But Could He Get Elected?

[Unkotare]

"The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
...
(the greatest rulers) are cautious and honor words.
When their task is done and work complete,
Their people all say, "This is just how we are.""

-daodejing


Words of wisdom indeed, but in today's political climate, could an ideal ruler get elected? Is it what people want, or do we get the politicians we deserve?

 

[Blues Man]

perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it

Albus Dumbledor

 

[Unkotare]

perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it

Albus Dumbledor

Perhaps, but how does such a one get elected? It seems like that would only work with a benevolent monarch born to the role, which would essentially be a simple stroke of luck for the people. Gambling like that is stupid, so we have to do better as engaged citizens of a Republic.

 

[Blues Man]

perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it

Albus Dumbledor

Perhaps, but how does such a one get elected? It seems like that would only work with a benevolent monarch born to the role, which would essentially be a simple stroke of luck for the people. Gambling like that is stupid, so we have to do better as engaged citizens of a Republic.

Some have leadership thrust upon them.

A major flaw in a republican system of government is that you have no choice but to vote for those seeking power and those that seek power are rarely to be trusted

 

[Confounding]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

 

[Blues Man]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

And term limits for all elected positions

 

[Unkotare]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

That is a slogan. It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents. Don't chase a mirage.

 

[Unkotare]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

And term limits for all elected positions

We already have that. It's called "elections."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

We need many things, desperately. But most politicians lack the courage to do what is right.

 

[Blues Man]

An ideal ruler wouldn't be funded by special interests that expect said ruler to do their bidding. We need campaign finance reform.

And term limits for all elected positions

We already have that. It's called "elections."

We can only elect a president twice seems to me all elected officials should be held to that standard

 

[Confounding]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

 

[Unkotare]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

 

[Slyhunter]

"The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
...
(the greatest rulers) are cautious and honor words.
When their task is done and work complete,
Their people all say, "This is just how we are.""

-daodejing


Words of wisdom indeed, but in today's political climate, could an ideal ruler get elected? Is it what people want, or do we get the politicians we deserve?

Who would want to run when they're going to be gone through to death and end up in jail when they are done with the job. The shit they are putting Trump through is ridiculous.

 

[Confounding]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

There would have to be transparency and intelligent safeguards. It would be allocated by some neutral entity. Again I'm talking about an ideal situation. Money influences politics. I think the more we limit money in politics the better our candidates will be.

EDIT: It works well in other places. It's not unreasonable to assume it could be done even better.

 

[Lesh]

LOL..you only go to jail when you break the law.

Here's an idea.

DON'T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW

 

[Slyhunter]

LOL..you only go to jail when you break the law.

Here's an idea.

DON'T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW

Nobody is perfect.

 

[Unkotare]

"The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
...
(the greatest rulers) are cautious and honor words.
When their task is done and work complete,
Their people all say, "This is just how we are.""

-daodejing


Words of wisdom indeed, but in today's political climate, could an ideal ruler get elected? Is it what people want, or do we get the politicians we deserve?

Who would want to run when they're going to be gone through to death and end up in jail when they are done with the job. The shit they are putting Trump through is ridiculous.

Good point.

 

[Unkotare]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

 

[Confounding]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. Like I said other countries do it with success. We could too. We could probably do it better than they do. The problem is actually getting enough honest people in government to start shifting us away from the corruption to the point that we could do it well. I don't know if that's possible. Either way I don't see us getting better leaders without doing something about special interests dumping boatloads of funding into political campaigns.

 

[Pogo]

"The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
...
(the greatest rulers) are cautious and honor words.
When their task is done and work complete,
Their people all say, "This is just how we are.""

-daodejing


Words of wisdom indeed, but in today's political climate, could an ideal ruler get elected? Is it what people want, or do we get the politicians we deserve?

Advertising-driven media have long ago made the office into a cult of personality. Therefore, no he could not. Because any cult of personality had to sell out and pander.

We don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. Whichever product Media sells us with the most effective advertising. Not the way it was ever supposed to work but the reality to which we have devolved.