|
Just call him Kenny or Shithead or whatnot.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
ErIog posted:You are forcibly removing possible candidates from the pool. It is literally antidemocratic in the most logical and least politically-charged sense of the word. Career politician is a bad concept because it generates a political class distinct from its population. In the US, this class is beholden to oligarchs in the form of campaign money and cushy lobbyist/consultant positions. The preference for the rich is rather obvious, but things such as national security with the continued presence Afghanistan or anything involving the NSA, really, shows the disconnect between politicians and the polls. Many of these problems would be fixed by reforming how money is involved with campaigns, but I doubt it'd fix the problems with that inherent disconnect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
You all talk about Jindal's SOTU response as though he does not talk like that all the time. A national Jindal campaign would produce hilarious new fake-Mr. Rogers creeplordism daily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Career politician is a bad concept because it generates a political class distinct from its population. In the US, this class is beholden to oligarchs in the form of campaign money and cushy lobbyist/consultant positions. The preference for the rich is rather obvious, but things such as national security with the continued presence Afghanistan or anything involving the NSA, really, shows the disconnect between politicians and the polls. Noted campaign ad buyers... the NSA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Noted campaign ad buyers... the NSA?  Thats what they want you to think, its a secret plot by NASA to become relevant again
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Noted campaign ad buyers... the NSA? Eh? Nonono. That part was meant to show that politicians can have interests different from the public without direct financial incentives i.e. no campaign donations or job positions. EDIT: wording
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You all talk about Jindal's SOTU response as though he does not talk like that all the time. A national Jindal campaign would produce hilarious new fake-Mr. Rogers creeplordism daily. I dearly hope he runs, I'd love to see Rachel Maddow or someone bring up his attempted exorcism from a university
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The founding fathers notion of rotating citizen politicians was naive and did not take into account how much more complicated government would become over time. Or arguably, naively didn't take into account how complicated government was in their own time. Not only did career politicians appear pretty much immediately, but we also discovered right away that we needed a mulligan because it turns out that giving the next-in-line-to-be-Prez spot to the guy who lost the Presidential election and disagrees with the Prez about everything and potentially even hates him was a really dumb idea. Plus it turns out that even if you get together as a party to elect two guys who mostly agree, since everyone gets two votes and they're both for Prez it was really easy to gently caress it all up and accidentally tie, throwing the election to the House which might be controlled by the other party which hates your candidates and might reverse them just to gently caress with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Career politician is a bad concept because it generates a political class distinct from its population. How is that any different from saying that career dentist is a bad concept because it generates a dental class? You can learn politics and get good at it and be more effective if it's your job. It's just a type of specialization. Barbers used to do dental work but I think we'd all agree that's not a good idea now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Term limits don't really prevent the creation of "career" politicians anyway because politicians will just move on to another elected office instead of staying in the same one, or just go into lobbying/PACs so they can leverage their reputations and connections for money even more directly while acting as a malign influence on current office holders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Term limits don't really prevent the creation of "career" politicians anyway because politicians will just move on to another elected office instead of staying in the same one, or just go into lobbying/PACs so they can leverage their reputations and connections for money even more directly while acting as a malign influence on current office holders. Look at Jim DeMint. Promised to only serve three terms in the House, then ran for the Senate. Promised to only serve two terms in the Senate, now he makes three times as much money running the Heritage Foundation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:How is that any different from saying that career dentist is a bad concept because it generates a dental class? You can learn politics and get good at it and be more effective if it's your job. It's just a type of specialization. Barbers used to do dental work but I think we'd all agree that's not a good idea now. Career dentists make a living from dentistry so it's to their advantage to do what benefits them personally in cases where their own interests conflict with that of their patients. The founders rightly anticipated this problem, and we should heed them and return to a system of citizen-dentists who learned all their skills plying some other trade, which they leave for a short time to take up the practice of dentistry out of a sense of public duty, after which they return to private life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The founding fathers notion of rotating citizen politicians was naive and did not take into account how much more complicated government would become over time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:How is that any different from saying that career dentist is a bad concept because it generates a dental class? You can learn politics and get good at it and be more effective if it's your job. It's just a type of specialization. Barbers used to do dental work but I think we'd all agree that's not a good idea now. VitalSigns posted:Career dentists make a living from dentistry so it's to their advantage to do what benefits them personally in cases where their own interests conflict with that of their patients. I'm not really seeing the comparison. Politicians have much more power over society than any skilled worker and can vote to directly benefit themselves, a thing dentists cannot generally do. A good example of this would be the Obama administration in 2009 when he chose not to perform any investigation in the Bush administration. It wasn't populist pressure either. There was fairly broad support for some (not necessarily criminal) kind of investigation at the time: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/no-mandate-criminal-probes-bush-administration.aspx  In fact, in the first month of his presidency Obama and some republicans quashed an independent investigation in Spain according to a leaked cable. Such bipartisan support also occurred with Clinton and his handling of various Iran-Contra figures. I've made an effort not to use any examples with financial gain, as that would distract from the problems of a distinct political class. Career politicians create this class, which is why they are bad. And no, I don't really have any solutions to getting rid of them that don't require a bunch of constitutional amendments. I'm just making a point. - Pornographic Memory posted:Term limits don't really prevent the creation of "career" politicians anyway because politicians will just move on to another elected office instead of staying in the same one, or just go into lobbying/PACs so they can leverage their reputations and connections for money even more directly while acting as a malign influence on current office holders. I don't disagree with any of this. Term limits aren't very useful given the current political environment. - Additionally, while looking up stuff for this post, I found some good quotes: Candidate Obama: quote:"No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are." quote:"Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance of American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants, and authorized the use of procedures that both violate international law and the United States Constitution."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:I'm not really seeing the comparison. Politicians have much more power over society than any skilled worker and can vote to directly benefit themselves, a thing dentists cannot generally do. Obama served one term in the Senate and Clinton never held a federally elected office. How does that jive with your theory that term limits would have prevented any of what you said?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:A good example of this would be the Obama administration in 2009 when he chose not to perform any investigation in the Bush administration. To be fair, a Spanish (or any foreign) investigation would have back-fired in the US - even folks who might go along with a domestic investigation would FLIP OUT at the notion of letting a foreign country run an investigation, much less indict an American. Obama still should have pursued the investigation domestically, but I can't blame him for quashing the foreign one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Set your TiVo, we've got a debate scheduled!quote:2016 – FIRST GOP DEBATE announced by Reagan Library, in release with Simi Valley dateline: “The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation announced ... that potential GOP presidential candidates will be invited to participate in a televised debate at the Reagan Library on September 16, 2015. ‘Ronnie would be so pleased to know that his presidential library continues to attract America’s leaders to discuss the future of the country he loved so dearly,’ said former First Lady Nancy Reagan.” The RNC has already pushed back saying that it hasn't announced any sanctioned debates yet. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The RNC has already pushed back saying that it hasn't announced any sanctioned debates yet. It's going to be great to watch the RNC fall flat on it's face trying to prove that they're totally in control here. So many reasons that they can't actually do anything about it, even if they weren't guaranteed to be trying to reason with the greatest collection of insane and psychopathic candidates in living memory. God is personally telling them to run, who is the man made RNC to get in the way of that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Even better, it's the Reagan library. So either they have to deny their graven idol, or acquiesce and put blood in the water for more debate locations to toss their hat in. Can we be so lucky as to get a 2012 primary repeat? Do we deserve such a bounty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
The stupid thing is that there WILL be RNC-independent debates and a lot of candidates WILL appear at them. In fact, it may get to the point where all the candidates show at non-RNC-sanctioned debates just to avoid being smacked around when they don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
God I can't wait for people to run for president. For all the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:The stupid thing is that there WILL be RNC-independent debates and a lot of candidates WILL appear at them. In fact, it may get to the point where all the candidates show at non-RNC-sanctioned debates just to avoid being smacked around when they don't. If they don't show up to a debate they should get an empty chair in their place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Piell posted:If they don't show up to a debate they should get an empty chair in their place. Bonus points if they ask the empty chair/podium questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Piell posted:If they don't show up to a debate they should get an empty chair in their place. The Value Voters debate with empty chairs in 2008 was amazing. They asked questions to empty chairs and then cut to shots of the chair for a few seconds. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
That was actually one of the least crazy parts of that debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
If we're lucky they may dig up some dead bodies and debate those on TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:If we're lucky they may dig up some dead bodies and debate those on TV. Just goes to show, you may be Sky Admiral crazy, but are you 10th century catholic crazy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Just goes to show, you may be Sky Admiral crazy, but are you 10th century catholic crazy? Do you get points for like the Neverending Story's Rockbitter, or lose points for watching that unchristian trash?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Radish posted:If we're lucky they may dig up some dead bodies and debate those on TV. After canceling him at the last minute of the 2012 convention, they need to bring out the Reagan hologram in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
duz posted:After canceling him at the last minute of the 2012 convention, they need to bring out the Reagan hologram in 2016. Only if it has Max Headroom glitchiness. "Th-th-there-re you g-go again."
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
duz posted:After canceling him at the last minute of the 2012 convention, they need to bring out the Reagan hologram in 2016. I want them to have him doing a full dance from a Shirley Temple movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Just goes to show, you may be Sky Admiral crazy, but are you 10th century catholic crazy? Santorum is absolutely 10th century catholic crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Santorum is absolutely 10th century catholic crazy. He better man up and buy a shovel then if he wants to compete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
duz posted:After canceling him at the last minute of the 2012 convention, they need to bring out the Reagan hologram in 2016. The Democrats should start up a campaign with the Reagan hologram and convince true-blue republicans to actually vote for him in the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bonus points if they ask the empty chair/podium questions. Liveposting that was my favorite moment in LF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Santorum is absolutely 10th century catholic crazy. He'd be considered a heretic by 10th century Catholics, I'm quite sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Only if it has Max Headroom glitchiness. "Th-th-there-re you g-go again." Just use the Reagan screen from BTTF II
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here's how you destroy Jindal in a general: Play the whole SOTU response tape. Buy the time. Get'r done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuUe88ATa_c Chris Matthews: Oh God
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
I think Santorum has it covered on the body thing already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Democrats should start up a campaign with the Reagan hologram and convince true-blue republicans to actually vote for him in the election. And use the Futurama clause to support it, it's clearly not the same body running, so it's constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 22:50
|
|