3 ms·

False dichotomy. The problem is not Democracy vs every other non-democratic system, it's in the implementation details of the current versions. We just need t

by ak39 13y ago

False dichotomy. The problem is not Democracy vs every other non-democratic system, it's in the implementation details of the current versions. We just need to refactor Democracy Version 1.0. Far from a rewrite. And where do we begin? Upholding campaign promises, that's where. They must be watertight like contracts where the voters can sue.

jasonlotito 13y ago
You'd have no more campaign promises. And truth be told, what you suggest is dangerous. In fact, it would create a situation worse than the one we have now. I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. Maybe the issue is that politicians too easily make promises they cannot make. Maybe it's our problem for demanding politicians keep promises despite new information. How many lives is a promise worth?
- bigiain 13y ago
  You're right, but why demean the word "promise"? If they're going to manipulate us into voting for them, I'd like them to be held accountable differently for things they told us they "intend to do" compared to things they told us they "promised to do".
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Well, there is a problem with that. In searching for a "Promise" quote, I kept seeing this: "Under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," No mention of a promise. On top of that, warrants were issued. You can argue the merits of the warrants themselves, but it wasn't warrantless. Now, if I missed a quote, please share. =) But, going by what little research I did, he never used the word promise, and did make sure to have warrants. That what he did and what we wanted him to do diverged is surely an issue. But we aren't anywhere better. I don't like any of this, but I also don't think it's as black and white as some make it out. How do you balance what you want to do with what is best for the country? Do you sacrifice your own honor to save lives? Maybe he didn't save any lives. But maybe he came into a situation where the intelligence community told him if he shut down the program like he'd intended, it would cost X dollars and cost Y years of intelligence gathering and putting us behind. I'm not prepared to pass judgement. I don't like it, but I don't think we know the whole story yet.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. What prevents them from sharing that knowledge, so the people who voted for them actually believe them when they say they had good reason for breaking campaign promises? Why is it always nebulous non-information like "there are threats" instead of "we are now tracking XX organizations with Y and Z capabilities and intentions, with exhibits A, B, and C proving this fact"?
gjm11 13y ago
There has to be some way for campaigning politicians to make non-watertight promises too. (For almost any promise you might make, there will be some circumstances in which breaking it would be the right thing.) Given the option of making truly watertight promises and making ones with escape clauses, most politicians most of the time will make the ones that they can get out of. So then who will make the most impressive-sounding "watertight" promises? Candidates who know they'll never actually get into power. Candidates who expect to be able to weasel out of those allegedly watertight promises somehow. (They probably will.) This doesn't sound to me like an improvement. Am I being too cynical? Is there some way to have watertight campaign promises without these problems?

by ak39 13y ago

jasonlotito 13y ago

You'd have no more campaign promises. And truth be told, what you suggest is dangerous. In fact, it would create a situation worse than the one we have now. I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. Maybe the issue is that politicians too easily make promises they cannot make. Maybe it's our problem for demanding politicians keep promises despite new information. How many lives is a promise worth?

bigiain 13y ago
You're right, but why demean the word "promise"? If they're going to manipulate us into voting for them, I'd like them to be held accountable differently for things they told us they "intend to do" compared to things they told us they "promised to do".
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Well, there is a problem with that. In searching for a "Promise" quote, I kept seeing this: "Under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," No mention of a promise. On top of that, warrants were issued. You can argue the merits of the warrants themselves, but it wasn't warrantless. Now, if I missed a quote, please share. =) But, going by what little research I did, he never used the word promise, and did make sure to have warrants. That what he did and what we wanted him to do diverged is surely an issue. But we aren't anywhere better. I don't like any of this, but I also don't think it's as black and white as some make it out. How do you balance what you want to do with what is best for the country? Do you sacrifice your own honor to save lives? Maybe he didn't save any lives. But maybe he came into a situation where the intelligence community told him if he shut down the program like he'd intended, it would cost X dollars and cost Y years of intelligence gathering and putting us behind. I'm not prepared to pass judgement. I don't like it, but I don't think we know the whole story yet.
nitrogen 13y ago
I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. What prevents them from sharing that knowledge, so the people who voted for them actually believe them when they say they had good reason for breaking campaign promises? Why is it always nebulous non-information like "there are threats" instead of "we are now tracking XX organizations with Y and Z capabilities and intentions, with exhibits A, B, and C proving this fact"?

gjm11 13y ago

There has to be some way for campaigning politicians to make non-watertight promises too. (For almost any promise you might make, there will be some circumstances in which breaking it would be the right thing.) Given the option of making truly watertight promises and making ones with escape clauses, most politicians most of the time will make the ones that they can get out of. So then who will make the most impressive-sounding "watertight" promises? Candidates who know they'll never actually get into power. Candidates who expect to be able to weasel out of those allegedly watertight promises somehow. (They probably will.) This doesn't sound to me like an improvement. Am I being too cynical? Is there some way to have watertight campaign promises without these problems?