Politics & Gender - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Guest

EyeKanFly wrote:

Forgot about Christian Laughing

I wouldn't be so sure. Even the supposedly immutable American tradition of militant Christianity appears to be wavering among our generation. I can certainly say that the vast majority of people I've met in college have been either atheists or pretty lax Christians (once again, this could possibly be a consequence of the types of activities I choose to engage in, but it doesn't seem that way). And it shows in the stats, as well. The percentage of atheists in the country has risen by about 7% since the turn of the millennium, if I recall correctly (I'm too lazy and sleep-deprived to look up the actual statistics; I think this is pretty close). It's hard to say for sure, but I remain optimistic.

junodog4
Future Grumpy Old Man

Gender: Male
Location: Calgary

The discussion in this thread is resotring my faith in the politics forum.
_________________
Finnegan was super bad-ass.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

EyeKanFly wrote:

I can think of one way to make campaigning cheaper: ban print/television/radio advertisements and home phone calls. I understand that traveling and visiting cities is important to campaigning, and I've had intense discussions with people over whether campaigning is necessary or not, so I'm gonna try not to get into that.

I'm down with that. Make campaigning cheaper and maybe people who actually want to do something with the job might show up. Maybe we might actually get some decent political minds in Congress, rather than a bunch of rich lawyers.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I completely agree with you. The problem is, to change this, you'd have to change a lot of things about politics. First, you'd have to make it cheaper to campaign, because if you want to run for Congress, you need to have a fair amount of money in order to campaign and have any kind of hope. Second, I think, you'd have to lower Congress' salary. They don't need to be making $174,000 a year. Lower the salary and maybe you'll start getting some people who care more about the job than the money. Unfortunately, I don't ever see any of that happening. Campaigning is always going to be expensive and good luck getting Congress to get paid less.

I definitely think you're right though, a racial, gender and socioeconomic diversity in Congress is important, and we have basically none of that. As of now, Congress may represent the people, but it is not representative of the population.

This discussion is trying to solve problems that need addressing but it's going about solving problems the wrong way. The problem with congress isn't the salary. Most congresspeople are very rich and 174,000 dollars is nothing compared to the vast salaries that stem from their many positions and investments!

I cried the first time I saw Gillard fight for equality in her workplace and I see many problems with stereotyping. The stereotypes regarding rich, white anglo-saxon protestants is the biggest bunch of hipocritical bullshit I've ever heard the more intelligent of BEA spew. The people who fight for the rights we empathize with are just as rich as the politicians we despise and our politicians' color, race, relgion and sex have nothing to do with their ability to make decisions that reflect their consitiuents. I'm appalled that we are blaming roots of the education/sexual/gender/racial inequalities etc. to "rich white people". Are black people the only people capable with sympathizing with other black people? no, they aren't so the problem rests on the voters.

Money is necessary to reach as many voters as possible and the amount of time candidates spend raising money is indicative of that. There are changes I'd like to see in campaign finance regulation. Mainly, I think stricter limits on how much parties and committees can donate. Regardless of what might actually help campaign oversight and transparency, one fact remains the same, we elect those who rule and even the millions spent on campaigning can't educate or motivate everyone to participate in state and local elections.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

swedenman wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure. Even the supposedly immutable American tradition of militant Christianity appears to be wavering among our generation. I can certainly say that the vast majority of people I've met in college have been either atheists or pretty lax Christians (once again, this could possibly be a consequence of the types of activities I choose to engage in, but it doesn't seem that way). And it shows in the stats, as well. The percentage of atheists in the country has risen by about 7% since the turn of the millennium, if I recall correctly (I'm too lazy and sleep-deprived to look up the actual statistics; I think this is pretty close). It's hard to say for sure, but I remain optimistic.

When I said I forgot about Christian, I was including Christian in the "rich white male" thing, I know major organized religions are on the decline in the US and (most of) Europe.

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I'm down with that. Make campaigning cheaper and maybe people who actually want to do something with the job might show up. Maybe we might actually get some decent political minds in Congress, rather than a bunch of rich lawyers.

As much as I completely agree with this, I think lawyers probably get too much flack. I mean, it kind of does make sense for people with degrees in LAW to go into politics (as opposed to say, China, whose president was a chemical engineer, though not that there's anything wrong with that).

ptaylor1989 wrote:

This discussion is trying to solve problems that need addressing but it's going about solving problems the wrong way. The problem with congress isn't the salary. Most congresspeople are very rich and 174,000 dollars is nothing compared to the vast salaries that stem from their many positions and investments!

We were mostly talking about campaigning rather than actual salaries. As far as I know, the salaries congresspeople have are actually fairly reasonable, or WOULD be fairly reasonable if they weren't super rich in the first place (I'm generalizing here).

ptaylor1989 wrote:

I cried the first time I saw Gillard fight for equality in her workplace and I see many problems with stereotyping. The stereotypes regarding rich, white anglo-saxon protestants is the biggest bunch of hipocritical bullshit I've ever heard the more intelligent of BEA spew. The people who fight for our rights are just as rich as the politicians we despise and our politicians' color, race, relgion and sex have nothing to do with their ability to make decisions that reflect their consitiuents. I'm appalled that we are blaming roots of the education/sexual/gender/racial inequalities etc. to "rich white people". Are black people the only people capable with sympathizing with other black people? no, they aren't so the problem rests on the voters.

We (or I) am not blaming the roots of the US's problems on "rich white people", or at least not the rich white people of the present. Many of our problems stem from an adherence to historical, outdated policy, policy that was developed (for the most part) centuries ago by none other than "rich white people". It's the socio-economic construct that is to blame, not the "rich white people" themselves. And personally, I don't see the problem as resting entirely on the voters. The problem is that voters don't have enough say. We get to pick the people who make decision for us, but (for the most part, on the state/federal level) we don't get to make the decisions ourselves. That's the fault of our socio-economic political institution, not the voters. And our politicians are for the most part doing nothing to remedy this.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

Money is necessary to reach as many voters as possible and the amount of time candidates spend raising money is indicative of that. There are changes I'd like to see in campaign finance regulation. Mainly, I think stricter limits on how much parties and committees can donate. Regardless of what might actually help campaign oversight and transparency, one fact remains the same, we elect those who rule and even the millions spent on campaigning can't educate or motivate everyone to participate in state and local elections.

This is a good idea, but IMO we don't need more voter participation in state/local elections. We need more EDUCATED voter participation in state/local (and national for that matter) elections. Especially local elections. Local change is an excellent way to start small to solve bigger (sometimes nationwide) problems.

Take-away: I'm not blaming the congresspeople because they're "rich white men". I'm blaming them because they do nothing to remedy the antiquated institution founded by "rich white men" with the interests of "rich white men" in mind. And we need education about politics, as opposed to excessive campaigning (where it often becomes a popularity contest rather than a debate of interests and needs).

I hope that all makes sense.
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

Guest

EyeKanFly wrote:

When I said I forgot about Christian, I was including Christian in the "rich white male" thing, I know major organized religions are on the decline in the US and (most of) Europe.

I'm sorry, I'm sleep-deprived. I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the dominance of Christian politicians was not going to change in the near future. Silly me Laughing

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

swedenman wrote:

I'm sorry, I'm sleep-deprived. I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the dominance of Christian politicians was not going to change in the near future. Silly me Laughing

Haha, I was really sleep-deprived last night when I was writing most of that. I don't even know how I formulated thoughts in my head, let alone type them out Laughing

_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

@ptaylor, I think people are moaning at the system which causes politics to be dominated by rich white males rather than the rich white males themselves who take advantage of it, at least I was. As in, it's not ideal that only a narrow demographic of people in the US (and UK) have any real chance of reaching high office, and it's a problem that goes way beyond politics.

Apologies for linking a DM article but best I could find at short notice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...shows.html
How the UK is STILL run by private school elite: Study shows 80 per cent of those who hold key positions in British society received privileged education

^The aforementioned rich white guys who run the UK.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

alelsupreme
Awful.

Gender: Male
Age: 27

You see that "We Pay Your Benefits" HTTS? Pretty dissappointed in the BBC for showing it

(and yes i know this isn't the right place, but since when has PA been about staying on topic?)

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

Didn't, but I will, thanks.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!