[Theory5]

I am not sure this is true but from what I have seen, especially in the current presidential race is that the current runners do not seem qualified to run the country. Well, I understand nobody is really Qualified to run the country, but past presidents and current runners do not seem to have enough understanding of the country as a whole to effectivly manage the country. Now I understand that the president is more of a manager, someone who can take the experts in their fields and use the information they produce to run the country, but given the current economic situation wouldn't it be better to have well read intellectuals, people who have studied government and country administration for years, people who can impliment new theories and policies that would be intellectually sound to facilitate stablility within and outside of our country? Yet all the socialites run, because they have the connections and in most cases money, rather than intellectually sound ideas.

I mean the whole point of a presidential race is to pick the best canidate who has sound ideas (and the will to impliment them) that appeal to the american people, but instead it becomes a popularity contest and a race to destroy the opposing side. But then again I could be completely wrong.

What do you think?

[Deepwater6]

I couldn't agree with you more Theory5. Just about everything the president or the candidates say has been vetted, watered down, and crafted in such a way as to be as "middle of the road" as possible. Presidents these days of both parties seem to live in a bubble by the chief of staff and others that surround them.

The media and the pundits that follow the candidates would surely shred anyone who tries to, as you say "implement new theories". This stops candidates from speaking from heart. They must stick to the party line at all costs. Although most Americans are tired of this on both sides there seems to be no remedy to it.

We saw in the last debate with candidate Perry forgetting his pre-debate schooling about which three departments he would eliminate if president. That tells you two things. 1. He is not really speaking from the gut or it would mean so much to him he would remember it. and 2. He is being told what to say by others and not making his own decisions or using his own ideas.

[Qfwfq]

Theory5, on 11 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

...but instead it becomes a popularity contest and a race to destroy the opposing side.

Gee I thought this was the whole idea behind representative democracy.

More seriously, even if you look beyond the confines of the country you're talking about, it always tends to degrade into a popularity contest and, most of all, it always tends to start out as a war between opposite factions. It's all up to voters and, if most of them are dumb, that's how things will go.

[Eclogite]

Churchill's remark is, I think, relevant here:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[phillip1882]

i tend to agree. no matter who runs, its socialites that win.

[Theory5]

Qfwfq, on 14 November 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

It's all up to voters and, if most of them are dumb, that's how things will go.

So we're doomed then? :-P


Well, what can be done? If many people share the same views on this, shouldn't there be people who are working to do something about this?

[Alpine]

If you think your politicians are bad then you should come and see the ones in India. Our scenario is worst than yours. Anyways coming back to the topic it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that it's the Thinkers we need not the Socialists. BUT, the thing is that most of the thinkers would rather stay way from politics, either because they can get better jobs with higher success rate or because they hate politics.

Democracy if you ask me is pretty good until it becomes part of "politics". A more transparent system will be a solution to the problems that democracy brings but our politicians don't want that, hence what is happening to Wikileaks.
Btw, as weird as it may sound I think Obama has been the best Presidential candidate in almost a decade. If not decade then at least these past two Presidential years. I mean look whom you all had/have, Sarah Palin (not a candidate but still), that Cain guy (too Biblical), Ron Paul (he's okay but not experienced enough), Michelle B (why O why is she a candidate?) and McCain (he's better as an opposition). But hey at least Obama is doing something unlike the guys we have here in India. :|

[paigetheoracle]

Theory5, on 11 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

I am not sure this is true but from what I have seen, especially in the current presidential race is that the current runners do not seem qualified to run the country. Well, I understand nobody is really Qualified to run the country, but past presidents and current runners do not seem to have enough understanding of the country as a whole to effectivly manage the country. Now I understand that the president is more of a manager, someone who can take the experts in their fields and use the information they produce to run the country, but given the current economic situation wouldn't it be better to have well read intellectuals, people who have studied government and country administration for years, people who can impliment new theories and policies that would be intellectually sound to facilitate stablility within and outside of our country? Yet all the socialites run, because they have the connections and in most cases money, rather than intellectually sound ideas.

I mean the whole point of a presidential race is to pick the best canidate who has sound ideas (and the will to impliment them) that appeal to the american people, but instead it becomes a popularity contest and a race to destroy the opposing side. But then again I could be completely wrong.

What do you think?

I agree. In the UK people are chosen because of social and labour ties, not thinking ability and it has got worse in recent years. However both Greece and Italy seem to now have picked prime ministers who know something about economics or politics, so lets hope this will make some difference to the Euro crisis.

[Qfwfq]

Alpine, how aout a Socialist Thinker? (a socialite is a different thing)

Theory5, on 14 November 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

So we're doomed then? :-P


Well, what can be done? If many people share the same views on this, shouldn't there be people who are working to do something about this?

So, what's the alternative mate? Napoleon?

If you want democracy with universal suffrage, the best path to avoid it being mob rule is to have as good a public education system as possible. Of course your special interest lobbies don't exactly favour this, it's a civic battle that needs to be kept up. Over here we had a good system back in my days but later politicians tore it to shreds.

paigetheoracle, on 15 November 2011 - 01:58 AM, said:

However both Greece and Italy seem to now have picked prime ministers who know something about economics or politics, so lets hope this will make some difference to the Euro crisis.

Let's hope. I don't know much about the Greek system in detail, but over here since '48 we fortunately have quite a good constitution which was written by an elected assembly and most members were folks that had battled against Fascism and they did a good job. The previous one (Albertine Statute) was lousy and allowed the king to nominate Mussolini and freely leave him in place for all those years; he fired the Duce when he clearly saw he was loosing the war. The current one says that the president nominates the PM and other ministers, but these must acheive and maintain the confidence of parliament. This is still in process for Monti but the emergency situation is calling on parties to act responsibly. Berlusconi keeps harping that his party can pull the plug when they see fit and Bossi rants against Monti, I think we're in for a rough ride yet.

[lawcat]

I hate the likes of this shaky-premise thread. They really are subversive.


It starts as a spin-off on one of the best threads here at hypography: There are two kinds of people. Well, That is humorous because it is logical yet it is essentially so vague that no pertinent information is gained. There are two kinds of people, the thinkers and the not thinkers.
Then, in one artistic brush the op labels the not thinkers as socalites. Shaky premises.

Look, it's about decision making. All the candidates have decision-making experience in public setting, which is more than could be said about the Terminator in Cali.

It is not helpful in the least bit to label people and focus on labels--name calling and personal attacks are really subversive and detracting. Focus on issues and track record of decision making for each candidate.

[Michaelangelica]

Here is a Republican who seems to know what he is talking about (Never thought I would say that)
While Murdock/Fox Kingmaker(s) are trying to ignore him
http://www.smh.com.a...1202-1ob7h.html

[Qfwfq]

lawcat, on 03 December 2011 - 02:05 AM, said:

There are two kinds of people.

Sure. Two kinds of guys in the world: those who do the diggin'
and those whose gun is loaded.

lawcat, on 03 December 2011 - 02:05 AM, said:

Then, in one artistic brush the op labels the not thinkers as socalites. Shaky premises.

Where did the OP state this?