Humorless Politics Thread

[Matt]

Someone said this somewhere, and I largely agree: career politicians are one of the major cancers on our political system. Instead of viewing politics as a public service, people try to make a career out of it. So, instead of voting how they actually feel on any given issue, a career politician votes solely to ensure their own job security. A lot of potential progress gets thrown out the window in this way.

I guess it boils down to the trifecta of Career Politicians/Campaign Finance/Lobbyists. An opposition completely unwilling to engage in the lawmaking process and our piss-poor media just exacerbate things.

[Christina]

Someone said this somewhere, and I largely agree: career politicians are one of the major cancers on our political system. Instead of viewing politics as a public service, people try to make a career out of it. So, instead of voting how they actually feel on any given issue, a career politician votes solely to ensure their own job security. A lot of potential progress gets thrown out the window in this way.

I guess it boils down to the trifecta of Career Politicians/Campaign Finance/Lobbyists. An opposition completely unwilling to engage in the lawmaking process and our piss-poor media just exacerbate things.

That's why I says vote crackpot!

[Pat K]

Someone said this somewhere, and I largely agree: career politicians are one of the major cancers on our political system. Instead of viewing politics as a public service, people try to make a career out of it. So, instead of voting how they actually feel on any given issue, a career politician votes solely to ensure their own job security. A lot of potential progress gets thrown out the window in this way.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what's the alternative tough - "amateur" politicians? Politicians that have other careers or sources of income outside of politics? Even if the politician's career isn't politics per se, wouldn't they be just as tempted to vote for their own job security on issues affecting whatever their other career is anyway? It seems like no matter what, in a representative democracy there's always going to be the risk of representatives voting for their own interests vs those of their constituents.

I don't know what the real answer is, here. I'm just thinking as I'm typing.

[Matt]

I guess the real solution would be to undo millions of years of human evolution and learn to think within the context of the "greater good".

Or maybe all the politicians should just be more like Bulworth.

[chuck from cedar rapids]

The Supreme Court just made me vomit in my lap: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/?hp

[Chris L]

What a dynamic political system we have.  President Scott Brown was recalled in only two days and replaced with President Exxon-Mobil.

[yesno]

The Supreme Court just made me vomit in my lap: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/?hp

Couple that with the fact the corporations are only allowed to make expenditures that are in their financial interest and a lack of meaningful shareholder control (via anti-shareholder biases in places like Delaware and institutional separation via public pension funds), and the "owners" of the companies whose free speech rights are supposedly protected at the end of the day have no knowledge or control over whether the corporation is acting in their overall interest, and little ability to change the corporation's tune even if they found out that it was.

[Steve of Bloomington]

Mo' money, mo' free speech.

[not that clay]

The Supreme Court just made me vomit in my lap: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/?hp

Couple that with the fact the corporations are only allowed to make expenditures that are in their financial interest and a lack of meaningful shareholder control (via anti-shareholder biases in places like Delaware and institutional separation via public pension funds), and the "owners" of the companies whose free speech rights are supposedly protected at the end of the day have no knowledge or control over whether the corporation is acting in their overall interest, and little ability to change the corporation's tune even if they found out that it was.

The Republicans on the court even went out of their way to say there's no disclosure. So if a foreign country set up a front company in America they could funnel a billion dollars into the Republican party and no one could ever know. I'm sure that will happen now.

[moonshake]

Please don't mind me breaking the thread rule.

http://trueslant.com/davidrees/2010/01/21/5-jokes-about-the-apparent-eagerness-of-certain-democratic-members-of-congress-to-abandon-health-care-reform-in-light-of-scott-browns-electoral-victory/

[Big Plastic Head]

Please don't mind me breaking the thread rule.

http://trueslant.com/davidrees/2010/01/21/5-jokes-about-the-apparent-eagerness-of-certain-democratic-members-of-congress-to-abandon-health-care-reform-in-light-of-scott-browns-electoral-victory/

These are worth repeating.



What a waste.

[Smelodies]

I propose everyone just mark their preference between "milk chocolate" and "dark chocolate". DARK CHOCOLATE IN 2010! We're better for your health!

Unfair fight.  Milk chocolate would nearly always win, and my candidate, as usual, would almost always lose. 

Milk chocolate proponents crumble when you ask them to imagine milk chocolate for chips in chocolate chip cookies.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I'm voting for semisweet, the Nader of chocolate.

I read that the disclosure thing was just Clarence Thomas, that even the other conservatives agreed to leave that in.  This sucks, though.

[Trembling Eagle]

Air America just folded.


conservatives just want IT more.

[Martin]

So...

Massachusetts, Conan/Leno, the Supreme Court thing, Air America.

What's next?