Can Wealthy Politicians Truly Represent Ordinary People?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thomasxc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the representation of ordinary people by wealthy politicians, particularly in the context of the United States political system. Participants explore the implications of wealth on political candidacy, the perceived disconnect between politicians and the general populace, and specific local ordinances related to gender identity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether wealthy politicians can genuinely empathize with ordinary citizens given their financial status and lifestyle choices.
  • Others argue that while many politicians are wealthy, there are also those in lower offices who may not be, suggesting that wealth is not the only factor in political representation.
  • A participant expresses frustration over the perceived lack of opportunity for middle-class individuals to ascend to higher political positions compared to wealthy candidates.
  • Concerns are raised about the influence of money in politics and how it affects the chances of less affluent candidates.
  • Some participants highlight that many voters may not be well-informed, which could lead to the election of candidates based on superficial qualities rather than qualifications.
  • A local ordinance in Gainesville, Florida, regarding bathroom access for transgender individuals is discussed, with varying opinions on its implications and the definitions involved.
  • There is a debate over the definition of "transsexual" and "transgender," with participants challenging each other's understanding and interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the influence of wealth in politics and the effectiveness of political representation. There is no clear consensus on whether wealthy politicians can represent ordinary people or on the implications of the discussed ordinance.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal opinions and interpretations of political dynamics, which may not align with established definitions or broader societal views. The discussion includes varying levels of understanding regarding the terms related to gender identity.

thomasxc
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
can politicians really "feel" for the little guy when some of them make boatloads of money, live in mansions, and drive SUV's?and youd think that we would elect wise leaders to help run our republic,but politics in recent years makes you wonder.sometimes it seems like they try to do things the hardest way there is. i almost want a democracy. it can't be much worse than this...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you talking about? Which country? The US at least is a Democratic Republic. We have features of both.

The people on the very top, i.e. President, VP, Senators, etc. usually make big bucks, but there are plenty who don't, such as mayors, or even governors. The problem is it takes money to get into politics, that's why you see a lot of rich people there.

From what I remember, Obama's wife made more money than him, since he's just a Senator and she's a Dean of some university.

McCain isn't rich, either, his wife is.

Same for Kerry. God, those people are a bunch of leeches. =/
 
when i said that,i mainly meant the upper peeple. I am sure it takes money to get up there, but is that the way it should be? i don't think so. i should have just as good a chance as a rich guy.i was talking about our republic here in the good ole US of A.
 
thomasxc said:
i should have just as good a chance as a rich guy.

What do you mean? What does a "rich guy" have more of a chance at than you do?
 
because he has money to...get his name out there. have you ever seen a middle class man in any upper office? i have not. i'd like to be proved wrong. if someone can find out how much reps. and senators make, that would be nice.
 
Google: http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm
Roughly $170K.

You really picked a bad time to complain about this issue, though. Both the current candidates have spouses who make more than them and both started off quite low down. Their personal earnings potential is high because they are in office, not the way around. If you pick the right starting place and are the right person, it doesn't take all that much money to gain a foothold in politics.

You are right, though - there are plenty of politicans who got where they are via their name and money.
 
Like this guy:

http://www.poster.net/reagan-ronald/reagan-ronald-photo-xl-ronald-reagan-6234801.jpg
 
thomasxc said:
because he has money to...get his name out there. have you ever seen a middle class man in any upper office? i have not. i'd like to be proved wrong. if someone can find out how much reps. and senators make, that would be nice.
You don't have Google where you live? Congressional salaries are public knowledge.
 
Yeah, those are their Congressional salaries. Many people have things on the side. Guliani had other businesses, so does Bush, Clinton doesn't just sit on his *** all day, either.
 
  • #10
thats a good point. but reagan was a celebrity before he was prez.
 
  • #11
youd think that we would hire intelligent, well educated people to help run the country. but it seems that all the time I'm seeing and reading stuff that makes me wonder whether or not many politicians have brains. like when some of them make decisions that go against basic, common knowledge. like economics.and taxation.
 
  • #12
Considering the average intelligence and how many voters don't bother to educate themselves on issues before voting, is it any surprise that animals, teenagers, and dead people have gotten elected?

People vote because they saw the name on a sign, their church or union told them to vote for the person, they flipped a coin, voted by party, the person was running unopposed, etc...
 
  • #13
and that's why this isn't a democracy, thank jesus. and that's another problem concerning politics, but i was mainly focused on the other side(politicians)
 
  • #14
Evo said:
Considering the average intelligence and how many voters don't bother to educate themselves on issues before voting, is it any surprise that animals, teenagers, and dead people have gotten elected?

People vote because they saw the name on a sign, their church or union told them to vote for the person, they flipped a coin, voted by party, the person was running unopposed, etc...
I encountered someone who voted for Bush because he 'looked' better than Kerry. I started laughing because I thought it was a joke. It wasn't.
 
  • #15
That's a big part of how Kennedy got elected, too.
 
  • #16
I knew someone who voted for Clinton because she found him better looking. wha?
 
  • #17
here's an ordinance that shows just how stupid politicians (at least in my area) are. i live in gainesville, florida. a new ordinance has been passed that allows transsexuals to use which ever bathroom they want. so, if a thirty year old man suddenly feels like a woman today, he can use the women's bathroom, where small, female children might be. can you say child molester? there has been a huge uproar about it.
 
  • #18
How do they define "transsexual"?
 
  • #19
someone who's sexually transient. people who go back and forth between feeling like a man and woman. i think its bogus.
 
  • #20
That word - I do not think it means what you think it means...
 
  • #21
thomasxc said:
someone who's sexually transient. people who go back and forth between feeling like a man and woman. i think its bogus.
I think your definition is bogus. Do you have a document/link where "policiticians" make such a definition with reference to the law you state?
 
  • #22
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080129/NEWS/801290319/1002/NEWS

its been hard trying to find an article about it on a govt website. theyve pretty much swept it under the rug. but its been a big deal. its really easy to find stuff about it. excuse me, the term being used is "transgender" but its all symantecs. and this is all taking place in gainesville, florida.
 
  • #23
youcan also find it on youtube. thye have clips from our local news station (wcjb tv 20)
 
Last edited:
  • #24
thomasxc said:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080129/NEWS/801290319/1002/NEWS

its been hard trying to find an article about it on a govt website. theyve pretty much swept it under the rug. but its been a big deal. its really easy to find stuff about it. excuse me, the term being used is "transgender" but its all symantecs. and this is all taking place in gainesville, florida.

No, it's not "symantecs", it's not even semantics. Transgender doesn't mean "I feel like a man today, but maybe tomorrow I'll be a woman." The definition is pretty clear and it's been documented that it happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

The problem with this bill isn't that transgender people are a problem, it's that normal people can claim to be transgender in order to go to the other bathroom. This is a pretty big distinction, because you seem to think transgender people would be the ones guilty of "gender flip flopping".
 
  • #25
youre right. no, i don't think transgenders are the ones flip flopping. and that wasnt the original point. the point was its a stupid ordinance. sry or muddling it up.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 121 ·
5
Replies
121
Views
13K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K