It’s having someone who is paid to influence t I don’t know how have you actually talked to working class people this sounds very ignorant of you to think they don’t care about what’s on their plate. There is plenty of overlap between democrats and republicans that want to get back to basic food with out tons of preservatives and chemicals in their food.
That’s just not true a quick google search shows that Harris spent more on adds and her campaign raised and spent more money. Trump did have more super pacts supporting him but that number did not dwarf hers. Hell one of things that was all over the news after she lost was how much money her campaign raised and waisted.
I am currently working in a factory and worked in kitchens. Most the people I worked with were worried about what was in their food. I think it’s just how it’s talked about. Maybe it has changed over time. When people find out there is wood chips as filler In potato chips I don’t care what your politics is your not happy.
I will definitely agree she got dealt a bad hand not having a primary and just trying to pick up were Biden left off as well as the global trend of voting out whatever party was currently in.
Let's concentrate on beating the other crowd. To hell with the country. This attitude is the problem with politicians worldwide, but worse in America.
I would vote third party if it is viable to actually win and I don’t see the republicans moving in direction I can support. By default I support the democrats because they have the most potential to line up with what I think. If you have a better option might as well express it
Did you read my comment that deals with the root cause of the problem. It is on the first few pages, #13 It has taken the US more than 50 years to decline into the state it is in today, so th problems cannot be resolved overnight. Full recovery (if it ever happens) will take nearer a decade. Over the years, I have increasingly thought that the only viable solution is to split the country into its individual states, each electing its own government and giving the voters a choice including independent parties. I ead on one reply that a few states are doing this already. An equal number of the heads of these states, around 10 should then vote in a president. With only 500 voted, hopefully these people would make a wise decision. For major policies, it should need a majority from the 500 voters. This would prevent the country from being run by a geriatric headless chicken. The end result would not be dissimilar to Brussels and the EU. The president's office would have control of defence, the FBI, and common public health policies. But not trade and industry. They would however need to set up balance of trade agreements, both between the member states and the rest of the world.
Well they do, surely, have to beat the other ones to get into power before they can really begin to improve the country. It's how they win (+ve or -ve campaign) and whether they stick to their promises once elected; those are the issues for me.
I honestly don’t know enough to have much of an opinion about this approach. I am a little concerned it would suffer from some of the same problems right now but honestly I have to do more reading on it before making up my mind. The major plus I see is stopping one person from recking trade deals with foreign nations.
Each state already has its own government. Voters already can vote for any party they wish in the final presidential election. Fourteen states have closed primaries, in which voters can only vote for candidates of their party, and some have open primaries where voters can vote for any candidate regardless of party. This is determined by each state. So each state already has the power to decide how its primary elections are run. You neglect to mention how these heads of state would be elected, if at all, what powers they would have, how long they would hold office, and how and why they would be any wiser than the general population. What would stop them from being corrupted by big business, religious ideals, nepotism, power, etc.? The current population of the U.S. is about 347,275,807 people. You want 500 people to decide their leader? And you want major policies to be decided by 251 people, who I might add may have no expertise or experience in regards to the policy in question? You would do away with the Senate and House, military experts, scientists, etc. How would 500 people have the time or energy to consult with experts in each field for each major policy decision? Where are the checks and balances? The U.S. government and the EU are already basically the same:
My suggestion was just a broad outline of what I think would work, the reality would obviously need a lot of thought and research. The ideal would be similar to the original EEC,(European Economic Community), before the EU was formed. The EU created a complex nanny state that ruined it all. Here in the UK we pulled out, but we have held onto the trade deals, but now we can trade with the former British colonies such as Canada too. When we pulled out, Trump wanted to help us. He offered us chlorinated chicken and products containing corn syrup, both of which are banned in the UK. I suppose it made sense to him, because laws do not apply to Trump.
Those 500 or so people would be appointed by the elected representatives of each state, so they would have a good level of knowledge in their subjects. When something went to the vote in Washington, he (or she) would need a majority out of the 500 to get it passed. The former EEC was similar, but the EU is not, since they are simply attempting to create a giant nanny state. This is why the UK pulled out. However we still work closely on matters of international interest. I am sure that you would prefer a situation where your 10 state representatives were among 500 decision makers, rather than the current situation, where the important decisions are being made by a geriatric one man band. This situation did not happen overnight, it all started post 1945. The real rot seemed to set in under Ronald Reagan. Perhaps being thousands of miles away, we can see things more clearly. Sadly, we mostly only see the bad points.
Interesting. In my state, Pennsylvania, we have 203 Representatives and 2 Senators. So they would vote for 10 people from the entire state, but not from other states? If so wouldn't that mean that a state that excels in agriculture but lacks industry would not have a similar pool of people who excel in industry to select from? And vise versa. How would each state determine who the top 10 individuals are in each state? Would it just be a popular vote by the representatives, or would there be some sort of criteria? I'm not sure what you mean by the current situation, where the important decisions are being made by a geriatric one man band. I thought policies at the federal level were determined by the 100 Senators, 435 house members, Supreme court, president, etc. The way I understand it is an idea for a policy is proposed as a Bill by one of the 535 members of Congress or from the general population or groups through petitions. A committee is then formed from among the 50 members of the Senate or the 435 House members to study the Bill at which time they may consult with any number of experts they choose. The number possible is unlimited, not just 500. The bill is then voted on by the House or Senate, depending on where it originated. If it passes it goes to the other chamber which then forms another committee to study the Bill at which time they may consult with any number of experts they choose. The number possible is unlimited, not just 500. That body comes up with their own version of the bill. If that body passes their Bill it is then reworked by both chambers together until they come to an agreement on what the Bill contains. They then present a unified version of the Bill to the President. He or she may consult with any number of experts he or she chooses. The number possible is unlimited, not just 500. If the President agrees with it it becomes a law, or policy. If the President disagrees it is vetoed and returns to the Congress which can vote to accept or drop it. If it is further challenged the Supreme Court can weigh in with their decision. So I don't understand your geriatric one man band. It seems to me with the current situation many many people can draw on a unlimited pool of experts from an unlimited pool of expertise for advice, not just 500.
Perhaps I was underestimating the size of US states and thinking more of the UK regional divides. However, do all your politicians have a seat in central government, or are a number selected similar to country representation in Brussels. If all this is the case, how is Trump able to make overnight decisions on tariffs and suggestions of bringing Canada into the US Perhaps the real problem is the power of the media. If they are distributing fake news to the entire world outside the US, they certainly need to be shut down. To me, the wealth and power accumulated by Elon Musk is surreal. Surely that has no place in democracy.
ANERICA HAS FALLEN! Attention freedom fighters! America has fallen to an evil fascist Russian asset. The time to act is now: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE SATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... I posted this on Youtube and the comment was instantly deleted.
Each state gets two federal senators, that's 100 senators. Each state gets a minimum of one federal member of the House of Representatives plus a number of others based on population with a maximum of four hundred and thirty five total. The president gets to use executive orders, which allow him or her to use their discretion to determine how to enforce a law or to manage resources and the staff of the executive branch. They are subject to court review, and get be negated by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote. The problem today is that Congress is so divided it can't get a two-thirds vote. Plus the republicans control both the senate and the house and have relinquished their power to Trump. They refuse to contradict anything he does. In addition court review can take years and Trump gained control of the Supreme Court by underhanded tactics by the republicans. He and the republicans are now attacking the lower courts by intimidation and threats of removing their funding. The problem is the voting public has decided they want a dictator and single party rule. The system is only as good as the people who comprise that system and unfortunately the U.S., as we see in the last election, has become selfish, violent, and cruel. I hope you guys in the UK, Europe, Japan, etc. can apply enough pressure to help us awaken and turn from the path to dictatorship we are on.
