What we need to do:
We need members of Congress who haven't been purchased, and who don't have to spend most of their time raising money.
The way to do that is to hire them the same way we hire any other public servant, whether it's a cop or the fire chief.
If someone wants to be a cop,they don't go out and raise money and then campaign for the job, do they?
No, they submit a resume and letters of recommendation, which are reviewed by a board. Then, they are interviewed.
We need to hire congressmen the same way: Let them submit a resume and letters of recommendation to a committee of citizens, chosen in much the same way as we choose grand juries. That committee would then pick out a half dozen or so candidates who have the necessary qualifications, and interview them. Following the interview, which would be televised of course, we'd have a primary election.
The two top vote getters would then stage a debate, once again, televised. After that, the general election would determine the winner.
That's it. No parties, no fund raising, no campaign rhetoric and promises, no BS at all in fact.
We'd have public servants who have not been purchased and who are qualified for the job.
When they make me dictator, I'm going to first disband Congress, then re hire congresspeople by the above method.
Once Congress that actually serves the people is in place, I'll retire as dictator (after decreeing myself a fat pension, of course).
The problem is that the nasty slimy bastards will always find ways of getting to the power.
You might as well understand that the politicians will be the same which ever system you use and then make the system cause them to make good decisions. The same players will do whatever the system dictates.
Fear of terrorists.
Unlike seemingly everyone else who is making sarcastic comments about how this is already known, I welcome this book and hope it is as damning as advertised.
So this guy, this Congressperson, is selling a book telling everybody that Congress is as craven and corrupt as we believe it is. I'm immediately left wondering why I should buy it.
Essentially he is saying, "I am a liar."
Why would anyone want to read what he has to say?
I plan on buying it.Rest assured that somebody will buy it. I won't but somebody will. :mrgreen:
No, I'm not shocked. Last I recall, though, there was a time that one side tried to keep corporate money out of politics...and the other side insisted that corporate money in politics was "freedom of speech". Which side was it that celebrated "Citizens United"?
And since the side that equated money with freedom of speech "won", both sides are forced to follow the money, even when they really don't want to. This is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for"...because this is what the "money is speech" Right has ensured will be entrenched in our political system for generations to come.
Rest assured that somebody will buy it. I won't but somebody will. :mrgreen:
I agree with you - get ALL money out of politics...have it ALL publicly funded, like England does. Because that is the only - repeat, the ONLY - way to get all money out of politics, to keep our politicians from being beholden to donors. Would you agree with me on that?
No. Public financing at this stage of the disease of Establishment Progressive-Fascism will only accelerate the concentration of power and corruption.
What we need is an outsider to be elected at the executive, with very, very long coat tails.
In short, we, the American Voters, need to elect Trump, and reject ALL of the incumbents for the next several elections and CLEAN HOUSE.
Furthermore, We need to reject ANY Leftie who runs office!
-
It's not just that. The progressives are constantly pushing for the federal government to control more and more things.
Not just that, but that's a lot of it. The war on drugs is a big part also.
yes, hopefully the 1st amendment will entrenched in our politcal system for generations... i agree.
the ONLY alternative is to allow the government to limit or ban political speech... an option not currently available to them, as it's proscribed by the 1st amendment.
that damned Constitution again.. always getting in the way of government accomplishing great things .....like banning political speech.
So you believe that the right to buy politicians is Constitutional?
The First Amendment Doesn?t Protect the Right to Buy the American Government - The Daily Beast
Maybe he's setting up a future campaign to run for President?
Really? You really think that money is equivalent to speech? Somehow I think the founding fathers would have found your position utterly reprehensible...because they would have known then - as we do today - that allowing the rich to have unfettered access to our politicians and political process ensures that our nation becomes an oligarchy.
yes, money is speech...in this particular case, it's political expression.... and yes, it's settled law.... the federal government does not possess the power to limit or ban politcal speech, no matter how many illiberal liberals think it does.
CU was the 2nd time independent expenditure limits were struck down by SCOTUS..... the first was Buckley V Valeo.
as to the founding fathers argument, you'll have to provide evidence the FF were supportive of banning political speech....good luck with that
I want the government to follow the Constitution, nothing more., nothing less.Okay:
1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.
2. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
— Thomas Jefferson.
3. “The power of all corporations ought to be limited, […] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison
And:
Abraham Lincoln — one of our great presidents, though not one of the founding fathers, said:
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
And one last thing, concerning the root cause of the Boston Tea Party:
“Trade-dominance by the East India Company aroused the greatest passions of America’s Founders – every schoolboy knows how they dumped the Company’s tea into Boston Harbor. At the time in Britain virtually all members of parliament were stockholders, a tenth had made their fortunes through the Company, and the Company funded parliamentary elections generously.”
Look at that last sentence - YOU, sir, are supporting the "right" of corporations to do one of the things that indeed led to the Boston Tea Party. Is that really what you want?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?