Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?Page 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Is the threat of political or character assassination stopping the good politician's from tackling the big issues and making any reform?

Is trying to get a politician to act for us a lost cause because of threats made to them and theirs? I'm starting to think so, hence not counting on them.

Would a "good" politician even make it to our ballot? If so, would they last?

Is this why voter turnout is so low?
 kcycrs
Joined: 11/23/2006
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/29/2014 6:15:23 PM
The short answer is: Because it's not in THEIR best interest to do so. The people who speak the loudest are too partisan and entrenched in their own ideology. And the politicians just follow suit (primarily because they seek re-election). "OUR" best interest is not the same for everyone. [It's telling that you capitalized the word "our" rather than "best"]. Divergent groups may have the same ultimate goal. But how each group wants to achieve said goal can differ greatly.

Democrats and liberals are no better than Republicans and conservatives when it comes to pointing fingers and citing blame for failures. And each side castigates the other, dismissing any ideas offer by the other.

Until the electorate stops thinking in their own little groups ("What can X do for me and and mine") and seeks the BEST course of action in the interest of everyone as a whole we will be forever be mired with ineffective leadership.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/29/2014 7:53:05 PM
kcrcrs: stressing "best" would have been better.

( "OUR" was referring to the 99% of the population that doesn't have must control over what our politician's do for us.)

Sorry for the unclear thread title.

I was looking for the why's, and if threats were a big reason why politician's can't/won't tackle big issues. It seems alternative news journalists have more guts than they do and the politician's on our ballots seem to me; a pretty lame, handpicked by the rich, bunch of pushovers. Lame "choices"may be why people have given up on voting because they don't trust the system or any of the "choices" presented to them. hilary? jeb? harper? C'mon, are these "choices" REALLY the best we can come up with? I don't think so and I don't think WE did.

By not participating in the voting system a lot of people are saying they don't trust the system or the "choices" made available to them. They are also probably thinking that a good politician would probably be destroyed one way or another if they ever got a chance to make it to the top, so why bother? Besides, by participating in a system that is crooked they may believe they are supporting it and allowing it to continue. Opting out of voting and counting on no one but themselves to make the changes they want to see in the world, IS a choice and by opting out, it may just crash the crooked system. (if everyone did it).

It seems there are fewer and fewer avenues to take (besides dropping out of the system and doing it yourself ) that will get these control freaks out of power and good changes made.

I think canada has one good member of parliament in Elizabeth May and the rest work for greedos and she has a hell of a time dealing with the idiots around her and the underhanded tricks they use to shut her up.

She is the only person I ever voted for and I'm not sure that it will make a difference. I'm also not sure she will be able to survive political life unscathed. I hope so but I don't KNOW so.
 Iredurbio2
Joined: 4/18/2013
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/29/2014 9:27:26 PM
Over the last few years our government has made it harder and harder to find out exactly what they are up to or how much they're spending and on what.They are pretty insulated.Not to mention the not so supreme courts ruling on corporate bribes.1 billion dollars to run for president?We're done!
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/30/2014 1:39:24 AM
Politicians are part of the population, not some alien species. If we want politicians to care about us more, that means we all need to care about others more.

Vive la révolution!
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/30/2014 11:27:20 AM
Well there's the possibility that many more than you think, do not want what you think everyone should. While doing what the masses wants sounds good, it's not, many times you have to do what's right, not what's popular. Many of the people shouting don't have a fig of an idea about what is really going on. And last, but certainly not least, they are doing what's best for them, and mostly what they can get done considering how many people/companies are in their pocket demanding to be fed.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/30/2014 2:01:41 PM
I'm a fix-it guy, who works on lots of different kinds of machines. I also studied the machines of human beavior, via History research. That's why I see things such as this, from a mechanism point of view, which I will commend to you for consideration.

I made up a personal "wise saying" about it:

"If every time you walk up to a machine and pull the lever on it, a bunch of poop lands on your head, you should give serious and deep consideration to the likelihood that the machine in question, is designed to dump crap on your head."

In the case of why we get the kind of people we do as candidates, the answer is, that the machinery of Candidate Selection is designed to give us this kind of people.

All political parties tend to do the exact same thing: they select from amongst themselves, not someone who wants to "act in the best interests of the whole populace," they select someone that has proven to THEM, that they are loyal to the PARTY'S goals.

Some candidates are, by chance, both good at manipulating their official Party's internal mechanisms, AND they are good at their actual elected jobs, but this is unfortunately JUST a chance occurrence.



Anyway, if what you want to do, is to change what happens when you pull that lever, you have to change the design of the machine. Part of the problem at this point, is that our entire society tends, not to reward the people with the best intentions, but the people who are the most aggressive, while not being outright vicious.

Here's an amusing link from The Onion about this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/humanity-surprised-it-still-hasnt-figured-out-bett,36361/

It's a spoof, but it does cover the ground pretty well.

Better questions to ask:

1. How do we, as citizens, cause political parties to STOP trying to give us candidates grown in their own, carefully cultivated, very private gardens, and instead nominate people who were born and grew up in the real world?

2. How do we redesign the electoral process, so that candidates DON'T have to make the extremely rich insiders happy enough to fund them?

3. Most important, how do we effect these changes, in the face of the fact that we have to use the existing defective mechanisms, and insider rich guys to do so?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 8
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 6/30/2014 6:24:40 PM

Would a "good" politician even make it to our ballot? If so, would they last?


Political candidates are carefully vetted out by their respective party,
but even if someone goes in with genuinely good intentions, it does not mean that they'll be allowed to carry out what they strive for once they are in!

No party is gonna allow one of theirs to do something "good' that also makes the opposing party look good
we've seen that in Washington for years and years.

Any and all newly elected Congressmen & senators are under scrutiny from the higher-ups
they are expected to perform in such a way that they tow the party line with no exceptions
if anyone dares to be different, they'll be assigned to some obscure committee that will bury them in paperwork or some other form of red tape that they'll have no impact on their seat; and as such, they'll be targeted for political assassination come the next election cycle. That is accomplished by lack of funds & support!
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 9
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/1/2014 6:12:55 PM
what happens when politicians don't act in our best interest? we raise more money for them.

what happens when the politicians don't act in the interest of big government? they don't get hired at lobbyists when they lose the election.

still, you can look at ancient Greeks' complaints about their democracy...and you'll find similar sounds. human nature don't change much.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/2/2014 1:09:27 PM
You can call a spade a spade, you just can't call a spade a fool, or any other rude name.

There's no "conspiracy" stuff going on in this thread. You are imagining things into it. So far, everyone has been putting forth guesses, I think most of them reasonable, about why politicians act as they do.

Another thought to consider in this: why do many people think politicians ARE supposed to act in the peoples/nations best interest, anyway? Is it REALLY a part of our national heritage, or is it just the mythology of it all that is our heritage?

After all, this country was founded by people who rebelled against the British Crown for reasons other than "freedom and justice for all." They certainly had no intention at the time, of seeing to EVERYONE having a good time, just the merchant class and the upper class. Somewhere along the line, to sell the whole thing, some very idealistic things were said, and have been enshrined in our lingo, but we are STILL no where near living up to them all. We had to fight more than one bloody conflict amongst ourselves over it all, and none of those conflicts were brought to a complete conclusion.

The modern day effort by some to "return to the intentions of our forefathers," has very little to do with ideals such as equality. That's WHY they keep harping on "what our forefathers really meant." The original American Constitution did NOT hold all citizens to be equal, or to be as important to the nation as any other citizen. That's part of why we had to amend it a bunch of times.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 11
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/2/2014 8:47:55 PM

The problem is politicians act in the best interest of those that elect them, but not in the best interest of the country as a whole.


We have seen the arrival of 80k illegal children over the Texas border this year alone
The human traffickers know that the legal system is hand-cuffed and in disarray, and are thereby making their runs.
More and more of these children are poised to arrive, and nothing effectively is being done to stem this tide

John Boehner has stated that "immigration reform is not on the table" for his side
Congress has shut down for the Holiday recess (as though they deserve to have this break).
Obama has pledged to take action by "fiat" if congress does not tackle this matter
The GOp is threatening to "sue" Obama, if he does, no matter what it costs the taxpayers.
Obama is not intimidated.

The GOP is HELLbent on opposing Obama on anything and at any cost.
If this isn't a perfect example of how our politicians are "fiddling" while "rome is burning" then I don't know what is!
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/3/2014 5:36:23 AM

P.S. Just because America isn't what it ought to be, doesn't mean it oughtn't be what it was ought to have been.


If that's an argument for continuing to try to be the best that we can be, then I'm all for it.

If it's an argument for trying to become what the "first rebels" wanted us to be, then I'm against it. Not the least of my reasons for opposition, is that the "first rebels" themselves couldn't agree on what we ought to be, so there's no POINT to trying to emulate or "obey" them.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/3/2014 11:04:56 AM
The immigration of children is actually human kidnapping from mexican families by the drug cartel in mexico. (They aren't making their pot profits like they used to and the heroine route is skipping them.)

Mexican's are going to need to get rid of the cartels and the crooks too or it will only get worse for the poor kids. Waaay worse.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/3/2014 11:07:58 AM

Obama caused this spike in immigration by sending out his message. Now he's offering a solution, outside of congress. "Borrowing" congressional power. Pretty standard. Problem, reaction, solution. The “Hegelian Dialectic”.

Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which has been predetermined from the beginning.


Yes, I can see how you WANT to blame everything on Obama. You should get some actual facts straight before you pounce, however.

There's no such thing as "borrowing" Congressional authority. The closest there is to someone saying that which I can find, is from a Rush Limbaugh blog (neither a reliable or an unbiased source), claiming that Sen.****Durban said:" 'I don't know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today. And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.'"

Even if that quote is accurate, Durban didn't say CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY was to be borrowed.

So go ahead and express very justifiable ire at Durban for sloppy speech. But there is no support for the suggestion that this is a plot of some sort by Obama.

It is certainly true as well, that for Republicans to complain about over-reaching Executive Orders is even worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it's the pot complaining that pots shouldn't be allowed to exist.
 Baffalobill
Joined: 6/18/2014
Msg: 15
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/10/2014 3:36:10 AM
When the Government-(Australia) the majority of people voted for good or bad gets over run by a senate minority, The peoples very own democracy means less and less.
In a short story... Its the system that has to change...
 etourdi65
Joined: 1/23/2014
Msg: 16
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/15/2014 8:08:20 AM

And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.'"
Ok why don't you explain exactly to what he was referring in the context of the rest of his statement. If Obama has the authority to do something on amnesty what did he need to borrow?


It is certainly true as well, that for Republicans to complain about over-reaching Executive Orders is even worse than the pot calling the kettle black
Not really sure if there is a valid point in this statement. Can you give a Constitutional based justification for the Obama executive orders that people question? The Attorney General of the United States even struggled with that question.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/17/2014 9:18:46 PM
There are a few politicians who really are in it for the betterment of the public.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the 2 who come quickly to mind.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are only there to serve the interests of their masters who paid their way.
And.... that's not you.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 18
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/24/2014 10:21:09 AM
they should ask the NSA--the only ones in government who actually listen--for copies.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/25/2014 1:07:48 PM

In his two presidential terms combined, Bush hosted 318 fundraisers. Obama has already smashed that number with 393 events to date.
ROTFLMAO ...

Oh dear ... the things people come up with to complain about!

President Obama has to do more fundraising than the GOP folks ... it's not that easy to raise money when folks only have a few dollars to give. Democrats don't have millions to give in one big chunk like the Teabaggers and their brethren.

I wonder what the data shows on presidential time spent on vacations. I'm willing to bet Bush takes that cake.

At least while the president is out fundraising, he's also enlightening folks. What did Bush do for the people while he was on all his paid vacations?
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/27/2014 10:56:22 AM

I wonder what the data shows on presidential time spent on vacations. I'm willing to bet Bush takes that cake.

I doubt it. I bet he doesn't even come in a close second to Reagan.
 kcycrs
Joined: 11/23/2006
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 7/27/2014 11:16:02 AM
My question is why do you people spend so much time bashing the "other" party and playing the blame game rather than seeking a correct course of action? As long as the goal remains to get a candidate elected because he or she is a member of your party of choice very little true change will happen. And those changes will likely be repealed (or watered down) when the party in power is "overturned". I can't emphasis this enough: Stop kowtowing to political parties and THEIR interest. Because their true interest in just getting re-elected.
 Strings6
Joined: 7/14/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:43:02 AM
Politicians act in the best intrest of themselves first and those like them second,people who work and play by the rules no longer matter,we are here to provide the labor and finances to support the lifestyles of the non productive and non contributing,we work they play,they want we pay.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 23
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 1:07:00 PM
according to factcheck.org:

Q: Has President Obama taken more vacation time than his predecessors?

A: According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."



FULL ANSWER

President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and is known for keeping detailed records on presidential travel, counts the following among President Obama’s "vacations" in 2009:

■A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.
■An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.
■ A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.
■An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.
Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama. According to travel records provided to FactCheck.org by the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the former president took six trips — spanning all or part of 40 days — to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1989. The archivist at Bush’s presidential library told us she didn’t have a list of all vacations but did have the Kennebunkport visits.

But at least two recent presidents — by Knoller’s count — took less "vacation" time during their first year than President Obama — Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

According to Knoller, Carter spent just 19 days "on vacation" in 1977. Most of that time, Knoller says, the former president spent at his home in Plains, Ga. President Clinton took all or part of 174 days of vacation during his eight years as president — most of that "vacation" time was during the summer, according to Knoller. But Knoller says Clinton only took 21 "vacation" days during his first year.

It’s worth mentioning that President Obama has also made 11 trips — all or part of 27 days — to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Frederick County, Md. Knoller, however, says he doesn’t count trips to Camp David as part of any presidents’ "vacation" time. But for the sake of comparison, President George W. Bush, made more trips to that country residence than Obama. According to Knoller, Bush made 25 trips — a total of 78 days — to Camp David in 2001.

But no matter how much time a president actually spends away from the official residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Knoller says that the commander in chief is never really off the clock. "I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation," Knoller told FactCheck.org in an e-mail. "The job – and its awesome powers and responsibilities – is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing."

–D’Angelo Gore

Sources
Knoller, Mark. CBS News White House Correspondent, Radio. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 6 Jan 2010.

Knoller, Mark. "Can a President Really Take a Vacation?" CBS News "Political HotSheet" Blog. 24 Dec 2009.

Knoller, Mark. "Obama Seeks Rest on Foray Out West." CBS News "Political HotSheet" Blog. 14 Aug 2009.

Hendler, Clint. "Mark Knoller Knows." Columbia Journalism Review. 9 Dec 2009.

Elliott, Phillip. "Obama Returns Home for First Time as President." Associated Press. 13 Feb 2009.

Associated Press. "Obama family vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard." MSNBC.com. 23 Aug 2009.

Nakaso, Dan. "President Obama and his family leave Isles after Hawaii vacation." Honolulu Advertiser. 4 Jan 2010.
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 24
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 6:58:18 PM
One example is the one below that really shows how we are not "significant"

How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?

This is not only pertaining to one political party.

Really? "not only ... to one political party"? And yet you have offered only specious accounts of one party as your evidence, not even examples that actually support what you say.

Seems to me that this is like self-declared, so-called "democrats" who supposedly voted for Obama, twice, but only ever seem to offer support for republican talking points and never seem to find anything correct with democrats. In short, a specious claim.
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 25
Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?
Posted: 8/2/2014 8:11:20 PM

"How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?"
__________________________________________________________________________________
So your reply to Pelosi's unprofessionalism is ^^^^^^^^^^^^?...That the congressman is a loudmouth? The congressman has as much right to speak as Pelosi and you have Pelosi disrupting a speaker on the floor? And a video shows Pelosi chasing the man down to continue her rant that hit too close to home for her?

She also called the congressman insignificant, would you agree with that statement?

Are you ok with Pelosi in this instance?

Mmm, yes, much ado about nothing. That does not address either your comment or how "we" is derived from that. Once again, absolutely no support for the point made and no answer to the question so I will ask again:

How in heck does Pelosi's comments to one loudmouth congressman amount to "we"?

The example I gave is absolutely directed at what I said in my post to the OP as far as politicians not acting in our best interests.

No they aren't. You've offered absolutely nothing in support of that claim.

The example with Pelosi saying a congressman is insignificant to me is saying people that disagree with her are insignificant.

No it isn't. It is Pelosi saying that particular person is 'insignificant'. She said nothing about anyone else or about "agreeing with her". Those words and references simply don't exist in what she said and you haven't shown that they do.

You know, us citizens of the USA.

I wasn't aware that a single congressman amounted to an "us". I'm pretty sure that "us" is collective and that the congressman is singular.

So, in the same vein as my "we" question I will ask:

How the heck does that amount to "us"?

This is not only pertaining to one political party.

Really? "not only ... to one political party"? And yet you have offered only specious accounts of one party .
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why can't we get our politician's to act in OUR best interest?