Why do we put up with lying crooked thieving idiotic politicians?

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by TheStinger
tony Balir is not as left wing as previous Labour leaders that does not mean he is right wing. He does not believe in the right wing philosiphy of indviduals palying a major role and the sate only intervening when absolutley neccessary.

So why give the Bank of England monetary autonomy? Why drastically reduce the power of the unions? Why the continuous emphasis on enterprise and investment? He's hardly a Keynesian economist.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
On the other side, he's ****-tough on law and order,

How is that a right wing issue?

[loinburger]

I think that we put up with devious crooks because they're a helluva lot less scary-dangerous than idealistic morons. At least you can count on the crooks behaving fairly rationally -- who knows what an idealist is going to do...

[*End Is Forever*]

No-one forced him to follow Tory spending plans.

I think you'll find the electorate did...

[Sava]

Why do we put up with lying crooked thieving idiotic politicians?

In the US, at least, we don't have a choice. The parties put up two candidates from a small list of primary candidates. It's not democracy. Sure, the people vote for the candidates, but it's not too different from Saddam getting elected in Iraq. We don't have a choice. The system must be changed.

[*End Is Forever*]

Well, if y'all voted for someone else...

[Arrian]

but it's not too different from Saddam getting elected in Iraq

WARNING, STUPID EXAGGERATION ALERT!

-Arrian

[Japher]

End is Forever: Heck, we can't even count the votes! Its amazing that we are able to even run an election, nonetheless get everyone to agree on someone who has not be shoved down our throats.

Politician = Liar

The only reason we have liars in the offices is because the Brits do

Loinburger

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian


WARNING, STUPID EXAGGERATION ALERT!

-Arrian

No, not really. Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system. The party selected him as the candidate. The difference is there was one party in Iraq and two in America.

[Spiffor]

In France, Whirac got elected with 82% even though everybody knows he is immensely corrupt and had the constitutionalists say he cannot be judged as long as he is president (yes, we are not talking about some African country here).
Besides, everybody knows that Chirac is a liar and cheat and never respects his promises.

His main rival, Lionel Jospin, was honest and serious (his two main qualities) but didn't make the cut because he lackked charisma terribly. Had Jospin been at the runoff, the struggle between he and Chirac would have been close, but it is still possible that Chirac would have won.

[Arrian]

Sava,

No, there are much more significant differences and you know it.

1) 2 parties allows competition/opposition. Not so with 1.

2) There are more than 2 parties in the US. The top 2 are entrenched and have entirely too much power, I agree, but if they ever really ****ed up, there are other parties out there that stand to gain. Again, not so with a 1 party system.

3) Sure, the parties select their candidates. But that process is democratic. People vote on it. Most of the time, it's people registered as members of the party, but in some states, independent voters & voters registered for the other party are allowed to vote.

4) People without party affiliation can run. Sure, they have to be really rich, and that's a problem that needs fixing, but it can be done, and it can have an effect.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

We put up with them because they're charismatic.

If we actually as a whole bothered to use our gigantic intellects to analyze the situation, the research and draw up our own conclusions about the candidates, we'd probably either be duped into running ourselves under the notion we could do things better, or b, elect people who are much more convincing and better liars.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system.

This is why no one listens to Sava .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system.

This is why no one listens to Sava .

I can't speak for everyone... but some decide to not listen to me because I suspect they know I'm more correct than they would like to admit. I'll be looking forward to voting for one of two rich white men that will be on the ballot for president.

You guys can go off-topic and nit-pick if you want, but the point still stands. Sure, we have one of the better systems... but there's room for improvement. The Saddam comparison is lame, but there are similarities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

some decide to not listen to me because I suspect they know I'm more correct than they would like to admit.

Good one!

The Saddam comparison is lame,

Yep.

but there are similarities.

As in both are leaders of countries?