Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Politics is archaic which is the majority of the problem.
If you took Obamas professionalism and added Trumps bumbling abilty to cut through bureaucracy you would have a great president
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
Politics is archaic which is the majority of the problem.
If you took Obamas professionalism and added Trumps bumbling abilty to cut through bureaucracy you would have a great president
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Any examples of this? Not the bumbling bit. We see that all the time but the ability to cut through bureaucracy.
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Of innovation or refreshing politics? If so, that is the issue. There isn't any true innovation examples. Possible areas to shake-up and innovate shooting from the hip - using electronic voting for small things to allow new forms of democracy. Working in conjunction with media, presentations, films which present ideas and people get involved in, vote for etc.
New ways of running ministries or institutions of government. Private companies that were as stagnant as government agencies would go out of business in a flash for being so ineffective. Yet we perpetuate and stick with stale institutions that drive and control nations. They are safe, but also failing us. etc etc etc
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
No, that's not what I was asking. I've clarified my question.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
It is not even the practicalities that are most important. First and foremost people have to believe in something that is genuinely progressive and effective (to be genuinely progressive and effective there does need to be real content that works which is why Trump probably won't get a 2nd term). Politics by its nature needs evolution. To refresh. Yet western democratic systems have been largely set/stuck for 50+ years. Humans always want evolution and development. Politics is not delivering it. The outcome of this is Trump, Brexit, Corbyn. But the issue/problem is maybe the structures of democratic government. The things people don't look at. The way ministries work. The way votes and individual engagement work in a digital world.
Once the baby boomers give way to new generation, western democracies will need more agile and effective politics to deal with things like covid, climate change, and I think politics will then start to change.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Again that is not the question I asked
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Again that is not the question I asked
I can hardly spell bureaucracy, let alone cut through it
Guess the point was, you don't even have to cut through bureaucracy say, you just have to make people believe you will. That's how Boris, Trump and Brexit came about.
How do you actually improve government bureaucracy? You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. there is a lot of good in the western democratic government model. Its a damn sight better than anything else. Though China is showing what can be done using a benign dictator model. Its growth in a short time is staggering.
I personally think you change the approach. You move the onus on civil servants and politicians from a desire to not be embarrassed to measuring effectiveness. Efficacity in government is not as easy to measure as a private company. But we need metrics to measure civil servants and politicians. And success needs better rewards. If you do this, you start to model the effectiveness of private enterprise. At the moment, politicians and civil servants modus operandi is not to take any risk, not to do progressive things, to choose the safe options that does not embarrass anyone. To choose the lowest common denominator. Democracy makes things palatable to the most people, but also sometimes stops bravery, vision etc. And that is ultimately what is needed.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
He hasn't done it, not by a long chalk, but he has recognised the desire for it and used it to mobilise his vote.
This gives rise to two worries imv, firstly that the Democrats don't seem to realise this is an issue, and secondly that people are just plain dumb.
I mean voting for him once is almost excusable because it was a really bad choice between the candidates, but to do it twice!
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Well alot of his actions have been to cut through red tape in federal infrastructure, probably because he does not like detail and maybe he chanced on it all by luck but he does seem to have a sense of going for the jugular to get things over the line* rather than have it kicked down the road.
*the caveat there is that its generally when he thinks its a good idea
I am not saying he is a good president BTW I was merely saying that I think that bullish nature is needed just in a better shell than Trump ha
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I want to have a bet on a Biden win, but I just dont trust the Americans..
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I wouldn't see him this way. brick canning regulations and policy initiatives is the one thing he has done a lot of, or tried to, but while shrinking the government may technically be construed as 'cutting bureaucracy' that really is in the semantics. For example, he's tried to or is in the process of rolling back about 100 or so Obama era environmental policies (which he has largely failed at thankfully) but is this a positive? I wouldn't think so. You might point at his interventions in the IRS but this is nothing more than neutering their ability to chase the big fish dodging taxes. Less bureaucracy, maybe, but only to the benefit of the 1%. Or one for the time we are in, dissolving the global pandemic team. That one didn't work out too well I'm sure you agree. He had no transition team after the election as he didn't give a fudge about running the government is another one (M. Lewis talks about this in The Fifth Risk). All I see is him destroying institutions from the inside out, but is this really the jugular he should be aiming for?
If you have an example of where he has markedly improved some aspect of the US domestic or foreign policy then I will give him credit but honestly, I'm struggling to think of one thing. I'm open to being corrected though
Last edited:
thfcsteff
George Hunt
This is the behavior of dictators. They "go for the jugular" to "cut through red tape" which is essentially another way of saying they do whatever is necessary to flout fair practices for the people. He is political and policy coward who can only get things done by bullying, being a tyrant and jimmying the system to shove through what he wants without any checks or balances. It is why the US is where it is, and trust me, it is a mess. He, and his practices, are scum.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Yeah I did put a caveat
TBH forget Trump you surely have had times you wanted objections overcome to get things done. I think we all have.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Part of living in a civilized society is dealing with impatience and sometimes not getting your way.
Forget Trump?
Not likely. Him and Farage accelerated this culture, and currently, the US is a total brickshow. You've asked me to forget someone who has just rammed home an appt to the Supreme Court which will impact the civil liberties of a nation. An appointee, BTW, who has NO experience in that realm and only became a judge three years ago. Did you know that he and the GOP are already filing in swing states to have absentee ballots not eligible after election night? And who would have the final rule on that? The Supreme Court. And which way is the Supreme Court now rigged? To the Extreme Christian Right. So sorry mate, not personal at all but fudge him, fudge forgetting him and fudge the idea that bulldozing through what you want is the way a civilized society should allow things to work.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I wouldn't see him this way. brick canning regulations and policy initiatives is the one thing he has done a lot of, or tried to, but while shrinking the government may technically be construed as 'cutting bureaucracy' that really is in the semantics. For example, he's tried to or is in the process of rolling back about 100 or so Obama era environmental policies (which he has largely failed at thankfully) but is this a positive? I wouldn't think so. You might point at his interventions in the IRS but this is nothing more than neutering their ability to chase the big fish dodging taxes. Less bureaucracy, maybe, but only to the benefit of the 1%. Or one for the time we are in, dissolving the global pandemic team. That one didn't work out too well I'm sure you agree. He had no transition team after the election as he didn't give a fudge about running the government is another one (M. Lewis talks about this in The Fifth Risk). All I see is him destroying institutions from the inside out, but is this really the jugular he should be aiming for?
If you have an example of where he has markedly improved some aspect of the US domestic or foreign policy then I will give him credit but honestly, I'm struggling to think of one thing. I'm open to being corrected though
He is a selfish dictatorial chancer who won the lottery and is running the table.
Destroying institutions sounds sexy but it rarely leads to long-term benefits. He is cozying up to world dictators thinking he's in the ring. Please. Putin must laugh every day, ditto Jong Un.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I don't think he expected to win, or was really planning to. He saw it as an infomercial for his failing brand. His puppeteers had other ideas of course. If he loses this election it is over for him and his crime family.
The thing that amazes me (one of the things I suppose) is that he was allowed to run. His criminality over the previous 40 years, his family's ties with the Italian mafia and then his with the Russian mafia were well known to almost everyone in NY, including the FBI I assume. The Russian mafia was operating out of Trump Tower in NY. Manafort was his campaign manager ffs. It was all happening in plain sight and yet he was still allowed to run.
The answer to unsuitable political candidates can be found at the polling booth.
A large proportion (although not a majority) of US voters didn't seem to care.