The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

United We Stand! Options
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 6:01:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
I seldom come to this sub-forum, it distresses me as it has become a reflection of the type of divisiveness that has been foisted on the public at large. I must admit as well to have come to a point of feeling that there was no point in attempting to affect the course of the government of the United States. The forces at work that have usurped it seemed to have for too long and to too well refined their manipulation skills for there to be any hope of disrupting them.

No, I am not espousing any particular "conspiracy theory", just stating historical precedence for how manipulative forces were brought to bear within the U.S., e.g. during the industrial revolution, and how those same forces are now so much more effective ever before. Most of what is occupying the attention of the majority of Americans and nearly all of the news media is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The truth of the matter is that the political system of the United States is broken, and broken badly. All the bruhaha that is occupying everyone's attention while some of it is actually important, is serving to keep everyone distracted from the root of the problem.

I challenge every U.S. citizen involved in this forum to stop being distracted and wasting your energy in arguments that are going to do nothing to save our country. Watch this video, it is produced by an organization called RepresentUS. the video link goes to the YouTube copy of the video. Here is the link to the organization's page.

Note that the information presented in this video is factual, no spin, no sponsors, no partisan politics, just a statement of what is, and how it could be changed. There is only one thing necessary for us to regain the country we were meant to have, united we must stand!

For all of the members from other countries, first I'd like to thank you for your interest, and concern about what is happening in the U.S., and then I would like to ask that check out that site as well, some of the same things may be going on in your government, but please try to encourage people here who are railing against symptoms to get rational and address the causative factors rather than riding the spin machine of partisanship.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
towan52
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 9:32:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,862
Neurons: 206,539
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
How dare you post something so sensible and logical! Angel

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” ~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 12:50:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
Wow. So much to say about that video, it's hard to know where to begin. The idea that we all come together in a kumbaya moment and eliminate corruption is a nice fantasy, but hardly realistic.

I had a flash of the Founders of the country arguing and struggling to come to agreements on how to create our nation. The whole purpose was to try to set up a system whereby the people were represented in both the State and the Federal system, so the individual States were given equal representation in order to prevent, or at least, minimize the inherent corruption of humans. After all, this is supposed to the the united STATES of America, not the united people of America.

Each state is supposed to be an independent experiment in governance. Yet each state is also supposed to be committed to a unified idea of a national idea. This would flow from the idea that the citizens would unite in a common desire to be members of this country and support its existence. And for the last two hundred years that system has worked pretty well. More people have been lifted out of poverty, have been given a higher standard of living, and a greater amount of freedom and prosperity than any generation in the history of Mankind.

Is there corruption? Of course. We are all human. But the system we have is set up so that whenever excesses occur, the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated. Besides that, those groups that influence the government represent tens of thousands, if not millions of citizens, which is exactly what our government is designed to do.

Reducing corruption is always a good idea, and I have no problem with that. But I think we would do better to actually enforce the rules of the system that was created rather than change the system itself. It has worked well for too long to try to change it now. Let it work the way is it supposed to work. If enough people in enough States decide together, then things will change, just as the system is designed to permit. And that is exactly what the presenter, Jennifer Lawrence, was advocating. We don't need to change the rules. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 2:46:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,862
Neurons: 206,539
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
FounDit wrote:
... the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated ...

Really???

Nothing wrong in aiming high!

The problem with the constitution of 1788 and the Bill of Rights is the bounded rationality of the late 18th Century. I mean, in a couple of weeks I'm having a surgical procedure on my heart to correct a problem (mainly caused by the parser and FounDit Whistle Just kidding!). I'm glad that it's being done with 21st century expertise rather than with 18th Century know-how. it may, of course, be a totally unnecessary procedure performed to line the doctor's pocket.

I'd love to see any email exchanges between Madison and the British parliament - do you think Wikileaks has them?

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” ~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 4:50:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
FounDit wrote:
We don't need to change the rules. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.


You mean like Citizens United? I also don't think the founding fathers would have approved of the current system of campaign finance, nor of gerrymandering, not the dozens of other ways the system is rigged and being manipulated by the 1%. You should probably read some Thomas Jefferson and what he thought about how often the rules would need to be updated or outright changed.

FounDit wrote:
And I'm a bit confused by this statement of yours, "After all, this is supposed to the united STATES of America, not the united people of America."
hmmm so "We the people of the United States, should be "We the states of the united states? Our government is supposed to be a representative government, how do you think it is not badly broken when no matter what the public support for a bill is, 0% or 100% there is still only a 30% chance it will pass?[/quote]


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:23:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
towan52 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
... the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated ...

Really???
Yes, really. That is, unless you know of some place where political excesses have been totally eliminated. I know of no such place. We've had several, but managed to pull back from falling over the edge of tyranny so far.

Nothing wrong in aiming high!
Agreed. We should aim to eliminate excesses as much as possible. But given human nature, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The problem with the constitution of 1788 and the Bill of Rights is the bounded rationality of the late 18th Century. I mean, in a couple of weeks I'm having a surgical procedure on my heart to correct a problem (mainly caused by the parser and FounDit Whistle Just kidding!). I'm glad that it's being done with 21st century expertise rather than with 18th Century know-how. it may, of course, be a totally unnecessary procedure performed to line the doctor's pocket.

I'd love to see any email exchanges between Madison and the British parliament - do you think Wikileaks has them?


The problem with you analogy is that medical procedures and human nature are not even remotely close. The Founders were very aware of the tendency of humans to wind up under tyranny if it was given the chance to be installed. Their goal was to try to create a system whereby that would be obviated as much as possible. But it requires the citizens to be aware, knowledgeable, and participating in maintaining the freedoms established in the Constitution and Bill of rights. Hopefully, we still have enough of those kinds of citizens to do that.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:37:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,666
Neurons: 49,656
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Good luck with your heart surgery, Towan. I hope it is not open heart, but if it is, my husband would tell you to get yourself a recliner to sleep in. :) They do most procedures now in less invasive ways than when he had his valve repaired.

Epi, I am going to listen to the tape shortly and will comment further then but I wanted to wish Towan well now.

I do hear the sentiment that we must listen to each other, see the opposite viewpoint, and then compromise so often during discusssions, written, in videos, and on TV in both Canada and the US. And yet it is almost universal that the very people who intellectually recognize that the only way to get ahead is "stronger together" will still turn around in the very next breath and emotionally show their hatred of the party whose ideology they despise. They do not even realize that they are doing exactly what they just said others do.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:38:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
We don't need to change the rules. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.


You mean like Citizens United? No. I mean a return to our system of checks and balances where Congress doesn't abandon its responsibilities and cede power to unelected bureaucrats.I also don't think the founding fathers would have approved of the current system of campaign finance, nor of gerrymandering, not the dozens of other ways the system is rigged and being manipulated by the 1%. You should probably read some Thomas Jefferson and what he thought about how often the rules would need to be updated or outright changed.
I have read all of the Federalists Papers, though I admit it has been quite a few years ago. But the point is that the system was designed to give the people the power to control those who governed them. We can't just sit back and let it run on auto-pilot, as I said to towan52. To fix the problems we currently are experiencing, the population needs to be properly educated, so they can make good decisions, not herded into top-down Socialism.

FounDit wrote:
And I'm a bit confused by this statement of yours, "After all, this is supposed to the united STATES of America, not the united people of America."
hmmm so "We the people of the United States, should be "We the states of the united states? Our government is supposed to be a representative government, how do you think it is not badly broken when no matter what the public support for a bill is, 0% or 100% there is still only a 30% chance it will pass?
[/quote]
Well, I saw no evidence that those percentages were correct, or why I should believe them. They are simply assertions, supposedly based on one poll, or study. The second point is that the people of the United States were to be represented by both representatives in the House and by Senators from their States. Two distinctly different forms of representation, which was designed to permit two levels of representation - collectively as citizens, and from a State level with its own unique conditions.

In toto, it was to be a collection of States, run by the people, united in a common system at a Federal level for the purposes of National Security, sovereignty, and the collective good of the population.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 1:54:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,556
Neurons: 199,313
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I'm a couple of days behind - but here are my views from outside.
I'm not 'mired in' inside the system, and not even so much affected as Hope up there in Canada, so (hopefully) I'm a little more objective - though I may not have so much objective data, as opposed to theory, either.

The point of 'a divided nation' is something I've seen and mentioned. The "R gang" dismissing as totally ludicrous anything suggested by the "L gang" and so not even looking at it, and the "L gang" not even listening to the "R gang" in the first place - and somehow the "centre" not even being able to speak, it seems.
If that statistic is correct, that nearly half of the registered voters are registered as independent, with Republican and Democrat parties together having just over a half, then something doesn't stand up right.

There's nothing wrong with the American Constitution - maybe a couple of lines have been "interpreted to death", but as far as I can see it IS well-thought-out.
The two-tier government is (to mis-quote) "terrible, but better than any other".
It must be one hell of a job trying to govern a country so BIG - that's one of the problems and the 'State' system is a good solution.

I didn't understand that the video was suggesting changing the constitution, but was looking at how to get back in what the constitution created in the first place.
The concept of "Individuals as a group in a State work on making the State more just/less corrupt" and THEN "The States as a group in the Federation making the Federation more just/less corrupt" sounds good (and it even agreed with what FounDit said - "After all, this is supposed to the the united STATES of America, not the united people of America."
Can you imagine trying to run a country that big with the whole population voting en-masse on every decision? It would be worse than anarchy!

What I 'got' was the suggestion that individuals not try to fight the Federal government, but put on some pressure to change their own State for the better.
There would (maybe not VERY fast, but continual) improvement at Federal level as each State improved.

I wasn't going to mention what other members had said, but this is important.
FounDit said "To fix the problems we currently are experiencing, the population needs to be properly educated, so they can make good decisions, not herded into top-down Socialism." - Since the definition of 'socialism' for the rest of the world is different, the concept of 'top-down socialism' is an oxymoron, but that's just terminology.
I would word it "To fix the problems we currently are experiencing, the population needs to be properly educated, so they can make good decisions, not herded into a top-down Autocracy or Oligarchy."
But the truth is - the population need to be educated.
They need to know the real state of the nation, the ways that 'the people' CAN influence the way the country runs.
Not "This is the only nation with ANY freedoms - all other countries are Communist dictatorships" (another oxymoron)
Not "The country is in a terrible mess because of this awful President."
Not "It's no use, the terrible 1% have it all sewn up, we're just slaves and can't change it."
No indoctrination - just proper education.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:46:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
I've been quite surprised to find that Drag0's observations serve in the UK as well. I think political indoctrination and being indoctrinated is easy in certain environments, which is why the US and UK are having such a difficult time with it. When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:01:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
FounDit wrote:
I have read all of the Federalists Papers, though I admit it has been quite a few years ago. But the point is that the system was designed to give the people the power to control those who governed them. We can't just sit back and let it run on auto-pilot, as I said to towan52. To fix the problems we currently are experiencing, the population needs to be properly educated, so they can make good decisions, not herded into top-down Socialism.

I entirely agree with nearly all of this but don't see the relevance of the last phrase, neither I, nor the presenter in the video, are suggesting such a state.

FounDit wrote:
"After all, this is supposed to the united STATES of America, not the united people of America."
Epiphileon wrote:
hmmm so "We the people of the United States, should be "We the states of the united states? Our government is supposed to be a representative government, how do you think it is not badly broken when no matter what the public support for a bill is, 0% or 100% there is still only a 30% chance it will pass?

FounDit wrote:
Well, I saw no evidence that those percentages were correct, or why I should believe them. They are simply assertions, supposedly based on one poll, or study.

I am currently reviewing the source material for that reference, it is perhaps the most tedious thing I've done in a long, long time. Not only is it an academic paper, but a political science paper, it is laborious and intensely difficult as it is steeped in an extreme amount of jargon I'm having to translate. However, whether it is one study or a hundred if those are the facts then it does not matter how many studies cite them, they are still facts.

FounDit wrote:
The second point is that the people of the United States were to be represented by both representatives in the House and by Senators from their States. Two distinctly different forms of representation, which was designed to permit two levels of representation - collectively as citizens, and from a State level with its own unique conditions.

In toto, it was to be a collection of States, run by the people, united in a common system at a Federal level for the purposes of National Security, sovereignty, and the collective good of the population.


The thing I'm finding odd here FounDit is that I agree with almost all of what you have said in this post, and do not see how it in any way is an argument against what the video is suggesting. Remember this is not coming from either party of direction on the political spectrum. This video seems to be promoting action exactly along the lines of how you say the government should be working. Why are you arguing against this?

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:25:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I'm a couple of days behind - but here are my views from outside....

Not "It's no use, the terrible 1% have it all sewn up, we're just slaves and can't change it."


Good evening Drag0 and thank you for your input and I agree. I would like to comment on this last statement of yours. I realize that its an example of an attitude that does exist in the U.S. as well as similar to one I had fallen into for a number of years. Not all of the 1% are terrible; however, it does seem like many of them are self-serving capitalists with absolutely no concern for the welfare of the general population. I do not think there is any doubt at all that they are exerting an incredible amount of influence on the political system of the U.S. and other countries. There is historical precedence for this as well, as I mentioned to FounDit. Personally I don't think there is a vast concerted effort with an agreed upon agenda, however, I may be naive in that opinion, who knows? I do think that even without such an agenda though the trend of this influence spells disaster for the general population and will lead to a dystopia.

I agree that the Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document and blueprint; however, the writers could not have foreseen the developments that have brought us to our current state, and would many of them would be abhorred by it. I'm sure the Citizens United decision and gerrymandering are just two examples of things that would have them incensed.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:42:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
progpen wrote:
I've been quite surprised to find that Drag0's observations serve in the UK as well. I think political indoctrination and being indoctrinated is easy in certain environments, which is why the US and UK are having such a difficult time with it. When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking.

Good evening Progpen, I am of course guessing about that for both you and Drag0 I just went by the time on your posts, thanks for replying. I am fairly certain that the issues and influences of the political system in the U.S. are being experienced in just about all western democracies right now. Not sure about the extreme northern tribes types though they seem to be hanging in there. That could just be my complete ignorance of what's up over there though.

Here's what I'd like to offer for consideration, you said, "When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking."
Without ascribing to any particular so-called theory, and at the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, I think the situation is far more dire than just the natural tendency of a population to fall into an apathetic state. I am pretty well convinced that the abrogation of thinking is being actively encouraged and what's more, that the manipulation of thinking has been a skill being actively pursued by a segment of the population that is determined to achieve a covert but thorough oligarchy and they have become extremely proficient at it.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:42:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Epiphileon wrote:
progpen wrote:
I've been quite surprised to find that Drag0's observations serve in the UK as well. I think political indoctrination and being indoctrinated is easy in certain environments, which is why the US and UK are having such a difficult time with it. When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking.

Good evening Progpen, I am of course guessing about that for both you and Drag0 I just went by the time on your posts, thanks for replying. I am fairly certain that the issues and influences of the political system in the U.S. are being experienced in just about all western democracies right now. Not sure about the extreme northern tribes types though they seem to be hanging in there. That could just be my complete ignorance of what's up over there though.

Here's what I'd like to offer for consideration, you said, "When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking."
Without ascribing to any particular so-called theory, and at the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, I think the situation is far more dire than just the natural tendency of a population to fall into an apathetic state. I am pretty well convinced that the abrogation of thinking is being actively encouraged and what's more, that the manipulation of thinking has been a skill being actively pursued by a segment of the population that is determined to achieve a covert but thorough oligarchy and they have become extremely proficient at it.


Hi Epiphileon. I guess I'm right there with you on the conspiracy idea. Over the past 30 years, I've seen the US education system defunded to the point of being a dark comedy. Without a healthy education system, the population is indeed ripe for the picking and the bar is set low for those who desire to control the thinking of the masses.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
towan52
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:21:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,862
Neurons: 206,539
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
FounDit wrote:
towan52 wrote:
[quote=FounDit] ... the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated ...

Really???
Yes, really. That is, unless you know of some place where political excesses have been totally eliminated. I know of no such place. We've had several, but managed to pull back from falling over the edge of tyranny so far.
I can't be sure that it's been totally eliminated, but I believe there are many other national administrations that do a better job than us American Exceptionalists.

Nothing wrong in aiming high!
Agreed. We should aim to eliminate excesses as much as possible. But given human nature, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The problem with the constitution of 1788 and the Bill of Rights is the bounded rationality of the late 18th Century. I mean, in a couple of weeks I'm having a surgical procedure on my heart to correct a problem (mainly caused by the parser and FounDit Whistle Just kidding!). I'm glad that it's being done with 21st century expertise rather than with 18th Century know-how. it may, of course, be a totally unnecessary procedure performed to line the doctor's pocket.

The problem with you analogy is that medical procedures and human nature are not even remotely close. The Founders were very aware of the tendency of humans to wind up under tyranny if it was given the chance to be installed. Their goal was to try to create a system whereby that would be obviated as much as possible. But it requires the citizens to be aware, knowledgeable, and participating in maintaining the freedoms established in the Constitution and Bill of rights. Hopefully, we still have enough of those kinds of citizens to do that.

The analogy is fine, we're discussing knowledge now and knowledge then. The constitution was written with all good intentions - I wonder where that leads.

Couple of other thoughts: The idea of an upper-house, senate etc. is to, hopefully, cast a more experienced, knowledgeable and mature eye over proposed legislation. Simply having the same party political divisions in an upper-house engenders the question "Why bother?"
The federal government does indeed have a system of "checks and balances" - Their effectiveness could be another contentious topic - State governments either don't have them or they can seemingly be ignored. US citizens should be at least as concerned about state politics/government as they are about national. (IMCO)


“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” ~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:43:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
Drag0nspeaker, Epiphileon, and, amazingly, even progpen,

I find much I agree with in all of your comments. The main problem, as I see it, and as I said, was that our educational system has become corrupted as well, and this feeds into every aspect of our society, because it is from this pool of citizens that the leaders, both business and government, are selected, or from which they rise.

I'm not sure, however, that we can all agree on who is doing the corrupting, who is doing the indoctrination, and how best to eliminate it. Btw, the "top-down Socialism" I referenced is the type I described to Hope in my last post to her; the kind established in Cuba and is now plaguing the citizens of Venezuela; and sending ripples into the U.S. But I digress.

But an even greater evil has arisen, and that is the failure of our politics to even permit disagreement on policies and opinions. This is supposed to be a Nation where speech and disagreement is permitted and out of which, a form of consensus arises. But that can't happen if one side holds the other in contempt and will not even permit such speech to be uttered. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. But it seems that there is a concerted effort to shut down any speech found to be disagreeable. This has to change, IMO.

Another thing that I think has to be avoided, however, is becoming embroiled in the minutia of policies, or in forcing policies onto the public. Problems in a country this large have to be dealt with in very broad strokes, I believe. And that means policies that encourage the individual States and citizens to become educated, think and analyze, not simply follow a cult of personality or favored group.

Let the States and citizens experiment with different ideas and then other States can adopt the ones that seem to work the best. We shouldn't look to the Federal Government for leadership on every problem. This was one thing the Founders argued about, but ultimately decided against. No group of either politicians or business people can know what is best for everyone in a country this large and populated.

The Founders indeed could not know what the future would hold. But I believe they thought we could overcome almost any problem if the people remained knowledgeable, active, and committed to maintaining the Freedoms and Liberties guaranteed in the system they developed. We just need to hold to that, not tear it down, or change it. I'm an Originalist: I believe the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says; that the original meaning and intent of the words of the Founders remains as true today as it did when they wrote it.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
FounDit I still do not understand what you objected to in the video I posted. That was the only issue I intended to address in coming here.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Verbatim
Posted: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:55:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,109
Neurons: 245,144
"United we stand" is predicated upon "In good faith we stand". That's what is lacking, good faith and honesty.
Divisiveness is a by-product of bad faith.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 1:15:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit I still do not understand what you objected to in the video I posted. That was the only issue I intended to address in coming here.


There is just so much to talk about in that video, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I’ll just start at the beginning.

First off, she says our government no longer works for us, “it really doesn’t” she says. But I don’t believe that it true. There are people in our Congress, and I also believe our President, who DO want to work for us, and are trying to do just that.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t those who definitely do not want that, and who work exclusively for their own benefit. I do believe we have way too many of those. But I don’t believe the system has failed completely, which is what she seems to imply when she says, “We are witnessing a total political system failure in America”.

No we are not. Our system was designed to permit just this kind of political tug-of-war by limiting the power of Government via the Constitution. Too many today want to go beyond, or fail to perform, their responsibilities, shifting them to branches that should not have them, such as the courts and the Administrative State i.e. bureaucracies and the Supreme Court. Claiming there is a total failure of the system is what feeds into the mind-set of changing the system, or reworking it, the antithesis of what was designed. Rather, we should let it work, make it work as designed by being informed and participating.

Secondly, she says Trump and Hillary were the least two popular candidates ever, but offers no proof of that. Regardless, I’ve no doubt that popularity for candidates has diminished over time since the beginning of our Republic, but even it what she says is true, popularity is not, and should not, be the gauge by which we elect Presidents. It should be based on the platform they put forth, what they want to do for the people and the country. I personally don’t care about their personality. I want what’s good for the country. I thought Trump had the better goals.

Next she says “American isn’t even considered a full Democracy, which is the complete opposite of what our Nation’s Founders had in mind [my emphasis]”. That is total bulls**t. The Founders were NOT in favor of a full Democracy. America was never designed, or supposed to be a full Democracy. It’s a Republic. Democracies don’t work because they are mob rule. We are a democracy only to the degree that the public elects representatives.

She then begins with three lines she says demonstrate how the breakdown happens. The first she says is public opinion about laws Congress passes. But we have never made law based on public opinion polls. That takes us back to mob rule again. Laws are made by the citizens making their will known through their representatives in the House, and via their State representatives in the Senate. The Supreme Court was to determine if laws were Constitutional, not make new law through interpretations and the political biases du jour.

She then says the Princeton study says the “preferences of the average American” has an almost a zero percent impact on public policy. Well, I think the Suffragettes and Dr. Martin Luther King might disagree. Laws such as those granting Civil Rights, the Vote for Women, Gay Rights, and Abortion are just a few of the laws that put the lie to that.

I’m not going to go through the whole video. Suffice it to say that when your premises are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong also, or at the least, misguided. Not every group that contributes to political campaigns is corrupt. Not every politician is supported by billionaires, though some are; but they don’t always win (e.g. Hillary — ”Beto” O’Rourke). A great deal of money is contributed by “grass-roots” people (e.g. Bernie Sanders — Trump).

In the end, she says they have had “85 wins”. What does that mean? She doesn’t explain. Anyway, I have no problem with ending corruption at all, and there may be some good ideas buried in her effort. I'm all for "draining the swamp". I would just want a bit more (accurate) information, and more truth-telling before I join in, or support, such an effort.

Verbatim's post is surely right. Good faith and honesty are sorely missing in our current political environment.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:51:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Epiphileon wrote:
I seldom come to this sub-forum, it distresses me as it has become a reflection of the type of divisiveness that has been foisted on the public at large. I must admit as well to have come to a point of feeling that there was no point in attempting to affect the course of the government of the United States. The forces at work that have usurped it seemed to have for too long and to too well refined their manipulation skills for there to be any hope of disrupting them.

No, I am not espousing any particular "conspiracy theory", just stating historical precedence for how manipulative forces were brought to bear within the U.S., e.g. during the industrial revolution, and how those same forces are now so much more effective ever before. Most of what is occupying the attention of the majority of Americans and nearly all of the news media is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The truth of the matter is that the political system of the United States is broken, and broken badly. All the bruhaha that is occupying everyone's attention while some of it is actually important, is serving to keep everyone distracted from the root of the problem.

I challenge every U.S. citizen involved in this forum to stop being distracted and wasting your energy in arguments that are going to do nothing to save our country. Watch this video, it is produced by an organization called RepresentUS. the video link goes to the YouTube copy of the video. Here is the link to the organization's page.

Note that the information presented in this video is factual, no spin, no sponsors, no partisan politics, just a statement of what is, and how it could be changed. There is only one thing necessary for us to regain the country we were meant to have, united we must stand!

For all of the members from other countries, first I'd like to thank you for your interest, and concern about what is happening in the U.S., and then I would like to ask that check out that site as well, some of the same things may be going on in your government, but please try to encourage people here who are railing against symptoms to get rational and address the causative factors rather than riding the spin machine of partisanship.


Epiphileon. I haven't responded to the content of the video thus far because it quite simply is nothing new. It's a wonderfully well made video and I agree with so much of what they say, but it's all been said a thousand times before (just on this forum). There is not one single new idea in the video, but since someone "more palatable" is saying it, that makes it more acceptable. And by more palatable I mean, someone who is not "liberal" or "progressive".

I've supported damn near every one of those "bam", "pow", "biff", "smack" visual affect points they made in the video, not because I saw it in a video made by people who were "not liberal", but because I've been doing so for years already.

I wish I could see this specific push being somehow different. And like I said, I'm already supporting every one of the points they made. But ignoring all of those who have been saying this for years and bringing this up as something "brand new" that no one has thought of yet (now gosh darn it, how is it that no one has thought of this until now? Huh, that's a real head scratcher).

It's yet another marketing tool being used in politics.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, March 28, 2019 2:23:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,556
Neurons: 199,313
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
progpen wrote:
I've been quite surprised to find that Drag0's observations serve in the UK as well. I think political indoctrination and being indoctrinated is easy in certain environments, which is why the US and UK are having such a difficult time with it. When a society reaches a plateau and is more or less coasting along, people are not challenged to think, but instead are being allowed to abrogate their responsibility of thinking.

Oh Yes - - - it can be as subtle as introducing one concept into the school curriculum without mentioning the opposite idea.
Not LYING, but not quite telling the whole truth.
Then having the news-channels concentrate on news stories which back up the one-sided concept - then having films and TV programs with heroes who forward the concept.

We haven't reached the total "republican/democrat" dichotomy - actually, it did appear back in the 1970s with the battle between Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill, but "we, the people" were mostly not ready to be fooled. Both Left and Right wings lost enormous numbers of votes.

***********
Hi FounDit.
Yes - your "top-down" socialism is a similar thing to calling what the Soviets had "Communism" - it's actually NOTHING like it.

Communism and socialism are designed to help ALL the people of the society - your "top down Socialism" and Soviet Communism were, at best, dictatorships .

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Verbatim
Posted: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:19:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,109
Neurons: 245,144
"Communism and socialism are designed to help ALL the people of the society - your "top down Socialism" and Soviet Communism were, at best, dictatorships ."

The victims of proletarian dictatorship and of the violent class strugle notwithstanding, ALL the (remaining?) people
were designed by Marx and Engels to be helped in communism, the pipe dream society, with opium according to their needs... provided that they survived helping themselves to socialism.Pray
Y111
Posted: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:00:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 320
Neurons: 1,584
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Communism and socialism are designed to help ALL the people of the society - your "top down Socialism" and Soviet Communism were, at best, dictatorships .

We never called what we had in the USSR 'communism'. It's your Western way of speaking. As for helping all the people, I think that guaranteed employment, free healthcare and free education helped all the people in the USSR.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, March 29, 2019 5:39:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,556
Neurons: 199,313
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Y111 wrote:
We never called what we had in the USSR 'communism'. It's your Western way of speaking.


Oh!
I thought that the ruling party from Lenin's time onwards was Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза. (Kommuniesticheskaia Partyia - maybe not a perfect transliteration)



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, March 29, 2019 5:55:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,556
Neurons: 199,313
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Actually, Lenin explained why the "dictatorship of the proletariat" could not work, and there had to be a ruling dictatorship (or dictatorial group).
Quote:
[Because] the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, so corrupted in parts ... that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class.

Lenin

I've mentioned before that I don't believe that the perfect "all people work at what they are good at, providing everything the society needs - while each person is provided everything they need by the society" can work in anything larger than a small family or extremely sane small commune. Someone always wants to have more than everyone else, and work less.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Y111
Posted: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:18:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 320
Neurons: 1,584
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Oh!
I thought that the ruling party from Lenin's time onwards was Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза. (Kommuniesticheskaia Partyia - maybe not a perfect transliteration)

Yes, the party was called so but not the country. Communism was the goal. An ideal society somewhere far ahead. We were supposed to be building it, not living in it. What we lived in was called socialism. I think the things that I mentioned above gave some grounds for that name.

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Someone always wants to have more than everyone else, and work less.

True, but it was supposed that the development of people living in a socialist environment and taught communist ideas would gradually lead to a new type of human being (culturally, not biologically), who would value the intrests of society more than his/her own. And only then the communist society (which was supposed to have no government) would be possible.

I don't know if that's possible to achieve, but it's a fact that things perceived as normal in one culture may be seen as abnormal in another. So I guess this was the reason behind that plan.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:23:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,666
Neurons: 49,656
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Interesting discussion.

Y111, I am glad you are here to give us an insider view of Russia, because we really do not know how things actually work there. At least I don't.

Dragonspeaker wrote: Hi FounDit.
Yes - your "top-down" socialism is a similar thing to calling what the Soviets had "Communism" - it's actually NOTHING like it.

Communism and socialism are designed to help ALL the people of the society - your "top down Socialism" and Soviet Communism were, at best, dictatorships.

Exactly, Drago. You have said many times that Americans have a different definition for socialism. Therefore there was no sense in discussing with FD in another thread about the governments of Venezuela and Central America that he mentioned above. Maybe now we have a term we all understand - "top down socialism". But if it comes from the top by very definition it has to be dictatorship.

To expand a bit - Having a capitalist economy with social programs is not socialism. The UK, Canada, the US and other countries all have social programs but are not governments run as socialism. Yet Americans I have spoken to think universal healthcare makes government into socialism which is not true, anymore than having unemployment insurance does.

Indeed the Central American countries and Venezuela, which FD classified as socialism in another thread, are on this map marked as authoritarian i.e. dictatorship.




"Full democracies
  9.01–10
  8.01–9" "Flawed democracies
  7.01–8
  6.01–7" "Hybrid regimes
  5.01–6
  4.01–5" "Authoritarian regimes
  3.01–4
  2.01–3
  0–2"

From dark green to green to yellow to red.


I do disagree with FD's dogmatic statement that true democracies are mob rule. Canada, UK, and Australia are the three prominent democracies on this map. Not to forget about other democratic countries too. Although they all have problems to solve and I can't speak for the others, from my point of view, they all stand very carefully by the "rule of law". In fact Canada is in trouble with China right now because of that rule of law when she arrested a Chinese citizen because of an agreement with the US. I'd have to go look up how to spell the names of the woman and her company, but I'm sure you've all seen the story. Rule of law is not mob rule. Apparently there are just 19 countries that are still full democracies and they all work well.

On the whole the US system works fairly well with its states and federal, just as Canada has provinces and federal. But I don't see any reason why changes cannot be made if improvements are seen or if there is a process that isn't applicable to a modern world that founding fathers of both countries could never foresee. I question the need for a Canadian senate. They are not being a sober second opinion. They are tweeting their partisan views of the party that put them there. Many Americans think the leader of the US Senate should not be able to make all the decisions about what votes to allow for the whole group and also wonder about the need for the electoral system when communication between states is now instant instead of taking weeks.

As for the OP on unity, FounDit wrote: But that can't happen if one side holds the other in contempt...This has to change, IMO.

It really is contempt, sometimes hatred, with the blaming of the other group for all problems. And this leads to the rise we've seen in violence. Some folks do try to see the other side, some don't. But I bet the percentage of people in political discussions going back to their original opinions is nearly 100%.

And both sides think that it is the other side that has to change or compromise, as their own opinions are the only correct ones. After uttering such platitudes as we need to listen to each other, in the next breath they are condemning the other group again.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
progpen
Posted: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:38:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-central-america-mistake-chyron-three-mexican-countries-immigration-1381053

From the one news source that the current occupant of the White House uses above all others.

Sunday morning's Fox & Friends applauded President Donald Trump's Saturday directive to cut aid to Central American countries by declaring, "Trump Cuts U.S Aid to 3 Mexican Countries."

And here the rest of the entire world thought there was only one Mexican country. Silly us.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:01:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
FounDit wrote:
There is just so much to talk about in that video, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I’ll just start at the beginning.

First off, she says our government no longer works for us, “it really doesn’t” she says. But I don’t believe that it true. There are people in our Congress, and I also believe our President, who DO want to work for us, and are trying to do just that.

Sure this might be hyperbole; however, there are facts that show the government is being more influenced by corporate interests than by those of the American people, some of which are referenced in the source material for that graph.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t those who definitely do not want that, and who work exclusively for their own benefit. I do believe we have way too many of those. But I don’t believe the system has failed completely, which is what she seems to imply when she says, “We are witnessing a total political system failure in America”.

Again even if she is exaggerating why not fix the problems before they can get any worse. If the interests and influences of corporate America are not eclipsing those of we the people, then how do you explain things like the Citizens United decision?

No we are not. Our system was designed to permit just this kind of political tug-of-war by limiting the power of Government via the Constitution. Too many today want to go beyond, or fail to perform, their responsibilities, shifting them to branches that should not have them, such as the courts and the Administrative State i.e. bureaucracies and the Supreme Court. Claiming there is a total failure of the system is what feeds into the mind-set of changing the system, or reworking it, the antithesis of what was designed. Rather, we should let it work, make it work as designed by being informed and participating.

Our system was not designed to deal with the 21rst century corporate interests, super pacs, and the kind of money they can throw at candidates that will promote those interests. Constraints are necessary and long overdue. No one is talking about changing the Constitution, don't know where you got that idea. President Eisenhower gave us a prophetic warning about one of the negative players in modern America in his farewell speech when he referenced the miltary industrial complex.

Secondly, she says Trump and Hillary were the least two popular candidates ever, but offers no proof of that. Regardless, I’ve no doubt that popularity for candidates has diminished over time since the beginning of our Republic, but even it what she says is true, popularity is not, and should not, be the gauge by which we elect Presidents. It should be based on the platform they put forth, what they want to do for the people and the country. I personally don’t care about their personality. I want what’s good for the country. I thought Trump had the better goals.

Their platform and policies are what determine their popularity, well except when they can con the public into believing they mean what they say regardless of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately personality does affect some peoples' voting decisions; however, that is not what is being talked about here.

Next she says “American isn’t even considered a full Democracy, which is the complete opposite of what our Nation’s Founders had in mind [my emphasis]”. That is total bulls**t. The Founders were NOT in favor of a full Democracy. America was never designed, or supposed to be a full Democracy. It’s a Republic. Democracies don’t work because they are mob rule. We are a democracy only to the degree that the public elects representatives.
Yeah I realized that as well; however, it is meant to be a representative government and I think there is ample cause to doubt that is what is happening equitably at this point. Besides big money influence, there is also the glaring problem of gerrymandering, and both parties are guilty of that.

She then says the Princeton study says the “preferences of the average American” has an almost a zero percent impact on public policy. Well, I think the Suffragettes and Dr. Martin Luther King might disagree. Laws such as those granting Civil Rights, the Vote for Women, Gay Rights, and Abortion are just a few of the laws that put the lie to that.

I do not know what made you react against the information in this video FounDit but is seems you got the wrong message. These policies you mentioned followed exactly the kind of progression that the organization is attempting to encourage.

I’m not going to go through the whole video. Suffice it to say that when your premises are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong also, or at the least, misguided. Not every group that contributes to political campaigns is corrupt. Not every politician is supported by billionaires, though some are; but they don’t always win (e.g. Hillary — ”Beto” O’Rourke). A great deal of money is contributed by “grass-roots” people (e.g. Bernie Sanders — Trump).

No of course not everything is corrupt and that is not the point, the point is that enough of it is corrupt to be influencing the government in ways most of the Founding Fathers would have vehemently objected to.

In the end, she says they have had “85 wins”. What does that mean? She doesn’t explain. Anyway, I have no problem with ending corruption at all, and there may be some good ideas buried in her effort. I'm all for "draining the swamp". I would just want a bit more (accurate) information, and more truth-telling before I join in, or support, such an effort.

Well I would encourage you to check them out a little more thoroughly, the video is only meant as an introduction, and yes it is rife with modern marketing methodologies but, why wouldn't they employ the same methodologies of other political campaigns? None of what they said is the type of outright lies that are commonly employed by some politicians. There is a link to what she meant by there wins right on the home page, here it is, Our Wins. Those are indicative of what the organization is trying to accomplish, what is objectionable about that?


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:12:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
progpen wrote:
Epiphileon. I haven't responded to the content of the video thus far because it quite simply is nothing new. It's a wonderfully well made video and I agree with so much of what they say, but it's all been said a thousand times before (just on this forum). There is not one single new idea in the video, but since someone "more palatable" is saying it, that makes it more acceptable. And by more palatable I mean, someone who is not "liberal" or "progressive".

I wish I could see this specific push being somehow different. And like I said, I'm already supporting every one of the points they made. But ignoring all of those who have been saying this for years and bringing this up as something "brand new" that no one has thought of yet (now gosh darn it, how is it that no one has thought of this until now? Huh, that's a real head scratcher).

It's yet another marketing tool being used in politics.


Greetings Propgen thanks for responding. I did not get the impression they were attempting to claim that no one has thought of these things before. My impression is what they are trying to do is make far more people aware of these things than would have discovered them on their own. What is wrong with that? Yes, of course, it is a marketing tool but then that is true of any attempt to communicate an idea to large numbers of people in a mass media context. At least if you want to have any success in doing so. It seems to me that this is an attempt to energize and organize "we the people" to affect change on a government that has gone off the rails. One of the reasons I posted this here was to see if I was wrong about that, so far I haven't seen anything that indicates I was, if there is I want to know. Thanks again.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 12:29:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,980
Neurons: 56,077
Epiphileon,

I chose your response to DragOnspeaker to serve as answer to your last post to me.

Ephiphileon wrote:
Personally I don't think there is a vast concerted effort with an agreed upon agenda, however, I may be naive in that opinion, who knows? (I do believe there is always an effort by competing governments and political movements to undermine and weaken stronger nations. And I think history bears this out.) I do think that even without such an agenda though the trend of this influence spells disaster for the general population and will lead to a dystopia. (I find this a bit confusing. You say you don't believe in such an agenda, but that the trend of just such an agenda/influence will lead to a dystopia. ???)

I agree that the Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document and blueprint; however, the writers could not have foreseen the developments that have brought us to our current state, and would many of them would be abhorred by it. I'm sure the Citizens United decision and gerrymandering are just two examples of things that would have them incensed.


According to history, the Founders were very aware of gerrymandering. They practiced it, they just didn't call it by this name.
Quote:
“Partisan gerrymandering, which refers to redistricting that favors one political party, has a long tradition in the United States that precedes the 1789 election of the First U.S. Congress. In 1788, Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist allies were in control of the Virginia House of Delegates. They drew the boundaries of Virginia's 5th congressional district in an unsuccessful attempt to keep James Madison out of the U.S. House of Representatives.[6] “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Remedies

Furthermore, I doubt the Founders thought they were setting forth strict rules for their progeny to follow. Rather, they set up a framework that we were supposed to work within. But that again depended on the citizens remaining educated and involved. When Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin as he left the Constitutional Convention, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Political jockeying back and forth for power will always be done. To make this allowable seems to me a good thing. To set up a system whereby power is channeled only one way is a recipe for disaster.

In addition to this, I don’t see the problem with the Citizens United decision. It simply allowed people to contribute to groups who may support the platforms/candidates, or ideas of a particular candidate or party. Since these are available to both parties, there shouldn’t be a complaint. Yet the argument for ending Citizen’s United seems to always be in favor of one party — Democrats. While claiming to want to
“clean up the culture of corruption in DC”, the movement to End Citizens United reveal their true intentions with this sentence:

Quote: “We spent MILLIONS on ads to kick Big Money Republicans out of Congress. We FLIPPED the Majority. And we elected DOZENS of amazing Democrats who are already shaking up the status quo in Washington.”

So the effort to reverse this decision seems purely partisan. But people should be allowed to contribute money any way they want to, whether personally, or through groups, even businesses. What is the argument for telling people they can’t? That it leads to corruption?

Corruption will always exist in politics. It's the nature of humans. The best way to eliminate it is to shine a light on it and expose it to the public so they can vote out any who are found to have been guilty of it. But again, that takes an informed and involved citizenry. And the only way that can happen is if we have a neutral and factual media, which we currently do not.

But in spite of that fact, it is becoming ever more clear just how corrupt the media and the Administrative State has become through their own public behavior. So I think as this continues, the public will become more aware, will become more involved, and the system will right itself, so long as we allow it to do so.






We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:45:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,666
Neurons: 49,656
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
If you really want to get corruption and money out of politics, why not put smaller maximums on the amount donated?

Maximum contribution federally by anyone, including cash-for-access fundraisers, is $1600 in Canada. Provinces have varying limits but most have put limits on fundraisers too. Unions and corporations are not allowed to donate. However, Canada has a aystem of public funding for the parties too.

Of course Proggy will just post telling me it would never happen in the US because politicians in the US would never get together to make the law because they all like it the way it is. Did I beat you to it this time, Proggy? Whistle

Therefore the richer you are in the US the more political influence you can bring to bear. Koch Brothers, for instance. Is that a fair assessment?

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
progpen
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:09:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Epiphileon wrote:
progpen wrote:
Epiphileon. I haven't responded to the content of the video thus far because it quite simply is nothing new. It's a wonderfully well made video and I agree with so much of what they say, but it's all been said a thousand times before (just on this forum). There is not one single new idea in the video, but since someone "more palatable" is saying it, that makes it more acceptable. And by more palatable I mean, someone who is not "liberal" or "progressive".

I wish I could see this specific push being somehow different. And like I said, I'm already supporting every one of the points they made. But ignoring all of those who have been saying this for years and bringing this up as something "brand new" that no one has thought of yet (now gosh darn it, how is it that no one has thought of this until now? Huh, that's a real head scratcher).

It's yet another marketing tool being used in politics.


Greetings Propgen thanks for responding. I did not get the impression they were attempting to claim that no one has thought of these things before. My impression is what they are trying to do is make far more people aware of these things than would have discovered them on their own. What is wrong with that? Yes, of course, it is a marketing tool but then that is true of any attempt to communicate an idea to large numbers of people in a mass media context. At least if you want to have any success in doing so. It seems to me that this is an attempt to energize and organize "we the people" to affect change on a government that has gone off the rails. One of the reasons I posted this here was to see if I was wrong about that, so far I haven't seen anything that indicates I was, if there is I want to know. Thanks again.


Epiphileon. Thank you for following up. I must have been in a really poopy mood when I wrote that because I'm looking at it now and saying, "Who peed in your Wheaties that morning?". I agree that they didn't try to say it was their idea or anything. My feelings then and now are just that I find it distasteful to think that our country will listen to 'moderates' after ignoring progressives saying the exact same thing for decades. If they do listen, all the better. Let's git'er done.

And you were not wrong. I've been working with different groups over the past 20 years trying to find a message or method of communication that is effective and democratic. Marketing people tend to see the Internet as that medium, but what they don't see or understand is that they end up dumping their little message into the massive Internet and then wondering why they are preaching to the choir and not reaching anyone new. However, that said, if enough people dump their little message into the massive Internet, they will eventually drown out the misinformation and garbage.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:15:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 364,816
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
If you really want to get corruption and money out of politics, why not put smaller maximums on the amount donated?

Maximum contribution federally by anyone, including cash-for-access fundraisers, is $1600 in Canada. Provinces have varying limits but most have put limits on fundraisers too. Unions and corporations are not allowed to donate. However, Canada has a aystem of public funding for the parties too.

Of course Proggy will just post telling me it would never happen in the US because politicians in the US would never get together to make the law because they all like it the way it is. Did I beat you to it this time, Proggy? Whistle

Therefore the richer you are in the US the more political influence you can bring to bear. Koch Brothers, for instance. Is that a fair assessment?


Yes you did, Hope. As much as our politicians whine and complain about money in politics and bitch about how much time they have to spend raising money, they are not capable of enacting change because they are afraid that if they enact change, someone will find a loophole to use against them and put them at a disadvantage. The change must come from outside of politics and it must be enforced thoroughly and equally, otherwise, it will fail and possibly do even more damage.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:43:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,156
Neurons: 141,550
FounDit wrote:
I chose your response to DragOnspeaker to serve as answer to your last post to me.

You don't see a problem with this? That is basically misdirection and avoids answering any of the specific issues I raised with you concerning this specific group and their goals.
Yes, I am aware of the origin of gerrymandering there were outcries against it at the time; however, we know the founding fathers didn't get everything right. It took nearly a century and a civil war to fix one of their mistakes.

FounDit wrote:
Furthermore, I doubt the Founders thought they were setting forth strict rules for their progeny to follow. Rather, they set up a framework that we were supposed to work within. But that again depended on the citizens remaining educated and involved.

This is precisely, at least it seems so to me, what the organization is attempting to do, so what's the problem? Did you actually go to the site and see what they were about, or are you just arguing against your perception of the video?

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.