Could you run your country better?
- Thread starter TimeLord
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think so my government is run by wimps afraid to take action or run by asshats who don,t listen to what they are seeing (read:Wilders)
Yup. Live in Australia. I actually kind of liked Rudd but he was used as a scapegoat for the carbon tax... Oh the irony looking at it now. I actually want him back...SL33TBL1ND said:
While I personally couldn't do a good job, I'm sure some people with common sense and basic knowledge of politics could. The problem is that the "leader" of the country really doesn't get nearly as much say as they should. Forced to usually spout ultraconservative drivel on behalf of their party to appeal to the masses with scare tactics.
As for specific laws, carbon tax is terrible in almost every way (although COULD be somehow modified to work well) as well as the new smoking laws that are just a waste of tax money.
Probably not.
Then again, let's be honest - how many individuals actually run countries by themselves? I don't know about in the US or France, where the presidency is particularly strong, but in parliamentary democracies a prime minister usually has a whole host of ministers who have/are supposed to have specialty expertise on the subject, and who the PM is supposed to be able to trust with having a better understanding of the subject than the PM themselves.
That said, even if I was surrounded by a strong cabinet, I would almost certainly not have the political clout, connections or know-how that are often necessary in getting things done in a situation where half of the government hates you. People like Obama have a hard enough time what with their opponents blocking their every move for political reasons, and they've got way more political experience and contacts than I do; in that sense, I wouldn't stand a chance. Plus, I've got minority opinions and beliefs that would probably damage my public and political image.
If we ignore that, then I might be able to scrape by with a strong cabinet, but really, no, I don't have the experience or the expertise.
Then again, let's be honest - how many individuals actually run countries by themselves? I don't know about in the US or France, where the presidency is particularly strong, but in parliamentary democracies a prime minister usually has a whole host of ministers who have/are supposed to have specialty expertise on the subject, and who the PM is supposed to be able to trust with having a better understanding of the subject than the PM themselves.
That said, even if I was surrounded by a strong cabinet, I would almost certainly not have the political clout, connections or know-how that are often necessary in getting things done in a situation where half of the government hates you. People like Obama have a hard enough time what with their opponents blocking their every move for political reasons, and they've got way more political experience and contacts than I do; in that sense, I wouldn't stand a chance. Plus, I've got minority opinions and beliefs that would probably damage my public and political image.
If we ignore that, then I might be able to scrape by with a strong cabinet, but really, no, I don't have the experience or the expertise.
I believe all of them have the skills (or the skillful staff) to work in the government. The problem with most politicians is, however, that they are focusing too much on ideologies and political purity rather than on compromise. Though I do believe that they believe that their ideologies are what's "best" for the country, therefore lending much more weight to their own arguments within their own heads. TLDR: Deadlock and lack of compromise are what makes us think the government sucks.
I would cut footballer's income by something like 70% and give all the money taken from them to fund education, footballers are overpaid way too much and the education funding could have stopped those riots months back (I'm from UK).
So yeah, I could run my country much, MUCH better.
So yeah, I could run my country much, MUCH better.
Are we talking like 'replacing the leader with yourself' or 'total overhaul' here? Cause most governments now in days have more branches and agencies than leaves on a tree. one person cant change much with only 12 hours of daily attention span.
I'm going to say "Yes" on this one.
I'm then going to insult the majority of people by saying that the root cause of all these problems is democracy. Seriously. Who thought it was a good idea to give all the power to every knucklehead that can drag their sorry ass down to the polling booths. And in the UK, we now have postal voting, so you don't even need to do that! WTF!
The average man on the street is an idiot. As long as his life only gets better, he doesn't care what you're doing, or what problems you're saving up for the future. And when those problems come back to bite, the poor shmuck that says "No, enough's enough, it's time for cut-backs" gets lambasted as an elitist pawn or whatever.
And as a direct result of democracy, we have politicians that are so interested in being popular (and thereby boosting their chances of re-election) that they will choose bad, short-termist policies deliberately, even knowing the problems that it will cause later, in an effort to get re-elected.
So yeah. I can't see how I could do any worse. I at least couldn't care less about getting re-elected, so I'm already one up on the majority of our politicians.
I'm then going to insult the majority of people by saying that the root cause of all these problems is democracy. Seriously. Who thought it was a good idea to give all the power to every knucklehead that can drag their sorry ass down to the polling booths. And in the UK, we now have postal voting, so you don't even need to do that! WTF!
The average man on the street is an idiot. As long as his life only gets better, he doesn't care what you're doing, or what problems you're saving up for the future. And when those problems come back to bite, the poor shmuck that says "No, enough's enough, it's time for cut-backs" gets lambasted as an elitist pawn or whatever.
And as a direct result of democracy, we have politicians that are so interested in being popular (and thereby boosting their chances of re-election) that they will choose bad, short-termist policies deliberately, even knowing the problems that it will cause later, in an effort to get re-elected.
So yeah. I can't see how I could do any worse. I at least couldn't care less about getting re-elected, so I'm already one up on the majority of our politicians.
A lobotomised labrat on LSD would make a better job than Angela Merkel. No to forget, that one out of 2 ruling partys has the backing of 4% of the population.CorvusFerreum said:
But I guess the opposition wouldn't really be a good government. Just a better one.
This. Absolutely. We have far too many accountants, economists and lawyers in government, as well as a lot of people who have entirely been career politicians without ever having had to experience the real world since leaving school. Getting a bunch of engineers and scientists into government would improve this country immeasurably. These are people who have spent their lives solving practical problems and working with complex data sets. They also are inclined to come to conclusions based on real, quantifiable data rather than wishful thinking, ideology and manipulation.Esotera said:
I'd like to think so, but realistically, probably not. A lot of people would be unhappy with the way I would do things, and we'd see welfare pretty much dry up because I'd raise the requirements for it. I'd also lower wages so that we could actually produce things and be cost effective again. It wouldn't be right away, but prices of things would drop to compensate for the lowered wages.
All in all, I don't think I'd be horrible at it, I just wouldn't be great about it. As is often the case when people try to usher in a lot of change. Oh, and thank you for making me the Master of America. You've got to read those ballots, people.
All in all, I don't think I'd be horrible at it, I just wouldn't be great about it. As is often the case when people try to usher in a lot of change. Oh, and thank you for making me the Master of America. You've got to read those ballots, people.
Obama = FUCKING MORON!!! he actually claims his uncle was the first american troops to free Auschwitz. Another thing Liberals think, spending more than the actual money that's coming in is a pretty stupid idea. And then he bows to every other country leader in the world (especially dictators!) And one last thing that pisses me off about Obama and Liberals in general, why do you support Islamic countries that execute gays, allows, no encourages the beating of women, persecute Christians and Jews, and over all want to destroy the west. And yet you have the nerve to bash Israel that allows gays women Christians Jews and Muslims to live in peace. Is there something I missed? or does that sound extremely hypocritical? That is what about half of the government thinks right now.
I could run the country on my cellphone while playing golf!!! Noteworthy mention to Obama who has attempted this and is still attempting this. When Reagan was president everything was economically fine. And besides that he was a great leader that didn't take shit from anyone. HE was feared among our enemies and he always pulled through for our allies. If I were to lead a country I would lead it like JFK Reagan Lincoln and Washington did.
I could run the country on my cellphone while playing golf!!! Noteworthy mention to Obama who has attempted this and is still attempting this. When Reagan was president everything was economically fine. And besides that he was a great leader that didn't take shit from anyone. HE was feared among our enemies and he always pulled through for our allies. If I were to lead a country I would lead it like JFK Reagan Lincoln and Washington did.
No.
Even if I know what is better I cannot do it because being a politician is more than just being "delegated" power, it is DEMONSTRATED power.
Politicians are fundamentally influential people who can get a lot of people to either do or not do certain things not entirely by their power but by their EARNED status.
Prime Minister Treblaine would be a dead-duck premier, in power but no one willing to do anything for me. In UK, and I think also the USA the leader is the leader of the country, not the boss of the country. They can only take the country where they are WILLING to follow!
Now the British Prime Minister actually has a lot of power, they can declare war entirely by them self, but their power is incredibly transitory, they can have the power taken from them very easily. That's the Sword of Damocles I suppose.
And as me, honest good old man of the street/internet, there is nothing to protect me from the Sword of Damocles.
PS: the problem with Jeremy Clarkson is all his laws are things he wants for himself, he rarely to the point of exclusion ever talks about laws that help other people first. That is what a politician must do, legislate for ALL people, not special interests. I also don't think Clarkson is being serious, he is using the "when I come to power" as a rhetorical argument.
He does succeed in championing motorists' rights and liberties, but in general he is a minority consideration.
Even if I know what is better I cannot do it because being a politician is more than just being "delegated" power, it is DEMONSTRATED power.
Politicians are fundamentally influential people who can get a lot of people to either do or not do certain things not entirely by their power but by their EARNED status.
Prime Minister Treblaine would be a dead-duck premier, in power but no one willing to do anything for me. In UK, and I think also the USA the leader is the leader of the country, not the boss of the country. They can only take the country where they are WILLING to follow!
Now the British Prime Minister actually has a lot of power, they can declare war entirely by them self, but their power is incredibly transitory, they can have the power taken from them very easily. That's the Sword of Damocles I suppose.
And as me, honest good old man of the street/internet, there is nothing to protect me from the Sword of Damocles.
PS: the problem with Jeremy Clarkson is all his laws are things he wants for himself, he rarely to the point of exclusion ever talks about laws that help other people first. That is what a politician must do, legislate for ALL people, not special interests. I also don't think Clarkson is being serious, he is using the "when I come to power" as a rhetorical argument.
He does succeed in championing motorists' rights and liberties, but in general he is a minority consideration.
But he did have an uncle that did liberate a concentration camp, it's just it was his great uncle and it was Ohrduf rather than Auschwitz. Dumb oversight but not a complete fabrication, when it comes to getting muddled in speeches it's not like liberals are the only ones that do that... *cough*bushisms*cough*thathaloguy117 said:
But I've got no problem with little mistakes like Bushisms, we all know what they are trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budgetthathaloguy117 said:
But the last Federal Budget that George W Bush submitted in 2009 had a deficit of 407 BILLION DOLLARS! in fact every year of his presidency he spent more money than the federal government took in as revenue from taxation and so on.
You mean like Saudi Arabia? Because Conservatives support those countries as well! George Bush Senior started that relationship with Saudi Arabia and Bush Junior extended it even further. And no American administration has supported Iran since their revolution and have consistently sided with Israel over any of its neighbours, all Obama did was tell it that it needs to negotiate new borders to get a peace settlement. Harsh, but sometimes a friend needs to tell them the home truths.
What you seem to be missing is the importance of political compromise, not everything is so clear cut. It America severed all relations with every Muslim country that committed human rights offences the price of oil would shoot up to $50 a gallon with massive shortages, and both Conservative and Liberal politicians know that will cost them their power.
Well since the american government is filled with ancient and increadibly out of touch politicans who only look out for themselves when the government was in danger of shutting down they couldn't agree on anything except that even if the government shut down they would still get paid, a retarded monkey could do a better job. So since I'm not a monkey or retarded I think I would do a pretty good job!
I think I can do a marginally better job, but it's easier to claim you will be good at running a country, but when you actually do it, it's more than people can chew.
Yeah, I think I can do it however.
Yeah, I think I can do it however.