it's not liberal v. conservative. You are probably all still with me, and I appreciate that. Now is where it gets dreadfully controversial and people start feeling I am a conspiracy nut or something. The entire system is a con. Everyone who is anyone in american politics isn't in it to help you, they are only there to help themselves and their family, and establish a legacy. Donald rumsfeld is a good example, in american politics since the nixon administration, made a lot of powerful friends, had the ability to traffic power, eventually got a position at a wholly owned subsidiary of monsanto (after the administration he was part of pushed to have aspertame, an artificial sweetener that regulators had concerns about legalized) which turned into a board membership. Senators buy up cheap land that's seized by the IRS and other entities all the time that has "no worth" have highways built out near said land, massively increase the value, and then sell it (my senator, harry reid was accused of something similar recently) dick cheney. Halliburton. Do I have to continue there? it's so widespread that the corruption isn't even seen as corruption there, people just get lost in it, and see it as a regular day to day part of the making the deals that they "have to do to protect and help their constituents" (have to do to get re-elected) the thing is I hear people say they know this, and then they make arguments supporting barack obama, who ISN'T any better. All of his programs have benefited a pretty short list of corporate entities. (look at the list of contractors, yes, private contractors, who are handling the "volunteerism" <sub minimum wage labor> from his service initiative website. americorps could, and should have handled that new workforce, that influx of new volunteers WTF happened? oh, yeah, corruption.
You preside over this shit heap that is the politics forum, you know better than anyone (or should if you have any sanity remaining) that there is nothing more to be done here. all I can do is educate people. hope they give a shit enough to share with the people around them, and maybe, eventually the US will reach a parity of give a shit with the rest of the world. Explaining IS doing something. you know it's true. I haven't said anything eccentric or crazy, or out of the ordinary. I just want people to start caring enough to stop pretending that they can work within the system, because it's too far gone.
Dave But what system would you replace it with, that’s my point. You see the problem is that how am I or anyone to give a shit if we haven’t got a clue what you’d replace things with I mean - IT COULD BE SOMETHING WORSE I’d be the first to agree that things need changing but they said the same about the Weimar Republic but the change Germany got was fascism, Hitler and the Third Reich. *
You have highlighted a few "Higher ups" but failed to go beyond headline grabbing assertions about their personal motivations and contributions. Neither have you mentioned the majority of the "higher ups". If I were to put on your headstone "Dave was a bit of a recluse" perhaps you might see that as not representing who you were, and perhaps might even say it was unfair to characterise your whole existence in such a flippant way.
I say public financing of elections,if any;political speech prior to elections on c-span and Public broadcasting only;salaries of legislators tied directly to the mean income of workers nationwide,not including CEO's;stiff penalties for taking favors or gifts from anyone;no pacs.PASS LAWS AGAINST LYING during elections(ie:death panels),and reinstitute the fairness doctrine that would allow rebuttal to spurious claims or charges.Complete openess on any financial moves any legislator makes while in office and for a lengthy period thereafter.There's a start.
The pros that are fast outweighing the cons. I used examples, because examples are researchable, most american politicians are that way, it is systemic. What should we replace it with? I'm just here to get people educated enough that they know what is wrong. People smarter than me can figure out what to replace it with, I have a whole lot of ideas. but in the end they are insufficiently comprehensive to form a whole new system.
Dave That’s what I’m on about – the problem is that many Germans thought something similar the desire for some type of saviours, and what they got was that ‘smart’ man Hitler. He changed the system alright rather comprehensively. * Well let’s hear these ideas - that’s the great thing about debate it helps us to explore different ideas and to see if they are worth pursuing or can be adapted or expanded cover other areas.
I'm almost concerned that you are encouraging off topic posting *he said with a wry grin* Honestly we just need to break down to states governments, make the states more reasonable (norcal, socal, need to be separate) I'm perfectly happy with federal income tax, and feel that we should remain a union of states, I do not feel that there should be a federal entity that should control the disbursement of those monies WITHIN the states. Yes, I feel that sometimes wealth may need to be redistributed from one state to another (sometimes it just needs to happen, for a roads project, for defense funding, whatever) but once it gets to that other state, as long as it's being spent responsibly, that's there business responsibly can be determined by all of the states (sanctions against states that are wasting their federal funds) the united states functioning less like a giant nation (that is too big for it's own good right now) and more like the EU, with a joint military force that functions on behalf of the whole. there would still be a president, but he would have a much lesser role, he would be able to be over-ridden by the governors of the states (and in turn by the state legislatures) in where he sent the military, and would have a role simply as a CINC. we would elect from a pool of military officers. not random people who had gained party favor and looked nice for cameras, and their election rhetoric could only include information about how they planned to affect policy, and how they intended to do that, real numbers would be required. his power would be essentially the same as the current military advisers to the president now, only congealed into one person. and, would in fact, be limited by his inability to make pretend war (only x amount of military hardware could ever be deployed without a formal declaration of war, x would be a very complex emergency value, that could not be fucked with by press shit.) we need a strong central military, that's fine, that's great, we need a standard codex of traffic laws for highways, and things like the FAA, USDA, licensing for doctors, things like that we do not need federal education mandates we do not need complex federal universal health programs that are filled with graft, when instead we can have relatively simple programs that can operate on the local level. and we do not need a government that has more rights and powers than us as citizens that being said, we also need a large system for making sure that no business becomes "too big to fail" that's a lie, and it cannot be allowed to happen. we need to update our currency system (I don't trust the federal reserve, I don't know how anyone can. they have shown WAY too much favoritism lately to certain banks, which is bullshit) The military contractor bidding process needs to be reassessed. The military needs to be made up of unites that are loyal to their home state first, who are nebraskans first, then americans, if you know what I mean, because we don't want a wackjob CinC trying to put things back together with martial law. We also don't want a civil war, so we need to maintain diplomatic congeniality between the states. and maintain the ideal that we are all one nation, but distinctly different states, honestly, I don't give a hoot if vermont allows gay marriage, and no one else should either, if they don't live in vermont.
elect from a pool of military officers? we sure 'bout that? meglomania is practically prerequisite for rank in the military. And do you think there's too many people for the system to work as originally intended by our founding fathers? Power of the states over the Fed was only the beginning..
Dave The problem is that you don’t seem to be addressing your own concerns. Your ‘answer’ seems to be some type of wishy washy state-ism but that doesn’t seem to address the problems with “american politics”. Are you claiming that there is absolutely no corruption at a local level? As to a weak leader well politics hates a vacuum all you’d get is state factions vying for control. And having as the strongest ‘central’ authority and power the military is never a good idea. As to the things you would or wouldn’t have they don’t seem thought out and at times contradictory for example you say - Then almost immediately say – So you want a “strong central military” that isn’t but instead divided by regionalism. And then - you want a national consciousness, but you don’t want people in one state to give a hoot about what happens in another. You want some national organisations but you seem to want them to be supervised, controlled and directed by provincial concerns then other things that would be better organised nationally such as education and healthcare you want to be totally regional so that poor areas will always have poor education and heath and is therefore likely to remain poor and unhealthy. * The thing is that this seems to be in a way fundamental to the philosophy of many people that come here; it is basically praised and promoted by them. Self interest so their philosophy seems to run, is at the heart of everything, it is the thing that drives the personal and the public, the economy and society. Or rather it should but they often seem to blame ‘government’ for getting in the way by interfering. Especially in the US there has always seemed to be this admiration for those that have ‘helped themselves and their families’ even when there way of doing it hasn’t been for the public interests. I mean when you come down to it a philosophy of self interests is only basically fuck everyone else. So it would seem to run - if it serves you and you think you can get away with it then do it and fuck everyone else. Time and again I’ve met this type of attitude on these forums. So is it all that surprising that this attitude leaks into public office? *
