That doesnt change whether something is good or bad, a benefit or a hazard.
Look, youve certainly proved you ARE an actual politician in real life. Not many even on the EvE forums spend so much time saying so little to defend something so messed up.
Gonna stop you there. Opinions are just that. Provable consequences of political actions are quite something else.
Whether something is good, bad, benefit or a hazard largely depends on where you’re sitting. That’s what I mean by “it’s subjective.” Your idea of what’s good is different than mine, obviously. Doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong.
Yeah, that whole “provable consequences” thing is where I’ll stop you. When folks say “provable consquences” they usually mean “this is what I think, here are some cherry picked statistics that justify what I think” and the truth is somewhere else.
This is the equivalent of the guy who runs to fix low sec, gets elected, CCP says they aren’t doing lowsec this year, gets disillusioned, quits the game.
This isn’t how things work. You don’t get to run for office to fix the only thing you care about, or even one thing your constituents care about. You have to do more than that, and it almost never is so easy you can do it and then go home in a term or two.
That sounds suspiciously like the inaccurate generalising youve been accusing most of this thread of.
So your assertion that politics allows you to do best by your constituents is based on whether you feel something is right or wrong? Because right and wrong arent objective? Handy, that pretty much is carte blanche to do what you want and claim it as for the greater good.
Again, nothing Ive not already seen, thanks for further confirming it.
False equivalence seems to be your forte.
It’s not. I know how difficult it is to distill things down to a single pinpoint cause and effect, especially when it comes to politics. One change tends to have tons of unintended consequences, and for every problem that gets fixed, another half dozen can be created. It’s a never ending thing.
Right and wrong in the political context is necessarily subjective. There are very few issues where every single person will look at an issue and say “this is the right answer” and “this is the wrong answer.” Especially if it’s controversial.
Elected officials who do what their constituents - or, at least, their constituents at whatever level the choice of who gets to run is made - view as “the right thing” get reelected. The ones who don’t, don’t.
If you think someone is doing the wrong thing and nobody agrees with you, well, that’s my point about how right and wrong political are subjective.
It’s not a false equivalence. Almost nobody runs on a single issue, fixes it and then leaves. The time, effort, and the like to get elected and the experience you get while doing it, plus most systems are seniority based and those who leave hurt their districts when they do, means there are a lot of good, non-self serving reasons for people to serve after they’ve fixed something they felt passionate about.
Agreed. Like I said, almost no politician is honest. I notice you have nothing to say on the rest of the post you are quoting from.
It’s hard, even for you, to defend the indefensible.
I didn’t comment on the other stuff you wrote because most of it is just not true. It’s a caricature of what happens.
Of course. Its the context where laws are changed to suit yourselves and every day is you get paid even though most of the year you arent in session. I think the proles know exactly the difference between political context and reality.
I can see why you think that is how it should work, but given what you have said, Im suprised the concept of Party Whips has totally escaped you.
Because the system isnt designed to actual solve problems. Or is it?
Oh apparently not.
You see, if you actually were right, and politics existed for the population’s or society’s benefit, even though we are apparently according to you too uneducated to understand it, then people who were qualified in actual subjects that are objectibly quantifiable would be in charge of those things.
Health Ministers are almost always not Doctors or Nurses.
I mean, you went to law school, right? I can see how in Subjective Land that qualifies you to decide whether a needed aqueduct should go through a site of scientific or historic interest, the rights and wrongs of that.
Not really the case in reality though.
Yet it happens every day.
Oh yeah and this. Yeah thats a super mechanism. Remove the actual choice from the majority forthwith. Cant have indecision slowing down the coronation.
As your very livelihood depends on you believing that, I’ll accept that you actually think you are being sincere in that belief. It’s pretty easy to be willfully blind to the big picture when you live in such a small bubble.
Or “wiff waff” or some other Etonville guff
Boris may come across as a buffoon, but he’s better than the alternative; Comrade Corbyn would probably spout unrelated extracts from Das Kapital if asked a question, any question.
Aw cmon thres no need to stoop to politician levels of whataboutery.
Besides, its a rivetting read.
I’d rather read The Wealth of Nations than Das Kapital, there again I’ll take the old testament over the new testament; some good old fashioned smiting by a vengeful bloke in the sky in that one, and none of that namby-pamby love thy neighbour stuff.
Just as much hypocrisy in em all.
Besides, Comrade Corbyn isnt actually letting @100 people a day die from a disease at this very moment, so my backing is somewhat against the NHS-selling blue ties
I’ll just throw this out here:
When the National Election Study began asking about trust in government in 1958, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. Trust in government began eroding during the 1960s, amid the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the decline continued in the 1970s with the Watergate scandal and worsening economic struggles. Confidence in government recovered in the mid-1980s before falling again in the mid-1990s. But as the economy grew in the late 1990s so too did confidence in government. Public trust reached a three-decade high shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but declined quickly thereafter. Since 2007, the share saying they can trust the government always or most of the time has not surpassed 30%.
The majority of people must be wrong about politics I guess. You and your ilk should perhaps try to figure out why almost nobody trusts their representatives in politics.
Plenty of room for satire in all four though, although Monty Python are the only people to pull it off successfully in the case of the latter two.
On that note did you hear about the faux pas that Fox News made?
One of their reporters read a post from a Reddit thread about the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and tried to pass it off as evidence of infighting amongst protesters; it turned out to be a Monty Python extract from The Holy Grail…
John Cleese had a field day 
I’ll bet that if we asked Brisc about this over a beer he would agree with us. He just can’t do so in this venue, for everybody to see and quote.
No watery tarts allowed.
