Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Accountability in Politics?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Okay, I've never started a thread before, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules, but I just want to know what you think of this idea:

Let us agree, as hard-working, equity minded, and conscientious citizens on this planet, that every time we find an elected member incontrovertibly lying to us, we will collectively refuse to re-elect them. Every time. We may not have any incumbents for years to come, but eventually, they will get the message.

Would it work?




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Well you just eliminated all politicians.
Maybe you should run.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jebbaroo
Okay, I've never started a thread before, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules, but I just want to know what you think of this idea:

Let us agree, as hard-working, equity minded, and conscientious citizens on this planet, that every time we find an elected member incontrovertibly lying to us, we will collectively refuse to re-elect them. Every time. We may not have any incumbents for years to come, but eventually, they will get the message.

Would it work?


Since a politician's lies, subterfuge, obfuscation and their general level of corruption can effect thousands (through local crap politicians) to millions (through national level garbage politicians) of citizens to their deterement, I would rather suggest that existing (or new) mechanisms be put in place to simply charge them with treason. It sets a standard and the motivation for honesty and accountability, since chances are they won't be re-elected. I prefer simple and permanent solutions that don't cost the taxpayers a lot of money ;-)

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/7.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I like your idea!

However, one has to realize that society collectively has Alzheimer's when it comes to what politicians have done, or lied about. I think people are so used to being lied to that they just don't care.

I mean, since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started with a bald-faced lie, you would think we wouldn't be there anymore. Yet, even though most people understand that whole abomination was started based on falsehoods, they still assume that it is okay.

People apparently don't care when politicians lie. Well, I do, but it doesn't appear like most people give a rat's ass. Americans will go apoplectic if a celebrity tells a fib, but when a politician does it, they accept it.

Go figure.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jebbaroo
 


Would it work?
I don't think it would , all politicians will lie at one point or another because that's what they do .
We would end up at a point where instead of Warhols 15 minutes of fame it would be everybody will get their 15 minutes as a politician .... what a horrible thought


edit on 7-9-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tvtexan
 


Lol! Well, I would run, but I fear that my honesty would appear naive an unpolished to the masses who are so used to our regular b_s_. We need to somehow, collectively, gather the muster to get mad. What happened to our outrage?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Well, I rather like your idea, except charges of treason would inevitably involve judges, (wouldn't they ), and then we inevitably end up in the same quagmire. Do we, as various populations, just not care about honesty anymore?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


I agree with most of what you said. What worries my, in my own geographic area, is how our locals consistently vote conservative, when they're largely unemployed. In our area, conservative employment usually means seasonal, minimum wage jobs, as we're a tourist area. No tax incentives for corporations, no union support. Just more$10 an hour for 24 hours a week for 8 months an year. And yet that is how they vote, time and time again. It's like you can't help people to help themselves. Saddening and frustrating.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Yes, there is that side to what you say. But, every now and then, there might arise someone who *gasp* might inspire us, and who *gasp* might be honest with us, and who *double gasp*, might make our lives better.

Maybe?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jebbaroo
 


That's because people do not understand economics. They vote based on stupid personal things like the candidate's view on homosexuality or abortion, NEITHER OF WHICH affects them one way or the other.

Stupid is as stupid does.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jebbaroo
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Well, I rather like your idea, except charges of treason would inevitably involve judges, (wouldn't they ), and then we inevitably end up in the same quagmire. Do we, as various populations, just not care about honesty anymore?


I care about honesty, transparency and accountability, a politician should be able to ALWAYS tell the whole truth otherwise they are not representing the people who allegedly elected them, presuming that elections aren't rigged, which they most probably are. I see treason charges as both a motivator towards honesty and a deterrent against lying. If you know that at the end of the day your neck might be stretched or you head may be on pike, chances are you're going to do a good job and if you can't, then step down before it gets ugly.

Judges would be necessary obviously for probabaly short lived but honest trials, so there are some costs, nothing compared to 20 years of incarceration however. Certainly, those wronged by said politician(s) would probably volunteer to exact sentence, money saved ;-) At the same time, we as a species are able to rid ourselves of the sociopathic and psychotic predators and parasites that occupy the political spectrum, double bonus. Like I said, I prefer permanent solutions to problems that effect millions of people. It might seem a bit harsh, but it is certainly workable.

This of course would also apply to international bankers, corporations, the military/industrial complex and of course their controllers and handlers. Basically anyone who deliberately damages the population of a country/colony for their own personal gain or benefit.

There are other options since we have the technology in dealing with these @ssclowns, exploding ankle or neck bracelets, 24/7/365 monitoring, employment/income caps, public humilation, etc. It has costs but nothing like incarceration so it's all good.

Just an idea...

ETA: I would even be willing to design the technology for free and make the patents a public commodity if the technology were to be used for the aforestated purposes.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/7.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: the ETA



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jebbaroo
reply to post by gortex
 


Yes, there is that side to what you say. But, every now and then, there might arise someone who *gasp* might inspire us, and who *gasp* might be honest with us, and who *double gasp*, might make our lives better.

Maybe?


I would like to think that could happen but the problem as I see it is to get into politics you have to go through the whole party thing , a kind of school for scoundrels .

Then when you make it into power the temptations kick in and you end up in the pocket of one special interest group or other forget your ideals and stick your nose in the trough .

I bought into Tony Blair in the 90s thinking that all he said he was about was true and he would make a difference and right the wrongs of 13 years of Conservative rule .... he made a difference all right but not the one I was expecting , and we all know why ... now he's reaping his reward .

I believe he went in as a young man with ideals and good intentions and came out a tyrant , power corrupts .


edit on 7-9-2012 by gortex because: edit to edit



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Dave,

I so get much of what you are saying. The other question is, then, how do we get honest people back into politics, so that we have someone to vote for? How do we get them to feel confident, (when they're not accomplished liars0, and competent (when they're not quite sure how to 'play the game')? How do we let them know that we're interested in their perspectives, and that we'll let them have a turn at the wheel?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Well, the only antidote to that that I can think of is for each politician to have to spend more time in the trenches with those they've been elected to serve. Really talking to their electorate. Maybe doing their jobs now and then. Having dinner in their houses. Maybe we each need to have their personal telephone numbers, so we can call them, and let them know about the crises in our lives. I get how that could be overwhelming, but doggangit, they are elected to serve the populace, are they not?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jebbaroo
 


It would work but it won't happen that way...was talking with a co-worker who is a latina and reminds me of it honestly every day...drives me nuts but she's fun to talk with around politics and she's is as left to the left as can be and she's in her early twenties...when I bring up issues around the left being dishonest about claims she will acknowledge it when I show her what could be proof but she states that although she understands that her party lies they better represent her ethnic group..so I asked regardless what your party says you will still follow them and she said as horrible as it sounds "yes". So honesty and integrity makes no difference but what someone can do for a small percentage of people does but not the country as a whole...my follow up observation is that we will forever be at odds when it comes to races unless we all just mix things up through marriage but in the end now that I think about the caucasion will ba phased out because a good percentage of people will continue to come into this country from other smaller countries...
edit on 7-9-2012 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jebbaroo
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Dave,

I so get much of what you are saying. The other question is, then, how do we get honest people back into politics, so that we have someone to vote for? How do we get them to feel confident, (when they're not accomplished liars0, and competent (when they're not quite sure how to 'play the game')? How do we let them know that we're interested in their perspectives, and that we'll let them have a turn at the wheel?


The US had the opportunity to enact change in a Ron Paul government, not enough of the people turned out to support his movement for an honest and accountable government. Getting honest people back in, well you tell them they either have to volunteer their time or they have a salary cap. They can only operate for one or two terms, no career politicians, if they lie, accept bribes, lobbying, etc. they will be charged, no exceptions, monitor politicians 24/7 as public service means in the public eye and public domain (to me anyway). Use the internet to start the movement and gather enough support that you can have a vote of non-confidence and get the idiots out of the present administration. In the constitution it's called a petition for the redress of grievances I believe.

Unfortunately, present governments will not go easily into that dark night, of course a partial pardon for their crimes might ease the transfer. It seems to me however, this will end very badly. I would not like to see a full scale revolution, they tend to be bloody, most people would be in harm's way and not even get to adapt to the new fair paradigm shift in societal management, which would negate the opportunity for rational and constructive change. Revolutions generate dictators when a power vacuum occurs in a democracy and we certainly don't need any more dictators or petty despots.

The real problems with a change into an honest and accountable system of government is time and apathy. Most people are just trying to stay alive these days and cannot afford the time to do the research and determine the differences between a right or wrong political system. It doesn't help that the MSM is owned by criminal control freaks with political interests as they steer the people who don't have the time to do the research. I don't know what to tell you as far as a "good" way to enact change in the political system but I have been thinking about it a lot lately as Canada needs the change just as much as the US or any other colony/country.

I know what I would do to fix the problems, I am just not sure how to get into a position to fix the problems. I expect this is a similar situation for many people.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


But Chrismarco, if you funnel us all down enough, eventually we'll all end up in one of a few heaps. I can't say for sure, but maybe the racially marginalized, the disabled, the gender-steroetyped, and the rest of us? Man, if we were to be narrowed down to 4 piles it would be a stretch to label them. But still that would leave us with 4 potential parties (not even going to guess at their names now). Surely, our multitudinous specific views could be narrowed to 4 general views?

Nope, that won't happen.

I'm Canadian, so our Prime Minister gets elected by his/her party winning the most votes. Which is crap. A system more like the United States might be better where, if I understand it, the President actually gets elected. Would we be better off to get rid of the party system completely, and elect everyone as an independent, based on their platform? Would make sessions of congress/parliament more interesting.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Dear Dave,

You're brilliant. You make me wish I hadn't drank so much wine already, so I could respond to you with equal aplomb. I gather you're a Canuck like me, and if you are, you might understand why I, an Ontario teacher, am so far into the grapes tonight. Our provincial government is lying through their collective teeth to wrest away our right to bargain our future. Think what you may of unions, and I know your opinions will be varied, but we have been, under Canadian civil right law, given the right to bargain collectively. And now our right to bargain is being legislated away, before we have even taken a vote to engage in work to rule, before we have taken a vote to strike.

The current legislation that will likely be passed in Ontario, on Monday, says, in itself, that it cannot be challenged by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, that it does not have to meet the requirements of the Civil Rights Code, and that it supersedes the Education Act. And that it cannot be challenged in court.

In Canada!

In effin Canada!

And there are the people, the voting people, saying "Liberals are nice. I should vote for them."

Bah!

And now you know the motive for my thread. Those Ontario Liberals are lying from 6 ways to Sunday. if you want to hear about it, believe me,I'll tell you.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jebbaroo
 


Got so damned mad, I forgot my link. A dozen more to follow, if anyone's interested,

sgnews.ca... edium=rss&utm_campaign=civil-rights-organization-union-ready-to-fight-ontario-liberals-educational-bill-115-in-court-if-passed



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jebbaroo
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

And there are the people, the voting people, saying "Liberals are nice. I should vote for them."

Bah!

And now you know the motive for my thread. Those Ontario Liberals are lying from 6 ways to Sunday. if you want to hear about it, believe me,I'll tell you.


No established mainstream party in the colony of Canada (or any colony or country) is trustworthy, responsible or accountable, that's a given. I have dealt with politicians in the past, as far as I am concerned, they're all scumbags. If Harper, Obama or any of them showed up my door tomorrow, I'd tell them to their face what an ass they are and why and I would have a lot of questions they would not want to answer. I don't care if the IMF threatened them or it's just their greed and avarice. Wrong is wrong.

You want to see change, most of us do. You want to be able to collectively bargain to make a better life for yourself but what are you willing to give or give up to make life better for everyone else in Canada? Government is supposed to be about social responsibility and accountability, eg. the greater good, not a single union or corporation or a group of people or political greed, power, graft and lobbying. It's about everyone and I realize the present government is doing a piss-poor job, but what you advocate is feeding the beast by acknowledging the rules of the system.

Think civil disobedience as a collective, work against the system by doing the right thing. In my humble opinion, the best thing you and your collective can do is offer to teach kids about the system. Teach them to think critically. Teach them about money, what it is and what it isn't and how the IMF works to extort countries. Teach them about the law and how we are chattel to governments and how governments borrow money based on populations. Teach them about the social contract that none of us ever signed at birth and that was never explained to 99% of the population and how it is skewed in favour of governments to enslave populations. Teach them the truth in addition to the horsesh** government's want you to teach that simply trains kids to operate well within a corrupt and fraudulent "system." At least that way the kids can make their own decisions because there is no virtue in being sane in an insane and corrupt world.

Would you sacrifice educating the kids in your school to make a better life for your union collective? Can you do that and not feel any guilt knowing you are hurting people? Because if you can do that, if you can hurt other people for your own benefit, there's really not much to talk about. It really just means you want what you can get out of the system regardless of the damage it might cause, which is a mercenary attitude. Believe me when I say that generally speaking, people who draw a line in the sand soon forget where that line was drawn. I made my line in the sand 22 years ago and I have never turned back on my decisions or sold out for any reason.

Governments literally forever via their handlers, have turned us into totally competitve animals, where we strive for money or power or both, where people are willing to step on the necks of others to get what they want. How can you expect governments to behave ethically and morally when your union advocates the opposite and is setting the wrong example. The extra money that comes through from the government due to collective bargaining may help your life a little, you can buy more things, but it will also equally make other people's lives worse. There is a finite resourse level in this country at any given time, if you take "money" from one place to benefit one person or group, it is to another person or group's detriment.

I realize that governments will not change and follow the right example because they are being extorted by the IMF and UN, your union doing the right thing will not make the government do the right thing, so now everyone uses extortion to get what they want. A husband might say give me sex or I'll leave, a woman might say give me things or I'll leave, a union could say give us more money or we'll go on strike, a church tells you to do what they say or you'll go to hell, a government tells another country sell us your resources cheap or we'll bomb your country, the IMF will always say give us our interest or we'll destroy you economically. It's all extortion ;-) and extortion isn't right, it is a bullying tactic, you know that thing we are all supposed to be against, bullying, that thing on ads on TV and radio and newspapers and the internet constantly. If it isn't right for a kid in school, it isn't right for a government or anything in between. One rule fits all.

You really have to decide whether you want nationwide change or personal change, they are quite different.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/7.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join