Australian Politics Forum - Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #15 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:45am

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084]

[quote]
Most so called "Representatives" in politics in the Western world today are there for their careers because there is very little that they can actually do (even if they were inclined to and many are not) that is contrary to what has already been decided for them by a handful of people who control the party.

Again, doesn't work that way in the US. The party members control the party there in a big way. They all vote in the Primaries for their party to determine their candidates. Downunder, only the Democrats experimented with that same process. The others have all stuck with the sub-branch - satisfy them and they select you for their candidate, except of course for the small number who are "parachuted in" from high and sometimes even then, they are ignored.

Again, I dont agree and the proof is the people who come out of the system and the primaries (Thank god we dont have primaries in Aust). The difference between them is paper thin. And the vetting in the Aust party branches has the same result. The thing is the pollies are competing for career slots not for major policy differences. Sanders was the only one in a long time to actually offer something different & the party machine made sure he wouldnt succeed.

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #16 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:58am

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 2:54pm:

[quote]
There is hardly a country today that doesn't claim to be a democracy and not one of them is. In Australia, where most of us are sure we're a democracy and most the others are not the vote for gay marriage was delayed for years (even though it was well know that it had huge majority support) and when they finally put it to the people we were told that the plebiscite was advisory only.

That a great deal more to do with internal Tory Party politics than it did with the popularity of the issue with the voters. Tories were unwilling to back what they believed their members wanted. Many of them also didn't support it. What was required was a plebiscite - a proper referendum - the Tories tried to do it on the cheap, that's all and as a means to delay the inevitable.

No. It was all about party politics. And I mean all parties labor, Libs, Greens. Both labor and Libs delayed the Bill because neither wanted to go into an election fronting as the party that would enact gay marriage because they knew even though it had majority support there were still many on both sides of politics opposed who would threaten them at the seat level. There was only one reason for the delay. To suit the parties, not the people. Indeed it was one of the more blatant examples of how undemocratic Australia really is

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49407
At my desk.

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #17 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:00am

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:13am:

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:39am:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:10am:

So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system

They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer.

Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser

Who is telling them?

It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts.

The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts.

They are the party machine.

And your proposal is to pay the monkeys even fewer peanuts until they write a bestseller?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #18 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:07am

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

[quote author=Jest link=1613136848/8#8 date=1613192084]
[quote]
Our system of politics was never designed to be a democracy but rather just an elaborate show to make us feel that we have a meaningful say in the running of our lives when in truth we have no say at all.

Well, when you look at the history of the Westminster Parliament you see that it started as a means of securing power for the aristocrats and the powerful and ended up being controlled by the people. The same process occurred here. The colonial parliaments were controlled by the rich and powerful. Today they are controlled by the people.

Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #19 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:19am

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 2:54pm:

Its the 21st century. The American Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was designed by the American aristocracy to keep power in the hands of the American aristocracy. But never the less some crumbs of benefit were sprinkled down the ranks to the plebs. But the system is old and tired and cant control the peasants as well as it used to because deep down people know that it doesnt really serve them. Its time for the next great leap forward

There hasn't been an Aristocracy in the US. Tsk, tsk. The US Constitution was the first written constitution. The UK still lacks a constitution. Australia copied what it believed were the best bits from the UK, the US, and Switzerland. It appears to have worked.

I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #20 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 11:58am

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:00am:

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:13am:

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:39am:

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:10am:

So what is they're not doing the job we think they are doing. They are actually quite superfluous to the workings of the system and rather than paid more they need to be eliminated entirely from the system

They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer.

Politicians voting according to what they’re told to vote is NOT making decisions and its worth no more than the peanuts a trained monkey gets for pressing the button of a peanut dispenser

Who is telling them?

It sounds to me like you are whining about getting monkeys when you pay peanuts.

The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts.

They are the party machine.

And your proposal is to pay the monkeys even fewer peanuts until they write a bestseller?

I dont know why I have to keep repeating the same thing with you. My proposal is to fire them. I wouldn't pay them a cent because I would immediately and without hesitation put them out of work. I don believe in so called "representative". I have no need to employ them. And no they're not the party machine. They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told if they want to keep their jobs and if they buck the system there are plenty ready to challenge and take their place.You know that.

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49407 At my desk.	Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter Reply #21 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 1:28pm Quote: They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told Who tells them?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Jest Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1399 NSW South Coast Gender:	Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter Reply #22 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 6:57pm freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 1:28pm: Quote: They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told Who tells them? Hopeless! You're going around in circles. Scroll back. This is the 2nd time you've asked and it was answered the 1st time.
Back to top	Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49407
At my desk.

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #23 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:01pm

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 1:28pm:

Quote:

They're the parliamentary members who do what they're told

Who tells them?

Hopeless! You're going around in circles. Scroll back. This is the 2nd time you've asked and it was answered the 1st time.

Let me guess, a talking machine whispers in their ear?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42368

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #24 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:35pm

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:45am:

Again, I dont agree and the proof is the people who come out of the system and the primaries (Thank god we dont have primaries in Aust). The difference between them is paper thin. And the vetting in the Aust party branches has the same result. The thing is the pollies are competing for career slots not for major policy differences. Sanders was the only one in a long time to actually offer something different & the party machine made sure he wouldnt succeed.

You are free to disagree. However you are wrong. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42368

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #25 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:36pm

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 9:58am:

No. It was all about party politics. And I mean all parties labor, Libs, Greens. Both labor and Libs delayed the Bill because neither wanted to go into an election fronting as the party that would enact gay marriage because they knew even though it had majority support there were still many on both sides of politics opposed who would threaten them at the seat level. There was only one reason for the delay. To suit the parties, not the people. Indeed it was one of the more blatant examples of how undemocratic Australia really is

Errr, the ALP and the Greens did go into elections backing Gay Marriage. Your memory is faulty. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42368

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #26 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:43pm

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:07am:

Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.

You live in a fantasy world it appears. We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy. Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion. The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it. The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42368

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #27 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:47pm

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.

Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy. The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today. It was created by Australian politicians. Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 47828
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #28 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 8:15pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:47pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:19am:

I call it an aristocracy. You can call it what you want. You say Australia copied "the best" (whatever that means. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say) of the US UK and Swiss systems but of course they were not free to create any system. The creators were Australia's aristocrats themselves and even if any were inclined to buck the system they couldn't because they had to create a system that was approved by the UK power elite, the monarchy/aristocracy. And as for the system being successful one thing is certain. 230 yrs of modern representative government has demonstrated clearly that it is a totally incapable vehicle for delivering democracy. It cant do it. It doesn't work. The evidence is unequivocal in this respect.

Australia, like the US has never had an aristocracy. The British Parliamentary system, with a written constitution and a referential system produced the system we have today. It was created by Australian politicians. Politicians who referred the Constitution to the people and people approved it and the result was Federation in 1901 on 1 January which brought the separate colonies together and created the nation of Australia.

Yet you, dickheaddle that you are, refer to the Liberal Party as the 'Tories'.

That's how stupid AND lyingly dishonest you are, Bbbwian. You do not have an honest bone in your body. You'd die rather than be truthful.

But then that IS your role in life, to be a lying, despicable hypochrite. You are living it, with bells on, old Dad-o'-Turd.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jest

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1399
NSW South Coast
Gender: male

Re: Congress vs. Normal People By Dan Gelernter
Reply #29 - Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 7:43pm:

Jest wrote on Feb 14^th, 2021 at 10:07am:

Its just fantasy to say that we ended up with a system controlled by the people. We cant decide sh#t. Most of us knew that Howard was lying about WMDs but we were powerless to stop our involvement in the war. Privatization where the peoples assets were just simply taken from them was never put to a vote. Mass immigration has changed the face and make up of this country which people continuously protested over the years and notwithstanding how fundamental a change it would make to the country the people had absolutely no power to stop it because its not what the power Elite wanted.

You live in a fantasy world it appears. We weren't "powerless" we, the people had all the power but the Government exercised it's powers under the Constitution to control Foreign Policy. Howard actually opened it up to the Parliament but it was a debate and the Parliament didn't have the power to prevent the Government undertaking it's actions except by passing a no confidence motion. The Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence and forced an election but it didn't because the Tories controlled it. The people have the power of their votes and until you can convince sufficient numbers to elect the opposition, nothing will change. Roll Eyes

None of that makes any sense. First you say we had all the power and then we really didnt have the power. You're being absurd. The federal election was in Nov 2001 & the Iraq war was in 2003 and not in contemplation (certainly not by the Australian people) when they voted. Thereafter the decision was made by the Govt and the people were powerless to stop it. The fact that the Govt and Parliamentary processes, as determined by the Constitution, were such that the people could not stop the Government going to war makes my point. The constitution was never designed to give effect to what the majority of the people want, not even in a matter as important and of life changing significance as whether to go to war or not. And to pretend that somehow its all OK because the constitution lets you number some boxes every 3 years to choose the nannies who will be making the decisions instead of you is about as servile as it gets.

Back to top

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

IP Logged