I hate governments.

[oggbashan]

After the change of US President I started thinking about governments and people around the world.

I have met people from many countries, some of them in their own countries. I have found almost all (except the obvious assholes) to be pleasant company. But I have found one thing in common for most of us. We hate our government.

It doesn't matter whether they can vote freely, or apparently freely with a government selected choice of candidates, or without a vote at all. They don't like their current or recent government.

I can say I like French people but I don't like their government or President. Many of them will agree with me and reciprocate. They don't like the UK's government nor Prime Minister (whichever government or Prime Minister).

The degree of hatred varies whether the government is run by the political party they support or not but all elected governments are compromises. Their range of policies includes things we like and things we don't like.

To return to US governments. Since WW2 I believe that all US Presidents and administrations have pursued a policy of "America First" whether they have stated that publicly or not. The so-called 'special relationship' between the US and UK is bullshit and has been since 1917. The US government wants the UK to be an ally but not a powerful ally. The US governments' policies in WW1 and 2 included a desire to dismantle the British Empire and replace the British with an American-dominated world. The US will do the minimum to retain the appearance of the special relationship but in practice will demand more than they will give back.

Do I blame the US? No. The British governments acted exactly the same in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

While individual people can get on with each other, their governments' policies can divide them. I have friends in France and Germany who are also friends with each other but when they discuss each other's governments they start ferocious arguments - until they agree their own government is full of as many assholes as the other countries.

Why are governments so alienated from their electorates, and even from many of those who voted for them?

I don't know. Any answers?

 

[Chris_Michael]

I don't think there is an answer. Power and money dominate every aspect of the world. I honestly don't think humans have evolved to handle any form of civilization.

A good example is how we have taken natural selection out of the picture. Or at least we're trying. This is a taboo and apparently cynical argument, but people *need* to die. As in, the less people die, the more conflict we will have. Nature just isn't meant for all humans to survive disease, natural disasters, and other ailments/events. Also, humans aren't built to be machines but the people in power try as hard as they can to get the poor to work for free, and to do it as efficiently as possible.

On top of that, while the powers above continue fighting for power and money, the majority of people are divided and fighting.

Whether it's the church, the government, or corporate, the strong are the people who hold power and the weak are those of us fighting on these forums.

Nature is not functioning correctly thanks to us. What am I personally going to do about it? I'm just going to bitch and whine, play videogames, and say fuck the world.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Plenty of reasons for that, but I'll offer one.

The ONE thing I'll credit to the Orange Menace is using the tweet to communicate.

My one major criticism of Obama was he didn't hold enough news conferences, and he didn't communicate enough with "the people." He gave as few press conferences as Dubya. He went on some talk shows, but it was never enough. He SEEMED to be distant, aloof. You have this moment of bonding during the campaigns and then poof, you never freakin' hear from them again except in these controlled appearances.

Dumbass broke through that with the tweet. It was a way to try and overcome that "alienation" on a very simple, basic level. He talks directly to you. Of course, what he's saying is insane, but there's a feeling that he's talking TO you. It creates a closeness with the leader no one ever has before.

He schooled the Ds and the Rs and anyone else with that.

So a simple answer to that is just how elected officials "talk" to the American people. Even when they accomplish things, you never hear about it. But Dum dum has been tweeting and saying "I just did this today." "I signed this and that today." Smart.

Of course, he lies his ass off, he misrepresents, he doesn't tell the truth about how his policies effect you, but hey.

Why are governments so alienated from their electorates, and even from many of those who voted for them?

I don't know. Any answers?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

test

Hmmm. . .never mind

 

[Chris_Michael]

Carnal Flower, that is the dumbest shit you've ever posted. Social media and the internet has had a very short lifespan compared to the history of the world. Can you please elaborate on how your answer relates to all the governments throughout the world in history?

Was Hitler trending on social media prior to his reign? How about the Middle East? Do the women there vote against the Donald Trumps of the world? Oh wait... they don't vote. Too bad there was no march for women there, huh?

 

[RUlookingup]

Plenty of reasons for that, but I'll offer one.

The ONE thing I'll credit to the Orange Menace is using the tweet to communicate.

My one major criticism of Obama was he didn't hold enough news conferences, and he didn't communicate enough with "the people." He gave as few press conferences as Dubya. He went on some talk shows, but it was never enough. He SEEMED to be distant, aloof. You have this moment of bonding during the campaigns and then poof, you never freakin' hear from them again except in these controlled appearances.

Dumbass broke through that with the tweet. It was a way to try and overcome that "alienation" on a very simple, basic level. He talks directly to you. Of course, what he's saying is insane, but there's a feeling that he's talking TO you. It creates a closeness with the leader no one ever has before.

He schooled the Ds and the Rs and anyone else with that.

So a simple answer to that is just how elected officials "talk" to the American people. Even when they accomplish things, you never hear about it. But Dum dum has been tweeting and saying "I just did this today." "I signed this and that today." Smart.

Of course, he lies his ass off, he misrepresents, he doesn't tell the truth about how his policies effect you, but hey.

If Obama tweeted we wouldn't have had to listen to that prick Josh Earnest. Arrogant fuck.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Was Hitler trending on social media prior to his reign? ...

Hitler and his people used the social media of their day to great effect on radio, cinema, newspapers, and even on the streets.

Watch Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" preferably in a restored version to see how effective the Nazi propaganda was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLegbkB_Aag

 

[JackLuis]

Ogg, Thanks for bringing a intelligent topic up.

While surfing the news this morning I found a article about a Protest Song from the Women's March yesterday. I love a good protest song and since I took up the ukulele a couple of years ago have researched a collection of them form Woody Guthrie to more modern ones.

This one is very modern and up to date.

Gays Against Guns Anthem
Sung to the Battle Hymn of the Republic


Trump, is the cherry on the cake of the racist and the rich

So afraid to pay their taxes, they will scratch a fascist itch

They believe he’s Mussolini, but he’s only Putin’s bitch

Now we are marching on!”

Glory Glory Halalua, Glory Glory Halalua

Glory Glory Halalua

Yes We are marching on!

“He will someday learn the lesson this catastrophe can teach

We will say good-bye to liars and the hatred that they preach

Yes we’ll dance from coast to coast the day this Cheeto is impeached

The truth is marching on!”

Not sure I captured all the lyrics but it is catchy.

 

[Halin24]

On governments and politicians

I'm aware that I will probably be ridiculed now, but this is my answer to the original question.

1) Power corrupts. What is important to politicians is to get the power. What you say or do to get it
is unimportant. That, in turn, means that everyone knows you can't be trusted and therefore
expects to be screwed by you, but since all politicians do it (or will learn to do it or disappear from
the scene) voters have no relevant alternatives and has to pick the 'least bad' one.

2) Politicians, Union leaders, company owners and other 'leaders' interact both professionally and
socially (within limits of course, likes and dislikes always play a role) and so they form an 'elite'.
Has 'elites' ever mixed with common people? I mean really talked with them as an equal over a
beer in a pub? Not many examples of that I would say, so there you have the distance between
The Government and The People.

3) When the power has been won you have to show that you do something after all. If not you will
be replaced by another liar... sorry, politician, in the next election. But what can you do? If the
country is big and powerful you can declare war against terrorism or something. Otherwise you
can create new laws to impress, or order a change in how the police is organized. When it pisses
people off you can do it again in a slightly different way to show that you listen to the people. If it
creates chaos: what's the problem? Then you can really get going to 'stabilize' the situation.

4) Running a government is surely problematic. Whatever you do there are consequences you couldn't
predict. Also, when things go faster all the time and journalists demand immediate answers about
every little detail, you are bound to make mistakes. Then you have two choices really: admit that
you didn't know what you were talking about, or do a Trump and say another stupid thing to hide
the first mistake. If you're lucky that will be interpreted as you being 'an ordinary man', and that
can increase your popularity. If people see through that scheme it will only lead to contempt for
politicians as a group, and that's not a bad thing. The people distance themselves from you so you
don't have to talk to them at all...

I could go on but let's stop there. If I contradicted myself in any way I refuse to admit it. Another
stupid comment from me will arrive at a later time to conceal it...

 

[RUlookingup]

So you're saying the media is like a controlling mother in law. Trump has given said mother in law the bird, so communication is on point.

 

[sr71plt]

Most people in government are part of the professional bureaucracy, not politicians. And just like any other profession, those who aren't part of it and make no effort to find out what goes on in government and how it helps and supports them personally, using efficiencies of scale to get them support services they never could either provide for themselves from what they contribute or could possibly have the time and ability to provide it all themselves, stand back in ignorance and undervalue the profession and the people involved in it. The smug and uninformed are always with us and complaining about everyone but themselves.

 

[handysr]

test

Hmmm. . .never mind

That's probably the smartest thing you've ever written. Now please go finish cleaning your room while the adults talk, and stop interrupting us.

I don't think there is an answer. Power and money dominate every aspect of the world.

And there's the answer. Power and money. Some people can't ever have enough of either, and us poor suckers that just want to live freely (rights, not $) get caught in the crossfire.

Ogg, Thanks for bringing a intelligent topic up.

While surfing the news this morning I found a article about a Protest Song from the Women's March yesterday. I love a good protest song and since I took up the ukulele a couple of years ago have researched a collection of them form Woody Guthrie to more modern ones.

This one is very modern and up to date.

Gays Against Guns Anthem

That had nothing to do with gays or guns, that was just Trump bashing, and not a very good attempt at it.


-------------

Power and money. That's the key. Anywhere from homeowner associations, to PTAs, to special interest groups, to <insert pretend marginalized snowflake group here>, to racist organizations, to city/county/federal governments, there are a select few that actually want to hold office in order to better their chosen environment, whether it's jobs, the economy, or air and water, but most of the egotistical bastards are in it for their bank account or their egos.

Once you get a community that goes over a few dozen families, there is kind of a need for a government unless they are anarchists. Like I said, a few folks genuinely want to be in a position that enables them to make a better life for everyone, but it doesn't take long before some power-hungry asshole steps into place.

The recent US election is a good example of this. All of the obamas and clintons showed that they wanted the power and money more than the betterment of the USA, and it sucks when people vote based only on the amount of pigment in someone's skin or what dangly bits are between their legs. Trump already had a shitload of both power and money, and his campaign tried to convince people he was pushing for making America and her citizens to be better. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. Most of the people populating the majority of the land mass of the US voted for Trump, while about half of the citizens did, so his agenda proved to be exactly what most of the country wanted. I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but I think he's got the right idea, even if some of his policies are stupid.

 

[handysr]

Most people in government are part of the professional bureaucracy, not politicians. And just like any other profession, those who aren't part of it and make no effort to find out what goes on in government and how it helps and supports them personally, using efficiencies of scale to get them support services they never could either provide for themselves from what they contribute or could possibly have the time and ability to provide it all themselves, stand back in ignorance and undervalue the profession and the people involved in it. The smug and uninformed are always with us and complaining about everyone but themselves.

<quote>People that don't like politics and bureaucracy are idiots, and that's why we need more government. Those sheep are too stupid to handle life on their own, and they need professional politicians to tell them how to live. More control = happier serfs.</quote>

Fixed it for you, pilot.

 

[JackLuis]

-


That had nothing to do with gays or guns, that was just Trump bashing, and not a very good attempt at it.
-
-

I disagree with your 'alternative facts', strictly on the point of musicality, the lyrics were timely, rhymed well and didn't break the tempo of the base song. Yes it is Trump bashing which was the purpose of the song and so was effective. You may not agree with it and you are free to write a counter to it, please share your effort, I need a good Clinton bashing song for my collection. The RW is sorely unrepresented in this genera.

It is as if the RWNJ crowd is incapable of the act of writing a decent protest song. They didn't even capitalize on "London Bridges Falling Down," during the campaign,despite the refrain of "Take the Keys and Lock Her Up," in the song itself! RWNJ Fail!

 

[sr71plt]

<quote>People that don't like politics and bureaucracy are idiots, and that's why we need more government. Those sheep are too stupid to handle life on their own, and they need professional politicians to tell them how to live. More control = happier serfs.</quote>

Fixed it for you, pilot.

No you didn't, you noxious little toad. And the "more government" addition is just another example of your fake news production. Beyond that, your according the "need professional politicians" to me shows you are too stupid to read.

I'm not surprised that you aren't capable of an honest response.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I don't hate my government. I disliked the previous Conservative PM but he was not what you call a likeable fellow. During the last 20 years the government has shed a huge number of civil servants and bureaucrats. While rich in resources we have a relatively small population to support services over the 2nd largest country in the world. Canada punches well above it's weight in world economics. And has managed to keep a pretty good reputation throughout it's history. The government has done well to maintain confederation in the face of a large separatist segment of the population in Quebec.

I can live with having Conservatives in power. Fiscally they can be quite good. Last government had a bit of a social conservative bent but nothing to radical. Again I blame a leader who was personally dislikeable than policies.

No government is perfect and inefficiencies seem built in to all systems. But bang for my buck I'm happy.

I have tendency to vote for different party provincially than federally. Keeps them honest if they have some conflicts. Prefer Liberals federally but will vote Conservative provincially for the fiscal conservativeness.

Last time around I would have liked to see the NDP get in (Bernie/Labour types) and let Justin have a few years as Opposition Leader to season him up a bit. He definitely shows he is not an experienced politician. Quite the noob.

 

[handysr]

No you didn't, you noxious little toad. And the "more government" addition is just another example of your fake news production. Beyond that, your according the "need professional politicians" to me shows you are too stupid to read.

I'm not surprised that you aren't capable of an honest response.

HA! I don't think I've been called a noxious little toad, that's funny, thanks for the laugh, it made me LOL.

No, your post didn't actually have "moar govt" in it, but that's a big point of the democratic party. Also pushed heavily is their desire to tell me how I should live my life, just in case I might offend some snowflake by blinking wrong or something. The number of people working in government positions has grown a lot, and democrats are angry about Trump's idea of shrinking it.

I'm not surprised that you aren't capable of thinking that people should live freely (rights, not $) without some government spook looking over their shoulder all the time.

 

[JackLuis]

I don't hate my government. I disliked the previous Conservative PM but he was not what you call a likeable fellow.
-
I can live with having Conservatives in power. Fiscally they can be quite good. Last government had a bit of a social conservative bent but nothing to radical. Again I blame a leader who was personally dislikeable than policies.

No government is perfect and inefficiencies seem built in to all systems. But bang for my buck I'm happy.

I have tendency to vote for different party provincially than federally. Keeps them honest if they have some conflicts. Prefer Liberals federally but will vote Conservative provincially for the fiscal conservativeness.

Last time around I would have liked to see the NDP get in (Bernie/Labour types) and let Justin have a few years as Opposition Leader to season him up a bit. He definitely shows he is not an experienced politician. Quite the noob.

Well I can agree that you have rational expectations for governance. No Government is perfect, and Trump is proof of that.

We are doomed!​

 

[missemily]

Okay just have to pick this one a part cause there is so much wrong with it

After the change of US President I started thinking about governments and people around the world.

I have met people from many countries, some of them in their own countries. I have found almost all (except the obvious assholes) to be pleasant company. But I have found one thing in common for most of us. We hate our government.

It doesn't matter whether they can vote freely, or apparently freely with a government selected choice of candidates, or without a vote at all. They don't like their current or recent government.

Your confusing the system of governing, with people that make said government. People disagree with people in government, in fact recent poll in Ontario found that current Premier has approval rating lower then basically everyone. People want change so much that they rather the Opposition Leader take over, even through fewer people could actually name him.

This is why populist officials get elected over the bureaucratic officials. Obama ran on "Hope and Change", Trump "Make America Great Again". Things that people couldn't disagree or argue with. Who doesn't want hope? Who doesn't want change? And who doesn't want to be great? Answer no one, hence why those make awesome slogans.

However overtime people realize you can't measure such concepts as Hope, Change and Greatness. This causes disdain and regretting there decision (assuming a free election)

The degree of hatred varies whether the government is run by the political party they support or not but all elected governments are compromises. Their range of policies includes things we like and things we don't like.

So I know this extremely devote anarchist, he hates all organized forms of governments. He will go on and on about the things he hates about governments. Our free healthcare? Long lines holding up treatment and taking money out of his pocket. When it was pointed out that he could actually opt out of the whole system he was dumbstuck. Yes Canadians you can opt out of the system and go seek your own treatment.

It isn't hatred your seeing, its fact that government is vast and confusing to even best minds. Then add in fact that other countries are involved in how well your country does and you got mess so large that all you can do is react.

Using Canada again, our economy hit gutter because of two things Harper being a fool and group of nations (OPEC) that said "Okay if you fuckers won't play by our rules we will wipe you out of the oil market". And they did ask Venezuela, Nigeria and third one can;t think of at moment. Think it was old Soviet Republic

To return to US governments. Since WW2 I believe that all US Presidents and administrations have pursued a policy of "America First" whether they have stated that publicly or not. The so-called 'special relationship' between the US and UK is bullshit and has been since 1917. The US government wants the UK to be an ally but not a powerful ally. The US governments' policies in WW1 and 2 included a desire to dismantle the British Empire and replace the British with an American-dominated world. The US will do the minimum to retain the appearance of the special relationship but in practice will demand more than they will give back.

And you fail history. America after WW1 went right back to being isolationist outside of giving England and France relaxed payment options on the outside debts from WW1. In fact the debts the big members of the Entente racked up where so large, that Germany almost won the war due England and France not having enough money.

It wasn't to FDR that isolationist started getting overturned. By then America's lack of involvement had cause Wilson's League of Nations to fall apart. Then WW2 and death of the old Empires happen as England bet bank just to defeat Germany and France was bombed out ruin barely able to hold on to her colonies. England no longer having money and already having some work already gave up India Colony. France fought couple wars and lost big.

With death of old Empires, new players came in to fill the void. America formed alliances with several other nations of mutual defence (this did a lot work to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons) and trade deals. No am not talking about NAFTA. I mean things Marshall Plan and Auto pact

Do I blame the US? No. The British governments acted exactly the same in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

No, no no, no, no, and no they didn't. 19th century after Waterloo, saw British Empire use diplomacy and working with other nations to prevent a mainland power to equal them. British Empire would actually give up land just to avoid a war and keep another nation happy. Russia and England agreed to keep Afghanistan independent as buffer zone. Afghanistan even got Wakkan Corridor just to prevent an Indo-British and Russia Empire boarder. This stuff happen in Africa also with several other nations.

20th Century Europe however decide to change the game. No more deals, this had to settled with war. Death of the Archduke was just match that light powder keg. This was England going back to 18th Century of handling mainland.

While individual people can get on with each other, their governments' policies can divide them. I have friends in France and Germany who are also friends with each other but when they discuss each other's governments they start ferocious arguments - until they agree their own government is full of as many assholes as the other countries.

There two groups of people that can found in every nation, every income, basically everywhere. Assholes and idiots. They are everywhere.

Why are governments so alienated from their electorates, and even from many of those who voted for them?

I don't know. Any answers?

I hate doing this but your question however can only be answered this way. Do you know how your government actually works? All the internal working of it. Who decides what? Who runs the department? Who ones who are around regardless of who is in charge? How does bill get proposed?

I was talking to recent grad back on Thursday and he was dumbstruck to find out that I claim pens and notebooks as work expenses on my taxes. Before that I claimed them as school expenses. I claim gas I put in my car, I claim any all medical expenses. By the time am done I walk out with government paying me almost 1/6 of my gross pay in year.

The look of shock in his face when told him this was priceless. He thought taxes was something you always lose money on. While I and several others use the system to make money off of it. In fact for me to pay taxes I have to owe the Federal Government 10 grand before they can ask for single dime from me when I do my returns.

People don't know how the system works. So either vote for same group as before or they say screw it and vote for someone anyone different

 

[BoyNextDoor]

After the change of US President I started thinking about governments and people around the world.

...

While individual people can get on with each other, their governments' policies can divide them. I have friends in France and Germany who are also friends with each other but when they discuss each other's governments they start ferocious arguments - until they agree their own government is full of as many assholes as the other countries.

Why are governments so alienated from their electorates, and even from many of those who voted for them?

I don't know. Any answers?

When it comes to the relations of people across a border, all I know is that governments go to war with other governments, not the people. I also happen to think that governments are the tools of the dominant economic arrangements in their societies, so really it is money that makes the world go 'round.

When people are less alienated from the wealth of nations, and are thereby less alienated from their government and its policies it should promote a better discourse because everyone will be more invested.

my $0.02

 

[oggbashan]

...

I hate doing this but your question however can only be answered this way. Do you know how your government actually works? All the internal working of it. Who decides what? Who runs the department? Who ones who are around regardless of who is in charge? How does bill get proposed?

I was talking to recent grad back on Thursday and he was dumbstruck to find out that I claim pens and notebooks as work expenses on my taxes. Before that I claimed them as school expenses. I claim gas I put in my car, I claim any all medical expenses. By the time am done I walk out with government paying me almost 1/6 of my gross pay in year.

The look of shock in his face when told him this was priceless. He thought taxes was something you always lose money on. While I and several others use the system to make money off of it. In fact for me to pay taxes I have to owe the Federal Government 10 grand before they can ask for single dime from me when I do my returns.

People don't know how the system works. So either vote for same group as before or they say screw it and vote for someone anyone different

I know very well how our own system works in the UK. I've been involved in it for decades in various roles. I am on first name terms with my Member of Parliament and almost all of our city and local county councillors. I have been and still am involved with the politicians and the administrators at all levels.

But my individual vote is worthless. Whatever party I vote for, whoever I vote for, or even if I don't vote at all, the candidate with the correct Party endorsement will get elected. No one else will. In US terms I'm not in a swing state. My local area is so solid that any idiot with the correct party label will get elected.

My Member of Parliament and the ones for the neighbouring constituencies have very little influence on wider government. They are lobby fodder who will vote as their party leaders tell them to. That's why they were chosen for safe seats.

That means that any elector who supports another party knows before they walk into the polling booth that they are wasting their time and effort. No wonder they feel disengaged from the government even if it is their choice of party.

The UK's tax rules are very different. For example when I had a company car I could claim mileage that started and finished at my place of work, not travel to and from it. If I went to another office on the way from home to work I could only claim the few miles difference. If I didn't claim enough work miles in a year my car was taxed as a benefit.

 

[oggbashan]

And you fail history. America after WW1 went right back to being isolationist outside of giving England and France relaxed payment options on the outside debts from WW1. In fact the debts the big members of the Entente racked up where so large, that Germany almost won the war due England and France not having enough money.

It wasn't to FDR that isolationist started getting overturned. By then America's lack of involvement had cause Wilson's League of Nations to fall apart. Then WW2 and death of the old Empires happen as England bet bank just to defeat Germany and France was bombed out ruin barely able to hold on to her colonies. England no longer having money and already having some work already gave up India Colony. France fought couple wars and lost big.

America's isolationist policies came after WW1. Unlike Lend-Lease in WW2 the UK had to pay hard cash in gold to the USA for war material. WW1 crippled the British Empire financially as the US hoped it would.

After WW2 the US government refused to continue financial aid to the UK because they objected to the 1945 Labour Government's socialist agenda. It suited the US very well that the UK had to shed colonies and reduce its Empire.

The final straw was the Suez campaign. Israel, France and the UK opposed Egypt's nationalisation of the Suez Canal. They were winning the war on the ground until the US government said "Stop or we'll no longer support your countries". Israel has never forgiven the US for that. The UK government should have known better before starting the campaign. We had already lost so much in men, material and money backing the US in Korea.

 

[Iceprincess12]

I know very well how our own system works in the UK. I've been involved in it for decades in various roles. I am on first name terms with my Member of Parliament and almost all of our city and local county councillors. I have been and still am involved with the politicians and the administrators at all levels.

But my individual vote is worthless. Whatever party I vote for, whoever I vote for, or even if I don't vote at all, the candidate with the correct Party endorsement will get elected. No one else will. In US terms I'm not in a swing state. My local area is so solid that any idiot with the correct party label will get elected.

My Member of Parliament and the ones for the neighbouring constituencies have very little influence on wider government. They are lobby fodder who will vote as their party leaders tell them to. That's why they were chosen for safe seats.

That means that any elector who supports another party knows before they walk into the polling booth that they are wasting their time and effort. No wonder they feel disengaged from the government even if it is their choice of party.

The UK's tax rules are very different. For example when I had a company car I could claim mileage that started and finished at my place of work, not travel to and from it. If I went to another office on the way from home to work I could only claim the few miles difference. If I didn't claim enough work miles in a year my car was taxed as a benefit.

You are an individual, you are not supposed to make a difference. The government is representative of the masses and you may not like it, but you are outnumbered. Spock had it right.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

When enough of the masses gets tired of how things are run, they will change it. Until then, keep voicing your opinion, urging people to take action and stand your ground.

When people say they dislike the government, you really should say you dislike the leaders. The government isn't an entity on its own. It's made up of people who put policy into place or follow it. It isn't helpful to name this entity, call it government and say you hate it. Hate the people who are supposed to represent the majority and their lack of morals or courage to do what is right. If you just say you hate the government, you will never change anything. Pick a person to get rid of, pick a policy and campaign against him/her/it. Be specific in what you want and have a solution, not just pointing out problems.

 

[missemily]

America's isolationist policies came after WW1. Unlike Lend-Lease in WW2 the UK had to pay hard cash in gold to the USA for war material. WW1 crippled the British Empire financially as the US hoped it would.

After WW2 the US government refused to continue financial aid to the UK because they objected to the 1945 Labour Government's socialist agenda. It suited the US very well that the UK had to shed colonies and reduce its Empire.

The final straw was the Suez campaign. Israel, France and the UK opposed Egypt's nationalisation of the Suez Canal. They were winning the war on the ground until the US government said "Stop or we'll no longer support your countries". Israel has never forgiven the US for that. The UK government should have known better before starting the campaign. We had already lost so much in men, material and money backing the US in Korea.

O god you just fail at history so bad.

America isolationist policies came before WW1. There entrance in war was blip on the radar, massive change that many didn't like. Hence why all of Wilison changes failed (plus he was you know kinda unable to be president due to heart attack). Them entering the war is still something historians still argue over today cause its that complicated. After war even more policies came into place to make sure America stayed out of the affairs of other nations.

Point you fail to address. If America wanted England AND French Empires to fail, all they had to do was tell them they had to pay there loans. Which neither one of them could do. Its often overlooked fact that German best chance to win war was just couple months before America joined the war. If America demanded payment from the Entente the Western Front would fall apart and Germany would just get to roll on through

American government refused to give money to the British after WW2? I want source on that. Cause the number 1 receiver of assets was the UK, at $3,297 million dollars. France the country that came in number 2 only got $2,296 million and West Germany 1,448 million. So if nearly 3.3 billion is refusing to aid someone I want to know what you deem as actually giving aid. Note all of these numbers ignore inflation.

The Suez Crisis almost led to WW3, till America and USSR said stop itand Canada came up with UN peackeepers just to prevent France, England and Israel creating a real war with Egypt. Did you notice names that said stop. America and USSR two bitter enemies in Cold War agreed you guys were being to stupid even by their rivalry standards told you to back off. The other Canada, country with colonial links to France and England figured way to get neutral troops in and made sure you didn't do something stupid. Which was reorganized by Nobel committee that year, when our Prime Minister was Awarded the Peace Prize

Your nationalist fool who thinks everything wrong with his country is due to meddling of other nations.

I know very well how our own system works in the UK. I've been involved in it for decades in various roles. I am on first name terms with my Member of Parliament and almost all of our city and local county councillors. I have been and still am involved with the politicians and the administrators at all levels.

But my individual vote is worthless. Whatever party I vote for, whoever I vote for, or even if I don't vote at all, the candidate with the correct Party endorsement will get elected. No one else will. In US terms I'm not in a swing state. My local area is so solid that any idiot with the correct party label will get elected.

My Member of Parliament and the ones for the neighbouring constituencies have very little influence on wider government. They are lobby fodder who will vote as their party leaders tell them to. That's why they were chosen for safe seats.

That means that any elector who supports another party knows before they walk into the polling booth that they are wasting their time and effort. No wonder they feel disengaged from the government even if it is their choice of party.

The UK's tax rules are very different. For example when I had a company car I could claim mileage that started and finished at my place of work, not travel to and from it. If I went to another office on the way from home to work I could only claim the few miles difference. If I didn't claim enough work miles in a year my car was taxed as a benefit.

The good ol appeal to authority. Am first names with my MP. So what. I was on first name basis with my MP and his usually opponent, because they wanted my vote and the best way to do that was to act like there my friend. Its called PR.

Then crying about how your vote doesn't matter cause you live in democracy and where you live has trend to vote one way. I lived in city just like. Heck it was so bad, the Liberal party didn't even send in real candidates they sent in cannon fodder. In shocking twist in events that even dumbfounded me cause I knew my vote as someone who votes for left-wing is meaningless. All of these Liberals won. ALL OF THEM. For weeks people were mocking the fact that not one candidate from NDP or Liberal party had name that they could pronounce. We didn't send single conservative to Ottawa

Judging by your general bias on way British Empire became the Commonwealth and lost of colonial possessions (a trend that was starting in late 19th century). I doubt you want to understand the truth and are quite happy with alternative facts instead

 

[Hard_Rom]

Your confusing the system of governing, with people that make said government. People disagree with people in government, in fact recent poll in Ontario found that current Premier has approval rating lower then basically everyone. People want change so much that they rather the Opposition Leader take over, even through fewer people could actually name him.

And yet in 2014 when Ontario faced many of the same issues plus the gas plant scandal The Liberals were elected to a majority government.

Any failure in such areas as economic growth are due to the fact that the Canadian dollar traded almost at par with the US dollar due to high oil prices. And that with the US having being hit hard twice by recession has hurt Ontario exports.

And while slipping against the oil provinces Ontario's GDP growth tops many European countries. Growth for 2013 was 1.3%.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/economy/gdp-growth.aspx

Elections are not slated for another two years. The OLP could change things around. Or things beyond their control could improve their position in the polls.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/ontario.html

And these days polls are suspect. No one polled T-Rump or Justin to win!