Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirQuiamus]

Please name me a single opposition politician who has been abducted and tortured.  Ever.  At any point in US history.

le top fucking kek

[mainiac]

Literally not one of those is an opposition politician being abducted and tortured.  The really great thing here is that in response to a complaint about exaggeration and bad faith comparisons you are doing this.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, sure that's what you want.  Poor little put upon you guys.

That's some adept dodging there, acting as if campaign promises are the central issue in a discussion of the ethics of campaign finance and the split loyalties on the part of candidates between the people that vote for them and the people that fund their campaigns. It's also pretty bold to imply that it's impossible for a candidate to fulfill some of their bread-and-circuses quota while also serving the interests of the people and organizations that own them.

Never mind, of course, that the sources cited by your source state, generally, that "presidents make at least a “good faith” effort to keep an average of about two-thirds of their campaign promises". In other words, the research suggests that roughly a third of campaign promises made by presidential candidates are boldfaced lies and pandering.

So yeah. Candidates don't lie on the campaign trail and they can't benefit the people that fund them if they make even a trivial effort to serve the public. A+ argumentation, ignoring the main point and using sources that disagree with your sub-point.

[mainiac]

Do you suffer from short term memory loss?

You say that as if they don't sell out the moment they start campaigning. The only difference is that some bother to make a slight effort to conceal the fact while they pander to the plebs.

You bitch that they are unprincipled and dont care about what they say and then when I point out that is not true you bitch about changing the topic.

[Playergamer]

super super defensive maniac.

anybody here work for CTR? might be a decent side-job.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I love Crash Team Racing!

[mainiac]

super super defensive maniac.

Pretty uniquely so in this thread, right?

[Frumple]

It's also pretty bold to imply that it's impossible for a candidate to fulfill some of their bread-and-circuses quota while also serving the interests of the people and organizations that own them.

Well... yeah, that would be pretty bold. Pretty sure the implication was that they're actually fulfilling most of what they're promising to (i.e. they've got a set of principles and they're sticking to them more than not), and not much beyond that. Not that anything at all is impossible. There's plenty of folks out there that are mostly principled and still somewhat corrupt, in any case. Don't exactly like that m'self, but it's bloody hard to find someone that isn't the latter to some degree.

S'also worth noting you weren't exactly clear you were talking about the ethics of campaign finance and split loyalties, though. Didn't look like NFO was really focusing on that, either. Point looked to me like the important bit was the principles or lack thereof, and that was certainly something the linked article gave a good showing of addressing.

In other words, the research suggests that roughly a third of campaign promises made by presidential candidates are boldfaced lies and pandering.

... or, as the article said, unable to fulfilled for one reason or another. Of which the reasons are many and oft don't actually boil down to corruption. Honestly, most of what I've seen over the years really did kinda' boil down to "reality intervened" (i.e. they got the logistics wrong, the political situation changed, etc., etc.) more than lying or pandering.

I get the general viewpoint y'all have on this, in no small part because the area I'm in actually is corrupt as fuck, but you may be taking it further than appropriate.

So yeah. Candidates don't lie on the campaign trail and they can't benefit the people that fund them if they make even a trivial effort to serve the public.

2/3rds partial or full success rate is... not trivial, man. It's not perfect, but the point that was trying to be made is that it's more substantial than not. And in the face of the whole, y'know. Reality thing. That's pretty damn good. It's honestly somewhat more impressive if they are indulging in corruption at the same time, because it means they're managing that much while still porking the proverbial barrel. Does mean they'd be doing more if they weren't, but hell. It's something.

You bitch that they are unprincipled and dont care about what they say and then when I point out that is not true you bitch about changing the topic.

But c'mon, m, FD was bitching that they were insufficiently and/or inappropriately principled and didn't care about specific portions of what they say, not that they were lacking principles or concern entirely.

[darkrider2]

I love Crash Team Racing!

Me too mate, me too.

[NullForceOmega]

No my entire point is that they sell out, becoming worthless cogs in a machine that does nothing but feed its own interests, and every single time one of them actually does something positive, it is ground into the mud by all the backroom chicanery they have to go through to get it done.

TL;DR  Politics is shit.

[Frumple]

Ah, so the appearance of principles is irrelevant to you. Regardless of what a politician manages to do or how it appears they managed it, you're operating under the assumption it was somehow crooked in the background, apparently most likely in some way that makes the apparent gain a net loss.

That about right? Seems about what you just typed, at least. If it ain't, some clarification'd probably be nice.

[sluissa]

Ah, so the appearance of principles is irrelevant to you. Regardless of what a politician manages to do or how it appears they managed it, you're operating under the assumption it was somehow crooked in the background, apparently most likely in some way that makes the apparent gain a net loss.

That about right? Seems about what you just typed, at least. If it ain't, some clarification'd probably be nice.

While it might be an unfair assumption, it's also well justified in many cases. Politicians are stereotyped for a reason and it's basically a guilty until proven innocent situation just because of how prevalent it is.

[Frumple]

I wasn't saying anything about fairness. Just wanting to make sure I was reading it right.

[BlackHeartKabal]

If politics are as corrupt as you all are saying, why's it matter if people exploit a corrupt system to change things for the better?

[sluissa]

If you look at most of the stuff that goes on in government that grabs news attention, good or bad, it's usually going on at the same time as something much worse that's slipping through quietly while the other gets all the attention.