfully leveraged it by using their tiny numbers to gatekeep the candidates. It only takes a few people to block a candidate and put their own gasbag on the ticket. Voters can't tell: we read a 1-paragraph blurb in the Voter's pamphlet, if that. Most voters don't give a shit because they've never heard of anybody. A celebrity breaks through all that shit. Celebrities have Followers, and get press, good or bad. Almost any "known" candidate will beat an unknown nobody-nothing. And the celebrity owes no allegiance to the worms.

See, take it from people with campaign experience. Name ID, Name ID, Name ID, no substitute for it.