Posted on 10/05/2015 11:22:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
No one should be surprised that he can’t leave with dignity.
You're fixated on the politicians and they will not change unless a sufficient number of them are voted out office and those remaining change their ways. It is the voters who must understand why polticians habitually lie. Voters make their own rationalizations for continuing to vote for a politician with much seniority, even when that poltician goes mostly against the voters interests.
The voters have to understand the whys and then act upon it concerning the politicians who ignore voters except when up for reelection.
Politicians lie. For many, its their only “skill”. Its what they do. The type of person who goes into politics, with its horse trading culture, is inherently a deceptive person who like the perks of office and the feeling of power. Instead of producing useful goods and services and being held to performance standards to survive, like most people are, they are like termites who burrow into the government and feed from its trough of taxpayer money.
I’m not fixated, I’m just recognizing reality. You even acknowledge that “politicians habitually lie.” Politicians are what they are. They are inclined to do what benefits them personally rather than produce the results that the electorate wanted them to produce. Trust me, I’ve seen it first hand at high levels.
So if I hire you and you don’t perform as expected, you’re gone. It doesn’t matter which combination of 101 excuses it was, you didn’t produce. Just like in our personal and business lives, money talks and BS walks.
I thought the fix was in?
I wonder what Hugh Hewitts take will be....
You are calling the knowledge of why policiticians act as they do any excuse. I’m calling it a reason, or an explanation that voters will benefit from by understanding it.
All too many politicians answer to their biggest donors and not those who vote for them. When more voters understand that and begin basing their votes on it, we should elect more folks who actually represent the people.
You are having a debate with something other than what I have actually said.
That’s not the only thing McCarthy’s been screwing.
No kidding!
When more voters understand that and begin basing their votes on it, we should elect more folks who actually represent the people.
*************
You seem to think that if voters understand “why” politicians vote against the interests of the people who put them in office, they will elect someone more responsive. My view is I don’t care about the “why”. You also over simplify the issue in thinking that its just big money they respond to. As I said, politicians are horse traders who will swap votes for nearly any reason in exchange for future favors. They also respond to a wide variety of other factors and reasons too numerous to mention. Big money is just one factor.
We are not in a court of law where establishing motive is important. We are in the political environment and please understand this one thing: there can be a multiplicity of reasons for voting. I think that voters should not focus so much on the “why” as this will only further confuse them and make them subject to manipulation by professional manipulators. At the end of the day all that really matters is that the person you elected didn’t vote for your interests. You get more responsive politicians when you show them there are consequences.
If you say don’t vote for this guy because he’s on the take from special interest groups, that won’t stop the problem because the next guy will do the same thing once they’re in office. We see this time and again because politicians lie. Instead, you focus on their voting record. Keep it simple.
If someone steals from you do you really care about their motive? You only care about your loss and punishment for the crime.
In my view, trying to discern complex motives, especially in people who are “talented” in deceiving others, is an exercise in futility. Results are all that matters.
You’re the one oversimplifying. In the age of unlimited contributions thorugh super PACs, the power of the big donors is greater than it has ever been, and more apparent. We’ve seen cases where one billionaire has kept some candidates in presidential primairies through super Pac donations.
Voters have puzzled for years about why many politicians have ignored their wishes on immigration and trade deals and other issues, issues that 60%+ of Americans have opposed, since NAFTA and before. But the politicians still voted against the majority’s wishes.
Once voters find ways to organize and offset the power and influence of big donors, then they will have a chance to elect people who will actually repreasent them.
The use of the term “bought and paid for” has become more and more common for a reason, and the power of big donors is far and away the biggest reason politicians ignore the majority of voters who actually put them in office, and will continue to ignore then until the voters find ways to organize and elect politicians who are not bought and paid for.
And there is a reason for the term “follow the money”. You can piddle around with many other lesser factors, but it’s the money that is the major factor that influences our politicians’ votes these days.
Once voters find ways to organize and offset the power and influence of big donors, then they will have a chance to elect people who will actually repreasent them.
And there is a reason for the term “follow the money”.
**************************
The Tea Party was successful in getting many conservatives elected in 2010 that changed the composition of the congress, without obsessing over the influence of big money. Unfortunately, Republican leadership is corrupt and fought them relentlessly. But the point remains, more responsible people were elected based primarily on highlighting voting records and endorsements of other resected people.
I appreciate your concerns over the influence of money in politics. It’s a valid concern. But asking people to “follow the money” is a bridge too far for most ordinary citizens who have little time or inclination to get into the weeds of complex and myriad political funding machines for a multiplicity of candidates. Most people are challenged to focus on a sitcom for 30 minutes. Sadly, attention spans in this country are short, low information voters abound, and apathy is widespread.
However, the Tea Party demonstrated that it’s possible to elect people that actually represent them without trying to drag people through a labyrinth of money trails and associated political motivations. Not saying its not important or influential; its just too much financial detail and numbers for most people to follow.
How would you propose that voters organize and offset the power and influence of big donors? And given the innumerable sources of money, and a multiplicity of candidates and incumbents, how would you show all those byzantine money trails?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.