|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28747 Posts
On March 23 2022 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:
You can't make society a better place if you don't get re-elected, I guess. The American politician was just too honest.
My understanding is that the Australian politician did not get reelected (I don't think this is specifically stated, strongly implied though), but that the choice he made which led to him not being reelected was one that made society better. He had a choice - reelection or make society better, both was not an option. The American politicians in this clip argue that they can't fight for cause X which they support and think would make society better because that would constitute political suicide.
|
On March 23 2022 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2022 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:
You can't make society a better place if you don't get re-elected, I guess. The American politician was just too honest. My understanding is that the Australian politician did not get reelected (I don't think this is specifically stated, strongly implied though), but that the choice he made which led to him not being reelected was one that made society better. He had a choice - reelection or make society better, both was not an option. The American politicians in this clip argue that they can't fight for cause X which they support and think would make society better because that would constitute political suicide.
Was the legislation the Australian politician introduced about gun control after one of their mass shootings? It'd be great if American politicians were a bit braver in this sense.
|
Norway28747 Posts
On March 23 2022 18:12 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2022 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 23 2022 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:
You can't make society a better place if you don't get re-elected, I guess. The American politician was just too honest. My understanding is that the Australian politician did not get reelected (I don't think this is specifically stated, strongly implied though), but that the choice he made which led to him not being reelected was one that made society better. He had a choice - reelection or make society better, both was not an option. The American politicians in this clip argue that they can't fight for cause X which they support and think would make society better because that would constitute political suicide. Was the legislation the Australian politician introduced about gun control after one of their mass shootings? It'd be great if American politicians were a bit braver in this sense.
Yes, that's exactly it. They had a mass shooting in the 90s, and they used the political capital afforded by the incident to introduce gun control. It was championed by a conservative government even though their own voter base was opposed to it. Retrospectively, even that voter base seems to have gotten on board with it, but it was politically costly for some of the politicians who fought for it. Still - they think they made society better, and that their personal sacrifice was worth it.
|
In a sense, getting reelected is a good metric of success for politicians. However, being a successful politician, does not say a lot on how successful (or good) you are as a human. By committing political suicide, politicians reduce their chances of making society a better place. They may have proven to be good humans for caring more about society than themselves (on one occasion), but at this point they have basically stopped being a successful politicians.
The world would probably be a better place, if politicians had to be good humans.
|
On March 23 2022 20:00 smille wrote:
In a sense, getting reelected is a good metric of success for politicians. However, being a successful politician, does not say a lot on how successful (or good) you are as a human. By committing political suicide, politicians reduce their chances of making society a better place. They may have proven to be good humans for caring more about society than themselves (on one occasion), but at this point they have basically stopped being a successful politicians.
The world would probably be a better place, if politicians had to be good humans.
Not really, being re-elected does not mean they have effected change. If you mean success as in earning lots of money, then yes, being re-elected would be a good metric for success.
|
On March 23 2022 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2022 20:00 smille wrote:
In a sense, getting reelected is a good metric of success for politicians. However, being a successful politician, does not say a lot on how successful (or good) you are as a human. By committing political suicide, politicians reduce their chances of making society a better place. They may have proven to be good humans for caring more about society than themselves (on one occasion), but at this point they have basically stopped being a successful politicians.
The world would probably be a better place, if politicians had to be good humans. Not really, being re-elected does not mean they have effected change. If you mean success as in earning lots of money, then yes, being re-elected would be a good metric for success.
If effecting change is the goal, is the question we’re trying to answer. Many voters may even have the objective to prevent any change from happening. Some are not opposed to change in general, but for example, value the right to own a gun more than the lives that could be safed by stricter gun control.
I think we can agree that in most political paradigms the role of a politician is to represent their voters. If they get re-elected, they have proven to be a favorable choice for sufficiently many constituents. I would rather not approve of the US politician’s answer, but in my opinion he has a point. The Australian politician on the other hand, has a goal that is unfortunately secondary to many voters.
|
I think the problem is that whoever wins reelection is not sufficiently guaranteed to actually have proven themselves as a favorable representative. Money, gerrymandering, and campaign/news cycles make it so who wins has very little connection to how much good they do, even in the eyes of the people voting for them.
|
I think its a matter of perspective, Im sure American politicians are very very favorable and they do a lot of good for the people they represent, they just dont happen to represent the American citizenry at large.
|
On March 23 2022 22:46 smille wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2022 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2022 20:00 smille wrote:
In a sense, getting reelected is a good metric of success for politicians. However, being a successful politician, does not say a lot on how successful (or good) you are as a human. By committing political suicide, politicians reduce their chances of making society a better place. They may have proven to be good humans for caring more about society than themselves (on one occasion), but at this point they have basically stopped being a successful politicians.
The world would probably be a better place, if politicians had to be good humans. Not really, being re-elected does not mean they have effected change. If you mean success as in earning lots of money, then yes, being re-elected would be a good metric for success. If effecting change is the goal, is the question we’re trying to answer. Many voters may even have the objective to prevent any change from happening. Some are not opposed to change in general, but for example, value the right to own a gun more than the lives that could be safed by stricter gun control. I think we can agree that in most political paradigms the role of a politician is to represent their voters. If they get re-elected, they have proven to be a favorable choice for sufficiently many constituents. I would rather not approve of the US politician’s answer, but in my opinion he has a point. The Australian politician on the other hand, has a goal that is unfortunately secondary to many voters.
You'd still want them to be effecting change, i.e. in the specific argument that you're giving, if you cared about gun-carrying rights, you'd want your representative to introduce legislation safeguarding your right to own and carry a gun, not just maintain the status quo. You could argue that the bar for success should be upholding the status quo, but that's a very low bar.
|
Success means being good at what you’re doing and being able to make a living from it. In the context of (most) professions, this is completely disconnected from doing anything good. In an ideal world, people who are harmful to society should not be allowed to stay in their positions and therefore could not be successful.
You have to ask yourself if “success” is of any interest when talking about politicians. In my opinion, it’s not and therefore, the interview question was just off. Although it offered a good angle to paint that US politician as the immoral being he most likely is.
|
Not to pick too many nits, but success has no single definition, and ones definition of success is certainly capable of looking past the trappings of capitalism and defining it on other grounds, personal, moral, or something else entirely. I think part of this discussion is in fact meant to unpack what is considered "successful" for one's elected representatives. I would personally be much quicker to define success based on what they do than on whether they keep their seat warm.
|
On March 23 2022 23:20 NewSunshine wrote:
Not to pick too many nits, but success has no single definition, and ones definition of success is certainly capable of looking past the trappings of capitalism and defining it on other grounds, personal, moral, or something else entirely. I think part of this discussion is in fact meant to unpack what is considered "successful" for one's elected representatives. I would personally be much quicker to define success based on what they do than on whether they keep their seat warm.
Sure, fighting over definitions is seldom a fruitful endeavor in my opinion. I believe we have similar expectations towards politicians. I merely wanted to emphasize that success might simply be the wrong way to judge a politician’s legacy. In general, the importance of success may be over-rated in our society. We live in a world where don’t-know-how-many percent of the population struggle to get by while the few percent who are considered “successful” are rarely the one’s who act morally.
|
No disagreement from me there.
|
Child tax credit is still 2000 rather than 3000 under trump. Huge embarrassment for democrats
|
That will look bad for them for sure. For what it's worth, they did try to pass a bunch of extra aid when they pushed BBB. That got bungled in the end, so that does them no favors this fall, but it's not that they didn't try.
|
If they want to start reaaaally trying then banishing Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema and every Democrat that voted against the minimum wage increase from the party would be a good start.
Democrats will never get another super majority, so better make sure the people in your party are going to be in proper lock step.
|
Why kick out Manchin and Sinema? They’re good spoilers for the policies that the Democrats only pretend to want. You’d have to cultivate a new punching bag if you lose that one.
|
Sure but in a hypothetical world where Democrats are actually entirely incompetent rather than just kind of incompetent and majorly disingenuous they should stop their spoilers. If I presume they’re all entirely disingenuous then the only thing I have left to advocate for is people throwing bricks at Joe Manchin and his daughter’s cars, boats, and houses, and throwing eggs and milkshakes at Joe Manchin and his rotten daughter.
I like to be hopeful at times, it’s a fatal character flaw in this world
|
On March 24 2022 02:57 Zambrah wrote:
Sure but in a hypothetical world where Democrats are actually entirely incompetent rather than just kind of incompetent and majorly disingenuous they should stop their spoilers. If I presume they’re all entirely disingenuous then the only thing I have left to advocate for is people throwing bricks at Joe Manchin and his daughter’s cars, boats, and houses, and throwing eggs and milkshakes at Joe Manchin and his rotten daughter.
I like to be hopeful at times, it’s a fatal character flaw in this world
The kind of Democrat you would vote for would never get elected in West Virginia so all you're doing is electing a Republican instead.
|
On March 24 2022 07:02 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2022 02:57 Zambrah wrote:
Sure but in a hypothetical world where Democrats are actually entirely incompetent rather than just kind of incompetent and majorly disingenuous they should stop their spoilers. If I presume they’re all entirely disingenuous then the only thing I have left to advocate for is people throwing bricks at Joe Manchin and his daughter’s cars, boats, and houses, and throwing eggs and milkshakes at Joe Manchin and his rotten daughter.
I like to be hopeful at times, it’s a fatal character flaw in this world The kind of Democrat you would vote for would never get elected in West Virginia so all you're doing is electing a Republican instead.
Manchin is barely better than a Republican and once he retires he'll be replaced by one anyway.
Not that big of a loss at this point once KBJ gets confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
