Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Compound disinterest.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                           

Politician Float Test

Conducted exactly like the float test used in the Salem Witch Trials.
 
(+1, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

If they float, they are clearly full of hot air and thus not to be trusted. If not... well, we can always do with fewer politicians, right?
21 Quest, Nov 04 2013

The ideal politician according to [lurch] http://baby.more4ki...waddled-newborn.jpg
[Voice, Nov 07 2013]

The Republitarian http://www.therepublitarian.com/
[theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013]

[link]






       What do you call 100 politicians at the bottom of the ocean?
Alterother, Nov 04 2013
  

       A geothermal vent.
21 Quest, Nov 04 2013
  

       Goes along with all those other myths, politicians are warm and dry to the touch, like all the other reptiles.
not_morrison_rm, Nov 04 2013
  

       That's not a myth, [n_m_r]. The reptilian ones are dry and warm, it's the amphibian ones (related to fish) that are cold and slimy.
8th of 7, Nov 05 2013
  

       [+] If it was good enough then, it's good enough now! I think they should undergo the dunking chair thingy, too!
xandram, Nov 05 2013
  

       If they survive and thus are determined to be full of hot air, the hot air should be squeezed out with pressing stones.
21 Quest, Nov 05 2013
  

       Politicians should be treated like milk. If they're over a month old, they really need to be thrown out.
lurch, Nov 07 2013
  

       Agreed. They also ought to be vacuum sealed in glass bottles and left on constituents' doorsteps until their opinion is asked for.
21 Quest, Nov 07 2013
  

       You forgot to mention that, prior to being placed in the glass containers, they should be Pasteurised.
8th of 7, Nov 08 2013
  

       You're overgeneralizing here. Everybody knows that the politicians from MY party are good, honest, hardworking people who are trying to do what's best for the country and their constituents, despite the concerted efforts from the politicians from YOUR party, who are subhuman lying evil sacks of shit who would like nothing better than to destroy the country and screw over as many people as possible so as to benefit their cronies who keep them in power.
ytk, Nov 08 2013
  

       You want the terrorists to win, don't you? Go on, admit it.
21 Quest, Nov 08 2013
  

       An unworthy comment, [bigsleep]. It's all fine and dandy to post cliche' ideas about how if only I were in charge, I'd surely do better than this [sorry, 21] -- actually, it's not really ok, but haha, carry on.
  

       Once you leave those kind of cliches, and switch to the types you went to here, this "idea" will quickly lose any redeeming chuckle worthiness and probably require drowning.
theircompetitor, Nov 08 2013
  

       Actually, he's right. The Republican Party, if their current antics continue unchecked (which they won't), could destabilize not only the American government but also American society to the point of overthrow, or worse, complete breakdown. On the other hand, any outside terrorist group with that amount of power would only unify and strengthen the nation and be met by extreme force.
Alterother, Nov 08 2013
  

       whereas the Democratic Party, if their current antics continue unchecked (which they won't), will drive us half way to the North Korean standard of living, and certainly to the point of overthrow or complete breakdown. Don't see the point of repeating myself.
  

       [marked-for-deletion] cruelty
theircompetitor, Nov 08 2013
  

       Our current state of affairs, including the "antics" referred herein, are all a result of how ObamaCare was passed.
  

       But the recent unabashed embrace of progressivism by the left is genuine cause for concern.
theircompetitor, Nov 08 2013
  

       Since we're all here, would somebody explain to me exactly what it is about Obama's proposed health reforms that has everyone up in arms?
  

       Over here, we only get scattered reports of the colonies.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 08 2013
  

       It's a new transfer of wealth from the young to the old and sick
theircompetitor, Nov 08 2013
  

       Oh right. So, a social care system? No wonder you don't want it over there. I mean, old, sick and poor? Fuck 'em.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 08 2013
  

       Two basic problems: nobody knows what's in it; and all of the details we have found out have turned out to be different than promised.
  

       Just as a personal experience: my son couldn't get healthcare prior to the ACA. With it, he still can't; but now he will get to pay a tax for the privilege of being denied. They've promised there won't be criminal charges... however, I doubt the US government will feel those promises are binding on the IRS.
lurch, Nov 08 2013
  

       Ah, right. Sounds like the early years of the National Health Service - lots of worries and scares.
  

       Trust me - you don't want anything like the National Health Service. Anything that gives people the right to medical care, and which sees it as a national responsibility to provide it, is a bad move.
  

       The only way to keep an economy vibrant is to ensure that the people at the bottom of the pile do not benefit. They're at the bottom for a reason - be it indolence, disability, age or circumstance. As soon as you start worrying about them, you open up a bottomless pit into which money drains like, well, pretty much like water.
  

       What you really need is a fair system: "From each according to his whim; to each, according to his income."
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 08 2013
  

       As I always say: if I can take two people who are at loggerheads, and bring them close enough together to glass one another, I feel my time has not been completely wasted.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 08 2013
  

       That's a little harsh; after all, it's well known that U.S. politicians are the best that money can buy …
  

       // The only way to keep an economy vibrant is to ensure that the people at the bottom of the pile do not benefit … As soon as you start worrying about them, you open up a bottomless pit … //
  

       “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me …"
  

       … so they can be deported at public expense. Unless, of course, they are healthy, wealthy, and caucasian.
  

       There seems to be a contradiction or two here …
8th of 7, Nov 08 2013
  

       //after all, it's well known that U.S. politicians are the best that money can buy//
  

       That might have been true a decade or two ago, but the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. I certainly wouldn't pay full price for any of the clowns we have in office right now.
ytk, Nov 08 2013
  

       That's a benefit, shirley ? "The Democratic Party: bringing political graft within the price range of the man in the street".
  

       There's an election slogan for you …
  

       At one time, only the super-rich could afford to suborn politicians and judges, although as most of them were already judges and politicians anyway it was all a trifle incestuous and recursive. But now, thanks to the universal franchise, that's been put right. We forsee that before long, ordinary citizens will be able to buy their own politician on an instalment plan, or hire purchase.
  

       Democracy on easy terms. Wonderful.
8th of 7, Nov 08 2013
  

       // There seems to be a contradiction or two here //
  

       Just two?! That's all you can spot? The United States is one gigantic working contradiction. The only reason it works as well as it does is because the contradictions balance more or less evenly and support one another, like two leaning stacks of books that hold each other up.
Alterother, Nov 09 2013
  

       I have to call into question tc's MFD. I realize this idea might seem cruel, but I assure you that water does not feel pain.
  

       Regarding the Statue of Liberty, it was called 'Liberty Enlightening the World'. It was not called 'Liberty Inviting the World'. It doesn't say anything about providing tax-supported government benefits to these huddled masses, either.
21 Quest, Nov 09 2013
  

       We are attempting a transition into a full blown welfare state with open borders. Mathematically, this is not sustainable, except for the "Breakout" effect (see Gingrich's book) -- the fact that the country continues to generate spurts of incredible wealth building, because as bad as things are, we continue to be the best place for John Galt, and given the US' physical and market size and ethnic diversity, this is quite difficult to replicate anywhere else.
  

       Of course the irony is that these spurts continue to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, and thus spur the progressive movement into more ultimately unproductive convulsions, since it is truly incapable of actually achieving its goals, as demonstrated in over a century of trying.
  

       In any case, though, the post scarcity economy is on its way, and will stand all of this on its head.
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       We didn't have the Welfare State we now live in when the Emma Lazarus poem was written. The USA was called the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Free Lunch.
21 Quest, Nov 09 2013
  

       //We are attempting a transition into a full blown welfare state with open borders//
This is interesting, primarily because in the UK the reverse is happening, and it isn't pretty.
calum, Nov 09 2013
  

       Well, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       ^ Wisdom.
  

       // Canadian politicians //
  

       Don't give them paper money- they'll just try to eat it. Coins are good, as they like shiny things … or maybe beads, mirrors, little brass bells, stuff like that. Think budgie-cage decor …
  

       Or maybe just raw meat ?
8th of 7, Nov 09 2013
  

       //Well, sooner or later you run out of other people's money//
This aphorism gets to the heart of the problem with the UK right wing's attitude to money: it assumes that the collection of wealth is an end in itself. The problem that the UK left wing has is that the only people who disagree with that assumption are people who don't have any money.
calum, Nov 09 2013
  

       // people who don't have any money //
  

       Since when has their opinion mattered ?
8th of 7, Nov 09 2013
  

       Well, exactly.
  

       Anyway, as to the idea itself... I have through no fault of my own, spent a fair old amount of social time with an MP. While his political views are, to me, uncompresensible, I have come to the realisation that this MP is, in fact, a human being who loves, is loved, who gets tired and angry and, as far as i can tell, puts his trousers on one leg at a time. In short, in spite of being (a) a professional and highly ambitious politician and (b) possessed of political ideals that make me despair, he is human. And while he himself may want to repeal the Human Rights Act, i rather approve of its aims, so we shall have to find less infringy ways to thin the pool of pols.
calum, Nov 09 2013
  

       calum, I know plenty of conservatives and several liberals. I can assure you of two things:
  

       1. Not a single one of them thinks money is an end in of itself.
  

       2. Every single one of them likes having money.
  

       That being the way of the world, you can debate spending it more productively -- I think many of us wouldn't mind the high taxation levels if we saw our money being spent wisely. But it is too easy for governments to spend it, so long as it is other people's money, and it is too easy for the majority, who, for all the horrors of Romney's 47% statement, are net takers, to keep voting themselves more.
  

       Look at education, theoretically the key to unlocking the future for the disadvantaged. New York City spends more than $20,000 per pupil. Literally, leave taxation levels exactly where they are, and allow every parent to shop for schools using that money. Hell, hire a governess for your child -- and if you have 3 -- that's a $60,000 budget! And that's just a tip of the iceberg.
  

       Other people's money. Too easy to spend.
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       That's cool, I am not here to debate political philosophy with you - you have your views and I have mine, such as they are. If there is one thing that the internet as taught me, it is that I am ill-equipped to engage with Americans on American politics, which is why, of late, I have been careful to talk only of those of the fuckers who govern my country.
calum, Nov 09 2013
  

       //I am ill-equipped to engage with Americans on American politics// as are most Americans :)
  

       Don't you govern your country? Or are you in the Brand camp?
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       //many of us wouldn't mind the high taxation levels if we saw our money being spent wisely.//
  

       Right, I think everybody in the country is in agreement on this point. The constant argument stems from all those different opinions on what is wise. The Democrats think it is wise (and morally correct) to support the impoverished and help lift them out of poverty. The Republicans seem to think it is wise (and morally correct) to let the impoverished rise or fall based entirely on their own hard work and determination and fuck the ones who struggle more than others.
  

       I could respect the Republicans' view on this (want to respect it, in fact) if it weren't for one thing: the same Republicans who want to let the poor stay poor and let the hungry starve if they can't make it on their own and vociferously defend the right to stand one's ground and use lethal force in self defense are the SAME Republicans who want to ban abortion and gay marriage because of their Christian faith. The hypocrisy, blatant and unadulterated, which runs rampant in Republican politics really alienates a lot of us.
  

       You want to defend lethal force defense laws, fine. Don't claim to be a Christian. Christ said 'turn the other cheek' not 'stand your ground'. Stand-your-ground laws are therefore as unChristian as you can get. You want to support abolishing or defunding welfare, fine. Don't claim to be a Christian. Christ said give to the needy unconditionally. Telling poor people you don't owe them anything is about as unChristian as you can get. You want to ban abortion and gay marriage, too fucking bad. The constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Banning abortion and gay marriage on the basis of religion is therefore as unconstitutional as you can get.
21 Quest, Nov 09 2013
  

       //Don't you govern your country?//
Nope. You are thinking of Her Majesty's Government. However, because I am a chinless, charmless arsehole of slender moral strength and weapons grade self-interest, I can understand why you might mistake me for HMG, so I am not going to take offence.
  

       //Or are you in the Brand camp?//
Nope. I can definitely understand why people, young people especially, think that politics is a game played for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many and therefore are looking for someone to lead them towards the replacement of the current system but I cannot understand why (heaven forfend this actually happen) a movement might coalesce around a man who has so far skited along on the back of the single talent of talking sufficiently rapidly that people are confused into believing him possessed of anything more than a scatterbrained intelligence and a 1/5 gill of wit.
calum, Nov 09 2013
  

       A bit of an oversimplification, [21]. I would alter it slightly, like so:
  

       The Democrats think it is wise (and morally correct) to support the impoverished and help lift them out of poverty. Since they define poverty not as children with bloated bellies and flies in their eyes, but as a portion of a statistical distribution, they have created an indestructable strawman that can never be defeated, and demands more and more as top incomes rise.
  

       The Republicans seem to think it is wise (and morally correct) to let the impoverished rise or fall based entirely on their own hard work. The Republicans understand the moral hazard of rewarding behavior that leads to dependency, while punishing success, and are terrified by the fact that as the ratio of voters shifts towards those that are net takers, any filter on the federal governments coercive taxation power will dissapear, and with it, economic growth.
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       I added to my annotation.
21 Quest, Nov 09 2013
  

       [21] rest assured I am not a Christian, and I don't have disagreement with much of what you said there (defining that as I support the Second Amendment and I do not think the government has any business in defining marriage. I am ambivalent morally on abortion, but will certainly acknowledge that wider practice of birth control would benefit society). Generally I agree that the party is hypocritical on those issues (though that list is looong in my view on the other side). You may want to check out the linked blog -- The Republitarian -- run by a member of my family who is also a figure in the Libertarian Party.
  

       [calum] on Brand we agree.
theircompetitor, Nov 09 2013
  

       The second amendment says nothing about using lethal force in a noncombat altercation walking down the street in a suburban neighborhood. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. The right to use those arms (ie, the circumstances under which they can legally be used), however, CAN be regulated.
21 Quest, Nov 09 2013
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle