Yes, you could probably do that, if you felt so inclined. As I said earlier, Iâm sure there are a smallish number of them who are (still) decent, honest people who are doing their best for the people they represent. The majority get sucked into the machine, because thatâs simply how the machine works. If you want âevidenceâ of this, all you need to do is watch how they behave. Itâs become deeply unfashionable to look at what your own eyes are telling you, but I can thoroughly recommend it.
I have no idea. I havenât met him/her. And AFAIK itâs against the rules to make personal remarks about people who are registered here. However I get the impression that Audrey is mostly concerned with whether something is technically interesting, and perhaps with career progression, rather than whether his/her policies/decisions are doing Taiwan any good. IIRC Audrey was involved in the âvaccine passportâ ideas being thrown around a couple of years ago - which would have prevented the untermensch from participating in civil society. Iâd be curious to know how that panned out: whether it was the lawyers who said âthis would be unconstitutionalâ or whether Audrey pushed back at the whole concept.
I donât think youâre actually asking a serious question here. As the donkey said, we donât need to have a debate about the meaning of âallâ, or zoom in on specific people. In this context, it means âway too many of themâ. In any case, it seems to me the general implication here is that, if we had more women in politics, it would somehow mitigate male scumbaggery - that women are less prone to being scumbags in positions of power than men are. I see no evidence of that to date.
What on earth do you think youâre trying to prove here?
The thread is about gender quotas. I was pointing out that if you pick 10 male and 10 female politicians, youâll find that a majority of them - regardless of gender - are in it for personal reasons. Power, money, or whatever. They have little or no concern for the electorate. Can you find some who arenât like that? Sure. But the nature of the system is that they will fail, or at least will be prevented from doing âharmâ to vested interests. Whether they are male or female, theyâll be chewed up and spat out, thereby making room for a preponderance of scumbags.
Youâre being insincere, and you know it. Youâre aware of the colloquial meaning of âall X are Yâ, and I clarified what I meant by it (âtoo many of themâ). I also defined âscumbagâ as someone who is more interested in what they can get out of politics personally than in serving the electorate.
Unfortunately, that doesnât necessarily mean heâs an asset to the nation. It just means heâs an asset to his family, and that his job provides him the means to care for his family.