Where is the answer to this mess?

Very liberal points you have there.
I agree with a few

R's will never agree.

 

Care to share? You sound a lot like someone I posted with on another forum a few years ago and his final solution revolved around Rank Choice Voting. For one, I don't believe that is the answer because it doesn't change the fact that the end result most of the time will be either a Democrat or a Republican winning. So, not much difference. Two, back to reality, you are not going to get our election system changed to being RCV. It's just not going to happen. Both Republicans and Democrats have the system rigged so that only one of the two of them win and they have done an excellent job of it. It is my belief that if you want to change the system you have to do it from the grassroots up. That's what Libertarians do wrong. They seem to think you do it from the president on down. The only people who can realistically change how things are, are the politicians themselves and they are of the unified opinion that three is a crowd.

 

Because many millions of people without jobs would threaten our political stability and economy even if you don't give a damn about what happens to them. It might be worth considering that a lot of educated and highly-trained people may be displaced.

Young people are receptive to measures that help people suffering from discrimination, something you likely see as unfair. I think this comes from a genuine belief in the proverbial "level playing field."

Sure, and I ran across racist kids, but not that many.

In my economics instruction (I also brought econ into history courses, not just economics classes), I ran across some socialist (collectivization of production, not just social programs) types. Most see soon enough why collectivizing production doesn't work, and why Russia and China moved toward capitalism.

Equity to them doesn't mean ignoring the impact of inequality. My students over the years, liberals as well as conservatives, were never fans of affirmative action.

 

Nothing to do with RCV. Has to do with our ability to impact the ethics of politicians, regardless of party. Totally non-partisan. Nothing dictates the positions of politicians- only their ethics.
Imagine what might happen- if we had for example, an honorable congress. Not just in image- but in fact. Do you think that would change things, bring about a cascade of changes that would touch most all our issues in a positive way?

 

ok

1

you still need an agency for oversight ...

agree

definitely agree

agree ... presidential election campaigns are pushing 2 years now ...

agree

murky

conflict with #8

conflict with #7

how are you gonna do that?

I see fights breaking out ...

 

Political opinions don't have a place on a news platform. We don't have any news platforms right now, just political pundits. Take your pick.
Tucker Carlson
Hannity
Don Lemon
Rachel Maddow
And the list goes on for every so called news outlets. They come up with a scheme for each broadcast and host other agreeing political pundits and its what we call news now.

Not hard to enforce. Apply for a news designated license. If you violate that license you get fined. No opinions or guest to support such opinions. If you want to be a political information or opinion show there are plenty of spots for those.

Presidential EOs over states rights have nothing to do with riot control. If a state isn't equipped or willing to control riots then we send in the NG in that state to control it.

How seats could be set to 400. 200 for each party to be elected for. 4 from each state for Democrat and 4 from each state as Republican. No more seats being made available over state ranking.

I didn't say we could ever accomplish any of it. I was just stating what would be better. IMHO.

 

I do agree that experience matters, and in my vision of the way I would like to see things I imagine those with more experience being elected to management positions. It would only make sense that people elect the most capable to the positions that require it. And I can see those elected positions getting slightly higher pay. Like I posted earlier I think the range of the highest paid person being no more than 3 times the lowest paid person to be reasonable. But all workers own the company. There would be no single person who owns the capital, nor people who own it outside of who works there.

 

Results pass judgement on all concepts we invent. If it works, it lasts; if it doesn't it collapses. The biggest variable is people- and you will never see a situation where you can put people together and get viable production without selectively choosing the best people for the job. While most (but not all) people want jobs, a much smaller portion of them want to actually work and earn what they think they should be paid.
I invite you to get on the other side. Start an employee-owned company. Or, start your own company and pay people like you think would work. Prove your ideas through performance- because that is the only real measure of success. It's been tried, but if you look around you won't find much that resembles your concept. Maybe you could do it better than those who have tried before.

 

Politics was born to be corrupt. Politics was corrupt long before Christ was born and hasn't changed much in centuries. It is inherent. I wish you would quit using us for ideas while you seem to be avoiding telling us what YOUR ideas actually are. This should be a two way street. How can we impact the ethics of politicians? What is your detailed plan for that? If we find a corrupt Republican we vote another Republican in. If we find a corrupt Democrat we vote another Democrat in. If we find a corrupt Republican, we may vote in a Democrat instead and if we find a corrupt Democrat, we many vote in a Republican instead. They are all beholden to their parties for the needed cash to get elected or re-elected so if you vote one out or get rid of one, all you get in return is a clone, with nothing changed.

And, what are ethics anyway? Manchin is being accused by his own party of being in the pockets of big oil and big coal and Kyrsten Sinema is being accused of being in the pockets of big Pharma, both scandled by ethics holding up the party agenda. Or, are those just political attacks and totally untrue because they refuse to go along with the collective and it is actually the other 48 Senators who are ethically challenged to force through their agenda?

 

We are too far gone to even consider those now. Politicians seem to be in control. They no longer work for the people, now the people are taking orders from the politicians.

 

You wouldn't find a single elected Democrat or Republican that would agree. Takes away their control.

 

I'm sorry that I can't divulge the details of the project in it's current state, but I am part of a group working on it and we work together in confidence; we don't act independently. It's got to go public at the right time and the right way, and there are very important reasons for that. What I'm trying to do here is listen to alternate ideas for solutions or ways to put a solution in place- hoping to get some input that will improve the plan we have worked on or how it can be implemented. Double checking what we think, what we may have missed, by listening to people's ideas. So far- most of the responses are observations of problems or symptoms, not viable solutions or ways to put them in place. I'm the first to agree that the size and extent of the problem is astronomical, but that doesn't mean the solution has to be as complex... it just has to be effective.

Think of corruption as a contagious disease. No matter how healthy you are, if you are put in a contaminated room full of people who all already have that disease- what are the chances you won't become one of them? Ethics is a moral position that is evidenced by self-regulation. Truly ethical people live by the values they respect or they commit too- and laws aren't required to make them do that, they require it of themselves. You can do business with people like that on a handshake, because their word is better than any contract. They can't violate their word without losing their self respect, and such a person often values that more highly that life. Now absent the internal regulator- how would we get a person lacking it to honor their commitment? Rather than think about individual acts or things that offend us- think of the mechanics in play here overall. Think outside the box.

Here's something unrelated, at least not directly that illustrates this point. Say your car will not start. If you understand the mechanisms well, you would know that there are only three reasons that could cause that. The engine either has no compression, or no fuel, or no ignition. Three quick tests tell you what's going on, and that makes it easy to track down the specific point in those mechanisms that are responsible.
Of course the lack of transportation starts a cascade of problems in other ways as a result.

We have corruption in politics.... our political vehicle won't run right. As a result, our entire country can't seem to run right. Do we always elect corrupt politicians- or do they become corrupted afterwards? It's one or the other, and each would call for a different solution. You've heard the saying "follow the money", and it's usually damn good advice. Follow the mechanisms at work here, figure out how to break the chain that lets them work-and it is a chain, and it does have a weak point. That's the keystone, the thing you use to affect it all. You find the weak point and break the chain. That has to be the target, not the myriad of offensive things politicians do. What politicians do- affects what people do and how they act. Cascade effect. Cure the disease- eliminate all the symptoms without addressing them one by one. That's what this is about.

 

For my ideas to come into being the entire current global economy needs to be dismantled. No more debts and exchange of debts, no more compound interest. All money is reflective of the actual energy exchanges involved, which will be what is exchanged. In the current global economic system, my ideas are dead before they begin. The entire current economy relies on ever growing debt, which allows the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few. It allows for the value of labor to be separated from the ownership of capital. It also has resulted in consumption of resources at much higher rates than there should be, and environmental destruction at far higher rates. Capitalism had its time and place, but is now causing far more problems than it is fixing. Too much wealth is concentrated into too few hands. Pharmaceutical companies are making 4000% profit on vital drugs, and nobody can do anything about it, and the last few administrations allow it to continue, because they are all in the pockets of these massive capitalistic interests. Pharmaceuticals is just one example. The military industrial complex is another. Microsoft and Amazon are other examples. WAY too much wealth and power concentrated into single entities. It has become a monster that is out of control, exploiting populations of entire nations in third world countries, environments being deforested and mined away, species going extinct at ever increasing rates... I could go on and on with the negative consequences of these accumulations of power.

 

Not to argue that there are all those things. We might differ on what and how, but we both know things are in trouble as a result.

back to the question- How to change that.

 

thanks for the clarifications ...some great ideas that will unfortunately never come to fruition ... too many millions of dollars for the Big Guys/Gals ... and the sheeple support it ... sad huh? ...

 

Right so all the politicians currently in office are going to propose and enact an Amendment that would eliminate the manner in which they got into office in the first place.

 

You have a great point. It is not in the career politician's interest to let this happen, but it's in your and my interest. Also, we need to get this through the State Legislatures and the hell with the U.S. Congress where it will meet the greatest resistance. Fortunately, our Amendment process allows for State Houses to approve it and when you hit 3/4 it's good. That's how we would do it.

Clearly, it will help the nation and end tons of corruption and apathy towards "We the People", by Washington D.C.

 

The only way to get this back on track is to start from scratch. And I am not against it. These fungus growing politicians have way too much power.

 

Without fundamentally changing our economic system, it will all just happen again.

 

Maybe so but it would be a hell of a lot more difficult with these laws in place.
1. Abolish the IRS. Every company and citizen pays 10% across the board. No need for audits, loop holes, and different configured tax strategies. No tax refunds.

2. No elected official can serve any term more than 8 years

3. No corporate donations to candidates

4. No elected official campaigns lasting more the 4 months

5. Any elected official that proposes impeachments or criminal citations against another elected official will be held criminally accountable for unsubstantiated claims.

6. All media outlets will pay heavy fines for every broadcast of news to be uncovered as fake propaganda. Any media group licensed as news will not be allowed to maintain such license providing their political opinions. No more 24/7 political opinions controlling the narrative on licensed news media.

7. No executive orders governing any states rights will be recognized

8. Any state that does not adequately respond to destruction of businesses and civil rioting come under immediate federal response until the situation is remedied.

9. No control of the House or Senate will be given to either party.

10. All voting locations and vote counting will be hosted by equal party registered representation

 

I like a lot of that. I'm not so sure on #6. That seems like a big violation of free speech, and truth is far too subjective these days. But I do like the intent of getting rid of lies.
I also think there needs to be many more parties than just 2. The two party system needs to be disposed of. It is too easy for politicians to play the people off of eachother with only two parties. With many parties of differing viewpoints, it becomes much harder for one party to say "there is your enemy, and this is what they stand for".

 

Yeah, I like that. If politicians didn't have a designator by their name (D-R) then people would have to listen to what they have to say and vote on issues.
That makes sense.

 

So either 2/3 of both houses of the US Congress are supposed to propose such an Amendment or 2/3 of the State legislatures must call for a Convention to propose such an Amendment. And that's just to propose such an Amendment, never mind that 3/4 of the States need to ratify any proposed Amendment (which can take many years BTW). Yet most of those involved, federal and state, are in office BECAUSE of the corrupt process they are proposing to eliminate. Sure, good luck on any of that ever happening. I think "We the People" have a better chance with a revolution and that isn't going to happen either. There is a reason for 2 exclusive parties, divide and conquer.

 

Okay .. thanks Lord Buddha.

 

I'm here for you, lol.