It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would YOU fix the United States political system?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No military? How exactly would that work?


Militias/National Guard combined with the Constitutional authority granted to Congress to raise and support an army when the need arises, but limited to two years per individual appropriation of tax dollars. The military, as it stands today, has no legal basis for existence in the Constitution. This is why we must be in a perpetual state of war or crisis, the day we actually don't have a war declared on some entity, country, or arbitrary inanimate object or ideal is the day the clock starts ticking to mandate the dismissal of the standing Army, per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Navy (and presumably the Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines) could be argued to be Constitutionally viable in terms of permanence, but the army... no.




posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

You are saying only two parties when part of the problem is only two parties

Any campaigning in the House or Senate during debates or hearings would disqualify the candidate for a second term.

You lie to the American public, you are done.

All candidates get mandated free time on the airwaves

All candidates get equal airtime.

No candidate can use any part of the campaign funds for personal use.

All candidates must participate in a series of debates with all questions coming from voters instead of paid political trolls working for the media.

Side stepping questions or not answering them would disqualify a candidate.

Going after another candidates spouse

Interfering with campaign related events should be a felony with mandatory jail time.

No ID, you do not vote.


I agree 2 parties are the problem, but I did mention 3 parties.

Some GREAT ideas there!

Yes, give straight answers, yes or no, with no deflecting.

And I should add NO MAIL IN VOTES!

That way dead people can no longer vote.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Loving the musical chairs analogy, have to say.


Funny thing is it can be applied to so many aspects of our everyday lives in general.

Aye, its all fun and games to the music stops.

Pied Piper scenario as well if you think about it.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Eliminate all political parties.



THIS might be the way to go. Then politics is no longer Us vs Them.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
1) No Lobbying

2) 2 Terms limits for all elected positions.

3) Free equal air time and resources to run a campaign paid by the Government to all contending candidates.

4) Corruption in office equates to Treason and will be punished as such. Max sentence is death by public hanging!





Very Good! And I'm all for hanging. I would put a list up who should be on the gallows right now - but then the Gorts here would lynch me.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I can't see it as the world is today. The need for a standing Army is too great. The need to have fully prepared troops at a moments notice is quite clear. Wars happen at hyper speed today. As long as it is voluntary, which it is, the Army needs to remain ready and trained.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nice post, looks like you have thought about this before.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
And free beer.


Who are you, Geddy Lee?


And isn't beer the number killer in America today?
OR has heroin passed it?



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

You're not wrong, but that said, with the tech we presently have there's arguably a lot less need for physical troops. We can grease spot any country on Earth without ever setting a boot on the ground or putting a warm body in a craft over said future skid mark. The hidden rationale for keeping a standing army and the hundreds of thousands of support staff since WW2 is pretty apparent: corporate America saw a lot more profit to be made from making both sexes part of the workforce. WW2 was the opening to slip this into the country and, when the war was over, they realized that many women would naturally return to the home once the millions of soldiers resumed their prior careers. The answer was to politically oressure Congress to simply keep the military's employment as high as possible so many men didn't want to leave their military careers with the pensions, education funding, GI Bill, etc... this allowed a resetting of prices and markets to assume dual income families as the norm and put us in the craphole we're in today whereby a normal middle income earner cannot provide the American Dream to his family on a single income.

We start conflicts to keep the military busy. A standing army is, in my mind, a solution in search of a problem.
edit on 24-5-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Step 1,2,3,4,5,6.... STOP voting for republicans and democrats... that gets a third party or two or three into office and give the people options which forces the idiots in DC to compromise which allows the people a chance at actual representation.

As long as people continue to buy into the 2 party system we are screwed..


The founding fathers knew what would happen with a 2 party system and they were right once again, yet people cant seem to see past "their" team winning to realize "their" team is screwing them as well.

To me it always looks like both parties screw the people, one uses lube and the other doesn't and its happened so often people are happy to see lube being used and forget we are still getting screwed.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

That is definitely an idea that sounds good on paper.. lol

The first time an innocent/questionably innocent person is executed... public opinion will shift like crazy..

The laws are fine..we don’t hold them accountable..



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

True, but how many of the conflicts are a case where we should kill indiscriminately?

Our military is not just there to fight wars, it exists to stop wars from ever happening in the first place. Only from a position of power is peace even possible at this time in world history. I'm with Reagan's thinking on this one.

The technology that makes leveling cities possible is the exact reason we need a ready military, allies and a presence all over the world.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

We can never have more than 2 parties with an electoral college and “winner take all” electoral states..

That set up can only support 2 parties ever.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Remove the Corporate Dictorship and the deep state.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

We can never have more than 2 parties with an electoral college and “winner take all” electoral states..

That set up can only support 2 parties ever.


So we add a runoff election if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral college. This 2 party system helped create this mess.

Another thing it would do is stop this insanity of one party holding sway in Congress and causing gridlock. They would be forced to confront issues and perhaps get the peoples work done. I'm all for 3, 4 or even more parties.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Blaine91555

You're not wrong, but that said, with the tech we presently have there's arguably a lot less need for physical troops. We can grease spot any country on Earth without ever setting a boot on the ground or putting a warm body in a craft over said future skid mark. The hidden rationale for keeping a standing army and the hundreds of thousands of support staff since WW2 is pretty apparent: corporate America saw a lot more profit to be made from making both sexes part of the workforce. WW2 was the opening to slip this into the country and, when the war was over, they realized that many women would naturally return to the home once the millions of soldiers resumed their prior careers. The answer was to politically oressure Congress to simply keep the military's employment as high as possible so many men didn't want to leave their military careers with the pensions, education funding, GI Bill, etc... this allowed a resetting of prices and markets to assume dual income families as the norm and put us in the craphole we're in today whereby a normal middle income earner cannot provide the American Dream to his family on a single income.

We start conflicts to keep the military busy. A standing army is, in my mind, a solution in search of a problem.


Yeah, the MIC is out of control, but good luck stopping that train now.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Eliminate all political parties.



THIS might be the way to go. Then politics is no longer Us vs Them.


Just like the absolute monarchies of Saudi Arabia or Qatar. First you would need an absolute ruler, though.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches and whatnot.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

There are multiple paths to identical destinations. Aside from the most recent "war" we've been involved in, the simplest and fastest way to end a war and reach peace is to make your enemy fear tangible losses far more than they fear philosophical losses. This is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened and the end result had the added benefit of likely keeping Russia from testing the US directly during the Cold War. It wasn't soldiers, occupations, and "peace keeping" missions that did that, it was a raw display of the technological ability to level entire cities AND displaying the willingness to use that technology on an enemy.

Unfortunately, the primary present day conflict is significantly more complex. We've been fighting a death cult who views death as a glory to martyrdom and lacks a central figurehead who is driven by more logical motivators like money, power, or longevity of rule. In that situation, "killing indiscriminately" may be the only path to the destination of peace because we will ultimately need those folks who are not our direct enemy, but who are caught in the middle, to lead, follow, or GTFO of the way. Death, again, serves as great motivator to speed that decision along the way for them.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Blaine91555

There are multiple paths to identical destinations. Aside from the most recent "war" we've been involved in, the simplest and fastest way to end a war and reach peace is to make your enemy fear tangible losses far more than they fear philosophical losses. This is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened and the end result had the added benefit of likely keeping Russia from testing the US directly during the Cold War. It wasn't soldiers, occupations, and "peace keeping" missions that did that, it was a raw display of the technological ability to level entire cities AND displaying the willingness to use that technology on an enemy.

Unfortunately, the primary present day conflict is significantly more complex. We've been fighting a death cult who views death as a glory to martyrdom and lacks a central figurehead who is driven by more logical motivators like money, power, or longevity of rule. In that situation, "killing indiscriminately" may be the only path to the destination of peace because we will ultimately need those folks who are not our direct enemy, but who are caught in the middle, to lead, follow, or GTFO of the way. Death, again, serves as great motivator to speed that decision along the way for them.


I feel like the US shouldn't be trying to police the rest of the world. If a country wants to be a throw back to the middle ages, then it isn't any of our business. With that said, I do think the US foreign policy should be quite simple. Don't screw with us or we go Spartan on your azz and build a Wal-Mart on top of Mecca.

If they want to meet Allah or whoever, we should help them do it in the most expeditious way possible.

The amount of money we spend on the military is absurd though.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join