After 55 years, I have tasted enough, hear enough, seen enough of "BAD" politics in this world.
It is just a nice word to replace some nasty actions.
Whether in society, workplace, and even in families.
We have many phrases to go with this "BAD" word - stabbing on the back, etc.
We have plenty of jokes on people whose career is on this "BAD" word - hard to find a politician in Heaven.
We have accepted it as "evil" we cannot avoid - to continue running the society.
We have seen some creditable political efforts, only to be pushed off by the "BADDER" politicians - e.g. Thakshin of Thailand - clean up the dirty night life of Thailand - and only to be made an outcast.
I don't believe in lasting good political efforts - they all seem to have some other agenda.
But there are some short term clean and good political efforts shown - those who don't try to stay in power forever.
For your reading pleasure and for me some Frih points to keep my account.
I hope I am not playing politics here to earn points. But why such a strange arrangement?
Heliohost give full account and NO need to have to earn forum points. This sound political enough, so I will end here.
With regards.
Heh... 'Don't hate the playa, hate the game.'
There's a reason all politicians are bad. You have to be bad in order to want that power, and you have to be bad in order to out-maneuver the others, and actually get that power.
It's a very efficient system for choosing the worst possible leaders. (Both in democracies and other forms of government.)
How do you explain the positive benefits and products that resulted from politics on some level?
I don't think all politicians are bad. I liked Reagen, if he were bad, that did not come across to me at all. I like Ron Paul. Pity that he is getting older, but at least he has a following and hopefully there will be other Ron Pauls coming forward. The game of politics tests all the strengths and weaknesses of its players, and there are very few with enough inegrity to only keep to the right side of the game. If they did, they would not be able to make a meaningful contribution. Politicians are rarely on their own, they always have to consider more than a group of people, and sometimes they have to sacrifice one direction for making other more important directions possible. If they are strong leaders, their decisions would be usually on the right side, but if they are weak and like to look good, seeking approval, their decisions may veer in the direction of corruption or weakness.
all politicians are not bad.
I may or may not agree abt. Regan but most people join politics with a reason to do something for their community. or there are those who join for the power.
But after becoming a politician and getting some power then people change....
power corrupts!!! 
| atul2242 wrote: |
power corrupts!!! |
And the process of getting power is biased in favor of the corrupt. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| atul2242 wrote: |
power corrupts!!! |
And the process of getting power is biased in favor of the corrupt. |
Right, especially when the position of power involves control of money. In some countries getting into a position of power automatically goes with large budgets that are controlled and mingled with personal funds. Almost immediate investments are made in offshore countries, as some security against a coup and a pension fund of sorts.I have to re-state that I do acknowledge some good politicals efforts done by politicians.
But if a person or family or party stays in power for long - making it like an empire, the result always shows that "BAD" effects will be there.
We can review history to see this basic trend of governance.
The politicians often ensure they are entrusted to oversee large amount of money, and soon, they will feel the greed and corrupted actions will follow.
I remember installing a Current/Saving software for a bank, and was there watching the clearance of cheques on the day of the launch of the auto-save account.
When I realised that I keep seeing cheques with 7 zeroes, I felt this question in my mind - what am I doing here earning a petite salary - while others are issuing cheques after cheques in millions.
And mind you only in 2 short hours - I have never seen such amount before.
Here I realised that politicians will make themselves custodians and then realised, what madness am I helping to safe-guard these money (in billions).
The root of all evil indeed is money.
Can we find clean and long serving politicians - my opinion is definitely NO.
few are not bad politicians but mostly are................
Yours may be, but in Britain, ours are a mixture of inept, unlikeable etc. They do have good intentions however.
| lagoon wrote: |
| They do have good intentions however. |
Hitler also had good intentions! The worst of them also always had good intentions. If the world could have been run by good intentions rather than politicians, maybe we would have been much better off. 
| lagoon wrote: |
| They do have good intentions however. |
No, they pretend to have good intentions.
In reality, they have two intentions:
1: Get reelected
2: Do favors for selected corporations in order to pay off 'debts' for prior campaign funds, and to raise new campaign 'donations' (bribes).
In the interest of accomplishing #1, they find well-intentioned reasons (excuses) to do #2.That is an interesting way to llok at their actions.
| Quote: |
In reality, they have two intentions:
1: Get reelected
2: Do favors for selected corporations in order to pay off 'debts' for prior campaign funds, and to raise new campaign 'donations' (bribes).
In the interest of accomplishing #1, they find well-intentioned reasons (excuses) to do #2. |
With regards. I found another good point of view of Thomas Jefferson's on this subject too:
| Quote: |
"I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and the Montaignes that fourteen out of fifteen men are rogues. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the higher orders and for those who, rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive to nestle themselves into the places of power and profit. These rogues set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Mann Page, 1795. ME 9:306
|
Thanks, that is really, what many of us felt, but unable to put it in words.
I can really feel the words as quoted -
withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves
Thanks, it only shows that many people felt the same frustration of corruption.
With regards.
There is a recent article about the ex-chief minister of the state of Chattisgarh in India. Chattisgarh is mainly a tribal state and the poverty level there is very high. The ex-CM of the state Mr. Koda was a daily laborer before he joined politics with a declared net worth of Rs. 18,00,000/- In his last election he declared a net worth of 400,00,000/- . A CM's salary is not that much.....
Similar declarations were done by many of his colleagues.
.....
I wonder why we still allow politions in democracy to have so many powers....
There should be many institutions to be able to control individuals and the powers vested in the people should really belong to them. | shenyl wrote: |
| But if a person or family or party stays in power for long - making it like an empire, the result always shows that "BAD" effects will be there. |
It depends on the generations. If you go down history lane when royal families were reigning for centuries and more at a time, you would get a bad generation, such as Henry VIII who basically was quite hopeless in comparison with Queen Elizabeth I who was a very wise and capable leader and during whose reign England had prospered a lot. Ironically she was the daughter of Henry VIII and his wife Anne Boleyn, the latter whom he had arranged to be decapitated so he could get rid of her to marry his third wife. I guess politics among family members can be much more lethal and worse than non-family at times, but the ones who get to be treated badly or have to deal with more challenges early in their lives, sometimes turn out to be much more independent and resilient, than those who have been overly protected.Thanks, deanhills, for the excellent re-call of England's history.
And also to atul2242, for the revelation of politics for monetary gain.
History does show the corruptions in family run political systems.
Obama, just quoted recently when he was visiting China, that there is an old Chinese saying that looking into the past, can tell the future.
Many of us saw how the Philippine's Macro regrime causes a "Land of Gold" to become a land of poverty. In older times, the chinese call Philippine as the "Gold Hill", and now we see people gleaning the "dump hill" for a living.
We saw the same issues in Indonesia, under Suharto's political system.
Staying in power too long, has shown us in the past that the future is bleak.
It will be good, like what Philippine has adopted, that the president can only last a maximum of 2 terms. This help to prevent legacy turning into corruption.
| shenyl wrote: |
It will be good, like what Philippine has adopted, that the president can only last a maximum of 2 terms. This help to prevent legacy turning into corruption. |
Ah, but then you get parties. A corrupt party can just swap out leaders and ignore term limits.
A collusion between parties can even dominate the political scene to eliminate all other rivals, and so remain in power indefinitely.
