We live in a country where people like Mitch McConnell, Jason Chaffetz, Jim Inhofe, and Trump are political leaders.
At this point, anything is better. I hope more people in our community will volunteer themselves to the work.
Heck, if I didn't have to worry about paying my mortgage, I would. I can't be any worse than the integrity-less lizards running the show now.
After watching the sheer amount of personal destruction leveled at Trump (a relative political newcomer), what private citizen in their right mind would want to run for office?
There's a reason professional politicians stick to soundbites and avoid the public as much as possible: any unscripted exposure is a chance for the media to demonize them and tear them down. And the public -- the same public that claims to want ''ordinary folks'' to run for office -- gleefully pulls out the torches and pitchforks every time.
Think about the worst skeletons you have in your closet and pretend that the most savvy oppo-research / viral media minds are sitting in a room figuring out how to spin each one into the most salacious, sort-of-but-not-really-true headline possible. That's what I saw both Clinton and Trump deal with in the last cycle. I am an eternal optimist and hope the system can be improved in the future but for now I think the American people are getting just about the level of politics they deserve.
People crave targets and promises, It doesn't matter one bit about what is achievable.
small example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38561501
Surprisingly it worked.
They're not heartless monsters. They have constituencies that they serve as well as pander to. They care about those people. They just have a different worldview than you.
I'm not a fan of theirs any more than I am of Zuckerberg and his propensity to buy up and lockdown whatever he can control. He's shown time and time again that little people (whether users or devs) don't really matter. Why would he be a different politician?
Those politicians may be flawed, but there is an advantage in having competing centers of power.
> They have constituencies that they serve as well as pander to
Pandering is ok. My district has a lot of farms, so my representative panders a lot to the farmers. I don't mind that. It doesn't upset me.
It upsets me when people like Mitch McConnell willingly undermine our democracy by trying to hide information from voters. It upsets me when people like Chaffetz waste our money on partisan witch hunts... (You are free to list the sins of DEM candidates if you want. It would only further strengthen my point.)
These actions are beyond pandering. These people are not trying to serve their constituents. They are trying to serve themselves and amass power for their party.
> Those politicians may be flawed
If they are flawed, and Zuckerberg is flawed (by your reasoning), why choose one over the other? Why not give him a chance if you think what we have now is already flawed.
Because I'm tired of voting against people and not for them. I will only vote for the candidate I want otherwise democracy is a sham of an institution. It's how we end up with the candidates we had and how we will continue to nerf any hope of change.
Him starting his efforts by recanting his atheism is a sad sign for his policy. I also firmly believe it's not needed. And that level of pandering is what keeps us down.
I'm very, very left leaning and have my degree in Economics. You'd probably be surprised how many Trump supporters I've spoken with who love what I have to say. I do not pander or change my beliefs to what I think they like because that helps no one. Instead I listen to them and support their feelings and intuition with alternative views.
E.g. A lot of Trump supporters I've met hate regulation. I explain that there are in fact two types of regulation. The first being "Economic" which is strictly bad as it creates barriers to entry and distorts the market. The second "Safety and Soundness" which is strictly good because it creates things like seat belts and warranties. None of them, not a one, argues with that or refutes it.
E.g. Tax breaks are "socialist." We have a budget every year as a nation, that budget is not reduced when we reduce taxes. That means in effect we are giving away money when we give tax breaks, that financial obligation must be filled by national debt or higher taxes for those who didn't qualify for the break. A lovely thing to ask right after, "did you get a tax break this year? Oh no? Me either."
I'm not pandering to them, I'm showing them there is something beyond simple ideology that is nuanced and complex. That they can live without it (we all can). Ideology is ego and nothing more.
Lastly, and probably more relevant to the idea of Zuckerberg running, I do not want anyone for president who thinks privacy should be a thing of the past running the NSA, CIA, FBI, and military. It's ideological nonsense and I'm done with that shit.
Personally I think the opposite - politics should be left to someone "worse"; even Zuckerberg - for all the hate he gets around here - should be above politics. I wonder, who in their right mind would like to join this circus?
And yes, it may be "undemocratic" of me to say it. But does this make it less true? Politics - especially in democratic countries - really seems to bring out the absolute worst, most pathetic behaviour out of people (and not just politicians, also media and regular supporters).
> Heck, if I didn't have to worry about paying my mortgage, I would. I can't be any worse than the integrity-less lizards running the show now.
That's the magic of political scene - you don't start as a lizard, you become one in the process! You can't play the game without it, because at each step, a person who is willing to sacrifice a little bit of their integrity for some deal wins over people who are not. Rinse and repeat, and at the end come out lizards.