1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

What the voters fail to realize..

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Furious George, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What Voters fail to realize in American Politics-is that it doesn't matter WHO you vote for, they are all the same. Sure, under one party, gay marriage is legal, and one isn't. But, what it all boils down to is not values, not statistics, it boils down to charsima, leadership, and money. Money is power, and power equates to more votes. The more money you spend on attacking your opponent, the more votes you get. Is this what we call a 'democracy' or a 'republic'? People think that what party is in office will influence the success or productivity of the nation. We all know this is false. The economy-it has NOTHING to do with the President. Sure, if he or his friends in congress pass some type of regulation, yes it will be affected. But, we live in a world, where the consumers determine the direction of the economy. [While it is actually MUCH more complicated, this is just a broad statement]
     
  2. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think there are lots of important distinctions between the parties still, though for sure less than there used to be with whats happened to the republican party. (as far as i can tell the beloved "neo-con" is nothing more than a religious zealot with the spending habits of a liberal.) But to name a few things of import in this election: do you support gay marriage? do you want to keep the US military in Iraq? do you support the US foreign policy of isolating countries like Iran and North Korea? do you want to spend money on a 700 mile fence? do you want to spend money on a missile defense shield? With things like that on the table its hard for me to see how both parties are "the same".

    As far as charisma and leadership: I'm not sure why you think thats unique to American politics, or that American voters aren't aware of it, or that its a bad thing. Its a fact of humanity: some people are charismatic and come off as leaders, others don't. Of course ideas matter, but it also matters how well you persuade people to your cause, how good you look doing it, etc. It's a valid consideration for an electorate to consider the leadership skills (both hard skills and softer skills like speech and likability) of their president, or any other leadership position which is why you see smart looking charismatic people in CEO positions in companies. You rarely (though occasionally, eg: bill gates) see anti-social genius types as successful leaders.

    I also don't buy that the government (or more specifically the president) doesn't impact the economy. The government directly impacts the economy by taking money out and putting money into it. (Taxes and spending) It is the biggest spender and the biggest taker of funds. It provides banks stability, which in turn provide stability to nearly everything else. Its why the wrong words out of the chairman of the federal reserves mouth can send the market into a 500 point tail spin. The government impacts the economy dramatically. Directly through spending and taxation, and indirectly through educational and other policies.

    To your point about money and votes I agree. Its a tough nut to crack since asking congress to pass laws like real campaign finance reform is like asking someone not to breathe. Aside from the amount of money politicians spend for votes, whats more concerning to me is how obligated they become to the people who gave them the money they needed to win the votes.

    A suggested solution: If you figure theres 100 seats in the senate and ...435? seats in the house thats 535 elected positions over 6 years, so 1070 candidates if you only count the 2 major parties. You could give each of those candidates 5 million bucks each for their campaign and outlaw corporate and individual donations. Thats 5 billion dollars every 6 years, or just under 1 billion a year. I think that would be tax money well spent to prevent corruption at that level. Is 5 million bucks enough to run a campaign anyone know?
     
  3. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm...I might change the general thrust of the statement to "voters don't realise the significance of the issues an election is decided upon in the broader context of the country as a whole." That is to say, what are described as the central issues in an election are generally fairly out-of-whack with the actual running of the country.

    As Georga has pointed out, democracy isn't purely contractarian; mainly voters run with the flow and alot of them stick with things they don't want to, or don't care about, and as we all know an election promise that the public votes on is not necessarily acted upon. But as framed has pointed out, there is a certain correlation between who is voted in and the administration of the country made, as really what people are voting for (not necessarily explicitly) is more about the agenda implied by those policies that the candidates forward. You don't really think the big fence is going to go ahead, do you? It's more a rallying point for xenophobia.
     
  4. FourBear

    FourBear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish that the politics of our country weren't so dichotomized...everything is either for something or against something. There seems to be an attempt to oversimplify issues, eliminating the middle ground or any possibility of extenuating circumstances. I think it is often that case that voters are "settling" with what matches their personal views best.
     
  5. hokeshel

    hokeshel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. I think most of us fall somewhere in between with our opinions. It is rare to get a politician who acts within our range so, we are stuck with choosing who is going to cause the least amount of damage rather than who can make the greatest improvements, at times.
    That is why I think it is important that whatever party controls congress is not the party in the white house. It hepls balance things out.
     
  6. tater03

    tater03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would agree with you that it is better to not have the same party in congress that is in the White House. But it just seems like even then there is no meeting in the middle. I know when I went and voted yesterday it was hard because there is no middle ground anymore either you are for something or totally againest it and that is just not the way I look at some of the issues today.
     
  7. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Technically there is a 'middleground', considering the popular thing this year is for more Democrats to take a centrist stance on many things.
     
  8. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ironically, I fail to see this misconception of how a neo-con is 'just' a zealot with a penchant for spending. Neo-cons are fascist enablers at the very least [look at how Bush has turned 9/11 into a Big Brother scenario. A neo-con takes the worst aspects of the conservatives, and amplifies the most offensive aspects. And let the record show, that not all "Liberals" [if you want to call Democrats Liberals. :rotflmao:] are big spenders. I'm a self-proclaimed Green, and am one of the most frugal and responsible individuals you will come across in your lifetime.

    First of all, I think the Government should have no business in what goes on in it's citizens bedrooms, as long as what does go on is consentual. As I have stated many a time in the past, we have three options in Iraq, increase the troop population by at least three or four times, leave, or continue to occupy their country [as history shows, any occupation, friendly or otherwise stirs negative tensions] the death toll will only rise. Our current foreign policy is spearheaded by a bunch of moronic neo-cons, who think holding their chins in the air, and slapping the terrorists on the wrists will have some sort of effect. In a nutshell, we need negotiate, and come to an accord. Obviously, N. Korea wants attention. Why else would they set off a nuclear weapon, and when offered a chance to talk, they end their program? They obviously have something to say, and we can't sit back and ignore them, while branding them as evil. The 700 Mile fence is the single most idiotic legislative measure since the Telecommunications Act of 1994. Let it be known [by golly!] that there ARE other ways to get into this country. Ask the Cubans, Asians, and our friends to the North for suggestions on how to get into this country illegally.

    I also don't buy that the government (or more specifically the president) doesn't impact the economy. The government directly impacts the economy by taking money out and putting money into it. (Taxes and spending) It is the biggest spender and the biggest taker of funds. It provides banks stability, which in turn provide stability to nearly everything else. Its why the wrong words out of the chairman of the federal reserves mouth can send the market into a 500 point tail spin. The government impacts the economy dramatically. Directly through spending and taxation, and indirectly through educational and other policies.

    Eh, I find the most disgusting aspect of campaigning to be attack ads. There's nothing less Democratic than attacking your opponent with hearsay and propaganda, and using it as political collateral.
     
Loading...

Share This Page