Are we really represented in the US?

I probably don't know who represents me, and I don't much care about politics.

@pretzelattack1 said in #6:

when the choice is Trump or Harris, and those were the only candidates that had a chance to win, we can't "vote people we don't like out".
It seems this guy is talking about congress. However, do remember the advantages of a 2-party system before doing away with it.

I'd like to believe it's true
But with the advent of the political action committees i do have some doubts.
You probably know the definition of an honest politician....
One who stays bought...

chezburger

no im talking about the last presidential race. the clue is the names of the candidates: "Trump" and "Harris". And I am not talking about the advantages of a two party system, I am talking about a uniparty with 2 faces.

@Noflaps said in #7:

We ARE represented, because we can listen to a candidate's articulated principles and check his or her track record, and make judgements from that. If a candidate talks about "seizing the means of production" or "replacing the police with social workers," I'm not going to vote for that candidate, and I don't need to check what he or she did yesterday to know that.

Noflaps, 90% of your posts I agree with. But this actually has a problem. Politicians do not act how they talk, because nobody watches their actions, they only watch the talks. Politicians use phrases that will get them elected and then use their power in cross-purposes with the population of the US.

I see your point, @TheCaptain7777 . But I've got a pretty good track record of supporting candidates who don't do that.

Some candidates actually try to do what they say they're going to do -- and if they fail to do that it's only because the other party prevented it. The expression is "promises made, promises kept."

In any event, if a candidate talks about "seizing the means of production" I'm not going to just giggle and say "ooooh, he or she probably doesn't really mean it." I'm NOT going to vote for that candidate. Youthful, indoctrinated (yet fashionable!) silliness is NOT my favorite flavor. I prefer those who can actually learn from history rather than nod along with unwise influences.

Plus, candidates typically DO tip their hands in advance, even if not perfectly. There's no confusing Republicans and Democrats in the United States, for example. But I'll admit that SOME candidates campaign in lamb's wool but start to growl when elected.

I won't name them. No point in stirring up defensive, angry responses.

Just something to think about
From the cynical political perspective.

Are we ever truly represented?
We are told we are.
Yet I've long suspected that the 2 party system is an illusionary deceptive bit of sleight of hand,smoke and mirrors and really a sop to the people who think they have a choice when really it seems there is a bit of misdirection going on.
Ears are bent,agendas are meant,the people are divided and manipulation is ever present.
Juvenal ( roman poet) said give them bread and circuses and this does still seem to be an effective means of control of the populace.
Yet still i continue to vote, though I continue to wonder who is actually in charge?
I doubt it is our elected officials.

I think things ARE run by our elected officials, @Dukedog. Our government and its laws are not illusions.

But I will readily agree that outside influences are not absent. And, actually, that is how it should be, generally.

Candidates SHOULD listen to other influences with success and experience, even though they should not agree with them -- or follow their lead -- reflexively. If a mistaken government policy would seriously and needlessly harm a domestic industry -- and thereby harm its workers -- government officials should be told and should take that into consideration.

But some seem to think that there is a dark cabal of the cognoscenti running everything, with all candidates merely being puppets of some single, powerful group. I do not believe that at all!

If we were habitually run "from the outside" by some dark cabal of cognoscenti, then things would tend to look the same, year after year. And, as we've seen over the last few months, fortunately, they don't. Not at all.

It would take the existence of COMPETING, DIFFERENT groups of the cognoscenti to produce what's been seen in America over the last few months, since Trump and his administration are doing things MUCH differently from Biden and his administration. Indeed, we've seldom seen SO much change in the state of a nation than we've seen over the last few months.

Do self-serving influencers sometimes manage to affect policy? I have no doubt! But politics is a complicated game of poker, and we should not mistake its practical give and take for some dark hidden conspiracy --

at least we should not do so as long as wildly different candidates CAN still get elected. And they apparently can.

Are there some really hostile influences in the background, hoping to take some nations down a peg or two? That would not surprise me at all. Indeed, we've seen some nations seem to act irrationally against their own best interests, at times, have we not?

But not all candidates will be fooled by or knowingly work with such influences. I'm still pretty confident of that. Our task is to find THOSE candidates and try to keep them in office.

But beware that fashion sometimes leads toward really bad results. Social media seems to have been turned into a tool. And we can't always know who is really using that tool.

Cute, grandstanding and angry can influence some more than experienced and wise. We must just hope that the "some" who are so influenced do not become a majority in some cities, states, counties, provinces or nations.