What Happened To Our Politicians?

[GURPS]

So, here’s the question: if Greitens had engaged in the affair, we’d all likely shrug and move on with our lives. It’s only the element of alleged threatened blackmail that makes us take notice. Isn’t that an effect of defining deviancy down?

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) coined that phrase back in 1993, when he argued thusly regarding crime:

[O]ver the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.​

That logic doesn’t just apply to crime. It applies to the behavior of our politicians.

Thirty years ago, Greitens would have been forced from office for his obvious immorality; today, we all say that such behavior is unpleasant, but not a barrier to holding high office. That's thanks to the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump.

The natural next step: we only get exercised if something worse happens.



Missouri Governor Greitens Accused Of Blindfolding Mistress, Photographing Her Naked, And Blackmailing Her. What Happened To Our Politicians?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What happened to us? These people don't magically get into office.

 

[SamSpade]

What happened to us? These people don't magically get into office.

Because for most offices, we pretty much get two choices. You can put in a write in, or you can search for the third party candidate running for the House or Senate or Governor - if he's there.
But your choice is either Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

IF you could enter a NOTA vote - "None of the Above" - that could shake things up.
Right now, if you have two corrupt parties fielding candidates - and in almost every last case, one of the two gets in - the question is, how did the PARTIES get so corrupt?
Because in all honesty we don't really have a choice at all.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Because for most offices, we pretty much get two choices. You can put in a write in, or you can search for the third party candidate running for the House or Senate or Governor - if he's there.
But your choice is either Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

IF you could enter a NOTA vote - "None of the Above" - that could shake things up.
Right now, if you have two corrupt parties fielding candidates - and in almost every last case, one of the two gets in - the question is, how did the PARTIES get so corrupt?
Because in all honesty we don't really have a choice at all.

That's a great point. Perhaps this Trump movement is putting the parties on notice. Or perhaps we should not hold true the idea that there are only 2 parties, or that voting for an independent official means a vote for ________ (insert politician you don't like on the line).

 

[SamSpade]

That's a great point. Perhaps this Trump movement is putting the parties on notice. Or perhaps we should not hold true the idea that there are only 2 parties, or that voting for an independent official means a vote for ________ (insert politician you don't like on the line).

When the subject comes up, there's always someone who says "oh but there are OTHER choices".
Baloney. Maybe for President, but most votes cast in this country are for all of the other elections, and there's Democrats and Republicans running for them.
And that's pretty much it.

If one party decides to run a wife-beating former NFL player for mayor - and the other party decides to run a mobster - what choice do you have?
You don't have one.

We are now at the distinct likelihood that the next national election will have two pop culture icons running for the highest office in the land.
I swear, before I die, it will get a LOT more ridiculous than that.

Either we find a way to make parties irrelevant - or we're just doomed to get whomever they offer.

 

[Gilligan]

Either we find a way to make parties irrelevant - or we're just doomed to get whomever they offer.

Bingo.

 

[Hijinx]

When the subject comes up, there's always someone who says "oh but there are OTHER choices".
Baloney. Maybe for President, but most votes cast in this country are for all of the other elections, and there's Democrats and Republicans running for them.
And that's pretty much it.

If one party decides to run a wife-beating former NFL player for mayor - and the other party decides to run a mobster - what choice do you have?
You don't have one.

We are now at the distinct likelihood that the next national election will have two pop culture icons running for the highest office in the land.
I swear, before I die, it will get a LOT more ridiculous than that.

Either we find a way to make parties irrelevant - or we're just doomed to get whomever they offer.

When You're right you are right.

 

[This_person]

That's a great point. Perhaps this Trump movement is putting the parties on notice. Or perhaps we should not hold true the idea that there are only 2 parties, or that voting for an independent official means a vote for ________ (insert politician you don't like on the line).

It would help if someday one of the other parties would put up someone who is demonstrably BETTER than the two major-party choices.

Trump is not a Republican, but ran as one to win.

Sanders is not a Democrat, but ran as one to give him a chance to win.

I've yet to see a viable third-party candidate save H. Ross Perot. When there is one, the parties will become less relevant.

 

[glhs837]

It would help if someday one of the other parties would put up someone who is demonstrably BETTER than the two major-party choices.

Trump is not a Republican, but ran as one to win.

Sanders is not a Democrat, but ran as one to give him a chance to win.

I've yet to see a viable third-party candidate save H. Ross Perot. When there is one, the parties will become less relevant.

Hard to find a self funding person whos willing to be put through the public liquid feces based pressure washer that a national election is. Escpecially when you are facing off against not just both national parties, but also virtually the entire media complex, both left and right. I think Perot showed quite clearly that no relatively normal person would want to do that to themselves and those they love.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It would help if someday one of the other parties would put up someone who is demonstrably BETTER than the two major-party choices.

Trump is not a Republican, but ran as one to win.

Sanders is not a Democrat, but ran as one to give him a chance to win.

I've yet to see a viable third-party candidate save H. Ross Perot. When there is one, the parties will become less relevant.

Considering a growing number of people who believe more govt. is the answer, having a politician ruinning on less govt. platform isn't likely to win anytime soon. What makes one person "better" than the R or D? That's certainly subjective.

 

[This_person]

Hard to find a self funding person whos willing to be put through the public liquid feces based pressure washer that a national election is. Escpecially when you are facing off against not just both national parties, but also virtually the entire media complex, both left and right. I think Perot showed quite clearly that no relatively normal person would want to do that to themselves and those they love.

I agree. But, it would be nice to see someone do it.

Trump more or less did it, but used the (R) apparatus. He could never have gotten on all 50 ballots as an (I). The laws for even getting on a ballot are biased against third parties, which is just inherently wrong.

 

[glhs837]

I agree. But, it would be nice to see someone do it.

Trump more or less did it, but used the (R) apparatus. He could never have gotten on all 50 ballots as an (I). The laws for even getting on a ballot are biased against third parties, which is just inherently wrong.

Yep, foxes guarding the voters henhouse.

 

[This_person]

Considering a growing number of people who believe more govt. is the answer, having a politician ruinning on less govt. platform isn't likely to win anytime soon. What makes one person "better" than the R or D? That's certainly subjective.

I agree it is subjective, but smaller government (read: someone who wants to follow the constitution) would make someone better right off as far as I'm concerned

Hillary was, in a word, horrific. There's no justification for her running, or anyone voting for her. But so many people hated Trump that she actually got a majority of voters' votes. But, let's look at Jill Stein, or any of the other third-party candidates; it's likely that a lying, thieving, murderous traitor like Hillary would have done better in the job than the third party candidates.

So, I'm looking for Bernie to run as a Socialist instead of a Democratic. Let Bernie be Bernie. Let Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, since he's clearly not a Republican. If Cruz and others believe the GOP is not following the Constitution, join and represent the Constitution Party.

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[awpitt]

I agree. But, it would be nice to see someone do it.

Trump more or less did it, but used the (R) apparatus. He could never have gotten on all 50 ballots as an (I). The laws for even getting on a ballot are biased against third parties, which is just inherently wrong.

Why do you say that?

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) got on the ballots in all 50 states in 2016.

 

[glhs837]

Why do you say that?

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) got on the ballots in all 50 states in 2016.

Because he was a Lobertarian, but barring that well established, albeit small organization, wasn't gonna happen.

 

[This_person]

Why do you say that?

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) got on the ballots in all 50 states in 2016.

And, that wasn't assured until almost October of 2016.

The point being, while it is not impossible, it is considerably more difficult for a non-R and non-D to get on national ballots. Literally, here in MD, the AG can put R's and D's on the based on nothing more than media reports of who won the D or R primary. It's not so easy for Independents.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, that wasn't assured until almost October of 2016.

Certainly through no fault of the candidate, but through hurdles required as established by the very two parties independents are trying to beat. That, and federal funding.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Because he was a Lobertarian, but barring that well established, albeit small organization, wasn't gonna happen.

Because no one wanted Hillary to win. Plenty of people said "I like what the party stands for, but a vote for Johnson means a vote for Hillary and she can't win."

This is the issue. Peopel want another party but aren't willing to vote for them, assuming they share some of the same values or expectations of that candidate or party, of course.