• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can ANYBODY fix our political system?

First of all we the people are 300 million people with 300 million guns no matter how we split, the entire military is only 500,000. Second of all the military would divide as well, those on the side of the constitution and those on the side of the corrupt government. It would never be the people against an undivided military. In fact the military siding with the people would be the driving force and the power behind the coup.

Hmm... you are on the side of the constitutional coup. ;)
 
Alright, well start 'er up and let's see how successful it is then. Yes? Or is this just a "talk the talk, but only talk" sort of thing?

Revolutions don't just start, it will be talk until things get bad enough or people finally wake up and oppose the liberal globalists with force.

Voting is not working.
 
Revolutions don't just start, it will be talk until things get bad enough or people finally wake up and oppose the liberal globalists with force.

Voting is not working.

Well if voting isn't working (it's not because y'all keep voting for the Republocrats...duh!), you have no other choice. So start 'er up. I'll wait. Let me know how it goes.
 
Could you name someone you believe actually could fix our political system and get things going back in a positive direction?

Can be somebody running, somebody already in office, a former politician, someone who has never run and/or served... the field is wide open for this question. In an ideal world, if you could pick the one person capable of doing good (must be alive and not so old that they are not mentally capable, is the only restriction), who would that person be?

Theres no one person IMO, even a great present has to deal with the gridlock in the houses etc. Only we the people can do it and it will take time. Unfortunately there is no quick fix. We have to get away from the two party system and people have to be more active in all politics all the time. not just on voting day for the president. The overall system itself isnt really bad, its the people we give the keys to. We can complain about how what bad drivers they are but we keep giving them the keys.

oooops they run a stop sign . .its ok because we like their policy on guns . . . oooops they get a DUI . . . its ok because we like their policy on abortion . . . ooooops they do a hit and run . . . its ok because I dont think they cater to a group I dont like . . .etce . . .etc

if we dont break the two party system then we'll need rules to break it, no more "voting majorities" in the houses or some system that at least allows voting to happen in away people just have to vote yes or no instead of positioning all the time. And the other rules that would probably be good is rules on the construction of bills. No bill about gay rights, or clean energy, or coal grant should contain things like infrastructure spending, military spending, education finance. THATS ****ING RETARDED! . . oooo. sorry . . i vented for a second lol ;) Bills should be ONE main issue and RELATED sub issues are allowed. Not totally different ones. Anyway that would be a start IMO.
 
Can we? It used to be that way. The Constitution the Founders gave us was intended to ensure us that liberty. But for a long time now, the permanent political class has used a heavy hand to ensure only those they want to allow can be in that club. Oh they do it all quite legally because they are the ones to put the system in place and pass the laws that regulate it. But they do it. And while King George and his representatives were indeed oppressive, there wasn't more than a minute fraction of laws and regulations the people had to follow then compared to what the government forces on us now. And King George and his representatives were not the least bit politically correct nor did they require the people to be which is now a major tool of the political elite to control everybody else and get what they want.

Yep. In fact, I'd say it's worse today because of the fact that we have elected the "representatives", who often refuse to listen to the voice of the people. Not to mention, the unelected bureaucrats, by the thousands, who literally pass tens of thousands of rules and regulations, by decree.
 
Yep. In fact, I'd say it's worse today because of the fact that we have elected the "representatives", who often refuse to listen to the voice of the people. Not to mention, the unelected bureaucrats, by the thousands, who literally pass tens of thousands of rules and regulations, by decree.

That's Republocrat rule.
 
The system doesn't need many changes. It's the electorate that needs to change.
 
Could you name someone you believe actually could fix our political system and get things going back in a positive direction?

Can be somebody running, somebody already in office, a former politician, someone who has never run and/or served... the field is wide open for this question. In an ideal world, if you could pick the one person capable of doing good (must be alive and not so old that they are not mentally capable, is the only restriction), who would that person be?

Intelligent voters.
 
Theres no one person IMO, even a great present has to deal with the gridlock in the houses etc. Only we the people can do it and it will take time. Unfortunately there is no quick fix. We have to get away from the two party system and people have to be more active in all politics all the time. not just on voting day for the president. The overall system itself isnt really bad, its the people we give the keys to. We can complain about how what bad drivers they are but we keep giving them the keys.

oooops they run a stop sign . .its ok because we like their policy on guns . . . oooops they get a DUI . . . its ok because we like their policy on abortion . . . ooooops they do a hit and run . . . its ok because I dont think they cater to a group I dont like . . .etce . . .etc

if we dont break the two party system then we'll need rules to break it, no more "voting majorities" in the houses or some system that at least allows voting to happen in away people just have to vote yes or no instead of positioning all the time. And the other rules that would probably be good is rules on the construction of bills. No bill about gay rights, or clean energy, or coal grant should contain things like infrastructure spending, military spending, education finance. THATS ****ING RETARDED! . . oooo. sorry . . i vented for a second lol ;) Bills should be ONE main issue and RELATED sub issues are allowed. Not totally different ones. Anyway that would be a start IMO.

Every bill being voted on should have its constitutional basis scrutinized. Regulatory agencies being validated constitutional under the commerce clause it absolutely utter BS. Don't get me wrong I think we need the FDA, EPA, XYZ but these are powers not granted the Federal government. The amendment process should be required to enumerate further powers not just clauses taken out of context that a SC judge can legislate as constitutional from behind the bench.
 
Theres no one person IMO, even a great present has to deal with the gridlock in the houses etc. Only we the people can do it and it will take time. Unfortunately there is no quick fix. We have to get away from the two party system and people have to be more active in all politics all the time. not just on voting day for the president. The overall system itself isnt really bad, its the people we give the keys to. We can complain about how what bad drivers they are but we keep giving them the keys.

oooops they run a stop sign . .its ok because we like their policy on guns . . . oooops they get a DUI . . . its ok because we like their policy on abortion . . . ooooops they do a hit and run . . . its ok because I dont think they cater to a group I dont like . . .etce . . .etc

if we dont break the two party system then we'll need rules to break it, no more "voting majorities" in the houses or some system that at least allows voting to happen in away people just have to vote yes or no instead of positioning all the time. And the other rules that would probably be good is rules on the construction of bills. No bill about gay rights, or clean energy, or coal grant should contain things like infrastructure spending, military spending, education finance. THATS ****ING RETARDED! . . oooo. sorry . . i vented for a second lol ;) Bills should be ONE main issue and RELATED sub issues are allowed. Not totally different ones. Anyway that would be a start IMO.

IMO, short of another revolution against the existing government, the only way to break the iron grip of the political class regarding every aspect of our lives is a constitution amendment that would specify something like:

1. Every President, Congress, or any person employed in any capacity, elected, appointed, hired or contracted in the federal government will be prohibited from using taxpayer funds or obligating the taxpayer in any manner to provide a benefit to any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not provide benefit to all. All programs that benefit some but not all will be phased out or transferred to the states as quickly as possible in a manner that is of least consequence to those made dependent on government programs and no later than 10 years from the passage of the amendment.

2. All persons employed in the federal government in any capacity--elected, appointed, hired, or contracted--will be paid a salary sufficient to fund their own reasonable retirement and health plans. The taxpayer will not be obligated for this during or after such employment. Whatever funds they contribute to their retirement or health plans will go with them when they leave the government.

3. All federal budgeting will start with a blank page and as much as reasonably possible, all budgeted items will be a line item that the legislator or department head must be able to justify. Baseline budgeting will be discontinued.

4. Other than general appropriations bills to run the necessary standard government services and extreme emergency legislation such as declared war, all federal expenditures must be presented as a stand alone bill to be passed by a 2/3rds recorded majority vote.

5. No member of Congress may go back after the fact to change his/her vote or to revise and extend his/her remarks in the Congressional Record.

6. No rule or regulation or law that includes punitive measures for non compliance or that compliance requires an expense may be issued by any federal government department or department division that is not first presented to Congress that will approve or disapprove it by an up or down recorded vote. No more laws and regulation will be issued by faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats.

7. No unfunded law or regulation requiring more than minimal expense for compliance may be forced by the federal government upon the states or private citizens without the citizens having opportunity in a general election to vote on the matter.

Do this amendment and we break the back of the permanent political class who can no longer profit from their government positions above and beyond their authorized compensation. Taking the money out of the system takes a huge lion's share of the graft and corruption. And we would almost certainly start electing public servants to high office again instead of the professional opportunists we now mostly elect.
 
IMO, short of another revolution against the existing government, the only way to break the iron grip of the political class regarding every aspect of our lives is a constitution amendment that would specify something like:

1. Every President, Congress, or any person employed in any capacity, elected, appointed, hired or contracted in the federal government will be prohibited from using taxpayer funds or obligating the taxpayer in any manner to provide a benefit to any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not provide benefit to all. All programs that benefit some but not all will be phased out or transferred to the states as quickly as possible in a manner that is of least consequence to those made dependent on government programs and no later than 10 years from the passage of the amendment.

2. All persons employed in the federal government in any capacity--elected, appointed, hired, or contracted--will be paid a salary sufficient to fund their own reasonable retirement and health plans. The taxpayer will not be obligated for this during or after such employment. Whatever funds they contribute to their retirement or health plans will go with them when they leave the government.

3. All federal budgeting will start with a blank page and as much as reasonably possible, all budgeted items will be a line item that the legislator or department head must be able to justify. Baseline budgeting will be discontinued.

4. Other than general appropriations bills to run the necessary standard government services and extreme emergency legislation such as declared war, all federal expenditures must be presented as a stand alone bill to be passed by a 2/3rds recorded majority vote.

5. No member of Congress may go back after the fact to change his/her vote or to revise and extend his/her remarks in the Congressional Record.

6. No rule or regulation or law that includes punitive measures for non compliance or that compliance requires an expense may be issued by any federal government department or department division that is not first presented to Congress that will approve or disapprove it by an up or down recorded vote. No more laws and regulation will be issued by faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats.

7. No unfunded law or regulation requiring more than minimal expense for compliance may be forced by the federal government upon the states or private citizens without the citizens having opportunity in a general election to vote on the matter.

Do this amendment and we break the back of the permanent political class who can no longer profit from their government positions above and beyond their authorized compensation. Taking the money out of the system takes a huge lion's share of the graft and corruption. And we would almost certainly start electing public servants to high office again instead of the professional opportunists we now mostly elect.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Excellent! :thumbs: It's a disgrace this wasn't done many, many years ago, since we probably wouldn't have most of the problems facing us today, IMO.
 
"Fix", or make things better, in a general sense. Improvement of some sort, not continuing down the black hole as we have been. Maybe someone who could actually unify, and not just say it.

Okay, so you're saying make it more unified? I don't see that happening at all. We have millions of people with diametrically opposing views. For instance, there are people in this country who want everyone to get free college. I hope we never see the day that happens. There isn't a person in the world who can change my mind, and there probably isn't a person in the world who can change the mind of someone who wants everyone to get free college. Same with gun banning, and abortion, and religion in the classroom, and on and on. As long as we have people in opposition, we'll never get 560+ politicians to unite, and I don't think we'll ever get a President who can truly unite. This country was united for about 4 minutes on 9/11. That was probably the only time.
 
Can we? It used to be that way. The Constitution the Founders gave us was intended to ensure us that liberty. But for a long time now, the permanent political class has used a heavy hand to ensure only those they want to allow can be in that club. Oh they do it all quite legally because they are the ones to put the system in place and pass the laws that regulate it. But they do it. And while King George and his representatives were indeed oppressive, there wasn't more than a minute fraction of laws and regulations the people had to follow then compared to what the government forces on us now. And King George and his representatives were not the least bit politically correct nor did they require the people to be which is now a major tool of the political elite to control everybody else and get what they want.

I mean, we can actually vote for whoever we want right now. The colonists had no say who was in the government. But we do. We might be re-electing the same people over and over again, but it's us whose electing them. The colonists needed the revolution because they had no say. Unless you're suggesting changing the people who vote, I don't see why we'd vote any differently after another Revolution. That's why I don't think the two situations are comparable.
 
Okay, so you're saying make it more unified? I don't see that happening at all. We have millions of people with diametrically opposing views. For instance, there are people in this country who want everyone to get free college. I hope we never see the day that happens. There isn't a person in the world who can change my mind, and there probably isn't a person in the world who can change the mind of someone who wants everyone to get free college. Same with gun banning, and abortion, and religion in the classroom, and on and on. As long as we have people in opposition, we'll never get 560+ politicians to unite, and I don't think we'll ever get a President who can truly unite. This country was united for about 4 minutes on 9/11. That was probably the only time.
I don't see "unite" as an absolute when it comes to this type of stuff. Of course there can be differences of opinion, but what we have now is such a large chasm that people have forgotten that we even have the same interests. Hell, I'd settle for a civil discourse and call that united.
 
At the very least congress would need to be dissolved first and all new people put into office.

Not sure how this could be done since I know the voters will not vote them out, nor could they since all would have to be voted out at once.
 
At the very least congress would need to be dissolved first and all new people put into office.

Not sure how this could be done since I know the voters will not vote them out, nor could they since all would have to be voted out at once.

Even if that did happen. Why would we suddenly start electing different types of people than we do now?
 
It's not just the political system that's failing us.
The press is failing us in how they consistently show their liberal bias.
The education system is failing us, producing 'adults' that don't have sufficient knowledge of civics.

So no, there isn't a single person who can fix all of that. Fixing just one dimension of it isn't going to have much in the way of a permanent change of course.
 
That's what many people said around 1776.

The revolution of 1776 is about as different as can be from any kind of modern insurrection that US citizens could mount. Assuming that a modern revolution could possibly succeed because one did 240 years is likely a fatally bad idea.
 
Jonathon Rauch has a pretty decent long piece in the July/Aug Atlantic "Whats ailing American Politics" in the print version, now titled "How American Politics Went Insane" online. Here he argues that we "reformed" national politics to death.

Worth the read

How American Politics Became So Ineffective - The Atlantic
 
Last edited:
Even if that did happen. Why would we suddenly start electing different types of people than we do now?

We have to break the hold the elites have over our government before anything can change.

We could implement new reforms that changes the way elections are run. That would change the types of people we elect.
 
We have to break the hold the elites have over our government before anything can change.

We could implement new reforms that changes the way elections are run. That would change the types of people we elect.

Like what? Short of restricting who can vote, I don't see any way that changing how elections are run will affect the type of people we elect. And I don't think there's any good way of restricting who can vote.
 
The revolution of 1776 is about as different as can be from any kind of modern insurrection that US citizens could mount. Assuming that a modern revolution could possibly succeed because one did 240 years is likely a fatally bad idea.

That remains to be seen. Don't think it will never happen, no nation that has every existed in all of human history has not eventually collapsed. This one will be no different, its only a matter of time.

Unless you think miraculously the USA will be the first ever nation to exist from now on without every collapsing or having another civil war. (Notice I said another).
 
Like what? Short of restricting who can vote, I don't see any way that changing how elections are run will affect the type of people we elect. And I don't think there's any good way of restricting who can vote.

Right now elections are dictated (Rigged) by money and the power of the two party one agenda system.

Without that influence elections would go differently.

As for restricting who can vote, I'm torn, while I think everyone should get a vote I also think those that do not contribute to society, only live off of it, should not have a vote.
 
Even if that did happen. Why would we suddenly start electing different types of people than we do now?
This is precisely why I am against term limits. One, why do we think honest and pure politicians would magically appear out of the woodwork? Two, even if they did, would we know which ones they are? And three, even if we knew who they are, would we vote for them, or would we still vote for the ones who promise us everything for nothing?

Collective "we", of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom