Politicians vs. Pundits

[Vagabond]

[Mods - if this should be in Politics, please feel free to move it. Thanks!]

I don't know who to hate more.
Politicians who I believe just lie to get your vote, or the pundits who constantly inform (possibly wrong word, over-info-dose?) the public that they're lying to you by not getting things done that they said they would.

As a few of you may know - I'm not overly fond of politicians.

- I don't think 'politician' should be a job/career. I think you should have or at least held some other job/career first. Shouldn't just get a law degree and become a politician.
- They should retire abdicate at some point. If the Pres can't stay in office indefinitely why should politicians be allowed to? C'mon Strom Thurmond had to be wheeled in by his wife at 99 or 100 years old so he could attend a meeting? Ridiculous!
- They can (and have) voted themselves pay raises. Gee, I wish I could do that.
- You see them when they're running for office, and when there's a scandal. I wonder what they do the rest of the time?

-quote of mine from another thread.

But, with all the pundits (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) out there, I'm not sure I'm fond of them either. They're like paparazzi - just waiting to get a shot of you with your pants down.

I used to watch the news for news. I define news as what is going on in the world around me. Lately it seems as the the 'news' is whatever is or isn't going on around Washington D.C. I'm fairly certain that there is more to the world that Washington D.C.

Why is it that I get more news from Jon Stewart's Daily Show and the Colbert Report? Granted they also report on politics, but they also tell me something about the rest of the world, such as the lack of snow in Vancouver for the Winter Olympics.

[HYHYBT]

I don't know who to hate more.
Politicians who I believe just lie to get your vote, or the pundits who constantly inform (possibly wrong word, over-info-dose?) the public that they're lying to you by not getting things done that they said they would.

Well, that depends: "not getting things done that they said they would" is not necessarily lying. Even a hypothetical perfectly intentioned and capable candidate can get bogged down by things that take longer than he thought they would, or that require the cooperation of unwilling others to accomplish, or by unexpected events that override anything else, and run out of time.

They can (and have) voted themselves pay raises. Gee, I wish I could do that.

Hence the 27th Amendment. *Someone* has to set their pay, and who else could it be? If they couldn't give themselves raises, they'd still be paid by 18th century standards and only those rich enough not to have to work could afford to take the job.

I used to watch the news for news. I define news as what is going on in the world around me. Lately it seems as the the 'news' is whatever is or isn't going on around Washington D.C. I'm fairly certain that there is more to the world that Washington D.C.

This is why I took a few years off from the news. Really; I pretty much avoided the news from radio, TV, paper, and internet from 2003 until 2005, and then my primary news source for the next three years was "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" because anything else just got too depressing. Did me a world of good, but also means I'm still not sure what happened with the 2004 elections. I mean, I know who won, but I don't understand stuff like the Swift Boat mess and don't really care to.

[Vagabond]

Hence the 27th Amendment. *Someone* has to set their pay, and who else could it be? If they couldn't give themselves raises, they'd still be paid by 18th century standards and only those rich enough not to have to work could afford to take the job.

Yes, someone has to set their (Congress) pay. However, I don't think it should be Congress themselves. I don't know, but I think they are making themselves rich, and most of the are rich enough. Not even counting all the 'perks' they get.
I think perhaps someone outside and un-connected to Congress ought set their pay. Congress is the executive branch right? So maybe someone over in the judicial branch? Or is Congress the legislative branch?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yes, someone has to set their (Congress) pay. However, I don't think it should be Congress themselves. I don't know, but I think they are making themselves rich, and most of the are rich enough. Not even counting all the 'perks' they get.
I think perhaps someone outside and un-connected to Congress ought set their pay. Congress is the executive branch right? So maybe someone over in the judicial branch? Or is Congress the legislative branch?

Congress and the senate are legislative, sup court and appelate are judicial and POTUS + cabinet are executive.

While not tip-top on the list of concerns, I do think it would be better if each branch decided the pay for one of the others. At the very least it would free up some time...

[Vagabond]

Don't they already have enough 'free time' if they're voting themselves pay raises and only holding meetings what... 4 times a year?
What are they doing the rest of the time again?
Visiting mistresses in foreign countries? Prostitutes downtown? Getting caught with their pants down in public bathrooms? Hmmmm... oh, yeah, wait a minute... those ALL sound familiar.
*grumble*

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Don't they already have enough 'free time' if they're voting themselves pay raises and only holding meetings what... 4 times a year?
What are they doing the rest of the time again?
Visiting mistresses in foreign countries? Prostitutes downtown? Getting caught with their pants down in public bathrooms? Hmmmm... oh, yeah, wait a minute... those ALL sound familiar.
*grumble*

I'm pretty sure they work a little more than that (although IMO we should just land mine golf clubs so that particular 'connection making' excuse to slack off becomes deadly ) and at least some of the BS stems from the political world's unshakable status-quo (scratched egos bring on career/life destruction... that sort of thing)

I'm more pissed at how shitty the world of politics is (thanks in no small part to the especially assholish politicians and more or less all of the pundits) than the simple act of being a part of it. If there's one thing I've learned in the short years I've lived so far it's that no arbitrary group contains all-assholes (except asshole-only groups, for obvious reasons [KKK, etc.]) I, personally, admire those who slave away trying to better the system or at least do good despite it's flaws. The only truely logical course of action is to help those people, and there's no way to do that by dismissing all of them. (something which, despite all my convictions, I still do from time to time.)

[Vagabond]

Okay, I'll concede the point that not all politicians are bad apples. However, I will stand that there are a few of them that have no business in politics, or trying to pass laws telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Okay, I'll concede the point that not all politicians are bad apples. However, I will stand that there are a few of them that have no business in politics, or trying to pass laws telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing.

Agreed. Which is exactly why I celebrated with cake and a good round of Airsoft when Palin stepped down.

Now we just need to figure out how to get rid of the bad apples, I suggested fire, but the local sheriff told me that that would be illegal... hmmmm...

wonder-net-acquaintance powers unite?

[Vagabond]

Fire? Call the aliens from ID4 - no jail time for you! I'll pony up eleventy billion internets to hire them!

Difficult to weed out the good from the bad. And then again, how would one go about to do that? Who's going to monitor the monitors of the monitors...

Sure, I'll go wonder-net-acquaintance powers unite, but I'm not being a bucket of water!!!

Mayhaps the old ways are best, medieval ways... "Trial by fire", now walk along this here path of coals that are glowing...
I'm getting silly methinks...

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Fire? Call the aliens from ID4 - no jail time for you! I'll pony up eleventy billion internets to hire them!

Difficult to weed out the good from the bad. And then again, how would one go about to do that? Who's going to monitor the monitors of the monitors...

Sure, I'll go wonder-net-acquaintance powers unite, but I'm not being a bucket of water!!!

Mayhaps the old ways are best, medieval ways... "Trial by fire", now walk along this here path of coals that are glowing...
I'm getting silly methinks...

The world could use more silly

You get to be the encyclopedia with no index because I've already got the computer without input devices cornered (figuring out how to type by staring at the screen and willing it to do stuff takes too much practice to give up now)

Still and all, doing something/trying is IMO more important than achieving total victory. It falls under the definition of perfection, something no one will ever achieve, but as a society we much seek...

[Vagabond]

Sweeet! Cuz, like I say about myself "My mind is like a steel bear trap, only the hinges are rusty"... and then there whole "I'm full of useless knowledge, but darn good at JEOPARDY".

My idea of trying would be to put term caps on the Congresspeoples so they can't serve forever. The Pres only gets 8 years, so why can't Congress people's also have a cap, say... I dunno 12 years max. Even combined between just a congress rep and Senator, no more than 12 years, combined, total? I'm not saying a perfect solution, but a possible step towards a better solution... it would prevent alot of the Good Ol Boy club that I'm sure goes on in at Capitol Hill.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Sweeet! Cuz, like I say about myself "My mind is like a steel bear trap, only the hinges are rusty"... and then there whole "I'm full of useless knowledge, but darn good at JEOPARDY".

My idea of trying would be to put term caps on the Congresspeoples so they can't serve forever. The Pres only gets 8 years, so why can't Congress people's also have a cap, say... I dunno 12 years max. Even combined between just a congress rep and Senator, no more than 12 years, combined, total? I'm not saying a perfect solution, but a possible step towards a better solution... it would prevent alot of the Good Ol Boy club that I'm sure goes on in at Capitol Hill.

That's one of the best suggestions I've heard in a while. Although I think the optimum for the loftier positions (POTUS and senate) might be to be elected once and only once to that office, that way there's less posturing and betrayal for the sake of getting a second term and they can instead do what they went there to do...

and also, LOL Since I both love jeopardy and carry junkloads of useless trivia, I can relate. Although I'm more often ridiculed as a gun nut for my obsessive-compulsive intrest in firearms...

[Vagabond]

I'll have to give the POTUS and possibly the Senate the max of 2 terms. POTUS cuz that's already in the constitutional amendments. And the Senate, cuz that would allow them the same amount of time as the POTUS.
Besides, with the political parties the way they are now... I don't know if any Pres could get anything done if the other party is just going to block or filibuster it into oblivion. They have made themselves part of the problem instead of the solution. Kinda like the Middle East - if you aren't fixing it, get out and let someone else try.

[protege]

Why stop with the POTUS and the Senate? I'm all for term limits trickling down...to state and local levels as well. Locally, we're never going to change things as long as the same idiots are in office. I know I've gone on about local politics, but Pittsburgh is very much a Good Old Boys Club.

[Fryk]

Except for Ravenstahl, who was a good young boy.