U.S. Politics, 12

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

I'm not fond of private agreements that demand individuals surrender fundemental rights like the ability to provide financial support to a candidate of their choice. This bothers me.

[Inigima]

We should expect our leaders to be well-informed because I want leaders who are well-informed because it pleases me to meet my expectations and I expect leaders to be well-informed...

I, for one, do not want to be ruled by elitist technocrats, and it seems that most of my fellow Americans are right with me on that score.

You're fucking horrifying.

I want smart elected officials and not dumb ones because dumb people do dumb things. How is it not self-evident that it's better to make smart decisions, and that smart people are more likely to make smart decisions? We have goals as a country, and those are more likely to be accomplished by people who think about issues and draw reasonable conclusions.

I swear, I'm terrified for my fucking country if there is not widespread agreement on these things.

[Old Nan]

So smart people = elitist technocrats?

Smart people whose political careers succeed for being smarter-than-thou... well, yeah.

I want smart elected officials and not dumb ones because dumb people do dumb things.

Possibly. But, as they say, to err is human. I don't want to be a cog in a perfect machine. I want to live as a flawed animal among other flawed animals, in a world where dumb things occasionally happen.

We have goals as a country

No, we really don't. If this is where you're coming from, I can understand how you'd want the most efficient and focused people possible working in support of your teleology, but it's not where we're all coming from. This is, or at any rate should be, a free country for free people.

[Ken Stone]

We should expect our leaders to be well-informed because I want leaders who are well-informed because it pleases me to meet my expectations and I expect leaders to be well-informed...

I, for one, do not want to be ruled by elitist technocrats, and it seems that most of my fellow Americans are right with me on that score.

Did you just poo-pah the notion of having well-informed leaders? I sort of thought that was a basic criteria that most people used when deciding who to vote for. Guess it shows how well-informed I am, considering the popularity of Palin and the Tea Party.

So if we shouldn't use that as a determination of who to vote for, what criteria should we use? Vote for who ever bats their eyelashes the best?

[Jaxtile]

No no, vote for whomever panders to the lowest common denominator.

[Old Nan]

Guess it shows how well-informed I am, considering the popularity of Palin and the Tea Party.

So if you didn't actually "[think being well-informed] was a basic criteria that most people used when deciding who to vote for" – as it clearly is not–, what's your point?

I'll put it this way: would you rather have Ron Paul or Barbara Boxer as your voice in Congress? Because one knows what he's talking about–could be completely wrong, for all I know, but he's well-informed–and the other's a complete dim bulb who has built a career on voicing mushy platitudes that correspond to the feelings and resemble the aspect of a large bloc of voters.

[Fez]

We should expect our leaders to be well-informed because I want leaders who are well-informed because it pleases me to meet my expectations and I expect leaders to be well-informed...

I, for one, do not want to be ruled by elitist technocrats, and it seems that most of my fellow Americans are right with me on that score.

When hiring a plumber, I want the one who knows the most about plumbing...

When work done on my car, I want the mechanic who knows the ins and outs of my type of car better than anyone...

When getting my computer fixed, I want the biggest possible nerd I can find...

When I need leaders for my country, I want the ones who know about the issues it faces and ways to deal with them...

Its always the same principle, and its not fucking difficult to understand.

[Ken Stone]

No, we really don't. If this is where you're coming from, I can understand how you'd want the most efficient and focused people possible working in support of your teleology, but it's not where we're all coming from. This is, or at any rate should be, a free country for free people.

So protecting US Citizens at home and abroad isn't a goal of the US gov't? Shouldn't it be?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Lev, those are the clients who deserve you to find cause. I mean, what are their lawyers supposed to do? Be like, yeah, okay, it was pretext. Whatever. That lawyer probably doesn't care about you guys and is preserving stuff for appeal.

I think I've filed over 100 position statements with the EEOC or OCRC, and have a grand total of 1 probable cause. I've also taken over three matters from other folks after there were initial probable cause findings, and had them reversed on a redetermination.

So I rather like my batting average. :)

[C S]

So if you didn't actually "[think being well-informed] was a basic criteria that most people used when deciding who to vote for" – as it clearly is not–, what's your point?

I'll put it this way: would you rather have Ron Paul or Barbara Boxer as your voice in Congress? Because one knows what he's talking about–could be completely wrong, for all I know, but he's well-informed–and the other's a complete dim bulb who has built a career on voicing mushy platitudes that correspond to the feelings and resemble the aspect of a large bloc of voters.

I'd rather have Boxer, because her politics happen to agree with mine. That doesn't mean that I'm going to label an intelligent, well informed, intellectually consistent person such as Ron Paul as an elitist, just because he disagrees with me.

[Guest Raidne]

Nice work, FLOW!

Of course, following the trend of the thread, perhaps I would not want someone who knows anything about employment law to be my employment lawyer, because they are all fucking employment law elitists who are not in touch with the common people.

Want to know about legislation by the common people? Do a little survey of ballot initiatives over the history of that pernicious trend. What's not stupid is as often as not promptly overturned by the courts, which, incidentally, would probably be a good reason to have some familiarity with what the courts have held.

Not that, IMO, someone does not necessarily know these things just because they can't come up with the name of a case.

[Ken Stone]

So if you didn't actually "[think being well-informed] was a basic criteria that most people used when deciding who to vote for" – as it clearly is not–, what's your point?

I'll put it this way: would you rather have Ron Paul or Barbara Boxer as your voice in Congress? Because one knows what he's talking about–could be completely wrong, for all I know, but he's well-informed–and the other's a complete dim bulb who has built a career on voicing mushy platitudes that correspond to the feelings and resemble the aspect of a large bloc of voters.

I'm not familiar with Boxer, but I like Ron Paul. Since I'm not well-informed about Boxer it doesn't seem appropriate to answer your question. See how that works?

Give me someone with good-judgement and a flexible mind, whom I disagree with policy-wise. I can accept that reasonable people can disagree.

[Shryke]

I think his actions were quite hypocritical considering his recent criticism of Fox News for their financial support of conservative organizations. I think it is pretty commonplace for most news media outlets to prohibit financial or volunteer support of political causes for all journalists including commentators.

For the record, I am a regular viewer of the show and watch it 3 to 5 times a week, most weeks (yep, I'm a flaming liberal pinko commie). :commie:

There's a difference between a private citizen and a news organization though.

[Old Nan]

When I need leaders for my country, I want the ones who know about the issues it faces and ways to deal with them...

Its always the same principle, and its not fucking difficult to understand.

It's always the same principle–provided one buys into your belief that it's the same principle because politicians fit into the category of "people working to accomplish things", but not all of us really care all that much about issues. In fact, I'd guess that most of us really don't care about issues, although we'll happy proselytize about them when political season comes along. But that concern is an effect, not a cause.

So protecting US Citizens at home and abroad isn't a goal of the US gov't? Shouldn't it be?

Something that vague should never be a goal of any powerful organization, because it inevitably results in the powerful organization accruing more power without getting one whit closer to accomplishing the goal.

So waging war against terrorism at home and abroad isn't a goal of the US gov't? Shouldn't it be?

[Ken Stone]

[...]the other's a complete dim bulb who has built a career on voicing mushy platitudes that correspond to the feelings and resemble the aspect of a large bloc of voters.

Oh you mean Palin. Yeah, I wouldn't vote for her even if I agreed with her politics. I think you made your point.

[Shryke]

It's OLD NAN people. Have you learned nothing since the last time (s)he posted in a politics thread?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

A good point.

[C S]

There's a difference between a private citizen and a news organization though.

Yes, but not much when your the face of a particular news organization.

[Inigima]

No, we really don't. If this is where you're coming from, I can understand how you'd want the most efficient and focused people possible working in support of your teleology, but it's not where we're all coming from. This is, or at any rate should be, a free country for free people.

We do, and they're ones that -- I would hope -- you'd agree with.

Collectively, I would think everyone can agree on these goals:

- a strong economy in which citizens prosper economically

- a safe country, to the extent that we can reasonably offer such a thing

- all other things being equal, we prefer that people not die from things like lack of medical care, lack of food, lack of water, etc.

- generally that people be free to do what they like, with certain notable exceptions like stabbing each other in the throat

This list is not necessarily inclusive, but I'd like to think that generally we all agree these are positive outcomes. We disagree on the extent to which the government has a role to play in these things, how much if at all we can afford to offer these things, and so forth. But I hope we would all like these things to be true, and the tussle is mainly over who's got better ideas for making them happen.

[Ken Stone]

It's always the same principleprovided one buys into your belief that it's the same principle because politicians fit into the category of "people working to accomplish things", but not all of us really care all that much about issues. In fact, I'd guess that most of us really don't care about issues, although we'll happy proselytize about them when political season comes along. But that concern is an effect, not a cause.

Something that vague should never be a goal of any powerful organization, because it inevitably results in the powerful organization accruing more power without getting one whit closer to accomplishing the goal.

So waging war against terrorism at home and abroad isn't a goal of the US gov't? Shouldn't it be?

If only there were something out there, I don't know a document or something, that described what the goals of the US Gov't were. Maybe if I were more well-informed I would be aware of something of that nature.