[chasing]

> ... people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem...

Not everyone who works in government is part of the problem. Many of them are working very hard to solve real problems. No one's perfect -- that's for sure -- but I'm worried we're throwing out very talented and well-intentioned babies with our bathwater.

And the Trump administration, such as it is, has already proven that the government doesn't have a monopoly on corruption. The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. Weird.

[r_smart]

I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power.

>The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s

Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.

[chasing]

There will never be a candidate who does exactly what you want. Bernie would've pissed his supporters off for some reason or other had he been elected. We have to pick from an array of imperfect options. Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like. And we all have to realize the difference between sloganeering and governing.

Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials and seem to understand the problems they will face. Then, at least, if they do something I don't want I can look at that decision and ask why they felt it was the best one.

Hillary wasn't perfect. So we screamed about it as a nation and, well, now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

To quote a certain orange individual: "Sad!"

[r_smart]

>Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like

I forget where I heard it, but there was a comment about Trump that was something to the effect of: The office of the President is so powerful that in essence the position itself controls whoever is in it. To that end, results can't really vary as much as people think. There is also out there, somewhere on the internet, an essay written by a European leader who garnered the mantle of power despite deep reservations and wrote about the effect holding the position had on him. I wish I could remember who he was / where he governed. It is a really amazing piece. Maybe someone else on here knows what I'm talking about?

>Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials

An immoral act is an immoral act. You just get fancier rationalizations. I don't see the advantage. I actually think it's a disadvantage. To some extent Obama's charisma has kept people from being overly critical of a lot of the terrible things that can be laid at his feet, whereas, if it was still G.W. Bush he'd have been excoriated.

>now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into

It seems to me to be an error to treat this being bad as a foregone conclusion. Maybe yes, maybe no. Time will reveal.

[mercer]

> There is also out there, somewhere on the internet, an essay written by a European leader who garnered the mantle of power despite deep reservations and wrote about the effect holding the position had on him.

Are you referring to Václav Havel?

> "With your permission, I would like to take advantage of my unusual experience and try to cast a critical eye of an intellectual on the phenomenon of power as I have been able to observe it so far from the inside, and especially on the nature of the temptation that power represents." - Václav Havel on the temptations of political power[1]

and

> "Someone who forgets how to drive a car, do the shopping, make himself coffee, and place a telephone call is not the same person who had known how to do those things all his life. A person who had never before had to look into the lens of a television camera and now has to submit his every movement to its watchful eye is not the same person he once was.

He becomes a captive of his position, his perks, his office. What apparently confirms his identity and thus his existence in fact subtly takes that identity and existence away from him. He is no longer in control of himself, because he is controlled by something else: by his position and its exigencies, its consequences, its aspects, and its privileges."

[1]: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html

[r_smart]

Yes! Thank you so much for posting this.

[dragonwriter]

> The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass.

I would argue that the election results show that most people don't give him a pass, it just happens that those that do have a favorable geographic distribution.