• Obama: "You get the politicians you deserve"
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Former President Barack Obama, speaking to an audience in Italy on Tuesday, urged citizens to participate in democracy and warned that “you get the politicians you deserve.” “People have a tendency to blame politicians when things don't work, but as I always tell people, you get the politicians you deserve,” Obama said, to loud applause. “And if you don't vote and you don't pay attention, you'll get policies that don't reflect your interest.” Obama was speaking in Milan at a summit on food innovation. He has spoken broadly about the democratic process in a handful of public appearances since the end of his tenure, and he devoted his good-bye address in Chicago to democracy and urging Americans to engage in politics [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150[/url]
sounds like he's tuning in to the ghost of george carlin [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07w9K2XR3f0[/media]
Not at all wrong. Trump was elected because thinking critically was something beyond the mental capacity of a huge part of the voting population. Democracy isn't a luxury, it entails responsibility.
All well and good but I did pay attention and I did vote and I still got politicians that don't represent my interests.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;52211376]All well and good but I did pay attention and I did vote and I still got politicians that don't represent my interests.[/QUOTE] Well, he's referring to "you" the people, not "you" the individual.
It's a good thing to keep in mind. Life can be kind of soft for a lot of people in western countries, and people take democracy for granted. But democracy does not work if people do not participate in the democratic system. People have fought and died in history for what we assume as "normal life" for our entire life so far. All we have to do is think before we vote.
Birthright democracy has always been a problem. Socrates even warned against it. What we basically have in the United States today is a system that doesn't discourage anti-intellectualism and ignorance (it encourages it)-- one that says, "Your ignorance and stupidity is just as valuable as another person's knowledge and qualification. Now have fun voting and making decisions that will affect millions of other people and the fate of an entire society." So until we address that, this is just going to keep being an issue. [editline]10 May 2017[/editline] And Obama's spot on about this. Shitty people create and elect shitty politicians. At the same time, they've got to realize that they have the power to stand up against them if they're dissatisfied with them and the way things are being run. If you're so massively unpopular that the majority of the people decide to oppose you, there's nothing you can do about it-- you're outnumbered, and you've clearly failed at your job. It's time to leave at that point.
aka you should have to take an IQ test to be eligible to vote lol Something to that effect doesn't seem like such a bad idea tbh
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52211445]aka you should have to take an IQ test to be eligible to vote lol Something to that effect doesn't seem like such a bad idea tbh[/QUOTE] An IQ test will tell you shit all though. How much IQ would one need to be legible to vote? What would the test consist of otherwise? It's a bad idea and I fail to see how it could be done. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] But I get how ya feel
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52211517]An IQ test will tell you shit all though. How much IQ would one need to be legible to vote? What would the test consist of otherwise? It's a bad idea and I fail to see how it could be done. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] But I get how ya feel[/QUOTE] Thats why i said something to that effect? Obviously an IQ test wouldn't solve the issue at hand but a test in intelligence is clearly required. Look at the situation america is in, do you think smart people did this? lol
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52211530]Thats why i said something to that effect? Obviously an IQ test wouldn't solve the issue at hand but a test in intelligence is clearly required. Look at the situation america is in, do you think smart people did this? lol[/QUOTE] I don't see how restricting who can vote is viable in any situation I can think of, especially not in the current US. Just tell me which authority would be supervising this operation or how they'd go about their task?
There's one caveat I'd add to this personally: If someone without fault on their own is in a position where they're unable to make a really informed choice, I don't blame them personally for what results from that. I think that's what we're seeing in the US right now, to a large extent. You could say it's the fault of people who have been engaged in the democratic process there earlier than many current voters, though.
The main problem in a situation where two shitbags by any reasonable standards are the voting options isn't that dumb people are voting so it doesn't adress anything.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52211445]aka you should have to take an IQ test to be eligible to vote lol Something to that effect doesn't seem like such a bad idea tbh[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say an IQ test, something more along the lines of a citizenship test that tests actual knowledge in a variety of areas. Make parts of it multiple choice, make other parts essay questions, etc. Basically, make it like your average (but thorough) college exam. Include portions that deal with subjects like: How familiar are you on old American history? How familiar are you on contemporary American history and politics? How familiar are you with how the government works? How familiar are you with economics? How familiar are you with science? Etc. If you're so fucking smart about climate change, inflation, unemployment, how our government works, what the president does, etc., prove it. Should be easy enough. I see these people posting to Facebook all the time like they've got all the answers, so again, it should be easy enough for them to demonstrate their brilliance to the world. Of course you'd have people complaining about, "Well who decides what the right answers are?" But that's too bad. Odds are if you're whining about it, you just don't actually know anything about which you're lecturing and are just pissed you got called out/caught for it. Like with climate change... it baffles me that people who go to the doctor when they're sick and who go to a mechanic when their car is fucked up STILL think they know more than the world's leading climate scientists do about it. "It's just a Chinese conspiracy." "The globalists are using it to forward their agenda." "Manmade impacts are negligible, it's all natural and cyclical." Etc. You can't have a society that's stooped in that much relativism and expect it to function though. [b]This is exactly what has brought us to the point we're at today where you actually have people denying objective reality because it doesn't fit their narrative[/b] (in other words, /pol/ and people who think like they do). It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Govna;52211545]I wouldn't say an IQ test, something more along the lines of a citizenship test that tests actual knowledge in a variety of areas. Make parts of it multiple choice, make other parts essay questions, etc. Basically, make it like your average (but thorough) college exam. Include portions that deal with subjects like: If you're so fucking smart about climate change, inflation, unemployment, how our government works, what the president does, etc., prove it. Should be easy enough. I see these people posting to Facebook all the time like they've got all the answers, so again, it should be easy enough for them to demonstrate their brilliance to the world. Of course you'd have people complaining about, "Well who decides what the right answers are?" But that's too bad. Odds are if you're whining about it, you just don't actually know anything about which you're lecturing and are just pissed you got called out/caught for it. Like with climate change... it baffles me that people who go to the doctor when they're sick and who go to a mechanic when their car is fucked up STILL think they know more than the world's leading climate scientists do about it. "It's just a Chinese conspiracy." "The globalists are using it to forward their agenda." "Manmade impacts are negligible, it's all natural and cyclical." Etc.[/quote] why not decentralize power instead of disenfranchising voters [quote]How familiar are you on old American history? How familiar are you on contemporary American history and politics? How familiar are you with how the government works? How familiar are you with economics? How familiar are you with science?[/quote] societies have gotten along fine for 99% of human history without there needing to be a test for voting based on "how well do u know economics" [quote]You can't have a society that's stooped in that much relativism and expect it to function though. [b]This is exactly what has brought us to the point we're at today where you actually have people denying objective reality because it doesn't fit their narratives[/b] (in other words, /pol/ and people who think like they do). It's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] we live in a world where half of the scientific papers that end up published can't be replicated and several fields (notably economics) are little better than astrology in their predictive power
[QUOTE=Judas;52211351]sounds like he's tuning in to the ghost of george carlin [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07w9K2XR3f0[/media][/QUOTE] If only he was alive to see all the shit going on, he'll probably have a heart attack from how stupid it is though.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211557]why not decentralize power instead of disenfranchising voters[/QUOTE] Explain what you mean by this. That's such a broad statement. Decentralize... what? Government? The economy? Education? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211557]societies have gotten along fine for 99% of human history without there needing to be a test for voting based on "how well do u know economics"[/quote] Because for most of human history, the majority of societies haven't even been democratic in the first place-- they've been monarchies/empires, oligarchies, etc. Maybe a handful of people could vote (nobles and powerful, wealthy individuals for instance) in specific elections or on specific things, but that was about the extent of it. If they didn't have competent rulers, then they were typically destroyed by external forces or just imploded in on themselves. Birthright democracy like what's commonly observed here in the West today has only been a mainstream thing for governments within the last few hundred years. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211557]we live in a world where half of the scientific papers that end up published can't be replicated and several fields (notably economics) are little better than astrology in their predictive power[/QUOTE] 1) That's why they're retested in the first place. "Here's a couple of interesting findings. Let's look into them further. What, one couldn't be replicated? Alright. The other one could? Great! Science!" You're missing the point: this is completely irrelevant to the fact that a shitload of Americans lack any scientific literacy, and that's a bad thing in a society that claims to want an educated, internationally competitive populace. Understanding science and having a generalized awareness of certain fields is therefore important to have. 2) Economics has basic principles which people need to understand. What inflation is and how it affects us, unemployment and how the government measures unemployment, how the stock market works, how the Federal Reserve works, etc.
[QUOTE=Govna;52211569]Explain what you mean by this. That's such a broad statement. Decentralize... what? Government? The economy? Education?[/QUOTE] everything insofar that it is possible. people who live in some town or whatever know better how to run it than intellectual-yet-idiot types who think that their policies would magically work if only the voters were "educated" and voted for them
[QUOTE=Tamschi;52211539]There's one caveat I'd add to this personally: If someone without fault on their own is in a position where they're unable to make a really informed choice, I don't blame them personally for what results from that. I think that's what we're seeing in the US right now, to a large extent. You could say it's the fault of people who have been engaged in the democratic process there earlier than many current voters, though.[/QUOTE] Obama isn't pointing fingers at the people for the purpose of this political game of who can find the smallest and most distant yet the easiest group of people to blame. The purpose is to raise awareness. I think Obama has made a personal realization after so many years in office, trying to make things right and now watching them burn down in the matter of months, weeks, days - perhaps that the american people can't be the center of his and our attention. There are wounds so deep in the entire american core of a nation that if anyone's gonna stand up in this world of rising authoritarian or atleast far right leaning movements, violations of basic human rights on vast scales all over the world... well, believe me when I say it's not the United States that's gonna lead the way.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211586]everything insofar that it is possible. people who live in some town or whatever know better how to run it than intellectual-yet-idiot types who think that their policies would magically work if only the voters were "educated" and voted for them[/QUOTE] What would you consider to be within the realm of possibility for us? Because we're the largest single-nation economy on Earth, we have more than 320 million people spread out across 50 states (totalling almost 3.8 million square miles worth of land) to care for, we have a shitload of natural resources that have to be managed, etc. Centralization is natural and necessary because of all this. While there are certainly some things that could be decentralized and left to the discretion of local communities, there must be federal oversight and control in order to keep us together. And what people are you talking about? Have you got a specific example? I ask because plenty of random small towns know how to do a few things really well (typically farming) yet are dumb as shit on a bunch of other stuff. My own town has a coal power plant, and if you listened to these people and let them make their own decisions, they'd keep it running forever. Fuck the environment-- "Humans haven't got any impact on the planet, and we can do whatever we want." They'd expand the coal industry if they had the power to do so, for that matter. Same with religion; some of the most overzealous people live around these parts and don't belong anywhere near a public office because they'd immediately use it to further Christianity at everybody else's expense. It's fine to allow local governments to manage themselves... to an extent. But we need centralization at a higher level to keep them in check. Decentralizing everything isn't a good solution here considering the number of problems it would immediately open us up to.
I can't say I fully agree with what he's saying. Our politics has become so corrupted by money at this point, we don't have much of a say. A thousand people have less of a voice than one millionaire, and a politician won't even look twice at you unless you're a lobbyist. We have very little control over our government, it's mostly rich people with differing agenda's that push things into law. All they need us for is the political game they call campaigning. [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;52211407]Birthright democracy has always been a problem. Socrates even warned against it. What we basically have in the United States today is a system that doesn't discourage anti-intellectualism and ignorance (it encourages it)-- one that says, "Your ignorance and stupidity is just as valuable as another person's knowledge and qualification. Now have fun voting and making decisions that will affect millions of other people and the fate of an entire society." So until we address that, this is just going to keep being an issue.[/QUOTE] How do you "address" a proposal to strip voting rights from a tens or hundreds of millions of people? And the problem isn't just idiots, it's disinformation campaigns run by corporations and media groups to push an agenda. You wonder why so many people don't believe in climate change? Because big oil has been running a disinformation campaign against it since it was discovered 30 years ago. Why are things so politically split? Maybe it's because the fairness doctrine was trashed and a lot of the media in our country is straight up propaganda? It's not just the right either, there are a surprising number of anti-gun people who seem to actually believe buying an Assault Rifle or Machine Gun is just walking into the shop with cash and walking out with the weapon.
[QUOTE=Govna;52211569]Because for most of human history, the majority of societies haven't even been democratic in the first place-- they've been monarchies/empires, oligarchies, etc. Maybe a handful of people could vote (nobles and powerful, wealthy individuals for instance) in specific elections or on specific things, but that was about the extent of it. If they didn't have competent rulers, then they were typically destroyed by external forces or just imploded in on themselves. Birthright democracy like what's commonly observed here in the West today has only been a mainstream thing for governments within the last few hundred years.[/quote] if you want to ignore city-states, greek ones, a lot of ancient rome and the middle east, switzerland, and many medieval towns and cities then sure. those places had participatory politics (people participate in general, it isn't necessarily completely open to voting) and seemed to survive pretty well (the swiss have managed for eight centuries) [quote]1) That's why they're retested in the first place. "Here's a couple of interesting findings. Let's look into them further. What, one couldn't be replicated? Alright. The other one could? Great! Science!" You're missing the point: this is completely irrelevant to the fact that a shitload of Americans lack any scientific literacy, and that's a bad thing in a society that claims to want an educated, internationally competitive populace. Understanding science and having a generalized awareness of certain fields is therefore important to have.[/quote] education isn't important to economic growth (beyond a minimum level). most education has historically (and should be) for the purpose of making people better citizens and for the sake of education. the transition its seen in the past few decades into a machine for churning people out with degrees they don't need and saddling them with debt is not a successful model for economic growth. rich countries are educated because they are rich - they are not rich because they are educated (you only need to look at the saudis and other arab oilstates for that). the replication crisis in itself is a major problem in science (something that people like to be quiet about). retesting isn't worth it when the people producing these papers in the first place aren't even doing the work properly. if half of the papers can't replicate, this means half of all the scientific output in any given year could be wrong. dietary advice keeps changing, exercise and healthy living advice keeps changing, new drugs are approved or shitcanned - but all of these things happen long after their damage has already been dealt by scientists that supposedly demonstrated "positive" results and it took a long time for somebody to actually falsify it (due to the sheer scale of the science industry now). when scientists are getting worse and worse at their job, can you blame ordinary people for distrusting them? [quote]2) Economics has basic principles which people need to understand. What inflation is and how it affects us, unemployment and how the government measures unemployment, how the stock market works, how the Federal Reserve works, etc.[/QUOTE] most of it doesn't. if you want proof, just look up any prediction that economists make about the next quarter or year and then much later check if they came true. often they're no better than astrologers teaching people this on a wide scale doesn't help them run businesses or how to save and invest money (something far more useful to them than generalised principles about how economies function because most people already have a basic idea of how it does). the only people who need education in economics are generally economists [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;52211673]It's fine to allow local governments to manage themselves... to an extent. But we need centralization at a higher level [b]to keep them in check.[/b][/QUOTE] from what? accountability? [QUOTE]Decentralizing everything isn't a good solution here considering the number of problems it would immediately open us up to.[/QUOTE] like [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] you know if you wanna do a test for whenever or not you can vote, you should make it if you can do deadlifts or not
America does not have the best-designed democracy. It's easily excusable - it was one of, if not the first, modern democracy, and they were bound to get a few things wrong. Further, America now is larger than the founders could ever have envisioned - the current executive branch has as many employees as Washington's America had population. Unfortunately, one of the things they got wrong was making the system too hard to change. And American democracy is good [I]enough[/I] that nowhere near enough people are willing to throw out the entire thing and start over, which is really what you'd have to do to change the system (witness: replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was done outside the framework of the Confederation). Then there's the familiarity effect - a generation that fought a war to replace a distant monarchy with a representational democracy is of course more willing to throw that out and try again than a generation whose oldest living relatives never met anyone who was alive without America being a country. There are mechanisms to change the system from within, but they require a very, very large effort to succeed. Granting the vote to non-white non-males took a huge effort. We need to put that same level of energy towards changing the vote system away from FPTP, to fixing our education systems, to bridging the wealth gap. There's no magic-bullet solution here. It's going to take a lot of effort by a lot of people over a long period of time.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211586]everything insofar that it is possible. people who live in some town or whatever know better how to run it than intellectual-yet-idiot types who think that their policies would magically work if only the voters were "educated" and voted for them[/QUOTE] i would rather live in a modern nation of mediocrity than in the universe's best hut village, thanks
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52212369]Unfortunately, one of the things they got wrong was making the system too hard to change.[/QUOTE] If the system was easy to change, we'd be a seesaw nation. You'd have people go get married to a same sex partner, and then 4 years later their marriage is declared void, and then 4 years later they can remarry. Except it would be like that with everything partisan.
[QUOTE=Jund;52212395]i would rather live in a nation of mediocrity than in the universe's best hut village, thanks[/QUOTE] I think Sobotnik is saying more local and state power rather than federal if I'm reading him right. Which can work, We're already a pretty decentralized country in all honesty, its just a matter of federal laws being too far overreaching in some areas. But by no means does decentralization of power equate to hut villages. If anything it's more along the lines of what a good chunk of the founding fathers originally wanted funnily enough, especially Jefferson. However we can't go overboard because the infrastructure and industry we have today is far different than what it once was.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52212398]If the system was easy to change, we'd be a seesaw nation. You'd have people go get married to a same sex partner, and then 4 years later their marriage is declared void, and then 4 years later they can remarry. Except it would be like that with everything partisan.[/QUOTE] Yes, having a system that is too easy to change is bad. So is having a system that is too hard to change. Simple example: the Electoral College. It's a horrible idea that benefits next to nobody and is disliked by basically everyone. Why do we still have it? Because changing it would require a constitutional amendment, and that it fucking hard to organize. The "Congress can't raise their own salaries during their own term" amendment took 200 years to pass. Formalizing the traditional two-term limit took a decade after Roosevelt's third term.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52211845] retesting isn't worth it when the people producing these papers in the first place aren't even doing the work properly. if half of the papers can't replicate, this means half of all the scientific output in any given year could be wrong. dietary advice keeps changing, exercise and healthy living advice keeps changing, new drugs are approved or shitcanned - but all of these things happen long after their damage has already been dealt by scientists that supposedly demonstrated "positive" results and it took a long time for somebody to actually falsify it (due to the sheer scale of the science industry now).[/QUOTE] a voting test isn't the answer to our problems but saying that smart people are dumb because economists can't see into the future and scientific theories constantly change is a joke. are we in second grade? clearly you could do with some more education if you think that stock market speculation is the same as knowing that trickle-down doesn't work arab oil states? so we'll just sit on our asses until we find oil? guess if we don't start out rich we're shit outta luck. or maybe we can get rich by dissolving our government [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Native Hunter;52212418]I think Sobotnik is saying more local and state power rather than federal if I'm reading him right. Which can work, We're already a pretty decentralized country in all honesty, its just a matter of federal laws being too far overreaching in some areas. But by no means does decentralization of power equate to hut villages. If anything it's more along the lines of what a good chunk of the founding fathers originally wanted funnily enough, especially Jefferson. However we can't go overboard because the infrastructure and industry we have today is far different than what it once was.[/QUOTE] then you just have stupidity on the local level instead of the national level his response to solving the epidemic of voter anti-intellectualism leading to bad policies is to decentralize. what the hell would that solve?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52212455]Yes, having a system that is too easy to change is bad. So is having a system that is too hard to change. Simple example: the Electoral College. It's a horrible idea that benefits next to nobody and is disliked by basically everyone. Why do we still have it? Because changing it would require a constitutional amendment, and that it fucking hard to organize. The "Congress can't raise their own salaries during their own term" amendment took 200 years to pass. Formalizing the traditional two-term limit took a decade after Roosevelt's third term.[/QUOTE] That's less because it's hard to change, and more because there's zero initiative among congress to change it. These are people who've chosen Congressman as a carreer path, they're not going to change the voting system to one that'll get them kicked out for someone the voters actually like.
[QUOTE=Jund;52212472]a voting test isn't the answer to our problems but saying that smart people are dumb because economists can't see into the future and scientific theories constantly change is a joke. are we in second grade? clearly you could do with some more education if you think that stock market speculation is the same as knowing that trickle-down doesn't work[/QUOTE] it's because the kind of people responsible for these tests are exactly those people who failed to actually replicate their scientific results or pretend to know how economies work the idea of having a voting test written by intellectual idiots in order to vote /will/ make education worse and concentrate power in the hands of "intellectuals" here's a better idea for anybody who wants there be to an exam so you can vote - if you're going to implement a test for voting, make it so you can only vote if you do deadlifts [QUOTE=Jund;52212472]his response to solving the epidemic of voter anti-intellectualism leading to bad policies is to decentralize. what the hell would that solve?[/QUOTE] the voter anti-intellectualism as of late isn't surprising when you consider that a lot of intellectuals are idiots
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.