On 11/6/2012 1:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:45:10 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
>>> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
>>> easy it's pointless.
>>
>> Who exactly voted for those scientifically illiterate people to be put
>> in the government's scientific committee?
>
> Members of the public voted them into office, but the majority party
> picks who is the chair of the internal committees, and the parties
> themselves select who represents them on the committees.
>
> Jim
>
Worse than that, the parties also determine who runs. Sure, they run a 
"campaign" of sorts, to decide which asshole among the group of assholes 
who support their "current" theory of the universe will actually be on 
the final ticket, but, unless one of them has a lot of extra money from 
some place, the party determines who those assholes will actually be, 
and thus, who has any chance in hell of being on the ticket for the 
position. That this person them goes on to place people with his same 
ideological positions, and/or his parties (need to think about that next 
election...), into key positions, without public say, is about as 
incidental to the reality of the situation as being given the right to 
vote on which mafia business gets to set up in town, all other candidate 
having been summarily rejected before the public even knew a new 
business would open, and expecting, once in place, that you will have 
any chance, at all, of determining who they hired to run Guido's House 
of Bullets.

The fact that you can, in actuality, sometimes convince the Dems that 
they pick was so poor they need to replace them, while it takes a really 
inconvenient, impossible to hide or gloss over, and unrecoverable 
scandal, to cause a Republican member to quit (or a refusal to actually 
follow along with the boss' decision to hold the UN ransom for 30 
bajillion dollars.. Oh, wait, sorry, that is villains, not Republicans, 
I get them confused some times...), for one of their appointed people to 
be fired, shows that at least one side is vaguely less corrupted 
(Luigi's Tea House, perhaps?).

Post a reply to this message