Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Modern Carpetbagging: Should We Really Allow Polticians to Spread Like a Disease?

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I hate politicians. I pretty much always have. The concept of a 'professional politician' makes about as much sense to me as someone claiming to be a 'professional mugger'. But that's probably just me. A related concept that is equally as repugnant is the idea of political carpet bagging. Not long ago Scott Brown, the pickup truck driving Republican, was all over the Massachusetts airways claiming to be the champion of the Massachusetts middle and working classes. He made much of his MA roots and ties to the community. That was until he got beat. He then went back to work as an attorney with a Boston law firm (how anyone who is an attorney can claim to represent 'the common guy' is beyond me. But I digress...) and largely fell as silent as his daughter's singing career. Then recently he popped back in the news saying that he is running for a Senate seat in neighboring New Hampshire. And I suppose he will claim that he has 'roots' there as well no doubt. Some sort of invasive weed?

Shouldn't people that represent a given geography be required to originate from its populace? I mean each city/state/region has unique issues and needs. Are outsiders really sufficiently immersed in that local knowledge to understand and represent effectively? Shouldn't we demand that our representatives are 'of the People'? Now, Scott Brown is a Republican. Before all you Republican boot lickers get your frilly panties all in a bunch I am absolutely certain that Democrats pull this kind of crap just as often. But should we allow trhius kind of stuff to go on in general?




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

What is it with you guys and pickup trucks anyway?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

No, we should spread a disease among politicians and see how long they last.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Good topic for a thread! I believe that both sides of the aisle are guilty of this. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are two prominent examples . Since these are US seats and not statewide seats I doubt a state could enact legislation that requires a tenure of residency, which is quite unfortunate and probably should be changed via constitutional amendment.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: jtma508

No, we should spread a disease among politicians and see how long they last.



Give one politician Bed Bugs and before you know it they'll all have them.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
No, it is definitely not just you, as I too cannot stand career politicians, or the majority of politicians in general. My reasoning goes like this: your average, everyday person who in mentally healthy does not seek to gain power over others to such a large extent. Ambitions is one thing, but I just feel that to purposefully seek the kind of power politicians have means that they are not "normal" individuals. There are legitimate politicians who really do care, and who seek office to make a difference, but I feel they are a rare commodity in the United States, if not the world.

These people will do almost anything to get elected, including lying to the people. That is what tells me that they are not actually seeking office with noble intent. And one would think that someone would run for office so they could represent the people they care about, those in their own community or area, but like you've brought up in this thread, ANY location will do. They just want the power most of the time, and they don't care where it comes from. Often time there is truth in stereotypes, and there is something to the fact that the term "crooked politicians" actually exists on such a large scale.

I mean isn't it evidence enough that politicians often times do not even know what they are voting for? It has been proven that often times they do not even read the bills they are voting on, and if they do read them, it may be only in part. There are so many things wrong with the US political system, and some of these problems stem from the fact that the politicians are the ones who create the laws, and they are not likely to pass laws that would work against themselves.

There have been threads recently on the militarization of so many non law enforcement agencies within the government of the United States, and the reason for this is that any agency, just like any politician, or at least on average, seeks to gain more power for themselves. Politicians should have plenty of oversight from people who are not invested with them in any way, and who are free from being lobbied by anyone or any organization. There is too much corruption in politics, and in the end this hurts the country, which is made up of the citizenry.

The government is not the country, rather it is an organization that is set up to protect the rights of the people, and to be an avenue for running the country on a day to day basis. We want people running the government who will look out for the people, but too much of the time those running things are looking out for themselves first and foremost, which is the same as looking out for special interest groups which scratch the back of that particular politician. I think a 3rd grader could understand the most basic problems within our political system, which tells me that the problems are known...They just are not being fixed, because the politicians make the laws.

Sort of like how Congress can vote to raise its salary. Should that really be allowed? That is how our government runs in multiple instances. The system of checks and balances is virtually useless in many respects, because of corruption. It takes specific qualities to do the right thing and enact change for the good of humanity, and I do not feel that those who purposefully lie to seek power are capable of such actions...

Anyway, back to what you were saying, I agree that politicians should only be allowed to run for a certain geographical area, which is based on where they have spent a certain amount of time. It takes living in a place and talking to the people, and experiencing things for yourself, to grasp what is going on well enough to represent the people of that area, so a person should be required to spend something like 5 years in a specific area before they can run to represent that area in government. The requirements for Federal office could be based upon prior experience in lower levels of government or something as well, but a system would have to be worked out to ensure the least amount of corruption. It would take a lot of work in my opinion, but a system could be enacted that eliminated a lot of these negative points.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508


Shouldn't people that represent a given geography be required to originate from its populace? I mean each city/state/region has unique issues and needs. Are outsiders really sufficiently immersed in that local knowledge to understand and represent effectively? Shouldn't we demand that our representatives are 'of the People'? Now, Scott Brown is a Republican. Before all you Republican boot lickers get your frilly panties all in a bunch I am absolutely certain that Democrats pull this kind of crap just as often. But should we allow trhius kind of stuff to go on in general?


While I personally loathe career politicians I have to say no to what you are asking. I feel that if the people of a given State are comfortable hiring a transplant for the job then who are we to stop them?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

We could seek to update the following:

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.


Representatives, regardless of time spent, still represent that area no? I mean, if I just move there and wish to affect change with input from the community, how long must I be there until you consider me worthy?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
It's all pretty much the same in Canada too.. we have these career politicians who are attracted to the "job" because of the fame, money and power that goes along with it. Rarely does someone choose to be and remain a politician out of any sense of higher calling or civic duty and rarer still do they last any length of time in the political game if they do.

Political and government official positions should be much more "of the people" and in my mind, should be a lot less of a career prospect and way more of a jury duty type thing. Government, Senate, Legislature.. all of that should be drawn from the general populace and If you are selected for your government duty, for whatever amount of time you are in that office you are required to do your best for the interests of society as a whole. Governmental politics should never have been allowed to get to the point where the personal advancement and financial gain of the politician trumps the larger good of the people they have sworn to represent.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Well, that is precisely the same as the problem with any politician attempting to understand or represent the working poor. People who slave in kitchens, work heavy manual labour, and do these things for thirteen hours a day, to the detriment of their lease of life, their physical health and well being, just to make, or fall short of quite making, the rent on the crappy apartment or hovel they rent.

No politician knows what that is like to scrimp and save, and work like a dog and get no where. Even the ones who HAVE had hard times, have been polluted by the affluence which allowed them to gain power and station, in such a way that they have essentially forgotten what it was really like to live hand over fist, with no power to end the continuous, grinding, outlay of effort, and to get so little in return.

To represent a group of people, one must BE one of those people. It is no more possible for a rich man to represent a poor one, than it is for salt water to stand up for the needs of an iron hulled vessel.

The problem with the politician you are talking about specifically, is that he does not know when he is not wanted, and that is a familiar issue with that sort of person.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
hmmm
normally when the word spread is associated with the word politician
its also associated with the word legs...
can't imagine why



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Before all you Republican boot lickers get your frilly panties all in a bunch I am absolutely certain that Democrats pull this kind of crap just as often. But should we allow trhius kind of stuff to go on in general?


We probably shouldn't allow that, although I didn't realize Mass and New Hampshire were geographically separate? (State lines.. of course.. Geography tho?)

I'll spot Brown if someone will remind the Clintons they're from Arkansas...not blue blood N.E. money. There are some on both sides who pretend to be what they aren't. Some with more success than others.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sonder
not true
some join because hiel harpers uniform closet has some nice leather in it

oh, I'll likely burn in heaven for that...
butt... it had to be said





new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join