What issue would unite people on the right and the left

[Moonbeam]

and would also improve democracy if legislation could be passed to fix it?

In my opinion the notion that speech is money, the ability of the rich and corporations to buy law via campaign contributions has created a corporatocracy rather than a democracy.

It seems to me that folk on the left, the average person on the street, would agree with this.

Your thoughts?

I am thinking, again, that we not only need change, but we need to figure out how, if at all, we can change.

I am thinking that the hard point of a sword can pierce armor if driven straight in with great force.

If enough people could take just one issue and focus without distraction, the people could force change.

Is there such an issue?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Serious campaign fiance reform would help, but probably not enough. The only way I can imagine to truly fix the problem is to remove the power from our elected representatives and make them into purely administrators and speakers on behalf of their contituents. This would take some kind of verifiable electronic voting system where every piece of legislation would be voted on by the people and the senators and congressmens vote would be bound to the majority of their constituents like an electoral college.

 

[Linflas]

1. The recent Supreme Court decision changed nothing with regard to corporate donations to political campaigns. It simply acknowledged that you do not lose your free speech rights by signing articles of incorporation.

2. If there is an issue that will unite those that desire as little government involvement as necessary in the daily lives of citizens and those that believe it is the duty of government to ensure equality of outcomes by whatever means necessary it eludes me.

 

[Schadenfroh]

What issue would unite people on the right and the left

Likely, the only thing that would do that would be an invasion of the lower 48 by a foreign power.

 

[zsdersw]

"Ensuring equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, is the one purpose of government and laws in a free society."

^^ The enactment of this idea would be one thing the left and right should agree on.

 

[Moonbeam]

Serious campaign fiance reform would help, but probably not enough. The only way I can imagine to truly fix the problem is to remove the power from our elected representatives and make them into purely administrators and speakers on behalf of their contituents. This would take some kind of verifiable electronic voting system where every piece of legislation would be voted on by the people and the senators and congressmens vote would be bound to the majority of their constituents like an electoral college.

The rich and corporations will never allow that as long as they can buy the vote and like initiative measures, the money would buy public opinion.

 

[Mursilis]

The rich and corporations will never allow that as long as they can buy the vote and like initiative measures, the money would buy public opinion.

If the public is dumb enough that its opinion can be "bought", maybe it deserves its fate?

 

[Moonbeam]

1. The recent Supreme Court decision changed nothing with regard to corporate donations to political campaigns. It simply acknowledged that you do not lose your free speech rights by signing articles of incorporation.

2. If there is an issue that will unite those that desire as little government involvement as necessary in the daily lives of citizens and those that believe it is the duty of government to ensure equality of outcomes by whatever means necesasary it eludes me.

You are right, of course. The imbeciles that desire as little government as necessary are totally nuts. They have no idea just how massive a government they would create to insure the missionary position in every bedroom across the country. Take your brain dead equality of outcomes and shove it up your ass.

 

[Moonbeam]

If the public is dumb enough that its opinion can be "bought", maybe it deserves its fate?

They buy it because we hate ourselves and do not know it. We FEEL that is what we deserve, but it is not what we deserve. If you knew you hated yourself and did the work to undo that, your world view about what you deserve would completely change. It is a total lie that we are worthless like we feel and do not know we feel.

 

[Linflas]

You are right, of course. The imbeciles that desire as little government as necessary are totally nuts. They have no idea just how massive a government they would create to insure the missionary position in every bedroom across the country. Take your brain dead equality of outcomes and shove it up your ass.

Wow such a well thought out intelligent response. Maybe next time you can use your brain assuming you have one.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

The problem is not that special interests are buying congressmen. The problem is that congressmen have power to sell to them. As long as they have the power, they will be able to demand a price.

 

[StageLeft]

Draw them together with a new war.

Campaign finance needs to be overhauled from the ground up. The US is quickly descending into an openly corrupt government. Really it's already there to a great degree, open because it's not hidden; plenty of companies have lobbyists and they wield unfortunate power.

 

[Moonbeam]

Likely, the only thing that would do that would be an invasion of the lower 48 by a foreign power.

That would not be a union that would improve democracy, in my opinion. The threat of that is what the rich and powerful always use to stay in power. An actual attack would only increase their power. We might even get a dreaded military industrial complex.

 

[MotF Bane]

Likely, the only thing that would do that would be an invasion of the lower 48 by a foreign power.

This, or as an alternative, an outright removal of the First Amendment would work as well.

"Ensuring equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, is the one purpose of government and laws in a free society."

^^ The enactment of this idea would be one thing the left and right should agree on.

Should, but don't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow such a well thought out intelligent response. Maybe next time you can use your brain assuming you have one.

You call your right wing inculcated crap regurgitation using your brain. Go fuck yourself. I can find shit out on the lawn.

 

[Moonbeam]

Draw them together with a new war.

Campaign finance needs to be overhauled from the ground up. The US is quickly descending into an openly corrupt government. Really it's already there to a great degree, open because it's not hidden; plenty of companies have lobbyists and they wield unfortunate power.

I'm suggesting a war of money buying law instead of the will of the people determining it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem is not that special interests are buying congressmen. The problem is that congressmen have power to sell to them. As long as they have the power, they will be able to demand a price.

The power to sell and the power to buy are one and the same thing.

 

[MotF Bane]

You are right, of course. The imbeciles that desire as little government as necessary are totally nuts. They have no idea just how massive a government they would create to insure the missionary position in every bedroom across the country. Take your brain dead equality of outcomes and shove it up your ass.

You just lumped two separate viewpoints into one. Somebody needs to take a look at logical fallacies again.

 

[alchemize]

I think probably 90+% of Americans would support a balanced budget amendment, or a federal spending cap amendment. I think about 1% of politicians support it however.

 

[Moonbeam]

This, or as an alternative, an outright removal of the First Amendment would work as well.



Should, but don't.

Nobody is going to get rid of the first amendment and nobody with any sense gives a crap about this equality of outcome right wing phony issue crap either, but, and this is just a hypothetical, assuming that the left is wedded to the proposition of equal outcome, we won't be uniting around that issue anyway so why the fuck bring it into a conversation searching for broad spectrum unifiers? You fuckers jam your ideology everywhere you go. Fucking tools.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think probably 90+% of Americans would support a balanced budget amendment, or a federal spending cap amendment. I think about 1% of politicians support it however.

Excellent suggestion, in my opinion. Thanks

 

[Moonbeam]

You just lumped two separate viewpoints into one. Somebody needs to take a look at logical fallacies again.

Somebody needs to point out the fallacy not just imply there is one.

 

[Perknose]

Draw them together with a new war.

Eyes the ideologically suspect Turks and Caicos Islands. Sand hoggers! Sun worshipers! Did you know that you can't bring your pet with you into this gulag unless it's "up to date" with all its shots and vaccinations?!?

What a bunch of socialist, big government bastards! Invade, I say, INVADE! They have weapons of mass enjoyment.

Or . . .

If Dick Cheney were to be somehow secretly filmed attempting to have sex with the freshly disinterred corpse of Ronald Reagan in front of a captive audience of horrified girl scouts while wearing nothing but a "Democracy Is For Dweebs" t-shirt, I think Americans of all stripes would finally unite behind the "No more than one pig heart per person per month" amendment to House Bill HR 514, known colloquially as "Health Care In Hell."

He's such a Dick!

 

[Linflas]

You call your right wing inculcated crap regurgitation using your brain. Go fuck yourself. I can find shit out on the lawn.

Is spittle actually flying out of your mouth as you furiously pound the keyboard typing silliness like the above? Do you think it makes any kind of valid point or actually helps your supposed stated goal of "What issue would unite people on the right and the left"? Evidently the only way we could unite on something is to accept your viewpoint or be subject to a barage of gutter speak in lieu of an actual point.

 

[MotF Bane]

Nobody is going to get rid of the first amendment and nobody with any sense gives a crap about this equality of outcome right wing phony issue crap either, but, and this is just a hypothetical, assuming that the left is wedded to the proposition of equal outcome, we won't be uniting around that issue anyway so why the fuck bring it into a conversation searching for broad spectrum unifiers? You fuckers jam your ideology everywhere you go. Fucking tools.

Are you related to McOwned?