A common theme

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Here we are. A thumbnail of the world. Representatives of Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, to name a few, descend upon & infiltrate OTC. We cover lots of ideologies. Yet one theme is continually brought up.

The ineptitude of politicians. The backstabbing, thieving, lying, forked tongued devils that they are. We discuss why we agree with a stance they have taken. Or why we disagree. We point and laugh at their follies. It makes a grand sideshow when their tongue isn't kept firmly in their cheek & they aren't aware that it has decided to lollygag around near that cute blond in seat 68.

Why don't we expect & demand better? Especially the countries that are democratically inclined. Why do the people accept mediocrity in their leaders?
 
Gonz said:
Here we are. A thumbnail of the world. Representatives of Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, to name a few, descend upon & infiltrate OTC. We cover lots of ideologies. Yet one theme is continually brought up.

The ineptitude of politicians. The backstabbing, thieving, lying, forked tongued devils that they are. We discuss why we agree with a stance they have taken. Or why we disagree. We point and laugh at their follies. It makes a grand sideshow when their tongue isn't kept firmly in their cheek & they aren't aware that it has decided to lollygag around near that cute blond in seat 68.

Why don't we expect & demand better? Especially the countries that are democratically inclined. Why do the people accept mediocrity in their leaders?
Click to expand...

Because, deep down, people are afraid of strong leadership in such countries. They want to feel as though they could also be the leader, notwithstanding the cash one needs to be placed into such a position.
 
I beg to differ. It's simply a matter of someone asked the sheep their opinion.

Let's look that the average voter, shall we? He's a moron. There is no intelligent group. By shear definition, any average group will be composed of dumb people with one or two smart people thrown in. The dumb people will always outnumber the smart ones. This is why, even though the speed limit is 100kph, everyone does 110. The smarter people, who want to obey the law and drive the limit, simply have to speed up to avoid becoming a speed bump. Smart people want to drive cars that fit their purpose. Small efficient cars. Dumb people want to drive large automotive penises. Therefore smart people are forced to drive large automotive penises just to survive the accidents the dumb people will cause. Dumb people belive politicians, and their slogans. And vote for them.
 
Professur said:
I beg to differ. It's simply a matter of someone asked the sheep their opinion.

Let's look that the average voter, shall we? He's a moron. There is no intelligent group. By shear definition, any average group will be composed of dumb people with one or two smart people thrown in. The dumb people will always outnumber the smart ones. This is why, even though the speed limit is 100kph, everyone does 110. The smarter people, who want to obey the law and drive the limit, simply have to speed up to avoid becoming a speed bump. Smart people want to drive cars that fit their purpose. Small efficient cars. Dumb people want to drive large automotive penises. Therefore smart people are forced to drive large automotive penises just to survive the accidents the dumb people will cause. Dumb people belive politicians, and their slogans. And vote for them.
Click to expand...

I drive a small automotive penis. Is that a bad sign? :shrug: (Note that I still have the big one if I need it, but I'm married now. :D )
 
It's not the people doing the voting...it's those who we are allowed to vote for. It's not average-Joe who chooses who'se going to be in charge of the Dems or Reps, the Libs or Cons etc... it's the party. The party chooses and we get to live with their choices or choose NOT to vote. When was the last time that we saw an independant? Perot??

Lets face it...politics is a game for the rich to play at. You need huge amounts of money to run for power, a large following, enough people to run with you in all the ridings, enough other people to support them, and the money to support all that crap.

It's been like that since Lincoln, and shall be until the end of our days. You either have the party behind you (in which case you get their money but they control your ass) or you have your own money, in which case you're either not popular enough or you're a spoiled brat with family coin.

This is our political pool to choose our leaders from...and then we wonder why they're all basically failures. Simply...they don't represent us, we didn't choose them and they don't care about the common man. :shrug:
 
Bish said:
It's not average-Joe who chooses who'se going to be in charge of the Dems or Reps, the Libs or Cons etc... it's the party.
Click to expand...

Not true. That used to be the purpose of the conventions. Then somebody decided that the voters ought to choose, using the primary election system. Only same party members get to vote for their parties options who have, using individual state laws, gotten onto the ballot. There is also the option for write-ins.

The conventions picked better than the masses.

As for true independents (Perot as your example). They might win if they weren't nuts, as Perot showed. He really had a chance until we saw he was just another goof in a suit.
 
Bish, you have to remember that the american vote isn't the same as the canadian. In Canada, you don't vote for a prime minister. You vote for your local Member of Parliment. Members of Parliment (MP) then chose the Prime Minister (PM). Obviously, they're going to chose their own party leader. Hence, the party leader seems to be voted in. But that's not actually the case. I, personally, can't stand the local MP. But I have to vote for him to block the opposition.

Americans, on the other hand, can vote for (and correct me if I'm wrong) a Congressman from one party, a senator from another, and the have another box to chose the president. Usually the ballots even include non-presidential stuff, like voting for judges, sherrifs, and local bylaws.
 
Professur said:
Americans, on the other hand, can vote for (and correct me if I'm wrong) a Congressman from one party, a senator from another, and the have another box to chose the president. Usually the ballots even include non-presidential stuff, like voting for judges, sherrifs, and local bylaws.
Click to expand...
Dead on there, about the only people of significance that we don't vote for are the Supreme Court Justices. President nominates them and then they get approved or denied by congress.
 
chcr said:
I don't think that's true in every state?
Click to expand...

In theory.

The primary is exclusive to each party. However, when Dems crossover to vote for McCain becasue they already have a choice or Republicans crossover to try like hell & get Dean (the real Dem nomination BTW) on the ballot it becomes a little questionable.
 
PuterTutor said:
the only people of significance that we don't vote for are the Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...

If we did we're really be fucked. They'd be more concerned about constituents than the law, much like politicians.
 
Professur said:
Americans, on the other hand, can vote for (and correct me if I'm wrong) a Congressman from one party, a senator from another, and the have another box to chose the president. Usually the ballots even include non-presidential stuff, like voting for judges, sherrifs, and local bylaws.
Click to expand...


Who chooses which name gets put next to "Democratic Nominee for the Presidency"?

How many people voted so that the name Kerry will be on the ballot up against Bush?

What I'd like is some relatively unknown guy/gal to come out of the woodwork. Someone with some serious brains...a Doctorate in Economics, come in and blindside both Bush and Kerry with something like...

Mr(s)X said:
I've read the budgetary proposals and the economic recovery programs by both Mr Bush and Mr. Kerry....and it's become patently ovbious that both of these men havn't the slightest idea what they're talking about, and would most likely bankrupt a Garage Sale and Lemonade stand within the first hour, if we let them. Vote for me...I actually worked for my money, understand that you work for yours and I'm not about to waste it on idiotic best-guesses. Vote for Mr.X in 2004
Click to expand...
 
MrBishop said:
Who chooses which name gets put next to "Democratic Nominee for the Presidency"?

How many people voted so that the name Kerry will be on the ballot up against Bush?

What I'd like is some relatively unknown guy/gal to come out of the woodwork. Someone with some serious brains...a Doctorate in Economics, come in and blindside both Bush and Kerry with something like...
Click to expand...

Post number 8
 
Bish said:
What I'd like is some relatively unknown guy/gal to come out of the woodwork. Someone with some serious brains...a Doctorate in Economics, come in and blindside both Bush and Kerry with something like...
Click to expand...
As John Anderson taught us, and Joe Lieberman continues to, such a person is not electable. :shrug:
 
Yep. If Leiberman had been the Dem's man, I would've voted democrat for the first time in my life. They had to fuck it up and put this idiot on the ballot.
 
We've moved from a nation with similar ideology and differing opinions of strategy to hate filled extremists. Liberal used to mean helping those that help themselves. Now it's closer to Marxism. Todays republicans have more in common with JFK then Barry Goldwater. The entire nation shifted left in the 60's. Not a bad thing, overall. The problem lies with the continual slide off the deep end.

We are no longer a country run by the people for the people. We are a special interest conglomeration just below the boiling point. mememe is the current mantra. Anybody recall the words ...united we stand, divided we fall?
 
MrBishop said:
Who chooses which name gets put next to "Democratic Nominee for the Presidency"?
Click to expand...

His party. But, unlike here, you can become president without a party backing you. Not easily, but it's possible. Here, it's not.
 
Professur said:
His party. But, unlike here, you can become president without a party backing you. Not easily, but it's possible. Here, it's not.
Click to expand...
You'd better have some serious coin though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top