Politicians

[mapuc]

Politicians are nothing more than a person like the rest of us, except they have the skill to get other people to put their vote on this politicians

Then there are some politicians who have the skills, to get voters to vote on this politicians again and again…., even thou this politicians have made a fool of his voters again and again….

Just so you know it.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

:hmmm:

[Skybird]

Its the voters who make fools of themselves, markus. Why do they allow to get bought and bribed and why do they legitimise these crooks to do what they are doing? ;) Its all about voter bribery. But you can only bribe somebody who is corrupt.

[STEED]

I know longer vote here in the UK as all I see is a bunch of incompetent useless politician's more interested in feathering their own nests while they strut around like peacocks and to hell with us the voter. In part in the UK its out dated political system that needs radical change like sweeping away the worst kind of politician the career politician. The power is with the people to change it but they rather stick their noses in their smart phones on social media.

For the last 30 odd years it has gone down hill in the UK and will continual going to pot.

[August]

I don't have a problem with politicians per se. Everybody politics at some point but the people who make it a career are generally poison to a society.

[Sailor Steve]

Someone once said that anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified from holding it. Of course that leaves us with nobody to run the country/state/city, but that's kind of what we've had for the last two hundred years or so.

[August]

Someone once said that anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified from holding it.


A ridiculous sentiment by itself, as if forcing someone who doesn't want the job would somehow be better idea, but it's made worse by your misquote.

What Gore Vidal actually said was that any American who is prepared to run for President..., not just wants to be President. After all just about everybody has toyed with the idea of being the President at some point if only for a few minutes (takes pull off of beer and says "If I were the President i'd..."). THAT should be a dis-qualifier? Who does it leave?
On the other hand not everybody is arrogant enough to publicly state that they are actually prepared for the job of President. While it still not a dis-qualifier in itself it is a rather bold statement to make and is what I think he was getting at.

[vienna]

Well, hey, Trump was arrogant enough...












<O>

[Sailor Steve]

A ridiculous sentiment by itself, as if forcing someone who doesn't want the job would somehow be better idea, but it's made worse by your misquote.

What Gore Vidal actually said was that any American who is prepared to run for President..., not just wants to be President.
Who said anything about Gore Vidal?
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
-Douglas Adams
Those who seek power are not worthy of that power.
-Plato, The Republic

After all just about everybody has toyed with the idea of being the President at some point if only for a few minutes (takes pull off of beer and says "If I were the President i'd..."). THAT should be a dis-qualifier? Who does it leave?
I guess you didn't stop to read my closing statement.

On the other hand not everybody is arrogant enough to publicly state that they are actually prepared for the job of President. While it still not a dis-qualifier in itself it is a rather bold statement to make and is what I think he was getting at.
I guess you also failed to recognize a little spot of humor.

[August]

I see you're up to your old tricks Steve. Let me reply in kind.



Who


Who?



said



Is "said" really accurate, given that we are "discussing" something that you "wrote"? :hmmm:



anything about



Anything? Well not "anything", just that thing really. :yep:



Gore Vidal?


Yeah, you know the Okie dem that you were channeling. Mad google search skillz though...



Oh hell, playing your silly pick apart game is well, silly.



I guess you didn't stop to read my closing statement.

...
I guess you also failed to recognize a little spot of humor.


And I guess that you failed to recognize that I was talking about the concept behind the cliche and not about you. But of course when your intention is to irritate then you can't miss any chance to be snarky about it, or do I fail to recognize your intent here?

[mapuc]

From the experience I have made throughout the decades is that:

A Voter don't want to take responsibility for the action he or she make/take/do at the voting station-He or she don't want to feel this burden on their shoulder.

They will however have the right to complain.

My Danish and Swedish friend do complain a lot and sometime I say to them

Don't forget a politician wouldn't be where they are if it wasn't for people having put they vote on them.

So in the end we can only blame our self for this situation Sweden and Denmark are in.

I myself haven't been voting since 2006, I came to conclusion that I couldn't blame others for the voting I have done since 1983.

That how I see it.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

I see you're up to your old tricks Steve. Let me reply in kind.

Who?

Is "said" really accurate, given that we are "discussing" something that you "wrote"? :hmmm:

Anything? Well not "anything", just that thing really. :yep:

Yeah, you know the Okie dem that you were channeling. Mad google search skillz though...

Oh hell, playing your silly pick apart game is well, silly.

And I guess that you failed to recognize that I was talking about the concept behind the cliche and not about you. But of course when your intention is to irritate then you can't miss any chance to be snarky about it, or do I fail to recognize your intent here?

Chill man :D I hear pot is legal in Massachusetts now :yep:

As for the OP's query about politicians ...

One word they are just "lawmakers"

[Buddahaid]

I see you're up to your old tricks Steve. And I guess that you failed to recognize that I was talking about the concept behind the cliche and not about you. But of course when your intention is to irritate then you can't miss any chance to be snarky about it, or do I fail to recognize your intent here?

August, sometimes I just don't see where you get these ideas. Steve showed that he wasn't channeling that Okie dem you are fixated on but you have your blinders on again. In a way you are just like Trump at times.

Peace and BB's

[August]

Yeah yeah believe what you want.

[Skybird]

Ein Satz mit X, August: das war wohl nix.

[Buddahaid]

Yeah yeah believe what you want.

I believe what I observe.

[August]

Oh yeah, well then observe this. A person who does not want to be President cannot become President, so in light of Vidals (or Platos if you prefer) statement then who is left as a viable choice? Nobody. It's completely unrealistic to think a persons desire to take a leadership position should be a dis-qualifier.

That's why I think so little of the concept and I don't care if you agree or not.

As for Steve his habit of breaking down his targets posts into tiny little bits is deliberately irritating. So going forward if I give him a little guff for it when he does it to me then you'll know why.

[Buddahaid]

That's why I think so little of the concept and I don't care if you agree or not.

As for Steve his habit of breaking down his targets posts into tiny little bits is deliberately irritating. So going forward if I give him a little guff for it when he does it to me then you'll know why.

Obviously, you do care.

As for Steve breaking down a post, I guess it would be irritating having the holes in an argument exposed.

[August]

Obviously, you do care.


I care enough to explain it to you. You should be flattered.


As for Steve breaking down a post, I guess it would be irritating having the holes in an argument exposed.That's not the purpose or the effect.

[Sailor Steve]

I see you're up to your old tricks Steve. Let me reply in kind.
Old tricks? I pick things apart when someone addresses several different thoughts in one paragraph, or sometimes even one sentence.

Who?
You brought up Gore Vidal. I had no idea he had said anything of the kind. I just heard the phrase a long time ago and thought it had some little grain of truth in it.

Is "said" really accurate, given that we are "discussing" something that you "wrote"? :hmmm:
My original comment was not aimed at you, which makes me curious as to why you took it so seriously,

Anything? Well not "anything", just that thing really. :yep:
Not really. As I said, I had no idea that Gore Vidal said that, so you accuse me of misquoting him when I wasn't really quoting him at all.

Yeah, you know the Okie dem that you were channeling. Mad google search skillz though...
No, I don't know. I don't even know who you're talking about. As for Google, I simply queried a part of the sentence. I felt the need to know what I was supposedly misquoting. Douglas Adams and Plato came up automatically, since they had said something similar.

Oh hell, playing your silly pick apart game is well, silly.
As I said, I only pick things apart when someone touches on several different subjects in the same post. Would you rather I wrote one huge post addressing all those subjects?

And I guess that you failed to recognize that I was talking about the concept behind the cliche and not about you. But of course when your intention is to irritate then you can't miss any chance to be snarky about it, or do I fail to recognize your intent here?
If I took it personally and it wasn't meant to be, then that's my mistake and I apologize for it. As for being intentionally irritating or snarky, that is never my intent.

[Sailor Steve]

Steve showed that he wasn't channeling that Okie dem you are fixated on but you have your blinders on again.
I did? Actually I'm totally confused. What in the world is an "Okie dem"?

[Buddahaid]

OK, sorry Steve. It just irks me when you get attacked for being petty when I know it's not the case.

[Sailor Steve]

I appreciate it, and I only brought it up in response to your post rather than his because yours was last. I must be overly obtuse, but I really don't know what you guys are talking about.

[Buddahaid]

A ridiculous sentiment by itself, as if forcing someone who doesn't want the job would somehow be better idea, but it's made worse by your misquote.

What Gore Vidal actually said....

This is the precise point where it goes off the rails. August, you assume that Steve is talking about what Gore Vidal(the Okie dem) said because that is who you think of.

You are making an assumption based on your bias instead of what was written.

[August]

Well thank you so much for your unsolicited opinion Buddahaid.

[Buddahaid]

Too bad. Go have a good cry.

[Sailor Steve]

Gore Vidal(the Okie dem)
Thank you. I neither knew that Vidal was from Oklahoma or was a Democrat.

[August]

Too bad. Go have a good cry.

Ok I was gonna let it go but I have to ask, do you actually think that you hurt my feelings? :har:



Dude really, get over yourself! I am far too old to give a crap about anything you or anyone else might say. You are nothing to me other than one of a hundred anonymous internet personas that I will read on a dozen discussion forums tonight. So far your uninvited butting in has provided me with enough distraction to continue to reply to you but when I finally tire of it don't read anything into that other than you've begun to bore me.

[mapuc]

Friends. A voter have his or her reason for the choice they make at the voting station.

Reason's like:

The politician is handsome/attractive
or
We in our family have always voted on...
(I have met/seen many with those attitude)

And of course then it's those who have a more strict relationship to the politicians or party they put their vote on.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Well thank you so much for your unsolicited opinion Buddahaid.
And now it's my turn to comment on your posting habits. This is fairly typical. Long ago when a member from a different country tried to argue with you, you told him that it was an American matter and what he had to say didn't count. Now you object to someone's "unsolicited" opinion. Rather than discuss a point you either preach or just tell people you don't have to talk to them. I've seen you comment on a few topics, but in years of exchange here I've never seen you actually discuss anything. If someone doesn't like Trump then they "must have voted for Hillary". It's always "those Dems", or "Trump haters"; never "well lets discuss what is wrong with Trump". I've mentioned before that with you it's always Us vs Them, never "Do they have anything to offer?".

As I said, all preaching, all argument, never, even once, a simple discussion.

[Skybird]

Friends. A voter have his or her reason for the choice they make at the voting station.

Reason's like:

The politician is handsome/attractive
or
We in our family have always voted on...
(I have met/seen many with those attitude)

And of course then it's those who have a more strict relationship to the politicians or party they put their vote on.

Markus
All that imo are splendid illustration why such voters should not be allowed to vote. The best service they can contribute to the communal wellbeing is not to vote if their motives for their choice are not more and are not better than just this ^. The problem is the voting system can only function if two preconditions are fulfilled: people are altruistic and put their own wellbeing below the communal wellbeing, and 2.) they are competent in the matter they are voting on. The first thing is mostly never the case, and the second is mostly never the case. Most people are dilletanttes on economic, financial, social-political and so forth issues. But they demand a say on organising a state's leadership for a hundred million peopole...??? Are they kdding me??


In return, polticians claim they can oversee all this and can responsibly and competently navigate and administrate these task for the same state with 100 million people...?? Are they kidding me as well...??? The human brain cannot even for a figurative illustration of numbers beyond around the mid-20s range, beyond that it already must use immense cognitive tricks.


Its like giving hooligans whose only argument for why they favour their football club over the other one is that it is the club in their neighbourhgood and it is tradition, the key to the treasury of the nation and the seat in the president's office.

You do not let the passengers in a plane fly the plane. You have pilots for that task. And there is the real problem. Thje bigger the plane, the more difficult and complex the cockpit tasks. Its a difference to veen just taxi in an Airbvus A380, and in a Cessna 172.

Thats why I am against deep state and big states with central governments, and argue for small self-amdinsitrating entitie sinstead that are diemnsioned such that thos eliving within them cna mostyl oversee what is going on in them, and so can form educated opinions on what is going on, and can see what consequences oth people'S deeds and decisions and their own deeds anmd decisions have. This is not possible in states with millions and millions, and such states are so complex that transparency is only an utopic idela to strive for, but that is completely out of reach. And so the scum takes over and abuses the invitation to the max.

The bigger in size and the more complex in structure an administrational organisation is, the easier it is to hide incompetence and corruption and responsibility in its inner labyrinth. And I can absolutely not imagine any way how to avoid this dilemma except going much, much, much, much smaller.

[mapuc]

I have to tell you a story related to this

"We in our family have always voted on..."

It was in the 90's and it happened just before the Swedish election.

I was on my way home from my adult education. I jumped on the bus.

Had barely sat down when someone tapped me on the shoulder.

I turned around to see who it was. It was an elderly woman about 60-70 years old-Not sure.

She leaned toward me and said

- Are you going to vote in the election

- Of course, I said

From then on and 10 minutes on she
came up with a stream of verbal vomiting over her favorite party, the Social Democrats:

And she ended her speech with

Never again I say to you, will I put a vote on that party.
There was not much I could say to her.

Now we jump ahead some month after the election.

Again I was on my way home and sitting on the bus.

On this bus this day, was also this elderly woman.
She looked at me and started talking to me.

- Haven't I seen you before, she said.

Yes, we were talking before the election, about voting I said

- Oh that's true, she said, and continued.

- So did you vote.

Yes I said

So did I, I put my vote on my beloved party the Social democrats which we always have done in our family she said.

The first word that came up in my mind was

conditional action

Some years later I saw a documentary about Pavlovs dogs.

When I saw that program I came to think on this elderly woman on the bus.

Markus

[August]

As I said, all preaching, all argument, never, even once, a simple discussion.

Right Steve, not even once! It's totally not an exaggeration at all. Yep every post I have ever made since joining the forum back in 2005, nearly 19,000 of them, have been designed to meet with your disapproval.

As for telling people to mind their own business, damn straight I did and I may do so again in the future if I feel that it is appropriate.

[Buddahaid]

Right Steve, not even once! It's totally not an exaggeration at all. Yep every post I have ever made since joining the forum back in 2005, nearly 19,000 of them, have been designed to meet with your disapproval.

As for telling people to mind their own business, damn straight I did and I may do so again in the future if I feel that it is appropriate.

Is there enough oxygen up there? :arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

Right Steve, not even once! It's totally not an exaggeration at all. Yep every post I have ever made since joining the forum back in 2005, nearly 19,000 of them, have been designed to meet with your disapproval.
Of course it's an exaggeration. When commenting on general things you're as neutral as anybody. The doesn't change the fact that your political comments are always of the "I'm right and you're stupid" variety. The hardcore right-wing philosophy shows through, and in that regard maybe you could point me to some real discussion?

As for telling people to mind their own business, damn straight I did and I may do so again in the future if I feel that it is appropriate.
It's an open forum. Anybody can comment as they please.

[August]

Of course it's an exaggeration. When commenting on general things you're as neutral as anybody. The doesn't change the fact that your political comments are always of the "I'm right and you're stupid" variety. The hardcore right-wing philosophy shows through, and in that regard maybe you could point me to some real discussion?


It's an open forum. Anybody can comment as they please.


You know Steve for a guy who is constantly saying that he doesn't know anything for sure you use a lot of absolute words against me like "always" and "never".

The way I see it my comments in this thread are usually made in response to the "hardcore left-wing philosophy" that pervades it. Now you can go ahead and cherry pick them to fit your narrative I guess but I will continue to post my feelings regardless of your identity politics name calling.

We need more conservative voices on this forum not less.

[Sailor Steve]

You know Steve for a guy who is constantly saying that he doesn't know anything for sure you use a lot of absolute words against me like "always" and "never".
You could well be right. That said, I also don't trust people who act as if they do know something when it is apparent that what they "know" is actually opinion and not knowledge.

The way I see it my comments in this thread are usually made in response to the "hardcore left-wing philosophy" that pervades it. Now you can go ahead and cherry pick them to fit your narrative I guess but I will continue to post my feelings regardless of your identity politics name calling.
What exactly is my narrative? As I see it "hard-core" anything is a bad thing. Assuming that the other side is automatically evil does nothing to help solve the problems. I notice you carefully ignored my comments on your knee-jerk "must have voted for Hillary" reactions to comments against Trump.

On the other hand you might be surprised to find that I agree with you on a lot of this. The Left really is wasting a lot of time attacking rather than looking for solutions. But then so is The Right, and what bothers me is that both sides are exactly alike in that regard. I don't see much discussion from either side, just attacks.

We need more conservative voices on this forum not less.
Conservative voices, yes. Right-Wing (or Left-Wing) diatribe, not so much.

[Skybird]

"Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves." - Hayek