The thing is, when the public doesn't care about something, the system that tells politicians what to do breaks down. The people who do vote and participate (e.g. by contacting their representative's office to argue for something that helps them) end up with disproportionate influence, and so Congress gets a skewed view of the world. When no one seems to care about something, members just do what they think is best; when something is important to their constituents, they're far more likely to go with what their constituents want. If their constituents want something that they think is not good, then they might follow their personal convictions, and at the end of their term the people decide whether or not it was the right thing to do. That's why the most important effect of the disclosures of US government secrets is that it's gotten people to generally care about it -- when people care, Congress listens. When people don't care, Congress listens to the people who do care about the issue, who aren't necessarily the ones they should be listening to.

 

The real question in all this would be "Why do people stop caring about it?". Personally I think they don't care anymore because no matter for who they are voting, the results are pretty much the same overall and nothing moves. So politics are still at fault.

The real question in all this would be "Why do people stop caring about it?". Personally I think they don't care anymore because no matter for who they are voting, the results are pretty much the same overall and nothing moves. So politics are still at fault.

Not really -- things actually have changed, in fairly significant ways, even in recent years. And people who do vote tend to get their concerns addressed all the time (you know why Medicare and Social Security are untouchable? It's because seniors vote more than any other group). When people who care about something are politically active in large numbers, it tends to go their way. It's when people don't care (in part because of false yet popular like "politicians never bother to follow up on their promises" or "Congress just does what rich donors and the 'lobbyist' class tell it to do, and members don't care what their constituents think," and yes, both of those are false) that politicians don't do things how their constituents want them to be done.

I have to agree heavily with co702 here, politicians who are voted in office do make changes to the government and how they work, for you people who just don't care, well you should care after all it is your government we're talking about here, you want the politicians to make major changes (eg. Climate change, welfare and healthcare) you make it happen by rallying up, making a good plan and send it to congress, then when the next election comes around, you elect the politicians who will prove to be most suitable for your plan and will continue to make significant changes in the near future, remember guys it only takes one person to make a massive admenment.

Not really -- things actually have changed, in fairly significant ways, even in recent years. And people who do vote tend to get their concerns addressed all the time (you know why Medicare and Social Security are untouchable? It's because seniors vote more than any other group). When people who care about something are politically active in large numbers, it tends to go their way. It's when people don't care (in part because of false yet popular like "politicians never bother to follow up on their promises" or "Congress just does what rich donors and the 'lobbyist' class tell it to do, and members don't care what their constituents think," and yes, both of those are false) that politicians don't do things how their constituents want them to be done.

Can you provide some examples or sources that state American politicians keep their promises? I think we can both agree that the vast majority of the American population don't like our politicians. Try asking someone on the street if they favor our politicians. I consistently get negative responses.

The real question in all this would be "Why do people stop caring about it?". Personally I think they don't care anymore because no matter for who they are voting, the results are pretty much the same overall and nothing moves. So politics are still at fault.

This is what I'm trying to say.

You've got the causality pretty much backwards there. First off, the claim that politicians never keep promises is wrong - seriously, people have done studies (particularly for presidential promises), and politicians do work to implement the vast majority of their promises (the thing is that "work towards" is the best anyone can do, because it's not possible to come in and just say "Here's how things work now;" also, the (much rarer) broken promises get more press). Likewise, members of Congress by and large do care what their constituents think, and are generally in it to serve the public (it's certainly not because it's a particularly easy job, or because of the pay).

 

You are correct in a number of ways, however many politicians still vote against their constituents from time to time. It happens. 

 

However if you think a politician cannot be persuaded to join Congress because of the pay you are dead wrong. How would you like $174,000 a year for life, unlimited free haircuts (up to $50,000 a year), $50,000 every 4 years to rearrange your office furniture. The ability to have up 18 personal assistants, oh and 18 assistants for each of those assistants. Plus, free healthcare and personal protection, oh and let's not forget you only have to work 100 days out of the year. Oh and if you are high ranking such as the President you can get the taxpayers to pay for your multiple multi-million dollar vacations.

 

I'm not saying all politicians are in it for the money but the money definitely doesn't hurt their decisions. Congress when given the chance will always help themselves. Those few who don't agree with it are drowned out by the voice of the many.  

You are correct in a number of ways, however many politicians still vote against their constituents from time to time. It happens. 

 

However if you think a politician cannot be persuaded to join Congress because of the pay you are dead wrong. How would you like $174,000 a year for life

They don't get $174,000 for life. They get their salary while they hold office; pensions depend on how long they served. For 32 years service, they get 80% of their salary as a pension; if they only serve 6 years, it's closer to 10% (i.e. under $20,000/yr). They can't collect the full value of their pension until they're 62 years old.

 

unlimited free haircuts (up to $50,000 a year)

...So? You know haircuts aren't that expensive or that frequent, right? That's roughly along the lines of giving free coffee to people.

 

$50,000 every 4 years to rearrange your office furniture

Congressional offices are largeish (most furniture is for staff, not for the member themselves), and Congress is far from the only place to come to the shocking conclusion that employees don't have to pay out of their own pocket to set up an office for their subordinates.

 

The ability to have up 18 personal assistants, oh and 18 assistants for each of those assistants.

This is also completely false in almost every possible way. Representatives are capped at 18 permanent staff at a time. One can be described as a personal assistant (the scheduler), and even that tends to be iffy. It is a federal crime to use other employees as personal assistants. Most of an office is legislative staff; other staffers work in constituent service, public affairs (yes, that's a legitimate task for a member of Congress), administrative support (HR, a sysadmin, office manager, etc.), or similar. No staffers get personal assistants, period. Some might have assistants in the workplace, but that's not a personal assistant. The only reason it's legal to use the scheduler for personal purposes is that personal schedule and professional schedule are linked by the limit of 24 hours in a day. Like above, you're confusing professional things with personal things.

Plus, free healthcare and personal protection,

Nope. Members of Congress and their staff are on Obamacare. Personal protection is not given unless there is solid reason to believe there's a threat against their life; members do not get bodyguards routinely.

 

oh and let's not forget you only have to work 100 days out of the year.

Nope. Members are working when Congress is not in session; that's when they do things like catch up on what constituents want, and visit things in their home district.

 

Oh and if you are high ranking such as the President you can get the taxpayers to pay for your multiple multi-million dollar vacations.

The President isn't a high-ranking member of Congress, but: The President pays for his vacations at the rate it would cost to buy a first-class airline ticket. He doesn't pay for continuity-of-government stuff or a protection detail or any of the other parts of his entourage, but they are only part of his entourage because of his job -- it's no cheaper for him than if he were a private citizen.

 

I'm not saying all politicians are in it for the money but the money definitely doesn't hurt their decisions. Congress when given the chance will always help themselves. Those few who don't agree with it are drowned out by the voice of the many.

The thing is, members of Congress (and high-level politicians generally) could make several times more money if they were not politicians. To be elected, you need to be generally pretty smart and engaging, you need to seem trustworthy, you need to be good at dealing with people, and you need to be good at convincing people to come over to your point of view. Those skills are largely what determine salary anywhere; the skills needed to be a member of Congress are worth far more in the private sector where compensation isn't set by law.

Well, whatever they have to do to keep us safe, I am okay with it. Now, if these people were innocent, I'd have an issue.

 

Well that is part of the debate. These people did not have a court date or anyway of defending themselves against what they were accused of doing. They weren't convicted of a crime. There is also the issue of how effective these interrogation tactics are. How much accurate information was gained? When someone is being tortured they will say anything to make the pain stop. If your interrogator doesn't believe you when you say you don't know anything then you will just make something up to make them happy.

 

Now this isn't to say that I have very much sympathy for the people this happened to because they were most likely doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing and probably deserve whatever happened to them. I just don't know how effective these techniques were at gaining valuable information.

Well that is part of the debate. These people did not have a court date or anyway of defending themselves against what they were accused of doing. They weren't convicted of a crime. There is also the issue of how effective these interrogation tactics are. How much accurate information was gained? When someone is being tortured they will say anything to make the pain stop. If your interrogator doesn't believe you when you say you don't know anything then you will just make something up to make them happy.

Now this isn't to say that I have very much sympathy for the people this happened to because they were most likely doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing and probably deserve whatever happened to them. I just don't know how effective these techniques were at gaining valuable information.

So let me see if I got this right, you assume that most people that got toutured probably deserved it?

So let me see if I got this right, you assume that most people that got toutured probably deserved it?

 

Yep that is right. Of course this is just an assumption and I have next to no evidence to back it up, but like I said, I have a feeling most of the people they interrogate did something to make the CIA interested in them. I don't think the CIA just snatched random people off the street, they probably had intel that led them to that person.

Edited December 15, 201411 yr by l3ubba

Yep that is right. Of course this is just an assumption and I have next to no evidence to back it up, but like I said, I have a feeling most of the people they interrogate did something to make the CIA interested in them.

I completely disagree with your opinion, but I respect it. However, I think most can agree that if someone is brought in, there must be evidence to say that they are in fact a terrorist.

Edited December 15, 201411 yr by Chester199

I don't really care what the CIA is doing to get information. If you are more disgusted by the interrogation methods used by the CIA than watching people getting their heads chopped off in public by guys who think alike the people we are interrogating, check which side you're on.

I don't really care what the CIA is doing to get information. If you are more disgusted by the interrogation methods used by the CIA than watching people getting their heads chopped off in public by guys who think alike the people we are interrogating, check which side you're on.

So...if the CIA is allowed to do anything that's not worse than what the other side is doing, that's cool?

I'm sorry, I'm just disgusted by the thought that that idea has a good amount of currency in the US. You can't call yourself a good guy and do bad guy things.

So...if the CIA is allowed to do anything that's not worse than what the other side is doing, that's cool?

I'm sorry, I'm just disgusted by the thought that that idea has a good amount of currency in the US. You can't call yourself a good guy and do bad guy things.

Are we chopping people's heads off? And it's not like we video tape this and show it to the world. I would let the CIA do it's thing for the defense of the US. I would rather see a foreign enemy be killed than one of our own troops and civilians be dead.

Are we chopping people's heads off? And it's not like we video tape this and show it to the world. I would let the CIA do it's thing for the defense of the US. I would rather see a foreign enemy be killed than one of our own troops and civilians be dead.

You don't have to chop someone's head off or any other similar act to be considered inhumane, just because they didn't videotape it doesn't mean that it's not wrong, it is. As I have stated before, for psychological interrogation, it should be done at a level where it doesn't amount to touture (eg. Breaking them down, verbal insults, persuading techniques, etc.) For physiological, the same thing (eg. Slapping them, roughing them up a bit, etc.) Torutuing is not acceptable in my opinion and I strongly agree that the government should change its tatics on interrogation methods, valuable information can be gathered WITHOUT the use of Torutue.

So...if the CIA is allowed to do anything that's not worse than what the other side is doing, that's cool?

I'm sorry, I'm just disgusted by the thought that that idea has a good amount of currency in the US. You can't call yourself a good guy and do bad guy things.

There is no such thing as a "good guy" in today's world dude.

There is no such thing as a "good guy" in today's world dude.

I'm pretty sure that that is subjective, it depends on who you talk about when you say "good guy", there can be a lot of good guys than there are right now, we just have to push for a better world or better policies.

I'm pretty sure that that is subjective, it depends on who you talk about when you say "good guy", there can be a lot of good guys than there are right now, we just have to push for a better world or better policies.

I'm trying not to give up on peace and harmony. As each day passes and I meet new people, my faith in world peace disappears more and more.

I'm trying not to give up on peace and harmony. As each day passes and I meet new people, my faith in world peace disappears more and more.

Now that I agree with, there are so many idiots at my school, it's unbelievable, I have little to no faith in this new generation. :(

I shortened this so I could quote you.

 

I feel like we are getting the thread off topic. Do you mind if I PM you and offer my rebuttal? If you don't that's okay, a lot of what you say is true, however there is still a lot to be said on this argument, but if you don't want to, I understand. I just don't want to get the thread too far off topic.

You don't have to chop someone's head off or any other similar act to be considered inhumane, just because they didn't videotape it doesn't mean that it's not wrong, it is. As I have stated before, for psychological interrogation, it should be done at a level where it doesn't amount to touture (eg. Breaking them down, verbal insults, persuading techniques, etc.) For physiological, the same thing (eg. Slapping them, roughing them up a bit, etc.) Torutuing is not acceptable in my opinion and I strongly agree that the government should change its tatics on interrogation methods, valuable information can be gathered WITHOUT the use of Torutue.

Some people doesn't budge after all that. These interrogation methods aren't a new thing either, they've been here for quite a bit and the public has known as well. Also there are no "good guys" in the world today. You may be right of some individuals that they are still "good guys", but they hardly get into the news. It's sad but no one cares about the good things happening, they want to see the bad stuff as today's current events. My opinion is, if the interrogation methods have been public for years, why are we dealing with it now.