is there something fundamentally wrong with the US government?

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Phokus
There's something wrong with the voting population, that's for sure.

Why? Because we are split evenly over our political beliefs?
I think the problem is the lack of leadership. We couldn't do anything about Bush this last election but we did change the Congressional landscape and what has that accomplished?

Nothing because bush jr is the decider.....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
Want to improve things? Get rid of the absurd and destructive rules allowing for corporations to influence the political system so much with their money.

That's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. No entity should ever be denied the right to participate in government. The problem are the "rules" that make corporations first-class citizens and the rest of us individuals into second-class citizens. Or more properly, the fact that corporations, as juristic persons, are considered citizens at all. That's the problem. Neither you, I, nor anyone else can possibly compete against the collective power of even a small corporation, once granted the same rights of citizenship that an individual has. Because of this power, they don't "influence" the political system, they own it.

Yep. We had a thread a few years ago asking what one Constitutional amendment would most improve America. My answer was eliminating the legal fiction that corporations are "individuals". It completely perverts the democratic process.

My second choice would be the fiction that money == speech, as in restricting the use of money is an infringement of First Amendment rights. Sheer nonsense.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Want to improve things? Get rid of the absurd and destructive rules allowing for corporations to influence the political system so much with their money.

A famous conservative, Edmund Burke, once said not to tear down a fence until you know why it was put up. A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed, and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things

How ironic that you of all people post such words. I doubt your understanding of them is complete.

That only reflects on you, and not well.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Want to improve things? Get rid of the absurd and destructive rules allowing for corporations to influence the political system so much with their money.

A famous conservative, Edmund Burke, once said not to tear down a fence until you know why it was put up. A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed, and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things, and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration, not realizing that they'll just be handing even more power to the wrong people.

How ironic that you of all people post such words. I doubt your understanding of them is complete.

That only reflects on you, and not well.

:laugh:

Let me give you some help, Craig.

"Fence" = barrier between federal government and the free market

"Tearing it down" = federal government intervening in the free market

"Why it was put up" = to prevent the corporate lobbying you're bitching about

"A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed" = you

"and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things" = Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.

"and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration," = Yay, Capitalism doesn't work, let's be Socialists.

"not realizing that they'll just be handing even more power to the wrong people." = Oh you wanted Socialism, sorry, you got Fascism.


Now, do you realize why it was ironic that you posted the above statements?

 

[spittledip]

is there something fundamentally wrong with the US government?

Yes. It is run by people. Any govt system would work ok if the individuals running it were not corrupt. The answer is not govt system, the answer is reformed individuals.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: bamacre

"and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration," = Yay, Democracy doesn't work, let's be Socialists.

I don't see how somebody who doesn't understand that democracy is a political system while socialism is an economic system, can call anyone uninformed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: bamacre

"and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration," = Yay, Democracy doesn't work, let's be Socialists.

I don't see how somebody who doesn't understand that democracy is a political system while socialism is an economic system, can call anyone uninformed.

Oops, you're right. Should have said capitalism.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Want to improve things? Get rid of the absurd and destructive rules allowing for corporations to influence the political system so much with their money.

A famous conservative, Edmund Burke, once said not to tear down a fence until you know why it was put up. A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed, and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things, and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration, not realizing that they'll just be handing even more power to the wrong people.

How ironic that you of all people post such words. I doubt your understanding of them is complete.

That only reflects on you, and not well.

:laugh:

Let me give you some help, Craig.

That's like you trying to give Bill Gates some financial assistance.

"Fence" = barrier between federal government and the free market

"Tearing it down" = federal government intervening in the free market

"Why it was put up" = to prevent the corporate lobbying you're bitching about

"A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed" = you

"and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things" = Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.

"and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration," = Yay, Capitalism doesn't work, let's be Socialists.

"not realizing that they'll just be handing even more power to the wrong people." = Oh you wanted Socialism, sorry, you got Fascism.


Now, do you realize why it was ironic that you posted the above statements?

I assumed the reason you wrongly said it was ironic was because you wrongly held the simplistic view that I, a liberal, shouldn't be quoting a noted conservative like Burke.

I did not realize that the reason you wrongly said it was ironic was that you had twisted his general, philosophical metaphor into a specific political argument. I gave you more credit.

I don't really see a reason to respond to your claim based on appropriating his comment; you really should just make your economic argument directly.

For now, it appears you are making the fundamental mistake that socialism necessarily is only supported by people who will be surprised they really get fascism.

 

[Nemesis 1]

This has been a good read.

One poster says our fore fathers new our system was flawed. True! But they new way it was flawed.
It was because of the fact we required REPERSENATIVES to speak for the masses.

I think that our forefathers wrote a perfect doctument. They new the future would bring change.

But that made 1 mistake and it proved to be the altimate republic destroyer.

When this great nation was born and it gave birth to freedom for ALL MEN they failed to include Blacks,Women, Childern.

Had the SAID ALL PERSONS it ws a perfect document and NO FURTHER CHANGES were required.

It was ABE who broke the Constitution . After he won the rights for ALL MEN to be free and equal. He forgot about women and children and THE RED MAN. Than on top of that . He adds to the bill of rights new law . Which wasn't required. AS the documents already stated that all men were equal. So he successfully inforced that right.
Were he broke what now can't fixed was in the RIGHTS OF STATES. IF a territory voted to become a state by the majority of people in that territory it became a state. It seems to me if the majority of the people in a state want to become self governing they have that right under the constitutonal law.

Basicly ABE gave power of federal over state rights which infact enpowered the federal government control over each citizen . A really really bad move.

But we still can have that orginal government back as it was truelly intended to be.

We have the TECH . We do need a leader and staff that need to be voted in . and ALL judges supreme or not MOST be voted in .

But we no longer need representatives. We need forums on public policy and each and every citizen voting all all matters. we have the tech. Checks can easily be put inplace to insure everthing is being registered correctly.
Its time to take the power back from corrupt laywers and corpurations.

 

[Siddhartha]

I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Originally posted by: sprok
Man, good luck trying to ban lobbying. You'd have to amend the first amendment and take out the part about the right to petition gov't.

It's not a first amendment issue. That's just the bullshit the lobbiest hide behind.

A private citizen has the right to petition.

It's not in the constitution that businesses can give money to politician to help them get elected.

Who do you think those people are that work for corporations?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
This has been a good read.

One poster says our fore fathers new our system was flawed. True! But they new way it was flawed.
It was because of the fact we required REPERSENATIVES to speak for the masses.

I think that our forefathers wrote a perfect doctument. They new the future would bring change.

But that made 1 mistake and it proved to be the altimate republic destroyer.

When this great nation was born and it gave birth to freedom for ALL MEN they failed to include Blacks,Women, Childern.

Had the SAID ALL PERSONS it ws a perfect document and NO FURTHER CHANGES were required.

It was ABE who broke the Constitution . After he won the rights for ALL MEN to be free and equal. He forgot about women and children and THE RED MAN. Than on top of that . He adds to the bill of rights new law . Which wasn't required. AS the documents already stated that all men were equal. So he successfully inforced that right.
Were he broke what now can't fixed was in the RIGHTS OF STATES. IF a territory voted to become a state by the majority of people in that territory it became a state. It seems to me if the majority of the people in a state want to become self governing they have that right under the constitutonal law.

Basicly ABE gave power of federal over state rights which infact enpowered the federal government control over each citizen . A really really bad move.

-snip-

QFT

 

[Cogman]

I think the first big problem we have is the two party system. Most people will never get their opinion expressed because the choice is A) this moron, B) The other moron. And nothing else. The whole notion of democrats and republicans should be done away with.

If I where to change anything, then I would say have cites choose whether to put a person up for president, then have him compete at a county level, then have the winner of the county level compete at a state level, then have the state level compete for a president or vice president. It would require a tremendous overhaul, but I think it would result in much better participation in elections and remove power from people who have sat in a seat the longest.

Don't get me wrong, that wouldn't prevent stupid people from making office, but at least the general public would be able to change the direction of the nation much easier then we can now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BradAtWork

Originally posted by: sprok
Man, good luck trying to ban lobbying. You'd have to amend the first amendment and take out the part about the right to petition gov't.

It's not a first amendment issue. That's just the bullshit the lobbiest hide behind.

A private citizen has the right to petition.

It's not in the constitution that businesses can give money to politician to help them get elected.

Who do you think those people are that work for corporations?

Very poor, very poor.

People that work for Corporations != those that head and run said Corporations.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

Your response is completely off-topic from my post. I'm discussing the issue of the corporate money causing the public to be mis-informed, you bring up a candidate.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

Your response is completely off-topic from my post. I'm discussing the issue of the corporate money causing the public to be mis-informed, you bring up a candidate.

You mean like the corporate money that flows to Hillary?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

Your response is completely off-topic from my post. I'm discussing the issue of the corporate money causing the public to be mis-informed, you bring up a candidate.

You mean like the corporate money that flows to Hillary?

What? :shocked:

You mean health care companies gave money to Hillary? :shocked:

 

[WildHorse]

;;

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

Your response is completely off-topic from my post. I'm discussing the issue of the corporate money causing the public to be mis-informed, you bring up a candidate.

You mean like the corporate money that flows to Hillary?

link?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted yes because too many eligible people do not vote.

If I could do one thing I would make voting for federal offices manditory and then the US would be a true representative government.

A true representative government requires an informed public, as Paine said.

In our modern era where disinformation dominates the public, we need to fix that.

And I supposed we should depend on honest people, like Hillary, to tell us what is best for us?

Your response is completely off-topic from my post. I'm discussing the issue of the corporate money causing the public to be mis-informed, you bring up a candidate.

You mean like the corporate money that flows to Hillary?

link?

Are you serious? :Q