By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soleron said:

No, because anyone who gets there is:

i) Obligated to certain people, companies and vested interests who paid/helped him to get there


ii) Disconnected from the life of an ordinary American so cannot empathise or see what effective policy might be


iii) Has all the wrong priorities, for example they get briefed every day on terrorism but rarely about the effects of trespassing on civil liberties, so they think terrorism is far more important


iv) very ambitious and duplicitous as a personality type, in order to have the drive and ability to get there


v) almost always has a Law/History background, so can rarely see the value of good data 

It's not deliberate evil, it's accidental negligence.


1) But do they really?  They're president now.  What could those corps do if their poltician suddenly just turned on them.  Nothing.  In a binary system, the corporations have to bet on the least shitty option just like everybody else.  I think people overstimate the pull of big intrest money because of this.  Instead it just so happens big intrest money goes to people who already believe them, not people who get bought off.

2)  I'd think that sorta depends on the president.  Carter seemed really down to earth for example.  Clinton spent time in government, but he seemed like he understood the common man.  Additionally, sometimes standing in the middle of a problem isn't the most effective way to look at it.  Sometimes a rational "overhead" view makes more sense.

3) fair enough, but that's more on the candidates themselves, if you had candidates with better priorities... they get to pick what they are breifed on.

 

4) That one I agree with.

 

5)  Eh, I think they know the value of good data.  They just can't discern what good data is.   It's why statistics should replace classes like geometry.  (When was the last time you calculated the radius of a circle or how much stuff would fit in an isosoles triangle.).