[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Two years compulsory service in either civil or military service AND the ability to pass a citizenship exam both oral and written IN ENGLISH. Obviously you’d have to be a Citizen to run for public office.[/quote]
Can you expand on civil service and what you would include here?
Because the problem with conscription is it kind of flies in the face of what the founders would have wnated. From what I understand, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but they weren’t all that keen on standing armies (until they became president at least lol) because they saw them as means to unjust wars. And a defensive war being the only just war.
I just don’t know, given the current view of many americans, if forcing some of the type I have in mind into service is going to be a benefit. I can’t imagine people trusting the neo-hippy copy/pasted from the faux-hippies from the 60’s next to them in combat.
I like the idea, it is the particulars I’m stuck on.
What if we went 6 decades without a war?
nit picking, but kind of inconsistant no?
I like this, particualrly given your rules above about non-citizens still allowed to own property and protected by law, etc etc etc, just can’t partake in political processes for the most part.
What if the illegal wanted to serve the nation in combat? An except maybe?
I don’t think their children should be treated any different than any other individual born in the states, just to be clear. As I don’t think you do either.
I have to disagree lol, out of principle because the IRS keeps food in my kids mouth because I help people comply with their rules. lol
Going to have to re-think this. I have a client that is a non-profit that runs a hospital for burn victims, children burn victims. I don’t want that shit going away or them paying tax on the money they receive.
I picked out some interesting topics, I could comment more on other parts if you’d rather discuss those.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Two years compulsory service in either civil or military service AND the ability to pass a citizenship exam both oral and written IN ENGLISH. Obviously you’d have to be a Citizen to run for public office.[/quote]
Can you expand on civil service and what you would include here?
[/quote]Sure, ANY government job - local, state, federal from the DMV to the post office. [quote]
Because the problem with conscription is it kind of flies in the face of what the founders would have wnated. From what I understand, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but they weren’t all that keen on standing armies (until they became president at least lol) because they saw them as means to unjust wars. And a defensive war being the only just war.
[/quote]That’s why I think civil service should count too, many more people would serve civilly rather than the military, IMHO.[quote]
I just don’t know, given the current view of many americans, if forcing some of the type I have in mind into service is going to be a benefit. I can’t imagine people trusting the neo-hippy copy/pasted from the faux-hippies from the 60’s next to them in combat.
I like the idea, it is the particulars I’m stuck on.
[/quote]Perhaps if there were some mandatory service, there would be less hipsters! (one can only hope LOL) If they don’t like it, they can move to Canada like the rest of the draft dodgers back then. [quote]
What if we went 6 decades without a war?
[/quote]When have we gone six decades without a war? This is AMERICA… But I suppose there could be some exception or something. My hope would be that having someone who has actually been in combat would actually lead to LESS war. Or at least not a war on questionable pretenses. They’ll have been there and actually KNOW what war is… [quote]
nit picking, but kind of inconsistant no?
[/quote]Do we lock people up for eating french fries? How is it inconsistent? I mean the “sin” laws need to be DE-criminalized - tax the fuck out of them if you want to.[quote]
I like this, particualrly given your rules above about non-citizens still allowed to own property and protected by law, etc etc etc, just can’t partake in political processes for the most part.
What if the illegal wanted to serve the nation in combat? An except maybe?
[/quote]Then you open the door to people loyal to an other country while serving ours without our being aware of it. You should only serve in the military unless you are a) born here or b)immigrate legally. Then we KNOW where you came from and not just where you “say” you came from but really want to learn how to blow shit up. Ya feel me? [quote]
I don’t think their children should be treated any different than any other individual born in the states, just to be clear. As I don’t think you do either.
[/quote] agreed[quote]
I have to disagree lol, out of principle because the IRS keeps food in my kids mouth because I help people comply with their rules. lol
[/quote]For you, Beans, I think we could make a complicated rule or two so that you would still be in demand. Perhaps for corporations or something - you tell me and when I become king, I’ll take it under advisement! LOL But don’t accountants do other shit besides taxes? [quote]
Going to have to re-think this. I have a client that is a non-profit that runs a hospital for burn victims, children burn victims. I don’t want that shit going away or them paying tax on the money they receive.
[/quote]I wouldn’t want that shit going away either. I was thinking more of ways to make it advantageous for companies to provide pensions instead of just a shitty 401K plan. I also don’t like religious organizations getting tax breaks. If they can cover up for pedophile priests, they pay fucking taxes. Perhaps just SOME 501 (c) organizations would go away. [quote]
I picked out some interesting topics, I could comment more on other parts if you’d rather discuss those. [/quote]
As usual, your commentary forced me to think about shit I had not considered, so I thank you for that. That’s why I like having you around. Any other observations?
Problem is that to become elected you basically need to be wealthy, and probably a lawyer in the first place.
Think about the requirements to become president, do they need to be Economists, Historians, Philosophers? Nope…
Not that lawyers aren’t intelligent… Problem with lawyers is they lawyer everything. Lawyer loopholes into bills, lawyer their own wages.
I’d rather see some sort of socialized election where there are educational requirements for the job, and an absolute cap on funding that can be spent on campaigns so that people cant buy themselves into positions. I get that this creates freedom of speech problems, but at this point, who gives two shiz?
I know everyone is afraid of anything related to socialism, but as it is only the most self important people with special friends/ tons of money even have a shot. The best leaders don’t tend to be those hungry for power as they are always self interested.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Perhaps if there were some mandatory service, there would be less hipsters! (one can only hope LOL) If they don’t like it, they can move to Canada like the rest of the draft dodgers back then. [/quote]
HAHA. One could only dream.
I will say we could use something that could bring a sense of pride in the US back to the citizens. I truely thought 9/11 was going to do it, and in large part it did, but only in certain regions and certian minded people. We as a nation really lost something special in the 60’s & 70’s with the anti-patriot left and their policy and actions. Then these people raised kids to feel the same anti-America feelings, let alone presence in class rooms and politics (Kerry anyone?).
Maybe manditory service would do that, I don’t know. I would think that change would have to happen before manditory service woudl be accepted though.
You are right, and I was largly playing Devils Advocate there. We are going to be involved in some sort of War or Proxy War pretty much at all times.
The next problem with this is the likes of John Kerry… How do we solve for that type of shit?
I mis-read, my bad. I though you said sin-TAX not sin-LAWS. You said sin-laws. Never mind.
Yes but tax is fun, and audit and consulting only gets boring as shit after awhile.
Tax is a good racket for us. People pretty much pay us to read instruction booklets, the newspaper and the IRC, and then put numbers on a page. Pretty good margin on that, lol.
Fair enough. There are other avenues for wealth management, but 90% of people aren’t going to be sophisticated enough to persue them, and then only about 40-60% of the rest will be able to afford to pay a professional.
By “the people” I assume you are talking about the elected officials.[/quote]
You said the problem was “The voters” and that the failure of government hangs on the people who did or didn’t vote. Which encompasses pretty much everyone.
I agree that the problem is everyone. Pro/Anti gay marriage is the perfect example. In extremely open societies, a whopping 10-15% of citizens identify as gay. Within those groups, optimally, 20% will ‘marry’ in some sort of union that fellow citizens recognize as ‘traditional’ and beneficial. And for the overwhelming majority of them, the only benefit that will be enjoyed that isn’t also enjoyed by non-sexuals and unwed individuals will be the ability to check the ‘filing jointly’ checkbox on their tax returns. So, when we talk about the ‘right’ to Gay marriage, we’re talking about a ‘right’ that doesn’t apply to the majority of Americans and won’t be used by the majority of Americans to whom it does apply. IMO, give the staunchest traditional marriage advocate a pistol, the most progressive gay marriage proponent a pistol and let them walk 10 paces.
The very nature of dueling means it’s personal and the mental segmentation you bring up is a little backwards. If I said you’d suck as a McDonald’s cashier and challenged you to a duel, unless you took working at McD’s very personally, you probably wouldn’t accept the duel. If an upstart Attorney named Abraham Lincoln says you suck as Illinios State Auditor is that a personal, professional, or political insult? Yes.
While a clash of opinion could lead to a duel, I really do not think it would do anything to make the problems in our government disappear.
[quote]Things I think could (to varying degrees) help our government become more effective:
-One six year term for the presidency[/quote]
Huh? IMO, this is the exact opposite of a solution. You’re talking about automatically extending a bad presidency by two years and, without the potential for re-election, every Presidency with a dissenting Congress becomes lame duck. Not to mention that this would be one step back towards the monarchy serving for life.
Let me ask you this question. Would you risk your life and/or kill someone to see a single six year term presidency enacted into law?
I agree with making filibustering more difficult, but filibuster is the quintessence of stagnation. It is, quite literally, the grown up equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going ‘nah nah nah nah…’. There are plenty of means for the minority to stand against the majority, there are also plenty of times when the minority doesn’t actually stand against what the majority is doing, but rather the imagined side effects of the intended action or the action strictly because the majority is proposing it.
Kinda removes all motivation to be part of a Super PAC when you’re candidate could be shot dead over his stance on a drone program or because of his stance in favor of taxing the top 1%.
This is laughably wrong. You really think this would make a difference? There’s video footage of President Obama saying, after the recent fiscal deal, that taxes for the middle class wouldn’t go up. Maybe he just forgot about the expiration of the payroll tax he enacted. Our former Secretary Of Defense and Democratic Presidential Candidate remembers dodging sniper fire. There’s plenty of footage of Bush saying he would reduce the size of Gov’t and wouldn’t take part in building new foreign nations. Clinton knowingly perjured himself and the resulting impeachment is regarded as a bit of a laughing stock. The only way these documents would work is if you added ‘under penalty of firing squad’ to the bottom and then carried through.
I don’t disagree that some of your propositions are good ideas or are well intended, but you’re talking about putting term limits on what is largely a pack of jackals. They’ll bite you if you try and even if you succeed, it doesn’t stop them from being jackals.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Problem is that to become elected you basically need to be wealthy, and probably a lawyer in the first place. [/quote]
I agree.
PArt of the issue is the fact it would take someone so vastly independantly wealthy to actually make any broad sweeping changes, that person likely wouldn’t bother anyway, because they are too busy making money.
For a person to get party money they need party establishment backers. To get these backers you need a pedigree (often Ivy League education etc) and then you will need to do these establishment folks favors, either now or later. These favors will shape your policy choices.
So now you have backers, you still need the cash. Sally College Student donanting $500 isn’t going to do it for you, you need party money and PAC money. This is going to require more favors, so these people can get paid back with tax payer funds after you win. Your policy is futher influenced.
This is a gross simplification, but by the time any person gets to national level nomination they already have their policy choices laid out for them, they can’t buck the system or the party and expect to get anywhere.
[quote]
Not that lawyers aren’t intelligent… Problem with lawyers is they lawyer everything. Lawyer loopholes into bills, lawyer their own wages. [/quote]
lol. Also agreed.
This I don’t agree with. People may start out without massive will to power, but they all pretty much seek it once they taste it.
The employees are not accountable to their customers (the citizens).
It’s too distant. Washtington D.C. might as well be Rome. It’s a different country.
It’s too expensive.
It attempts one-size-fits-all to things that don’t work at different places. Lincoln County, NM is different than NYC. We wear six guns on ours hips and chase bears out of the garage. NYC has a faggot mayor who worries about styrofoam cups and Big Gulps while surrounded by armed security.
In my opinion , the pay the Congress gets is not a problem . The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning . I would be willing to pay more if we could get rid of what I will call bribery
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion , the pay the Congress gets is not a problem . The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning . I would be willing to pay more if we could get rid of what I will call bribery[/quote]
I agree with the bribery part, but how can a member of Congress have the working/middle classes interest at heart when they are, for lack of a better term, 1%ers.
I agree with AC, it is service to this nation and should be voluntary. It doesn’t even need to be full time (it really isn’t anyway).
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion , the pay the Congress gets is not a problem . The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning . I would be willing to pay more if we could get rid of what I will call bribery[/quote]
I agree with the bribery part, but how can a member of Congress have the working/middle classes interest at heart when they are, for lack of a better term, 1%ers.
I agree with AC, it is service to this nation and should be voluntary. It doesn’t even need to be full time (it really isn’t anyway). [/quote]
I really really don’t think we want working class people, I think we need smart, honest people. That do not act as though they are experts on all matters .
I don’t think the majority of these people are getting rich on their salary , I think they get rich from what in private society is called insider trading
You said the problem was “The voters” and that the failure of government hangs on the people who did or didn’t vote. Which encompasses pretty much everyone.
I agree that the problem is everyone. Pro/Anti gay marriage is the perfect example. In extremely open societies, a whopping 10-15% of citizens identify as gay. Within those groups, optimally, 20% will ‘marry’ in some sort of union that fellow citizens recognize as ‘traditional’ and beneficial. And for the overwhelming majority of them, the only benefit that will be enjoyed that isn’t also enjoyed by non-sexuals and unwed individuals will be the ability to check the ‘filing jointly’ checkbox on their tax returns. So, when we talk about the ‘right’ to Gay marriage, we’re talking about a ‘right’ that doesn’t apply to the majority of Americans and won’t be used by the majority of Americans to whom it does apply. IMO, give the staunchest traditional marriage advocate a pistol, the most progressive gay marriage proponent a pistol and let them walk 10 paces.
[/quote]
Besides the dueling portion, I think we somewhat agree here. However, I don’t necessarily believe that just because a right doesn’t apply to a majority of Americans it is not worth discussing (Ex: Minority races). I do agree that people get focused on the wrong things and vote for the wrong reasons.
There is literally nothing you or anybody else could say to me (personally, professionally, or politically) that would convince me to duel them. It would take a loved one or myself being in imminent danger for me to bring serious harm to another human being. I see no benefit coming from allowing disagreements in government to end in bloodshed.
Upon reflection, I think that the main thrust of a lot of my ideas was to make government less about campaigning and more about governing. I guess I see a single six year term with no hope for reelection as a way to ensure that a president A) has enough time to make impactful changes without looking over his/her shoulder their entire first term thinking of the upcoming election and B) would be able to see change in Congress. I would keep Congress on the current system. It would actually work out in such a way that while the House would be able to be quite fluid during the presidency, the Senate would have some stability. However, the only Senators not up for reelection during the presidency would have been elected at the same time as the president. I feel like this is quite reasonable turnover, as the Senate should be more “stable” anyway. Plus, I refuse to believe that bipartisanship is so far gone that a dissenting Congress means we can’t get jack done ever again.
I, as would many, would find myself hard pressed to risk my life/kill someone to enact any government change. Why spill blood for what can be handled with dialogue?
And this is exactly why I think the minority should actually have to physically filibuster to filibuster. It would draw a whole lot more public interest/scrutiny when you decide to do it if you’re standing in front of Congress reading the dictionary for the third time rather than taking a vote. In a way, it can benefit the minority by giving them a platform to voice their objections from more clearly. This is a double edged sword-if you are frivolously opposing something, you rightly look like a fool. If you are needfully opposing something, it gives you a platform and attention to air grievances.
At the most basic level, I agree that filibustering is ridiculous to a degree. However, I see it as a necessary evil as the majority is not always right.
Pretty sure money from these Super PACs can be used as the organizer sees fit (I could be wrong). I would venture a guess most money given to these have less to do with the actual person and more the position/party.
[quote]-Candidates for office must submit a written document with clear answers to questions about their positions on major issues. A separate board will screen the documents and determine if the answers have been answered fully. Until the questions are answered fully, the individual may not run for office. This can be a edited document, but all revisions will be kept as public record for citizens to access.
This is laughably wrong. You really think this would make a difference? There’s video footage of President Obama saying, after the recent fiscal deal, that taxes for the middle class wouldn’t go up. Maybe he just forgot about the expiration of the payroll tax he enacted. Our former Secretary Of Defense and Democratic Presidential Candidate remembers dodging sniper fire. There’s plenty of footage of Bush saying he would reduce the size of Gov’t and wouldn’t take part in building new foreign nations. Clinton knowingly perjured himself and the resulting impeachment is regarded as a bit of a laughing stock. The only way these documents would work is if you added ‘under penalty of firing squad’ to the bottom and then carried through.
[/quote]
Honestly-I don’t think it would make a huge difference. I would just like the sharks running our government to have to expose themselves for what they are in some sort of publicly viewable, easily traceable document. I never said they had to stick to what was written-only update it according to their actions and keep all revisions on file. I agree this is my weakest idea.
This is quite an odd situation, as I get the impression that we generally agree on the big issues here (unless I am mistaken-also the irony is not lost on me). However, I find myself vehemently opposed to the idea that dueling would in any way, shape, or form benefit our government. If the point you are making is simply that we would be better off if representatives focused more on big picture items and stopped making government grind to a halt over minor issues, then I agree and just don’t like your way of putting that point across. The problem is I can hardly imagine any government issue that would justify the spilling of blood, which makes dueling too strong a benchmark (in my opinion) to decide what an issue worth fighting for is.
However, if you actually think that allowing our elected officials to kill each other over issues would help government in some way…we are worlds apart.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion , the pay the Congress gets is not a problem . The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning . I would be willing to pay more if we could get rid of what I will call bribery[/quote]
I agree with the bribery part, but how can a member of Congress have the working/middle classes interest at heart when they are, for lack of a better term, 1%ers.
I agree with AC, it is service to this nation and should be voluntary. It doesn’t even need to be full time (it really isn’t anyway). [/quote]
I really really don’t think we want working class people, I think we need smart, honest people. That do not act as though they are experts on all matters .
I don’t think the majority of these people are getting rich on their salary , I think they get rich from what in private society is called insider trading [/quote]
I think a working class Politian would be just fine. At least they know what the word “work” actually means. There are plenty of working class Americans that are just as sharp as the sharpest politician, but can’t even approach any office because of the wealth barrier you mentioned.
I would rather have an honest hard working man with a GED make laws than a Harvard grad. The “regular” guy probably has leaps and bounds more common sense and I bet would be much more willing to compromise. We common folk don’t rely on a paycheck for our dignity.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Problem is that to become elected you basically need to be wealthy, and probably a lawyer in the first place. [/quote]
I agree.
PArt of the issue is the fact it would take someone so vastly independantly wealthy to actually make any broad sweeping changes, that person likely wouldn’t bother anyway, because they are too busy making money.
For a person to get party money they need party establishment backers. To get these backers you need a pedigree (often Ivy League education etc) and then you will need to do these establishment folks favors, either now or later. These favors will shape your policy choices.
So now you have backers, you still need the cash. Sally College Student donanting $500 isn’t going to do it for you, you need party money and PAC money. This is going to require more favors, so these people can get paid back with tax payer funds after you win. Your policy is futher influenced.
This is a gross simplification, but by the time any person gets to national level nomination they already have their policy choices laid out for them, they can’t buck the system or the party and expect to get anywhere.
[quote]
Not that lawyers aren’t intelligent… Problem with lawyers is they lawyer everything. Lawyer loopholes into bills, lawyer their own wages. [/quote]
lol. Also agreed.
This I don’t agree with. People may start out without massive will to power, but they all pretty much seek it once they taste it. [/quote]
Interesting that we agree about so much. If you agree, then by default it would seem you would also agree that special interest groups/ elites are primarily represented by both Dems and Repubs, meaning the citizen D’s and R’s aren’t necessarily represented. Which gives Corporate personhood (corporations tend to dominate special interest groups) is king.
Why did the Occupy movement bother you so much?
What’s strange to me is, we tend to regurgitate our various party lines when it comes to battling it out with our opponents, yet those aren’t even necessarily views that are for US.
What gets me about repubs, most of you on this forum aren’t wealthy, or even rich. Yet, you still tend to support ideas that take money out of your pockets and put them into the hands of CEO’s. Then, socially conservative ideas tend to alienate the rest who might otherwise vote R…
I don’t get why anybody would be a republican unless they were uber wealthy, and ego driven to a large degree.
For dems, I can understand why people vote dem purely on social issues. Make sense, or am I driveling?
You can look at me, I’m not dem on every issue… When it comes to weapons I basically don’t want people having howitzers or m2’s. Strongly support the military though I’m not one to commit troops to combat unless there is absolute valid reason, think Iraq vs. Afghanistan.
Look at some of the threads on these boards… Some dem makes fun of Bush, and every repub brings up Obama… We can’t acknowledge total fails about our own parties without feeling the need to point a finger about the other party…
There is a dichotomy, a false dichotomy in the saddest sense in our country where we as citizens feel attached to our parties, regardless of how clearly retarded they both are at times.
What gets me about repubs, most of you on this forum aren’t wealthy, or even rich. Yet, you still tend to support ideas that take money out of your pockets and put them into the hands of CEO’s. Then, socially conservative ideas tend to alienate the rest who might otherwise vote R…
I don’t get why anybody would be a republican unless they were uber wealthy, and ego driven to a large degree.
[/quote]
My voter card says Republican and I usually vote R, although I donn’t necessarily agree with everything Republicans stand for. That being said I think for those of us that aren’t rich, I’m not even close, the values that Rs are supposed to stand for are the reason, at least I, vote that way. You don’t have to be rich to value conservative views on say spending, which is the primary reason I vote R. There are other reasons as well. Abortion, please no one derail this thread, is a prime example. Environmental issues, which ties into spending, is another. To me, it doesn’t make sense to drive energy costs up in an effort to produce less CO2. Obama’s plan is going to hit the working class the hardest, whether he intends it to or not. The bottom line is our congressmen can afford to put gas in their cars for $5-$7 a gallon. Someone making $40K a year cannot. What we need is a focus on lowering current costs while producing new (cheaper/renewable) technology. Or cut costs in other areas of government and use some (a reasonable amount) on clean energy research. I just want the government to be reasonable with our money. Unfortunately they act more like a rookie pro athlete than Warren Buffett with our money.
I think your critique is spot on though. We stick to these party lines out of in many cases a loyalty I don’t understand. It seems silly to me.
Were all of the founders considerably wealthy? [/quote]
They certainly were not poor by any means. Most profited greatly from the victory over the monarchy. They were, on the whole, more educated and worldly than the average American of the time.
IMO, more important than their means or their profiting, was their potential loss. The signers of the Declaration were committing to the core principles and human rights that they felt worth killing for, worth sacrificing lives for, and worth dying for. If the States lost the Revolution, the signatures on the Declaration would’ve been transcribed to death warrants.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion , the pay the Congress gets is not a problem . The problem is the way we elect these people . It takes so much money to get elected . These people are constantly raising money for campaigning . I would be willing to pay more if we could get rid of what I will call bribery[/quote]
I agree with the bribery part, but how can a member of Congress have the working/middle classes interest at heart when they are, for lack of a better term, 1%ers.
I agree with AC, it is service to this nation and should be voluntary. It doesn’t even need to be full time (it really isn’t anyway). [/quote]
I really really don’t think we want working class people, I think we need smart, honest people. That do not act as though they are experts on all matters .
I don’t think the majority of these people are getting rich on their salary , I think they get rich from what in private society is called insider trading [/quote]
I think a working class Politian would be just fine. At least they know what the word “work” actually means. There are plenty of working class Americans that are just as sharp as the sharpest politician, but can’t even approach any office because of the wealth barrier you mentioned.
I would rather have an honest hard working man with a GED make laws than a Harvard grad. The “regular” guy probably has leaps and bounds more common sense and I bet would be much more willing to compromise. We common folk don’t rely on a paycheck for our dignity.
Were all of the founders considerably wealthy? [/quote]
I think some working class people would be fine but I would not vote for someone just because they are working class.I think some one’s intellect is more important than education or the lack of .
We have too many people that have never fired a gun wanting to pass laws about them . Just as we have too many people that think Marijuana is the MOST DANGEROUS DRUG wanting to control something that has been going on since the beginning of time .
We have people that think religious freedom is the right to force others into their code of conduct.
And some how the only freedom that is pertinent is the right of business ?
IN RE to wealthy Founding Fathers the answer is almost unanimously . George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were among the most wealthy. They had the most to gain by cutting England out of the process. And if you don’t think they broke some of their own constitutional concepts look at Jefferson’s Administration
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Interesting that we agree about so much. [/quote]
In an ultra macro sense, I’m sure we agree more often than not. It is the “how to get there” part that we will find our heads butting.
Yes and no. I don’t think ‘corporate personhood’ in and of itself is as big of a deal. That isn’t to say your sentiment is wrong, it isn’t. Big money runs shit. The problem is people getting benefit for spending this much.
We wouldn’t have to restrict the amounts donated if they didn’t have as much to gain for donating in the first place. As in, if the government had less power to control the citizenry, there wouldn’t be a return on those donations, and they woudln’t happen.
So yes, we agree the $ in politics is an issue, but we disagree on how to get it out/lessen it/have it at least be less important.
[quote]
Why did the Occupy movement bother you so much? [/quote]
They are mad at the wrong people. It should have been occupy Penn Ave. They were largely upper middle class, well educated, entitled white kids bitching and moaning. Generally when people push class warfare talking points and propoganda, they have alter motives that tend to end very poorly for citizens, quick breeze through history shows this. It is hard to take anyone that thinks shitting on a sidewalk is okay, serious.
I could go on and on…
Been this way since the 19th century at least.
Stuff like this is where partisian bickering starts. You toss out this idea, like it is somehow a reality.
And add that to the fact that 99% of people that say stuff like this can’t name a single policy that does like they claim, has never owned or ran a business, and has very little risk in their everyday finiancial life, and you get a partisian argument going.
You are basically begging the question.
You are not going to agree with every stance of either party. And if you do, you are a hack and need to not be listened to.
It is that simple. People are going to vary in opinion.
I do’t vote on social issues, and certainly not ones that aren’t actually issues, but rather manufactured talking points to distract from actual issues.
Rather than toss out the equally insluting dem version of that statement I’m just going to say that being conservative escapes you. That isn’t an insult or a knock on your intelligence. My wife is a step above communist and I love her to death and she is very smart.
I can’t sell you, or anyone on conservatism. It is about the individual, and that person being the best they can be to the best of their ability. It is about freedom and it is about rule of law.
PArt of your problem is establishment republicans have lost a lot of the core values the party is supposed to rep along the way.
This has been going on for hundreds of years at this point. I don’t see it changing.