Quotessence
Home / Topics / Politicians Quotes

Politicians Quotes

Browse 494 quotes about Politicians.

Politicians Quotes

“Study in Wildlife (Naskaristana 2801-2802) I used to think I'm a human behavior expert, but more and more I'm beginning to realize, I'm just a wildlife expert, because the core horrors that torment society are caused not by human behavior, but by the animal within the humans. Prejudice, dogma, ultraindividualism, nationalism, fascism, fundamentalism, these are not problems of human behavior, these are classic cases of animal nature. A terrorist is just a statesman without office, a statesman is just a terrorist in office. Whether someone is a terrorist or not depends on how much political power they hold. Yesterday talibans had no power, so ape governments everywhere denounced them as a terrorist organization, today they are in power, so naturally the same ape governments are wining and dining with the taliban apes. Today zionists are in power, so palestinians are terrorists, tomorrow when Palestine becomes free and sovereign, and israel turns into a reservation for zionist apes, while the human jews flee to palestine for freedom, Palestinians will be celebrated as righteous. Terrorism, war crime, these are not ethical classification, these are political classification, and when the power flips, so does the classification. Ethics, morality, freedom, have nothing to do with politics - human rights have never been the agenda in the geopolitics of apes.”

“The majority of these old farts are content to crash out in a drunken stupor on the backbenches. They just want to pick up their company directorships at £200,000 a year, claim for everything they ever spend personally on expenses and make sure not to rock the boat. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it by voting a different yarn-spinning joker-in-the-pack in. Whoever's in power is not going to affect me in any way. And if you believe otherwise then you can truly nail your colours to the mast of stupidity”

“United Nations needs reform to connect with world community beyond the boundary of high-level bureaucrats and politicians through cyberspace and other means to put itself at the heart of worldwide public needs, hopes, and fears.”

“He also told me, though he didn’t have to by then, that he liked to hire high-minded people because they would do dirtier work for nothing than low-minded people would for hire. True. If the candidate so much as intimated to me that a principle was involved, it was like unleashing a rattlesnake. A low-minded person would at least have watched his own skin and thought about tomorrow.”

“...why is there so little concern about the real hold that the retrograde monarchy of Saudi Arabia has over the United States? President after President, Trump included, inexplicably continue to partner with the Saudi monarchy despite its suppression of women's rights, and its authoritarian nature, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia does more than any other country to spread Islamist terrorism, including in the form of Al Qaeda, and despite the fact that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudi. One might think this deserves some looking into. This is not even to mention the biggest elephant in the room, which is never to be spoken of, and that is Israel and its outsized influence over US foreign policy.”

“So blieb [den individuellen Aufsteigern aus dem Arbeitermilieu] allein die Imitation der Verhaltensweisen und Ideologien von der mindestens heimlich bewunderten privilegierten Schicht, in die einzutreten schließlich Ziel des langen Weges war. Doch das Original mag den Nachahmer nicht, verhält sich bestenfalls gönnerhaft-spöttisch, von oben herab. Der Kopierende gibt sich alle erdenkliche Mühe, wird oft gar zum aggressiven Apologeten des Vorbildes, was – so Norbert Elias – »zu ganz spezifischen Verkrümmungen des Bewußtseins und der Haltung« führt. Der sozialdemokratische Kotau vor den Imperativen der Privatisierung, der finanzkapitalistischen Entgrenzungen, der Steuerbefreiung für Kapitalinvestoren in den Jahren 1999-2005 – er mag damit zu tun haben.”

“Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives voted in favor of a military budget even bigger than Trump had asked for. And, as Erik Sherman at Forbes magazine eloquently pointed out, 60 percent of the Democrats voted for this outsized military budget which totals $695.5 billion. As Sherman explains, "{i}n other words, of the party that supposedly opposes rampant military spending and the Trump administration, 60% voted for this bill," at a time "{w}hen income inequality combines with systemic and systematic redistribution of virtually all income growth to the wealthiest while their taxes are reduced." Sherman of course hints at a truth which must be accepted- that Democrats are not, and never really have been, a party which "opposes rampant military spending." There is a bi-partisan consensus on such spending, and there is very little debate on lowering it. And this is for a number of reasons, one of which being that military spending is very lucrative for the arms manufacturers who bilk the quite willing Pentagon, and by extension the taxpayers; indeed, these are the biggest welfare cheats who few will acknowledge.”

“Indeed, King said in the same speech, without actually endorsing communism, that, nonetheless, "Communism is a judgement against the US way of life; against its materialism, against the poverty it tolerates in the face of great wealth, against its constant insistence on war, and against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated." As he explained, "[I]t is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the anti-revolutionaries." This is undeniably true.”

“… they are beating their brains out against one of the foundation rocks of our national character itself. Which is the premise that politics and political office are not and never have been the method and means by which we can govern ourselves in peace and dignity and honor and security, but instead are our national refuge for our incompetents who have failed at every other occupation by means of which they might make a living for themselves and their families; and whom as a result we would have to feed and clothe and shelter out of our own private purses and means.”

“In response to be asked about Boris Johnson becoming UK Prime Minister... "I'm delighted. As the UK continues to plunge ever faster into a future akin to a dystopian novel I'll never run out of material to write more books. Although now that reality is more bizarre than fiction maybe plot-lines will need to be more ambitious. Perhaps a book where Boris Johnson is really an accidental sentient snafu of Trump's scrotum lint. Kind of a sequel to the Bush-Blair story. I see musical rights being drawn up as we speak.”

“Dipping and rising, moving and settling, the Commons remind one of a flock of birds settling on a stretch of ploughed land. They never alight for more than a few minutes; some are always flying off, others are always settling again. And from the flock rises the gabbling, the cawing, the croaking of a flock of birds, disputing merrily and with occasional vivacity over some seed, worm, or buried grain.”

“The commercialization of molecular biology is the most stunning ethical event in the history of science, and it has happened with astonishing speed. For four hundred years since Galileo, science has always proceeded as a free and open inquiry into the workings of nature. Scientists have always ignored national boundaries, holding themselves above the transitory concerns of politics and even wars. Scientists have always rebelled against secrecy in research, and have even frowned on the idea of patenting their discoveries, seeing themselves as working to the benefit of all mankind. And for many generations, the discoveries of scientists did indeed have a peculiarly selfless quality... Suddenly it seemed as if everyone wanted to become rich. New companies were announced almost weekly, and scientists flocked to exploit genetic research... It is necessary to emphasize how significant this shift in attitude actually was. In the past, pure scientists took a snobbish view of business. They saw the pursuit of money as intellectually uninteresting, suited only to shopkeepers. And to do research for industry, even at the prestigious Bell or IBM labs, was only for those who couldn't get a university appointment. Thus the attitude of pure scientists was fundamentally critical toward the work of applied scientists, and to industry in general. Their long-standing antagonism kept university scientists free of contaminating industry ties, and whenever debate arose about technological matters, disinterested scientists were available to discuss the issues at the highest levels. But that is no longer true. There are very few molecular biologists and very few research institutions without commercial affiliations. The old days are gone. Genetic research continues, at a more furious pace than ever. But it is done in secret, and in haste, and for profit.”

“From these definitions and axioms springs my central hypothesis: political parties in a democracy formulate policy strictly as a means of gaining votes. They do not seek to gain office in order to carry out certain preconceived policies or to serve any particular interest groups; rather they formulate policies and serve interest groups in order to gain office. Thus their social function—which is to formulate and carry out policies when in power as the government—is accomplished as a by-product of their private motive—which is to attain the income, power, and prestige of being in office. This hypothesis implies that, in a democracy, the government always acts so as to maximize the number of votes it will receive. In effect, it is an entrepreneur selling policies for votes instead of products for money. Furthermore, it must compete for votes with other parties, just as two or more oligopolists compete for sales in a market.”

“The official obeys whom he serves. Nominated independently of the people, elected because there is no choice between candidates so nominated, the official feels responsibility to his master alone, and his master is the political machine of his party. The people whom he serves in theory, he may safely disobey; having the support of his political organization, he is sure of his renomination and knows he will be carried through the election, because his opponent will offer nothing better to the long suffering voter”

“Two Politics (The Sonnet) There is not one but two politics in the world, One involves issues of society, another is partisanism. Affairs of society is how politics is defined in books, But in real life politics is all about partisan nimrodism. Even the politicians are aware of this simple fact, So they boast about placing people before politics. But they never really have any intention of doing that, So they continue with their usual partisan histrionics. Real politics is supposed to be all about the people, Yet today politics is all about politicians, not people. Then they throw around some words for good measure, Like socialist, capitalist and so on, at the sheeple. Enough with this primitive left and right nonsense! For once be whole and act with civilized sentience.”

“We must stop asking incumbents who they are training to take their place. This question reinforces the belief that our votes do not count, which discourages people from voting. Public office seats belong to the public. Once an incumbent leaves, they can not give, appoint, or assign that seat to anyone because it is not theirs. Though they can train whomever they wish, ultimately, it is up to us, the people, to vote them in.”