On the spectral reflective properties of pots and kettles

[Platapus]

Breaking news. For first time ever, a politician is accused of lying.

Marco Rubio says Ted Cruz is a liar -- accusing the Texas senator of false attacks over same-sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, immigration, campaign tactics and more. "There's no other way to describe that -- it's a lie. When you say something that's not true, it's called a lie. That's the definition of it," Rubio said Sunday in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politi...ies/index.html




Factcheck.org and other watchdog sites would indicate a similarity of tonal qualities between these and every single other candidate.


We are not talking about selective interpretations. Every single candidate is out right lying. This is what politics is about. I wonder if it is possible to have a national candidate who just tells the truth?


Probably not.

[MaDef]

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'"
Theodore Roosevelt

That answer your question?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by MaDef

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'"
Theodore Roosevelt

That answer your question?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Breaking news. For first time ever, a politician is accused of lying ...

No !

[Sailor Steve]

Well, there's also the famous old saying: "How do tell if a politician is lying? His lips move."

The unfortunate side of national politics is that anyone who is trying to get the job is likely someone you don't want there. Conversely anyone who would actually be good enough is also smart enough to stay away from it.

What bothers me more about this is what it says about Rubio, and so many others. When a candidate starts making personal attacks it looks to me like that person has run out of ideas, and is no longer worth my time. Sadly almost every campaign gets to this point before it's done.

[Aktungbby]

1. Drug Dealer (0.61)
2. Crime Boss (0.99)
3. TV Evangelist (1.19)
4. Prostitute (1.24)
5. Street Peddler (1.45)
6. Local Politician (1.52)
7. Congressman (1.58)
8. Car Salesman (1.59)
9. Rock Star (1.72)
10. Insurance Salesman (1.76)
11. Union Leader (1.89)
12. Wall Street Executive (1.92)
13. Real Estate Agent (1.92)
14. TV Executive (1.94)
15. Oil Company Executive (1.94)
16. Lawyer (1.97)
17. Soap Opera Star (2.00)
18. Movie Star (2.00)
19. Broker (2.00)
20. Prison Guard (2.02)Each profession was graded on a four-point average.

[vienna]

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But, I repeat myself. --Mark Twain



<O>

[Platapus]

The weakness of a democratically elected representative government is that the inexpert citizens are tasked with electing expert representatives to make decisions on their behalf.

On the surface it sounds like a great idea, but when you think about it, that's kinda dumb.

That would be like me voting for who the best brain surgeon is.

So a politician is faced with two general choices which sometime can be in conflict with each other

1. Make the right decision
2. Make the decision the inexpert voting citizen thinks is right

It is surprising how many time 1 and 2 are not the same.

Any politician who only focuses on item 1, while he is "doing his job" he won't get elected/re-elected

Any politician who only focuses on item 2, may get elected/re-elected but won't be "doing his job".

In my profession I often meet with politicians and get a chance to talk to them about stuff. I have asked several about this and a lot of them have told me: Of course I have to pander to the electorate. I can't do what I want/need to do if I am not elected/re-elected.

Makes sense.

So like many things in life, it is a delicate balancing and compromising act. Some politicians are better at it. Others suck at it. But they all do it and really, they have to.

The solution is easy.. in theory. Educate the voting public so they become less inexpert and give them the information so they can properly evaluate the performance of the politician with regard to item 1.

The information is out there. Today's voters have access to considerable amounts of data/information that no past generation could ever hope to access.....but choosing to use that information is up to the individual.

People choose, and make no mistake, it is their choice, to get their information from secondary/tertiary sources like political commentators, internet blogs, and even sports figures/musicians/actors instead of using the technology to get the actual data and then spend the effort in learning to to interpret it.

That takes time and effort.

The problem is not our politicians, but ourselves.

We the people.....created/enabled/maintained this problem and we the people are the only ones who can fix it.

And by we the people, I mean you and I, not some anonymous "them" or "they".

So we (you and I) need to ask ourselves "Yeah, I know there is a problem. But what have I done to fix this?".

If the answer is "I am powerless to fix this problem", you are wrong as you/I are the only ones who can help, in our individual way, fix the problem.

It is not going to be easy, nor will it be quick. I seriously doubt any solution will occur during my lifetime.

As some old dead Chinese dude once said "A journey of 10,000 steps starts with getting off your butt and starting." or something like that.

[August]

The job of a politician is to earn and maintain the trust of his constituents. As long as he has it then it doesn't matter if he goes against their wishes occasionally.

[Bilge_Rat]

" Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"


-Winston Churchill


"When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship."


-Harry Truman

[vienna]

What makes our US system of government "perfect" is its allowance for the imperfect. The persons who drafted our system were wise enough o know there is no such thing as total perfection; that a static, hidebound government cannot survive; that governments need to be "living" entities, able to adjust, account for, and deal with the vast multitude of variables time and the world outside our borders would throw our way. They realized any form of government, no matter of what sort, ultimately serves at the will of those governed; exercise a form of government oppressive or detrimental to the needs of those governed, and they will rise up and replace the governors. The founders were all students of history and well aware of the follies of the past. They could have set up a system of highly detailed, highly specific laws and rules, locking their descendants into a rigid culture they themselves fought against and sacrificed so much to overturn. They weren't about to pass a similar fate on to the next generations. The Constitution is vague in a great many places because the world, human nature, and the future are all vague. The signatories of 1789 could not have had the slightest idea of how far the US and the world would have progressed by 1889 or 1989 or 2016. But they did not discount the possibilities of progress socially, technically, or politically and they gave those of the future, us, the means and abilities to deal with our concerns with a minimum of being unreasonably chained to the past. The founders were creating a new type of democracy and they stumbled, argued, experimented with success and failure, and produced a framework the best they could with the means at their disposal; they also knew we would stumble, argue, experiment with success and failure, and hopefully produced a continued result ensuring the best form of governance for the benefit of the greatest number of citizens. And, you know what? Those who come after us will also stumble, argue, experiment with success and failure, and hopefully produce a continued result ensuring the best form of governance for the benefit of the greatest number of citizens in the future. None of this process is perfect...but it's not the worst history has seen. It's a work in progress and in a word, that is what perfection lacks: progress. Perfection is static, sterile, immutable in a mutable world, incapable of adaptation or assimilation, exclusive instead of inclusive, without any future of improvement or growth. Perfection only waits for decay and deterioration; once perfection is fully achieved, there is nowhere to go but down. The US, The Constitution, its citizens and some of the acts and decisions we do or make may not be perfect, be we are a hopeful lot always looking to improve, and, thanks to our founders, we have an idea of how to achieve our hopes...


<O>

[Mittelwaechter]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill


The true purpose to install a representative democracy is: it doesn't work as asserted.
It's a show for the 'freed slaves' on the plantation to make them believe they have a say what happens on the plantation - by electing some foremen - intended to overrule the plantation owner. (snicker)
These foremen don't have to work in the fields, are treated well and flattered, get a regular dinner invitation by the plantation owner - and his financial support for a re-election - if they perform as expected.

If they don't perform as expected, the plantation owner's media burn them alive on stage - in front of a hooting audience.

[Bilge_Rat]

I'm guessing that is an American Lamb.

[Mittelwaechter]

Or Swiss.

All the Swiss guys having served in the military have their gun and ammunition at home.
However, somehow they manage to keep it civilized in their little mountain homes.

And they have some kind of real democracy; not perfect, but superior.

[vienna]

But, then again, the Swiss face no real threat. They have firmly established themselves as the international monetary "washing machine" for all the ne'er-do-wells of the world, both governmental and private; they are protected by the fact none of their clientele want to see them go away lest it affect there ill-gotten gains. Swiss guns do not protect them: Swiss avarice is their shield. As for their "superior" form of democracy, the entire Swiss population is about 8 million citizens; that is 2 million less than the entire Los Angeles County, where I now reside. Direct democracy is an awful lot harder when there are a few hundred million citizens and their needs with which to deal. And, the Swiss do not have a full direct democracy; only two of the cantons are direct democracies, the rest are representative democracies, just like the US...


<O>