politicians suck

[HwyRider]

I've been following the debate between the politicians over the government shut down and spending cap. I think I got the terms right. I have come to the conclusion that none of the politicians can give a straight yes or no answer when asked a question by the news media. They always dance around the question even when the interviewer says I understand your position please just answer the question. They get right back up on their pulpit and start their preaching again. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican. They are both same when answering questions.

It would be refreshing to hear a politician come out and say yes or no to a question when asked.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by HwyRider

I've been following the debate between the politicians over the government shut down and spending cap. I think I got the terms right. I have come to the conclusion that none of the politicians can give a straight yes or no answer when asked a question by the news media. They always dance around the question even when the interviewer says I understand your position please just answer the question. They get right back up on their pulpit and start their preaching again. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican. They are both same when answering questions.

It would be refreshing to hear a politician come out and say yes or no to a question when asked.

It's because they are in a perpetual state of running for office and they don't want to be accountable for saying something that would be a negative in that process. On top of this, most politicians are lawyers. That should explain it all.

[Old Bear]

Oh for the days when a large segment of politicians were combat veterans.

You may not agree with me, but you will never doubt my position on the topic at hand!

[Pitchinguy]

We could solve a lot of the mess with term limits but they''ll never give up the gravy train. Career legislators have robbed the taxpayers blind & will continue until total collapse.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Pitchinguy

We could solve a lot of the mess with term limits but they''ll never give up the gravy train. Career legislators have robbed the taxpayers blind & will continue until total collapse.

Why would they end their own party?

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Old Bear

Oh for the days when a large segment of politicians were combat veterans.

You may not agree with me, but you will never doubt my position on the topic at hand!

That's a double edged sword. It was true because there were so many vets after WWII. Now vets are a much smaller percentage of the population. I wouldn't want to use the veteran status as litmus test for a politician because it would be too much of a limitation as the pool of candidates would be smaller.

May be a better way is if people vote for a party. If that party wins, then by lottery, like jury duty, someone from the general population that is a member of that party and meets certain qualifications like not being convicted of a felony, education and age, they would get the job for one term. It would cut out the narcissistic and self-preservation tendencies that politicians have.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Pitchinguy

We could solve a lot of the mess with term limits but they''ll never give up the gravy train. Career legislators have robbed the taxpayers blind & will continue until total collapse.

And yet you still vote for them.

[Pitchinguy]

Originally Posted by ponch

And yet you still vote for them.

Going to the polls is like choosing lethal injection or hanging. Either way you loose. We're going through a gubernatorial process here in Va right now. I hate to waste a vote but both parties have put dayum crooks on the ballot. Nothing to choose from. I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for nobody to vote since there is nobody worth voting for.....

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Pitchinguy

Going to the polls is like choosing lethal injection or hanging. Either way you loose. We're going through a gubernatorial process here in Va right now. I hate to waste a vote but both parties have put dayum crooks on the ballot. Nothing to choose from. I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for nobody to vote since there is nobody worth voting for.....

And the problem is with what people believe, not know. With the two party system, one side wears the black hat and the other the white hat from the point of view of the average voter. It's like branding and what people believe a brand represents. Until people grow up and face the face that the dynamic isn't democrat versus republican but liberty versus authority, we'll always have this mess. Politicians position themselves as problem solvers, but they are problems they created so they can solve them, which is in general a progressive and authoritarian position.

In the end there's not a lot to be done. Most people are ill-informed at best, idiots at worst and will believe all sorts of things even with evidence to the contrary in triplicate(and this extends to everything). These things run in concentric cycles too with the end result something much worse, which is the starting point of the next cycle of political economy. It was a good run and a lot was done. Just grab a front seat and enjoy the show.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Pitchinguy

Going to the polls is like choosing lethal injection or hanging. Either way you loose. We're going through a gubernatorial process here in Va right now. I hate to waste a vote but both parties have put dayum crooks on the ballot. Nothing to choose from. I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for nobody to vote since there is nobody worth voting for.....

Then write in or vote for someone else. If you are trying to chose between two winners, you'll always lose. Again, back to branding and group psycho-sociology. People want to be on the winning team, even if there isn't one.

[glwilson]

One solution is to have a section on the ballot that states:

"NO for either candidate"

If the "NO" vote gets more votes than any of the candidates, then the election has to be re-run, and cannot be the same candidates for the next election.

In the meantime, the government runs under the process established as if the position was vacated mid-term.

Shorten the re-election period, and only allow public debates. No campaigning, no signs, no pacs, nothing.

The temporary leadership during the re-election term would not be allowed to enact any legislation that otherwise is not directly connected to the basic services of the government. Thus no sweeping legislation (like Obamacare), tax increases, and etc could be enacted.

If I were the dictator... that is what I would do! Ummm...

Oh yeah... one more thing. This thread should be put in the "political forum"...

[ponch]

Originally Posted by glwilson

One solution is to have a section on the ballot that states:

"NO for either candidate"

If the "NO" vote gets more votes than any of the candidates, then the election has to be re-run, and cannot be the same candidates for the next election.

In the meantime, the government runs under the process established as if the position was vacated mid-term.

Shorten the re-election period, and only allow public debates. No campaigning, no signs, no pacs, nothing.

The temporary leadership during the re-election term would not be allowed to enact any legislation that otherwise is not directly connected to the basic services of the government. Thus no sweeping legislation (like Obamacare), tax increases, and etc could be enacted.

If I were the dictator... that is what I would do! Ummm...

Oh yeah... one more thing. This thread should be put in the "political forum"...

Like that Richard Pryor movie where the choice was "none of the above". I think England/UK has a rule that campaigns are no longer than 6 weeks before the vote. That's a lot more reasonable. It'll also decrease the money necessary to run


It was Brewster's Millions. Your concept is in use already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_Above

[Jeffsmountainauto]

Originally Posted by ponch

Like that Richard Pryor movie where the choice was "none of the above". I think England/UK has a rule that campaigns are no longer than 6 weeks before the vote. That's a lot more reasonable. It'll also decrease the money necessary to run

Campaigning should be limited to no more than 6 weeks after too.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Jeffsmountainauto

Campaigning should be limited to no more than 6 weeks after too.

After?

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by ponch

Like that Richard Pryor movie where the choice was "none of the above". I think England/UK has a rule that campaigns are no longer than 6 weeks before the vote. That's a lot more reasonable. It'll also decrease the money necessary to run

It was Brewster's Millions. Your concept is in use already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_Above

I appeared to be half joking, but not really. If we limit the time allowed for campaigning it would certainly help reduce the money needed. Also, since the "gov" owns the rights to the air-waves, they could require all air-wave ads, promotions and etc be equally provided to all viable candidates... in that manner a candidate could not dominate the air-waves with their money.

As far as the "no-vote"... I am dead serious about that one. Voters need to have the right to reject the candidates the parties put in front of them.