HeyYou Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 What we really need is a second 'civil war', to replace our current government, with something that actually has the interests of the people at heart, and not their own pocketbooks. That is the ONLY way we are going to get the necessary reforms to get the big money OUT of politics. The Supreme Court sold us all down the river with the Citizens United decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 What we really need is a second 'civil war', to replace our current government, with something that actually has the interests of the people at heart, Why is forcing the other side with armed conflict the only answer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 What we really need is a second 'civil war', to replace our current government, with something that actually has the interests of the people at heart, Why is forcing the other side with armed conflict the only answer ? Because as it currently stands, the only folks that CAN change things, are the very same folks that benefit the most from NOT changing anything. They would be foolish to cut off their own gravy train, and I am not going to hold my breath waiting for them to do it. Haven't you ever noticed that regardless of how little money folks have when they go in to congress, they are rather wealthy by the time they are coming up for re-election again? Obama was a 'community organizer' in Chicago before he got elected to the Senate. He didn't even serve one full term before moving on to two terms as president, and now he is buying multi-million dollar houses. He did not win the lottery. He did not open a company that made him rich, it was his political donors/connections that made him rich. And that works for EVERYONE in congress. (for the most part.) We need Citizens United gone. (corporations are NOT people) We need campaign finance reform. We need to get rid of the paid lobbyists. Folks that served in government should be barred for 10 years (if not life) from becoming a lobbyist. Along with a few other things that will NEVER happen, short of a revolution. Doesn't have to be an actual "war", if THE PEOPLE got together and demanded it, it would happen. Problem is, the people just don't have the gumption (collectively) to actually DO anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 There is plenty of gumption among people , It's just that part about coming together that is the problem. Well at least across the political divide anyways. And I think it is actually by design that we can't or won't come together to stop spending so much money on the chess pieces ... for a game that nobody is going to win .So instead of a revolution ... we need an evolution. And how does life grow and evolve with everything in the world ? Cells divide ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 There is plenty of gumption among people , It's just that part about coming together that is the problem. Well at least across the political divide anyways. And I think it is actually by design that we can't or won't come together to stop spending so much money on the chess pieces ... for a game that nobody is going to win .So instead of a revolution ... we need an evolution. And how does life grow and evolve with everything in the world ? Cells divide ...So what do you propose? Divide into two (or more....) countries? Trouble with that is, we are too intermixed for that to work effectively..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 There is plenty of gumption among people , It's just that part about coming together that is the problem. Well at least across the political divide anyways. And I think it is actually by design that we can't or won't come together to stop spending so much money on the chess pieces ... for a game that nobody is going to win .So instead of a revolution ... we need an evolution. And how does life grow and evolve with everything in the world ? Cells divide ...So what do you propose? Divide into two (or more....) countries? Trouble with that is, we are too intermixed for that to work effectively..... Already we have the states. For governmental differences we exist under.The point is to take it to the next level and have 2 different Fed jurisdictions . A referendum for eVERy Citizen to vote on. Like the Breakfast thing in Europe :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 It's not the government, but our system of values and our control of our financial system that we have too deal with. We put too much value in our own opinions and don't scrutinize them or those whose duty it is to indoctrinate us in the quote/unquote correct way of thinking for those in the seats of power. Unless we are willing to really willing to take an open honest and thorough self evaluation of ourselves, we will never know how full of crap we might just be. If we can't be that honest with ourselves, then how can we even contemplate what a government that we can actually say with a straight face is for the people. What people are we actually envisioning when we construct this perfect sounding image within our head? What form of commerce and what monetary system would support this so-called perfect order? America started out as an ideal that was considered a liberal idea when it was formed. Today, it is embraced mostly by conservatives and those who consider themselves on the left seem to want to accentuate the negatives, just as the founding fathers of Americas birth did the British system. My question in all this is what we mean by the term, people. Both sides flout this word as if it should be sacred, but what do they mean by people. Do they mean, people like us or people who think like us.? It seems like there are too many people out there who think they own the term People and use it exclusively to reflect their mental image of the people in the world and it is that very images that the thought police have taken such a long time to cultivate with the approval of those we really should be looking at, instead of those they claim are so evil. If we really look at the term PEOPLE, aren't those in government people? Aren't those who voted for and against President Trump, people? If so, why are so many upset that he sets in the White House? Why are there so many who hate those who voted him in, with a hatred so vile that they would attack them physically? Why do so many affix the term haters on those people, when they hate them? Is the any hatred in the world that can be considered any more righteous than any other? Hatred is not interchangeable to indignation, which leads me to believe that much of what we see in anger in this country is not about TRUMP or CLINTON. Its about us as human beings and about our own fears that we are far less interested in dealing with than blaming those around us. If we can't do that, then what the heck are we contemplating a more perfect union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 People, as in the living, breathing entities that reside legally within our borders. Corporations do not qualify. I think that one minor distinction would make a significant difference. But yeah, you are right, ask 10 different people what they think would be a 'good idea' on any particular topic, and you would get 10 different answers. I think the answer to that would be, if the majority of people support a measure, it should pass, if the majority do NOT support it, then it should not. And I am talking a majority of PEOPLE, NOT just 'people in congress'. I also believe that if a law directly contravenes a delineated right, as defined in our constitution, then it most certainly should NOT pass. In instances where there is no defined right, (for instance, abortion) then the decision to do so, or not, should be left to the individual, and NO law should be passed. The government should not be in the business of attempting to legislate morality. That is a major over-reach of their power. Granted, laws against murder (depriving someone else of THEIR rights) would stay on the books. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 How can a majority of any people so uneducated and so indoctrinated by culture, by ideology and by religion determine what bills are in their best interest if they continue to believe in most politicians that even by their own words read only a portion, if any of the legislation that passes under their noses? Speaking of rights The public has not only the right, but the obligation to educate themselves on what is going on, not only in their back yards but all over the globe. They need to know why things are, because of what happened in the past and fully acknowledge any responsibility their government has had in bringing others to the state they are in. I don't think half the world would be in the state it is in if certain parts of the world hadn't decided to interfere in the cultures of others. I look at not only Iran, but the whole of the middle East and Asia, when I say this. I know that some of my Conservative friends take a dim view of this attitude, but most of them have a way of ignoring the past for the present, just as many of my liberal friends have a tendency to dwell on the past and ignore the present. I guess there is a comfort zone within eachothers perspective interests that, in their minds justify spitting in the other persons eye. This country is no longer populated by Americans, as much as it is populated by people grouped together by a color, a sex or a religious or political persuasion. People talk about legal citizens, but from what I've seen, there are a lot more ilegal citizens who seem to feel a whole lot better about being in America than many of those who were born here. At least many of them don't take the country for granted. How do we get a majority opinion out of uneducated, indoctrinated, self absorbed spoiled rotten people who think they are the leaders of a free world, when so many of them have freely given up the freedoms they once had [Patriot act] for a sense of security, given to them by the same people who have botched up so much in the past. The US Government. Many are more interested in how many likes they've gotten on their last cat video than they are about their legislative well being. A good measure are more interested in what someone else has than what they have and end up not appreciating anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 That's the problem with a democracy. (or, a republic, if you want to be technical) Rule by the lowest common denominator. It is the system we have..... and I am not really interested in moving to a dictatorship...... where ONE guy makes ALL the decisions...... Everything is a compromise. :) And yeah, our foreign policy really sucked there for a while. Not much better today. Bush Jr. really screwed the pooch when he invaded Afghanistan, and later, Iraq. That was the start of the whole region destabilizing. Sure, Saddam wasn't really a nice guy, nor was Assad, but, they kept their countries reasonably stable, really didn't meddle much in global affairs, and, in the case of Saddam, kept the terrorists out. All that changed because of Bush Jr. The Iraq invasion being based purely on flat-out lies really doesn't improve my opinion of him either...... I didn't support the war then, (either of them) and I don't think we should be there now. Our government simply doesn't understand their culture, and because of that, they regularly make idiotic decisions, that make the problems worse, not better. Can't change the past though, so, the situation is what it is. Still, we should simply get out of the middle east. WE are the major destabilizing factor there. Folks will train terrorists in those countries regardless of whether we are around or not. We spend trillions of dollars, for absolutely zero gain. How about we start spending some of that money right here at home? Or, better yet, start reducing the national debt, starting with a balanced federal budget? Wouldn't that be novel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts