antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
ive not seen congressmen like that, california girl. most of the time they present policies that are based on what they and their party thinks is the best way to do things... more like your 'in their best interest' model. these party and candidate positions are based on the combined effect of voter mandate and the financial backing that will help them secure it... also some kind of cohesion which parties bring to national politics. (for better/worse)
there's not much referendum power in national politics. there's been several elections where an issue of concern to me was not slated, or candidates all seemed like idiots (see 2004 presidency race). presuming from your name you could relate: the california referendum style is much more populist, but i dont feel that has had the best results. the people want to screw themselves over in the booths every few years with some proposition.
'populist' and 'conservative' dont mix in my mind, and national politics needs to have a component of conservatism. every car need brakes. campaign reform has hurt the conservatives. i think republicans embarrass themselves when forced to move to a populist base; i wont associate with the people that theyve come up with. its all reflected in their candidates and rhetoric. if conservatives want to usher a reagan age back into place, they'd have to get comfortable with the business lobbies who put the head on the shoulders of the party in the early 80s.
Politicians are beholding to their money source. They rarely consider what is best for us. They mostly take their own personal best interests into account. That is the problem...and you seem to just wave it off like it's not a problem worth addressing.
Most of the deals Obama is using to get the votes he needs are exemptions from the conditions of the bill. Now what exactly does that say about this piece of shit bill I ask you?
yeah. our influence is limited to our votes. policies in the interest of politicians occasionally intersect our benefit by virtue of that, however, it seems just the flavor of the law is for the masses, sometimes: you want health reform?... here it is. tastes like H/C reform. you want tax relief?.. here, tastes like tax relief.
i wave political mischief off having observed it for a couple decades and seen it as it's method, and because life goes on just fine despite it. if you are greener to that, then buckle your seatbelt. case/point your shock over concessions in the bill couldnt indicate youve seen this process before. presuming youre a conservative, potentially a republican, you must have noticed the alternative icing of bills with earmarks which is the trademark of the other side of the aisle... or not.
there's enough room between blatant corruption and lobbying, political volleying and bribery for one to accept the way the country has always been run. blurring all of this together and condemning these practices is tantamount to a condemnation of our democracy... be it rights not manifest by government to disparage, or taxation of parties without representation. everything else is down to compromise and political barter... we endorsed slavery for solidarity to get this ball rolling. what appointment or political concession casts a shadow on that?