My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?
We might do better drafting from a pool of otherwise qualified people who really don't want the job!
I've just never really solved how to apply it to politics. I've long felt that if you're going to have 2 "houses", one ought to be appointed by ballot as a check/balance on the elected members (a variation of hereditary peers in many ways but without the same bias).
if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage
--John Kiriakou (He was the first CIA officer to be convicted for passing classified information to a reporter) [1]
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
[1] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_whistleblowers_shoul...
Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.)
> Pay more attention to the election and government processes.
Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues.
What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression" were visible, they would also be tolerated.
Also, if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage, most Americans will STILL vote for you. And the other major half will vote for someone who is clearly racist and (imho) dumb as nails.