How can we get the majority to focus on the only issue that is relevant? Don't Vote, protest 2016?

a reply to: TonyS

Got a list?

I pick on republicans because its easier to expose their corruption not because they are more corrupt but because their Ideals are based on smaller gov't and more individual rights which is the opposite of what an Oligarch gov't controlled wants.

GOP Endorsed candidates:
1. Choosing quasi socialism over the free market when they thought it was a good idea to use tax payers money to bailout private companies.

2. Republicans siding with Big Gov't when they chose to squash state rights and make it illegal for a State to decide if it wants to label GMO products.

3. Republicans have never significantly cut taxes within numerous decades.

4. Republicans have created bigger gov't when they created Homeland Security.

5. Squashed Americans rights to privacy with the partiot act

6. The only regulations they care about undoing are the ones that are good for the consumer. For example they went full retard with wanting to undo net neutrality principles which allowed the internet to become the success that it is today by giving the little guy equal voice to the Oligarch.

7. GOP making OBAMACARE issue number then turning around and endorsing the guy who not only implemented obamacare 1.0 but also praised it for his state.

We could go one and one and also with the Democrats, but Larry Lessig and the Princeton Study are pretty good indicators why the GOP and the DNC should ONLY be focused on the following six issues :

1. Congregational term limits

2. campaign financing reform.

3. Lobbying reform

4. doing away with super-pacs

5. Revolving door between gov't and private sector

6. Transparency





Voters Silenced By Big Money

a reply to: interupt42

I can agree with that. Though I think the problem is even simpler. People are good at spotting fraud when it's happening to someone else. But they're blind to it when it's happening to themselves.

Others are usually the first to notice when a loved one's significant other is shady, when a loved one is getting caught up with the wrong crowd (like cults), and if a loved one's "business opportunity" is too good to be true. We seem to be really good at criticizing others, but suck when presented with the same situations in our own lives. It's like we've nearly mastered the art of observation, but not the art of interactions. Or something like that.

I do think fixing corruption is the major issue. And I can agree with the steps you listed. But I don't see how we;ll be able to do that until we get the snakes out of office first. And going by my earlier examples, new "reformers" may still make the same corrupt "mistakes" if they get in office.

For example, suppose it take 2 months for a member of the House of Reps to get adjusted into their job. A group of new reformer candidates all get elected and they want to make the changes you just mentioned. After the adjustment period, they start composing major bills that tackle these issues and vow to implement these changes, no matter what.

Well, first they've got to become members of the correct House committees, otherwise they can't present bills on that matter. Then they have to get those committees to pass the bills, otherwise the bills aren't eligible to be voted on by the rest of the House. Then they must convince the Speaker of the House to present those bills for a final vote (the Speaker is the only one who can decide which committee bills get presented for a final vote by the House).

Let's assume the Speaker cares about the public's support for these reformers, so he/she decides to allow their bills to go for a vote. But first, they have to vote on the other major bills, like the President's budget, military spending bills, etc. What happens if it takes their entire term for the reformers' bill to get voted on? Should they refuse to run for a 2nd term because it goes against their vow of term limits?

Because even if the House votes to pass that "reform" bill, the exact same bill has to pass in the Senate. And then the President has to sign it into law. If the House and Senate don't pass exact versions of the same bill, a committee of members from both chambers works on a compromise bill. Then both chambers of Congress re-vote on this compromised bill before sending it to the President. As you can guess, this process may take a lot longer than a 2 year House of Reps term. And every other Congressman will have a chance to add amendments to alter the bill, for better or for worse.

Edit to Add: I honestly think this is where even many well meaning candidates get caught into becoming career politicians. "Just one more term and I can finally finish what I started". And before you know it, they've been in office for 3 terms. And the constant threat of facing a well funded challenger probably pushes them to compromise with powerful donors and lobbyists. After all, it would suck to get 75% of the "reform bill" completed only to lose their party's nominations and have that bill thrown away. I honestly think that's where a lot of the corruption happens.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can agree with that. Though I think the problem is even simpler. People are good at spotting fraud when it's happening to someone else. But they're blind to it when it's happening to themselves.

absolutely and better way to state it.

I do think fixing corruption is the major issue. And I can agree with the steps you listed. But I don't see how we;ll be able to do that until we get the snakes out of office first.

Yeah its a catch 22, but I'm certain that neither the GOP or the DNC will be of help to get focus on corruption.

Hence why I think the key is to get the majority of the individual GOP and DNC supporters to focus on those 6 things. Then in return those same majority can demand their party or candidate focus only on those things and hold them to the fire if they don't.


.

a reply to: interupt42

I really REALLY like where you're going with this OP, and I appreciate your focus on solutions. Something very sadly lacking in society as a whole, and on ATS in general. Your suggestions are an excellent start. We have to look at all the ways "they" are empowered and "we" are disempowered and reverse that.

Here are a few more suggestions:

~~~ Re-criminalize ALL government lies/propaganda

~~~ Prohibit congress from exempting themselves from laws; Prohibit congress exempting anyone from any law (if anyone has a right to be exempted, then everyone has that same right... if only a few have that "right," then it's really just a "privilege."

~~~ Exempt whistleblowing of criminal acts from all nondisclosure/confidentiality clauses

~~~ Require every proposed legislative bill include the Constitutional foundation for every law in accordance with social contract (i.e., every law must promote the general welfare and rights of ALL, not the few)

~~~ Prohibit civil asset forfeiture unless/until convicted by a jury of their peers after due legal process

~~~ Prohibit sale/gifting of military equipment to law enforcement agencies

~~~ Repeal the Patriot Act and the NDAA

~~~ Require that every jury on every criminal case be advised of their right to jury nullification

~~~ Remove congress' ability to grant themselves pay raises/perks; establish congressional pay/perks as equal to the average worker in the USA

~~~ Establish national voter ballot initiative process



~~~ Establish voter approval process for any/all major legislation (such as Obamacare)

~~~ Repeal income tax on all earned income

a reply to: interupt42

Understood in regards to your sensitivity of terms, nothing wrong with that. The Alien reference was in regards your previous reference of not associating citizens and people with my reference to masses.

Actually I'm not sensitive regarding terms personally. I'm sentitive regarding what the usage of certain terms may imply as a connotation. And the term "masses" has a connotation of implying a lack of individuality, being a mere amorphic conglomerat devoid of personal responsibility. That's what I'm talking about. If you are un-aware what the connotations of certain terms are you're using, you better become conscious of it. And no, I'm not a pc-chick. You can call me, personally, any name you want to. But calling large groups of people "masses" is just inappropriate. That's all I'm saying.

However my feelings for voting for a third party doesn't change the fact that the DNC ,GOP, and the MSM have the power and resources to make that almost impossible.

The important term here is "almost". I, personally, am a huge fan of voting for what one stands for and not voting for what one thinks, or assumes, might be the best vote strategically. If you're a social democrat, for example, than vote for that party. If you think environmental issues are most important, then vote for a green party. THAT is how it works...in a true real democrasy. There are more than just two options in a democrasy, my friend.

And once again: Indeed, corrupt people create corrupt systems, who then create corrupt people by being a part of such corrupt system.

No offense. Just clarification regarding "who is who and what is what" is my intent.

a reply to: Boadicea

I really REALLY like where you're going with this OP, and I appreciate your focus on solutions.

Thank you I'm glad I'm not the only one that understand that you need to concentrate on the real issue to fix a problem and not the symptoms.

.


I'm actually not even worried about solutions at this time. I'm just trying to see what we can do to get the majority to simply focus on the Right problem and ask the right questions.

Sadly many don't comprehend that a Mafia selected henchmen, is not going to likely fix your issues with crime nor provide you real solutions.

Instead the henchmen is gong to get you to chase your tail and focus on the symptoms rather than the fact that he and his organization are the ones giving the orders to execute those crimes.

Its just so crazy to me how people ignore the underlining issue and yet expect real solutions from those with conflict of interests????

a reply to: interupt42

I don't get it either. My best guess is that folks figure people corrupted the system so those people can to fix the system. And it's true -- but the people who corrupted the system won't fix the system!

Unfortunately, it seems the corrupt thoughts have trickled down to the people now, and it's quickly becoming a free-for-all. We don't seem to have any guiding principles anymore. I'm not sure enough people want anything corrected; they just want to "fix" it for themselves and will follow anyone they think will do it for them.

a reply to: interupt42

I really like where you're going with this. Campaign finance reform is important, but it's only part of how they get away with what they do. We also need to restrict their power and increase our power.

1. Prohibit congress from exempting themselves -- or ANYONE -- from any/all laws passed.

2. Require every bill presented to Congress explain it's Constitutional foundation and justification.

3. Require the public posting of all bills presented to Congress for a minimal period before Congress voting on it.

4. Establish congressional salaries/benefits at the median income level of the rest of us.

5. Repeal any/all laws pertaining to crimes against government or government agents/officials.

6. Establish a system by which the people can approve/rescind any major legislation passed by congress.

7. Establish a federal ballot proposition procedure that would empower the people to pass and overturn laws.

8. Establish a grand jury process that would allow the people to independently investigate, charge and prosecute government officials.

9. End the individual income tax on earned income; establish flat tax on corporations and unearned income.

a reply to: Boadicea

Very reasonable and logical and none of it will be the primary focus of the MSM or the presidential debates.

BUT I think this time it will be different and something positive will come out of the next debate focusing on :
sexuality,racism,religion,economy,healthcare, foreign matters, jobs, immigration, SS,Medicaid , taxes, etc.

You know the stuff they have been focusing on for the last 100 years that is a directly impacted by corruption,conflict of interest, and lobbying. But this time it will be different, LOL

That congressman who is spilling the beans on congress hit the nail on the head with

'It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification'

Just keep them distracted and not focused on the real issue and they will never fix the problem.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Boadicea

Very reasonable and logical and none of it will be the primary focus of the MSM or the presidential debates.

Thank you -- and you're right about that! Perhaps by the next election, we can actually come together as a people and establish a platform of demands for at least our Congress critters, similar to Newt's "Contract for America" in the 90s, with folks pledging not to vote for anyone -- left, right or middle -- that doesn't promise to fulfill OUR demands... not THEIR pie crust promises. (I know... I'm a dreamer...)

BUT I think this time it will be different and something positive will come out of the next debate focusing on :
sexuality,racism,religion,economy,healthcare, foreign matters, jobs, immigration, SS,Medicaid , taxes, etc.

You know the stuff they have been focusing on for the last 100 years that is a directly impacted by corruption,conflict of interest, and lobbying. But this time it will be different, LOL

Haha! Wouldn't it be great to see Gary Johnson and Jill Stein up there too? At least they'd throw some new ideas and solutions into the mix. It would sure shake up the status quo! I'm so tired of the same old crap slamwiches they keep giving us -- the left's crap on one side and the right's crap on the other side and then just smacked together and then slammed down our collective throats: the crap slamwich!

That congressman who is spilling the beans on congress hit the nail on the head with

'It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification'

Just keep them distracted and not focused on the real issue and they will never fix the problem.

It's that darn instant gratification -- rather than long-term satisfaction -- that plays to the ego and gets us every time. Makes me want to cry sometimes how easily "we" play into it.

edit on 12-5-2016 by Boadicea because: formatting

Greetings interupt, I hope you don't mind me zombie-ing your thread, I thought it was an interesting discussion and I want to challenge you on a few points. Post back to me if you'd like to resume the discussion.

originally posted by: interupt42
get their heads out of their arses and only focus and discuss:

1. Congregational term limits

Not so sure. Is a long serving congressman really a bad thing? If so, why? Can't it also be a good thing? I know congressional term limits have been promoted as a solution to bad congressmen, but I have long been skeptical that they will really help us as a nation. I suspect there may be unforseen consequences to such a law. We would not have had as much of Ron Paul's influence if we had term limits as a law, and that fact is one that gives me pause in regards to this proposed reform.

2. campaign financing reform.

Another issue on which I'm skeptical. I've long been flirting with rather the opposite view, that for this system to properly work we should deregulate campaign finance altogether, at least in terms of dollar limits. I do support transparency in campaign finance.

Why can't a billionaire jump in behind me and fund TheBadCabbie for president campaign? Campaign finance laws. Why can't that guy who just won the lottery donate a million dollars to my presidential campaign? Campaign finance laws. A billionaire, or even a multi-millionaire, could absorb some of the cost of an expensive campaign, I cannot. At a one thousand dollar per person or company limit, I'd have to cast a very wide net to finance an adequate campaign, an unlikely proposition.

Vast sums of money are spent on these campaigns. This will continue to be the case after further reforms are implemented I suspect, just as it continued to be the case after past reforms were implemented.

3. Lobbying reform

Agree

4. doing away with super-pacs

I wonder if super-pacs couldn't be used to benefit the people. If so doing away with them might not be the right idea. To implement a new law nationwide as a grass roots movement, on the basest of budgets, is still an incredibly expensive endeavor.

5. Revolving door between gov't and private sector

6. Transparency


Until we bring focus to those issue nothing will change.

Agree on the last two, though I also wanted to criticize your OP to say that you haven't proposed any specific reforms in regards to these areas that you feel need more discussion and action. Expound, please.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Greetings interupt, I hope you don't mind me zombie-ing your thread, I thought it was an interesting discussion and I want to challenge you on a few points.

Greetings, no problem at all.


Like I say in my sig "A fool that is always right , will always be a fool." So I have no problem revisiting or changing my mind.

Not so sure. Is a long serving congressman really a bad thing? If so, why?

In order to do shady deals it takes time and trust to build such relationships, it doesn't happen overnight. Once you have them then you have them for life. Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff after his disgraceful fall from lobbying even came out and said one of the biggest way to hit the lobbyist is to enforce term limits in congress.

It was actually a pretty interesting interview on how they use psychology and turn people with good intentions to corrupted politicians .

We would not have had as much of Ron Paul's influence if we had term limits as a law, and that fact is one that gives me pause in regards to this proposed reform.

Understandable but Ron Paul is and was the minority exception in congress. I don't think we should make it into 4 year terms but perhaps 8 year term then a 2 year extension for a total 10 year max. and perhaps a 85 year age limit. We have had congressmen die at 100 years of age while still holding their chair.

Why can't a billionaire jump in behind me and fund TheBadCabbie for president campaign?

I think that is old antiquated method of doing things that served its purpose in the past. However, it is now doing more harm than good. Special interest is what is ruining this country today. We have the technology to allow equal coverage to all candidates versus special interest MSM and sponsors.

I wonder if super-pacs couldn't be used to benefit the people.

They haven't yet it has primarly benefited the corporations.

The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

www.businessinsider.com...

you haven't proposed any specific reforms in regards to these areas that you feel need more discussion and action. Expound, please.

I have in other threads and posts but the purpose of this thread was basically to just get people to focus on the REAL issue in this country and not the symptoms. No point of even talking about the solutions when 95% of the people are too focused on running around chasing their tail on sub issues of the real issue. Having said I that I have no issue discussing this. However, tonight is a bit late for me.

Its insanity to expect a solution for healthcare,welfare, immigration,global chaos,economy,racism,sexism and every other issue that has been focused on by the GOP,DNC, and the MSM for the last 4 decades with people that are riddled with conflict of interest.

We must focus first on the conflict of interest before we even attempt to address the other issues ,eitherwise we will continue on the rat wheel and your kids grandkids will continue to talk about the same issues with no fixes in sight.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

In order to do shady deals it takes time and trust to build such relationships, it doesn't happen overnight. Once you have them then you have them for life. Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff after his disgraceful fall from lobbying even came out and said one of the biggest way to hit the lobbyist is to enforce term limits in congress.

It was actually a pretty interesting interview on how they use psychology and turn people with good intentions to corrupted politicians .

Understandable but Ron Paul is and was the minority exception in congress. I don't think we should make it into 4 year terms but perhaps 8 year term then a 2 year extension for a total 10 year max. and perhaps a 85 year age limit. We have had congressmen die at 100 years of age while still holding their chair.

I just don't see how it solves the problem. Newly elected officials are corruptible too. It does prevent dogged congressmen who could garner enough support for a movement to pass a law or make their mark on the political landscape over a twenty year period from being able to have that twenty year period.

I think that is old antiquated method of doing things that served its purpose in the past. However, it is now doing more harm than good. Special interest is what is ruining this country today. We have the technology to allow equal coverage to all candidates versus special interest MSM and sponsors.

Well yes, modern technology does provide opportunities for most candidates to achieve better exposure to their voters.

Campaign finance though. I just don't see how this solves the problem. You can limit contributions to fifty dollars per person, it still doesn't change the fact that vast sums of money are spent on these elections. An individual holding greater wealth will still have a tremendous advantage. A campaign that would be an insurmountable expense to an individual of median income might be only a modest expense to a wealthy enough individual. Campaign finance laws don't really change this, at all.

What then, do we ban a person from spending their own money on their own campaign? That seems wrong to me. If I'm willing to give my time to the torturous occupation of government, why shouldn't I be able to also devote my personal resources to said campaign? To ban such would seem to me to be an infringement of a fundamental right. If I want to throw all my chips in to run for office, that should be my right, it should be anyone's right.

Super-pacs and other loopholes sort of make individual contribution caps hurt the little person in my opinion. The big players can still get the big money, but an average gal will be hurt by individual donation capping because she probably won't have access to the same machinations. Even if you close all the loopholes, it just creates another one. Companies will pump their CEO's full of money and then send em off to run for office.

Perhaps a limit on the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign? I dunno. Even that seems problematic. I'm not sure what the right answer here is, I just don't think the common proposed reforms are the right solutions either. I did review the material you submitted by the way, interesting video.

I suppose you could prohibit corporations from contributing altogether, I don't really see how that would be a bad thing. I don't think you can apply the same reform to sole proprietors and such though. It would exclude too many, in my opinion. Corporations are fictional legal entities, not people, so I don't see why they shouldn't be banned from making political contributions, as far as constitutionality and all that. A lot of the worst big money would stop right there I'd guess.

A huge change in American elections JUST HAPPENED with the election of Donald Trump.

Shook up the entire USA govt. Even with 100% media opposition Trump is still following through on campaign promises and shaking up the establishment.