Roseanne canceled by ABC

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2018, 10:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not singling you out because (in my mind) I reply to more of your posts than others when I somehow drift over here, but I think that’s a little too passive. Anytime you vote in regards to pocket lining and special interests instead of your heart when you know the real truth which is happening in this country is a crime by human morality.

I won’t say all politicians do this because I simply can’t do that. However, I would challenge anyone to name 1. Just saying.

One problem I run into in answering this is that we don't know who most politicians are. The politicians at the federal level have a higher percentage of assholes, but that is who everyone knows. Even with that, though, I'd say the majority are trying to do what they think is best for the country. But we have to remember that the vast majority of elected officials are in state and local governments, they are more responsive to the people, and less affected by special interests. The other problem that I have in answering this is that when talking about the federal level officials (and even state/local in some instances) naming names becomes highly partisan.

There are folks on both sides of the aisle that I feel believe that they are doing what is best. I have to be clear that I am not saying they are doing what is best, only that they believe they are doing what is best.

(05-30-2018, 12:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: An excellent example, IMO. Having met more than a few politicians, this is how it is done. For many, party alignment is only "flavor of the moment" type choice. Whichever one will get them elected, usually based upon which one has done the best in recent elections. The political tenets of a party only matter to a handful of hardcore 'true believers'. But even then, the basis of their 'true belief' is more along the lines of riding the doctrine as far as they can go within the party leadership (i.e. no different than communism in that regard).

And all of this is colored by the need for funding and what those special interests and corporations want the politician to do for them. After a certain level, you do NOT get elected in America without them.

One of the biggest misconceptions in politics is the role money plays in swaying political opinions. One of the political scientists on my campus, and a friend of mine, did his graduate work with people researching this and he has continued researching it, himself. He actually used to work for OpenSecrets.org before coming here to teach and research.

Anyway, the previous research, and the recent research he has done, indicates that lobbying money doesn't change the positions of elected officials. Elected officials were going to vote the way they were going to with or without lobbyist efforts or donations. That's why lobbyists and donors target them.

You are right, though, in the conversation with Dill about the party membership. This is why I talk more about political ideology. Most people will not change their ideological stance even with a switch of parties. This is a problem with our party structure in this country more than anything, though. Our political parties exist for only one reason: to win elections. In our peer countries, political parties exist to really give an infrastructure and to bring like-minded officials and people together. But that isn't the case here. We have two parties that are giant umbrellas. The party has no actual role in the government itself outside of elections. And that's one of the problems.