Ivory towers

[nigel99 617]

Is Donald Trump merely a symptom of a deeper malaise in Western political systems, highlighting that these structures are flawed and politicians are no longer serving the interests of the people?

Historically, social unrest and political upheaval have surged when leadership loses touch with the citizens. Take, for example, the Arab Spring. This movement was sparked by widespread discontent with autocratic regimes that neglected the welfare of their people, favoring the elite. Citizens across several countries in the Middle East and North Africa rose in protest, demanding more inclusive, representative, and transparent governance.

Our local premier who 'retired' at the age of 52 with an annual pension of $300,000 and a net worth of $12 million, despite having been a public servant his entire career. This is striking when compared to the average Australian salary of around $80,000. Furthermore, an individual with a net worth exceeding $750,000 does not qualify for a pension due to means testing, illustrating a stark disparity in economic equity.

Our system is failing, and public trust in politicians is justifiably at an all-time low. Given their disconnection, amorality, and sometimes outright corruption, it is unsurprising that protest votes are on the rise. The only way to prevent further social unrest is through the implementation of sweeping, meaningful reforms. However, there appears to be little appetite among current politicians for such changes. 

I hope that we can figure out a way to change, without a complete collapse of the system. Opportunists like Trump will step into the void and exploit it for their own gain if we don’t. 

[JoeWeber 2,940]

28 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

 

Is Donald Trump merely a symptom of a deeper malaise in Western political systems, highlighting that these structures are flawed and politicians are no longer serving the interests of the people?

Historically, social unrest and political upheaval have surged when leadership loses touch with the citizens. Take, for example, the Arab Spring. This movement was sparked by widespread discontent with autocratic regimes that neglected the welfare of their people, favoring the elite. Citizens across several countries in the Middle East and North Africa rose in protest, demanding more inclusive, representative, and transparent governance.

Our local premier who 'retired' at the age of 52 with an annual pension of $300,000 and a net worth of $12 million, despite having been a public servant his entire career. This is striking when compared to the average Australian salary of around $80,000. Furthermore, an individual with a net worth exceeding $750,000 does not qualify for a pension due to means testing, illustrating a stark disparity in economic equity.

Our system is failing, and public trust in politicians is justifiably at an all-time low. Given their disconnection, amorality, and sometimes outright corruption, it is unsurprising that protest votes are on the rise. The only way to prevent further social unrest is through the implementation of sweeping, meaningful reforms. However, there appears to be little appetite among current politicians for such changes. 

I hope that we can figure out a way to change, without a complete collapse of the system. Opportunists like Trump will step into the void and exploit it for their own gain if we don’t. 

Corruption amongst politicians is no new thing, or we'd have none, and autocracy has been on the rise worldwide for a while. Each of our countries has created systems where the morbidly rich see the best protection of their accumulated wealth in right wing, authoritarian systems. I'd guess that your relatively sudden mineral wealth and proximity to Asia is at the root of your nations problem. We traveled heavily in Australia in the mid-late 90's looking to emigrate. We did 4-5 one to month to six weeks tours and we made it to most places except the Ningaloo and Darwin. Western Australia was by far our favorite but to move there was to move to where every place was too far away.

The point being that at the time Oz was a much more civil society than the US in our view and very attractive. Time passed and more than a decade later we flew into Perth for a week just to see things. Mineral money was flowing heavily. Property prices were through the roof. Equipment operators were commanding +AUD$130K annually. And for the first time in our experience we saw overweight Australians, smokers, and politeness was out the window. Money in ones pocket does not make them evil, per se, but money at levels where spending it to protect it is the start of most countries political problems, seems to me.

Edited May 12, 2024 by JoeWeber

[billvon 3,116]

52 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Is Donald Trump merely a symptom of a deeper malaise in Western political systems, highlighting that these structures are flawed and politicians are no longer serving the interests of the people?

Well, the opposite is true here.  Trump, a billionaire and a well connected politican who elevates other politicians and the wealthy, is campaigning that he is for "the little guy."  And perhaps that's just an indication of how dumb the average voter is that they would fall for that.

[nigel99 617]

51 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, the opposite is true here.  Trump, a billionaire and a well connected politican who elevates other politicians and the wealthy, is campaigning that he is for "the little guy."  And perhaps that's just an indication of how dumb the average voter is that they would fall for that.

I didn’t say that the average voter wasn’t dumb! Trump calls out the system, the fact that he would tear it down to replace himself as King and cares nothing for Joe Average is a blatant expression of what many politicians appear to aspire to - they just aren’t quite as transparent.

I’m not sure if irony is the right word for it, but seeing support for Trump based on distrust of corrupt politicians is certainly confronting. 

[Phil1111 1,182]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

...  And perhaps that's just an indication of how dumb the average voter is that they would fall for that.

 

11 hours ago, nigel99 said:

I didn’t say that the average voter wasn’t dumb! Trump calls out the system, the fact that he would tear it down to replace himself as King and cares nothing for Joe Average is a blatant expression of what many politicians appear to aspire to - they just aren’t quite as transparent.

I’m not sure if irony is the right word for it, but seeing support for Trump based on distrust of corrupt politicians is certainly confronting. 

IMO politicians and corruption hasn't changed since early civilization. Taxation laws has certainly stratified incomes in some western countries. The internet and 24 hour news has opened up new almost unlimited sources of news. It has also allowed some to surround themselves with ideological self fulfilling news sources.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 5/11/2024 at 7:44 PM, nigel99 said:

I didn’t say that the average voter wasn’t dumb! Trump calls out the system, the fact that he would tear it down to replace himself as King and cares nothing for Joe Average is a blatant expression of what many politicians appear to aspire to - they just aren’t quite as transparent.

I’m not sure if irony is the right word for it, but seeing support for Trump based on distrust of corrupt politicians is certainly confronting. 

I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

But is is disconcerting when the US Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to convict a politician of taking a bribe.

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/04/26/u-s-supreme-court-justices-take-lavish-gifts-then-raise-the-bar-for-bribery-prosecutions/

When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush.

Edited May 13, 2024 by SkyDekker

[nigel99 617]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

Truly corrupt I wouldn’t know, although there is a remarkably high number over the years who have been caught.

However, entitled and disconnected from Joe Average would tend to be a significant proportion. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

16 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Truly corrupt I wouldn’t know, although there is a remarkably high number over the years who have been caught.

Is there? There are about 520,000 politicians in the US

[jakee 1,595]

40 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Is there? There are about 520,000 politicians in the US

Coincidentally, Jon Stewart just did a decent bit about the amount of rampant profiteering that occurs throughout Congress which Congress themselves have ensured, through legislation and internal rules, is legally not corruption. Even though it sure as hell sounds like it.

 

[nigel99 617]

49 minutes ago, jakee said:

Coincidentally, Jon Stewart just did a decent bit about the amount of rampant profiteering that occurs throughout Congress which Congress themselves have ensured, through legislation and internal rules, is legally not corruption. Even though it sure as hell sounds like it.

 

Thanks Jakee, that sums up what I have been getting at perfectly. 
Incidentally, remember the Duck house incident?

[jakee 1,595]

7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Thanks Jakee, that sums up what I have been getting at perfectly. 
Incidentally, remember the Duck house incident?

Christ yes. At least he was forced out. My local MP at the time claimed for the plumbing under his tennis courts and never even apologised.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Coincidentally, Jon Stewart just did a decent bit about the amount of rampant profiteering that occurs throughout Congress which Congress themselves have ensured, through legislation and internal rules, is legally not corruption. Even though it sure as hell sounds like it.

 

Not corruption if it is legally allowed. Which was pretty much my point.

[jakee 1,595]

35 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Not corruption if it is legally allowed. 

When the foxes vote to allow themselves to kill chickens, the chickens still end up just as dead.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

When the foxes vote to allow themselves to kill chickens, the chickens still end up just as dead.

True and you would be wrong calling it murder. Which has been my point.

[jakee 1,595]

34 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

True and you would be wrong calling it murder. Which has been my point.

Then why did you call them guilty if your point is that they are not guilty? 

"When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush."

 

 

Edited May 14, 2024 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then why did you call them guilty if your point is that they are not guilty? 

"When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush."

 

 

Wonder why you didn't provide the entire quote?

"I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

But is is disconcerting when the US Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to convict a politician of taking a bribe."

ahhh, because that would show it is two different issues.

[jakee 1,595]

44 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Wonder why you didn't provide the entire quote?

"I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

But is is disconcerting when the US Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to convict a politician of taking a bribe."

ahhh, because that would show it is two different issues.

You think?

One issue is that the legislative branch has decided certain types of political profiteering are not illegal.

The other issue is that the judicial branch has decided certain types of political profiteering are not illegal.

I see the distinction, but you'll have to explain the difference.

(Interestingly - you seem to be suggesting that Congresspeople who have been given a pass by the independent Supreme Court are still being corrupt, but Congresspeople who have given themselves a pass are not. Common sense would normally suggest the benefit of the doubt should go the other way, if at all.)

Edited May 14, 2024 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Ahhh I forgot it was you Jakee.....keep moving the goal posts to get the last word in my friend. I know you'll have a hard time sleeping otherwise and I would not want to be responsible for a deterioration of your mental health.

[jakee 1,595]

29 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Ahhh I forgot it was you Jakee.....keep moving the goal posts to get the last word in my friend. I know you'll have a hard time sleeping otherwise and I would not want to be responsible for a deterioration of your mental health.

Why so defensive that you need to deploy such a transparent dodge? 

You set the goalposts of 'true corruption' as what is actually illegal, even though you also claim people who the justice system has decided are not engaged in corrupt behaviour are in fact guilty of corruption.

Those are your goalposts, and you're still gonna have to explain how they're both on the same field despite your attempt at ad hom distraction.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why so defensive that you need to deploy such a transparent dodge? 

You set the goalposts of 'true corruption' as what is actually illegal, even though you also claim people who the justice system has decided are not engaged in corrupt behaviour are in fact guilty of corruption.

Those are your goalposts, and you're still gonna have to explain how they're both on the same field despite your attempt at ad hom distraction.

This will be my last post on this.

Corruption is as defined in relevant statutes. Much of what is being ascribed to politicians being corrupt isn't actually against any statute.

Separate, but related, what doesn't help this perception of corrupt politicians is that SCOTUS has made it harder for politicians who do actually break corruption laws, to be successfully prosecuted.

Now people, somewhat like you are doing, can have the following argument:

Person A: look at all those politicians getting filthy rich, they are all corrupt.

Person B: Yes. Just yesterday I read about politician A who took a bribe, but he didn't get convicted because the evidentiary standard is so damn high.

Person A&B: fucking politicians are all corrupt.

Person C: MAGA!! Trump is going to drain the swamp.

Person A,B & C: Politicians are all the same, fucking corrupt bastards. Trump might be corrupt, but at least he is going to change it all. Why else would the Deep State be fighting so hard to keep him off the ballot.

 

So Jakee, thank you for contributing to the popularity of Trump.

 

[jakee 1,595]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Corruption is as defined in relevant statutes. Much of what is being ascribed to politicians being corrupt isn't actually against any statute.

And in many cases, this is because the people who want to engage in corrupt behaviour have decided to legalise the ways in which they want to be corrupt. The fact that they are able to do this does not change the ethics of the actions.

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Separate, but related, what doesn't help this perception of corrupt politicians is that SCOTUS has made it harder for politicians who do actually break corruption laws, to be successfully prosecuted.

And in the same fashion, congresspeople legalising the ability for interested parties to give them large amounts of money in exchange for access and influence doesn't help the perception of corrupt politicians. 

So again, I get the distinction - you have not yet shown any difference. It really does seem that it's only your unwillingness to admit a mistake that leads you to insist that there is one.

Quote

So Jakee, thank you for contributing to the popularity of Trump.

Why are you taking this so personally? Just relax dude, it's only a conversation. It's really not as important as you think it is.

Edited May 14, 2024 by jakee

[nigel99 617]

13 hours ago, jakee said:

When the foxes vote to allow themselves to kill chickens, the chickens still end up just as dead.

I think this goes to the heart of what I think is the issue with dissatisfaction or distrust of politicians. One set of rules for the people and they happily feed at the trough.

It might be legal, but it isn’t moral.