Blaming politicians

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

06 Jul 2012, 1:46 am

FDR and Obama shouldn't be compared to each other. The one was elected for four mandates (though he died quickly in the last one) and whatever is said about his economic record will be dwarfed by the memory of his war achievements. The other is a very alive and present politician, with only one unfinished mandate on his record.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Jul 2012, 5:19 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

FDR was just better then Obama, the fact that. People want to compare the two is stupid.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

06 Jul 2012, 6:50 pm

TM wrote:

In the European debt crisis and in the US there is widespread blaming of the whole thing on bankers and politicians. While there is no doubt that banks carry their fair share of blame, for giving people loans they couldn't afford, for helping countries conceal their actual financial status, for creating financial weapons of mass destruction, for over-leveraging to increase returns and so on.

Politicians carry the blame for not regulating the financial system properly, for creating loopholes, for not having sufficient integrity to represent the interest of their voters, for gutting the regulatory system and so on. However, the difference between the two is that one is employed by a private company and was doing what that private company wanted him or her to do to best serve the interest of the company, the shareholders and management. If and when it came out that a person had not represented the best interest of the shareholders, the company and management, they were let go.

In the case of the politicians, many of them are still doing the same thing they have been doing for years, without sufficient outrage or sanctions from the voters.

So, I suppose my question and the focus of this topic is, should voters to a greater extent have to accept that their poor decisions in the voting booths result in negative consequences for them? Secondly, how high can the expectations on the knowledge and experience of the average voter be?

That's basically why we pay politicians in the first place, so we can blame them.

I mean, duh?

_________________
.

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

06 Jul 2012, 6:56 pm

Joker wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

FDR was just better then Obama, the fact that. People want to compare the two is stupid.

What you said just proved my point.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Jul 2012, 8:07 pm

i don't blame the pols, only the people who vote for them.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2012, 8:10 pm

auntblabby wrote:

i don't blame the pols, only the people who vote for them.

Then you forgive people who do not vote at all?

ruveyn

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Jul 2012, 8:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:

auntblabby wrote:

i don't blame the pols, only the people who vote for them.

Then you forgive people who do not vote at all?

if they fail to vote for any republicans, obviously i won't blame them at all.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Jul 2012, 8:56 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Joker wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

FDR was just better then Obama, the fact that. People want to compare the two is stupid.

What you said just proved my point.

Sweet

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

07 Jul 2012, 12:20 am

Not your point. My point. They are exactly opposite.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

07 Jul 2012, 8:05 pm

Or , are they?

_________________
.

SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

08 Jul 2012, 11:29 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:

IMO the blame trickles down to the Media. Why is the public so poorly informed? Because our media is a total circus. People trying to following the talking heads are confused by what is mostly rhetoric with little substance. Or our 24 Cable News fills time arguing over social issues, scandals, or the random kidnapping/murder of the month story.

True there is some responsibility on the voter and we should all try to educate ourselves, but many people that are busy just getting by paycheck to paycheck. Also beyond that we are mired in a 2 party system that is a turn off to a lot of people. This same 2 party system is so entrenched they've hijacked the presidential debates. Ever since Perot they've worked together to pushout independents and 3rd parties. They even threatened Nader with arrest when he showed up outside a Presidential debate.

So I do think ample blame goes to the 2 party system and a complicit media that does lazy journalism.

I agree with you on this. All the media really cares about is ratings (money), and they don't really care about the collateral damage (misled Americans, for example), that it causes. The two party system is horrible. Neither side is really doing much to better America. All they seem to care about, is telling people what they want to hear, giving special treatment to certain people, and attacking the other party, in order to get votes. The 3rd party is pretty much the 3rd wheel. They really don't have the money or support to compete against the "big dogs". So, basically, voters are left with trying to choose the lesser of the two evils. I don't vote for this reason.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

08 Jul 2012, 11:56 pm

SilverStar wrote:

voters are left with trying to choose the lesser of the two evils. I don't vote for this reason.

if you were thirsty and somebody offered you a cup of water which was half-full, and another person offered you a cup full of turpentine, which would you choose?

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Jul 2012, 11:45 am

Joker wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

FDR was just better then Obama, the fact that. People want to compare the two is stupid.

That's odd as the policies of FDR were the kinds of things fiscal conservatives go bonkers over when it comes to Obama, only taken to the hundredth power.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Jul 2012, 12:10 pm

Oodain wrote:

well to a certain extent entitlements are the issue,

i read it as distinct from basic neccesities for life though.

in some countries politicians can change their own rewards so to speak and that can create immense issues and a huge vested interest in remaining in office.

But Americans lump in basic social policies like social security and healthcare in with "entitlements". Those things are meant to be social safety nets, NOT entitlements. I'd be theoretically okay with increasing the retirement age given that people are living longer, but at the current time there are simply not enough jobs to go around so the aging population who live comfortably need an incentive to retire to make room for those younger precarious underemployed/unemployed people who are not eligible for any assistance.

Also, conservatives in this country have been threatening to erode social safety nets through privatization for decades now, so it isn't any wonder they lose votes. Democrats don't have to promise anything to get votes. People will vote Dem simply to stop the Republicans and their drastic plans for austerity and privatization. The Dems are actually the conservatives (in the traditional sense of defending the status quo) while the conservatives are radical in the sense that they want to replace government social insurance programs with "free market solutions" (code words for rule of the jungle sink or swim social darwinism).

SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

09 Jul 2012, 6:27 pm

auntblabby wrote:

SilverStar wrote:

voters are left with trying to choose the lesser of the two evils. I don't vote for this reason.

if you were thirsty and somebody offered you a cup of water which was half-full, and another person offered you a cup full of turpentine, which would you choose?

A more appropriate analogy would be:

If somebody offered me a half-full cup of turpentine, and another person offered me a full cup of turpentine, which one would I choose? Answer? Neither, because both are poisonous. When someone with a cup of water does come along, then maybe I will choose that person.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Jul 2012, 9:19 pm

SilverStar wrote:

auntblabby wrote:

SilverStar wrote:

voters are left with trying to choose the lesser of the two evils. I don't vote for this reason.

if you were thirsty and somebody offered you a cup of water which was half-full, and another person offered you a cup full of turpentine, which would you choose?

for me, i am forced to choose the lesser of two evils because the optimum is locked out of our dysfunctional political process. every time the greater of two evils wins i [and my working class fellows] gets it up the tailpipe sans ky, while at least when the lesser of two evils was in office i still got it up the tailpipe but with a little ky at least. IOW it hurts a bit less when the lesser of two evils is in office.

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Blaming politicians Post Reply New Topic

Blaming politicians