Wow, that sounds almost like what a politician should do, react to public opinion.SpangeMonkee said:better than some left wing douche bag that changes his views based on poll data.
The mob is fickle, bending to the minor shift of will is never a sound strategy. Regardless of which party you belong to.Galen said:Wow, that sounds almost like what a politician should do, react to public opinion.
But you're right, better to have a guy in who could care less about how the public feels, that's why he's doing so well in the polls.
Galen said:Wow, that sounds almost like what a politician should do, react to public opinion.
But you're right, better to have a guy in who could care less about how the public feels, that's why he's doing so well in the polls.
I can agree, but a thinker not bound by religion or his own party is good for democracy in theory. Though that will never happen, I'd rather vote for someone of more sense and experience.wr3kt said:There's a difference between someone simply changing their views based on public opinion and someone learning more about why the views of the people he represents are different than his.
Someone who just sways back and forth to garner votes is someone who has no beliefs of their own. Someone who can get up and stand up for what they represent or believe in and back it up in contrast to what the populus wants or thinks is someone who can ride through even the worst criticisms and learn from it.
I want someone who will actually give a reason to the public why the public might actually be wrong, because it's entirely possible. Mob mentality doesn't mean the mob is always right.
Galen said:I can agree, but a thinker not bound by religion or his own party is good for democracy in theory. Though that will never happen, I'd rather vote for someone of more sense and experience.
America's belief that the US consists of only Liberals and Conservatives is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever came across in a civilized country. Both look at the chance to represent their constituents as winning a race, then try to be as in-your-face as possible to the loser. At least, this is all that I've noticed in recent years.
Galen said:Wow, that sounds almost like what a politician should do, react to public opinion.
But you're right, better to have a guy in who could care less about how the public feels, that's why he's doing so well in the polls.
Yes. Noone is ever going to please absolutly every single member of the electorate.wr3kt said:Are you saying it's impossible for a person who is a firm believer in their faith to be incapable of making sound democratic decisions?
John Kerry may worship Heinz #57, but it's still a religion.wr3kt said:People are making it sound like Democrats aren't as religious.
Damn straight, and the type of religion matters - JFK had a real tough time with the press over being Catholic, as well as the current governor of MA who is Mormon.b_sinning said:If you try to run in politics without some form of religious background your opponent will always point it out to make sure you don't get the holey roller vote. Which is bullshit.
Galen said:Wow, that sounds almost like what a politician should do, react to public opinion.
But you're right, better to have a guy in who could care less about how the public feels, that's why he's doing so well in the polls.
Direct democracy ftwFat Burger said:Public officials are not elected to do exactly what the polls say. If that were the case, then we could just eliminate the government and all vote on issues by a show of hands. Minorly convenient, but effective.
And politicians dont?theacoustician said:Hell no. People become retarded in groups.
I think I've found the problem; people. If we got rid of them it'd be perfect.Fat Burger said:Hell no. People become retarded on their own.
FlamingGlory said:I think I've found the problem; people. If we got rid of them it'd be perfect.